Ignatieff on War Crimes

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Michael Ignatieff is not ready for prime time politics. He's a scholar, not a long-term politician and his latest round of sticking his foot in his mouth proves that once again.

Just how does one get from not losing any sleep about what happened in Qana, Lebanon and months later describing it as a war crime?

Ironically, the controversy erupted as Ignatieff was attempting to explain a previous gaffe about Qana.

Last summer, Ignatieff told the Toronto Star that he was “not losing sleep” over the civilian deaths in Qana — an insensitive remark which he later admitted was a mistake.

In an apparent bid to over-compensate for that initial gaffe, Ignatieff said Sunday that he should have shown more compassion for the Qana victims.

“I was a professor of human rights and I am also a professor of the laws of war and what happened in Qana was a war crime and I should have said that. That’s clear,” he told the popular Radio-Canada program, Tout le monde en parle.

Let me be clear about something: I believe the Qana massacre was a war crime and that it should be thoroughly investigated since the IDF admitted they had absolutely no intel that the building was being used as a missile launching location for Hezbollah. 28 people died - innocent civilians. It doesn't get much more obvious than that.

As for the resignation of his campaign co-chair, Thornhill MP Susan Kadis, I would remind her that this issue is not about the nationality of the purported war criminals. It is about what happened - no matter which country was involved. Those who would just unquestioningly support what Israel did just because they support Israel as a whole need to be able to seperate the actions of the IDF from whatever protectionism they want to afford Israel. That's how crimes ought to be seen, but too often aren't.

Now, as for Mr Ignatieff - whose nomination I am thoroughly opposed to - and his backers who are now claiming that it's 'refreshing' to hear his stance on possible war crimes, I would offer this caution: a seasoned politician on the world stage measures his or her words very carefully. It's annoying. I know. But there are reasons for that kind of behaviour. You want your statesmen to have considered opinions on issues. We have enough free range nonsense coming from leaders like Bush who are a bloody embarassment and a diplomatic nightmare. Ignatieff's stretch from 'not losing sleep' over these deaths to calling them war crimes is one huge leap. How can we really know now exactly what he thinks - especially since his intended audience for those comments was Quebecois where the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon didn't exactly go over all that well? Did he make those those statements based on a core belief or because of the political climate in the province?

So, he's now relying on his status as a professor of human rights for this about face yet he has been anything but definitive about opposing torture - using the ticking time bomb theory as a justification for its use. Surely, as a professor of human rights, one would think he would flatly reject torture. Not so.

Could Ignatieff be an effective politician in the future? Probably. Is he ready to lead the Liberal party right now? No. And I will keep saying that to whoever will listen because being the head of a major political party is not an apprentice's job. It's a role that's deserving of a much more experienced politician who is firm on where he or she stands on the issues. Ignatieff has too much to learn to be entrusted with such a prominent position.

Note: I am not a member of the Liberal party and have not officially endorsed any candidate in the leadership race.