Archives
Behind the Harper government's 'principled' Israel policyStanding for principles is one thing, but have things gone too far? Published May 26, 2010  7 Comments |
View story
Email 
Comments
To the Editor
When Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu flies into Ottawa next Monday, he can expect a warm welcome from the Harper government. After all, to say the two countries have grown closer over the past few years is considered by many an understatement. Cynics like to say that Conservative foreign policy revolves around three cities: Washington, Kandahar and Jerusalem.
Since coming to power in January 2006, the Harper government has repeatedly referred to a "principled" approach to Canadian foreign policy. The relationship with Israel symbolizes the epitome of that principled approach.
Sure, as critics like to say, there are domestic votes to be had from supporting Israel, especially among Jewish and evangelical voters. Plus there may be some assuaging of guilt associated with providing the Jews with a post-Holocaust homeland that has turned out to be anything but safe and secure.
But in its support for Israel, members of the Harper government believe Canada is standing beside a sister democracy that is facing very serious existential threats, in a strategically-important part of the world where the very ideals Canada proudly stands for are under attack from terrorists and other extremists. To believe otherwise would be seeing only a partial picture.
Yet is there a point where there is too much support? Where standing for one group of principles leads to the undermining of other, equally important principles? Where Canada goes from champion to accomplice?
Four factors
Many people have, rightly or wrongly, compared the Harper government's policies towards Israel to those of the Bush administration.
Aaron David Miller, an adviser on Arab-Israeli relations to six US secretaries of state, says the Bush administration came to the issue from a unique perspective. Initially, it didn't pay much attention to the region. Then the terrorist attacks of 9/11 happened.
"The priorities of the Bush administration had much more to do, especially in the wake of 9/11, with fighting terror...which created a certain affinity of strategy with the government of Israel and the government of United States," says Mr. Miller.
There was also a natural view of Israel as a "pro-American, Western democracy," Mr. Miller says. "That remains the most powerful adhesive in the US-Israel relationship. It has linked presidents of both Republican and Democratic orientations and it still does today."
Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Canada-Israel Committee, says that consideration is also the centerpiece of the Harper government's views of Israel. "I think that this government had as its departure point a particular consideration of a sister democracy," he says. "And that serves as the first foundation on which everything else is built."
Rachad Antonius, a Middle East expert at the University of Quebec in Montreal and former member of the government's Advisory Council on National Security, believes that there are four factors motivating the Harper government's decision to stand behind Israel.
Aside from cultural affinity, he says, there is also the geostrategic dimension, a view that sees Israel as on the frontlines, holding the tide against an invasion of Arab or Islamic extremism. In addition, there is residual guilt from failing to provide a truly safe haven for Jews after the Holocaust. Finally, there is the pro-Israel lobby and vote-getting.
"This last factor can operate only because the other three do," says Mr. Antonius. "If you talk to ministers, they don't get the feeling they are betraying their principles. They say 'Of course we get support, but it's because we believe in it.'"
The principled approach
On July 13, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper spent three minutes with reporters flying on his plane to the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. Israeli military forces had launched a massive bombing campaign over Lebanon aimed at destroying Hezbollah once and for all. During the briefing, Mr. Harper described the bombing campaign as "measured" and made it clear he saw Hezbollah and other terrorist elements in the region as responsible for the clash.
Most will point to this comment as the first time the Harper government's staunchly pro-Israeli position was made public. No other world leader made as strong a statement of support for Israel's actions.
At the G8 summit a few days later, French president Jacques Chirac described Israel's actions as "aberrant" and British prime minister Tony Blair called for a new UN peacekeeping force to end the fighting.
Mr. Harper, however, said: "Obviously there's been an ongoing escalation and, frankly, ongoing escalation is inevitable once conflict begins." Rather than calling for an immediate ceasefire—which would primarily affect the Israelis—Mr. Harper said Canada "continue[s] to urge Israel and others to minimize civilian damage."
Then, in January 2009, while the UN and other countries were calling for an immediate ceasefire in fighting between Israeli forces and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Mr. Harper said he wanted a "durable" ceasefire that would apply to both sides, not just the Israelis. In both situations, Canada was being crystal clear: Any ceasefire that didn't apply to—and bind—both sides equally was unacceptable.
Mr. Fogel says the Harper government has a very good appreciation for the challenges confronting the Jewish state, the first and foremost being the "existential challenge." Israel is surrounded by enemies whose leaders have publicly opposed its right to exist and want to wipe it off the map. Hezbollah and Hamas—both groups that use terrorism and violence to advance their goals—are two such threats. Iran, of course, is another.
"Those are some pretty serious challenges and it's against that backdrop that one has to assess and view everything else," says Mr. Fogel.
One line of logic goes that in each conflict, endorsing an immediate ceasefire would essentially let the instigators—Hezbollah and Hamas—off the hook. There would be nothing to stop them from regrouping and, sometime in the near future, launching new attacks. And Israel, already censured around the world, would be back to square one. The bottomline: Israel's security must be ensured first and foremost.
"I think Canada has demonstrated some real clarity in terms of its understanding of that set of challenges," says Mr. Fogel. "It understands the neighbourhood, it understand the context in which Israel's acting, and it has been less preoccupied with being politically correct than being politically accurate about who the heroes and who the villains are in the region."
Rocket attacks, suicide bombs and even nuclear missiles are only one form of threat to Israel's existence, however. Its enemies have many other weapons at their disposal to undermine its political credibility and even its legitimacy. There are boycott, divestment and sanction campaigns. Newsletters, websites and marches.
But for Israel supporters, the most notorious of all is the United Nations, where the country is criticized in what they consider an inordinate number of resolution—often sponsored by Arab and Muslim countries. This is also where Canada's reputation as a supporter of Israel has been largely cemented.
Experts say Canada's UN shift actually started under prime minister Paul Martin, but that the Harper government completed it. While Canada doesn't vote with Israel every time, it does more often than not, and is generally in select company that has included Australia, the US and a handful of Pacific islands currying American favour.
The Harper government has taken to explaining its support for Israel as one based on principle. Defining "principle," however, is a tough business. The government says its foreign policy-making is based on defending the four principles of democracy, human rights, freedom and the rule of law. It also says that speaking up when it sees something it thinks is wrong is a matter of principle—even when it's not the popular thing to do.
"If you're looking for principle, then maybe it would be this," says Mr. Fogel. "Canada weighs in with what it thinks is the right position.... When Canada feels Israel is in the right, it articulates that in an unequivocal way."
Put another way, when it came to resolutions that sought to criticize Israel at the UN, says Mr. Fogel, "Canada was taking the position 'If we're opposed to the [UN] resolution and if we're opposed to the substance of what it's trying to advance, it's just not good enough to abstain. We have to signal our opposition to what the Human Rights Council has become by voting against it and putting on record our frustration with the approach being taken by the council."
If that is the case, why is Canada one of only a small handful of countries (that excludes even Europe) that is willing to call it like it is?
Mr. Fogel doesn't know the reason, but he says that fact has been duly noted and is deeply appreciated by many Israelis and Israel supporters.
"I think overall this government has responded well to the opportunities to make a difference," he says, "and I know from Israel's perspective, there's enormous appreciation for the friendship and support that's been demonstrated by the government."
Close eyes, apply pressure?
Corruption in the Palestinian Territories, ongoing terrorist activity and the refusal of some groups to recognize its right to exist represent a rallying cry for those who support Israel.
Those on the other side have their own list of grievances that includes a blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza, Israeli military incursions into Palestinian territories—which often lead to civilian deaths—and the massive death and destruction dealt by the Israeli military during its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead.
The Harper government has taken to seeing those operations—and their deadly results—as unavoidable given the continued support for terrorism and Israel's destruction among Hezbollah, Hamas and others. Operation Cast Lead saw more than 1,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, versus 13 Israelis, 10 of whom were soldiers. These numbers are regrettable, goes the thinking, but it was Palestinians who voted Hamas to power in 2006, and who abet its continued attacks on Israel.
But also on the list of grievances against Israel is the expansion of settlements into the occupied territories, which, at the end of the day, contravenes international law. That's because the Fourth Geneva Convention states that it is illegal for an occupying power to transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
The upholding of international law. A longstanding Canadian principle.
In January 2008, then-Canadian foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier toured the Holy Land. In addition to a number of bilateral meetings and becoming one of many visiting Conservative ministers to stop by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, Mr. Bernier held a press conference during which he was asked twice about Canada's position vis-à-vis the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Both are considered under international law to be Palestinian territory occupied by Israelis.
Mr. Bernier refused to answer, prompting questions about a change in Canadian policy or whether he simply hadn't read his briefing books. Foreign Affairs eventually referred to Canada's old policy that the settlements are contrary to international law and unhelpful towards peace talks.
In May 2009, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas visited Ottawa. During a press conference with Mr. Abbas, new Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon was asked the same question.
"Concerning the deployment in other zones," Mr. Cannon told reporters in French, picking his words carefully, "we have always thought that wasn't a gesture that was favourable to the advancement of peace." He refused to repeat the answer in English, prompting renewed speculation over whether Canada's policy had changed. He later told the Commons' Foreign Affairs that Canada's policy hadn't changed.
Yet if Canada's position hasn't officially changed, there have been things done to soften its opposition.
In December 2009, KAIROS staff revealed that CIDA had cut its 35-year relationship with the ecumenical NGO by refusing to fund $7 million for projects related to human rights and ecological sustainability. The aid agency's official answer was that the projects didn't meet CIDA's new priorities.
A few weeks later, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told an antisemitism conference in Jerusalem that the relationship had been cut because KAIROS supported a boycott, divestment and sanction campaign against Israel. He later recanted the remarks, but told reporters in January, after testifying before the all-party coalition to combat antisemitism that "as someone who's long been aware of their involvement in the BDS campaign, I can't say I was displeased."
The truth is that the BDS campaign did not target Israel per se. Rather, KAIROS signed onto a campaign that specifically targeted Israeli goods, services and companies that were produced in, originated from or had set up shop in the occupied territories. Mr. Kenney suggested he considered the difference a matter of playing semantics.
By the same token, the two Palestinian human rights groups and one Israeli organization that were at the centre of the dispute at Rights & Democracy in Montreal have been extremely critical of Israel's actions in the occupied territories. A perusal of the UN resolutions that have sought to criticize Israel—and which Canada has raised concerns about—also cite the occupied territories and the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The Harper government has been particularly hard on any suggestion that Israel is in any way violating international law. The reason, believes Mr. Antonius, is that the first article of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that not only are occupying powers required to abide by its articles, but all "higher contracting parties"—of which Canada is one—are required to "ensure respect" of the convention. As a result, Canada is obligated under international law to pressure Israel to respect the convention—which includes taking a hard line on the settlements.
The significance of the settlements in the road towards Middle East peace can't be underestimated. In an article in Haaretz newspaper on May 20, 2009, Aluf Benn wrote that "American administrations that want to distance themselves from Israel have always put settlements on the agenda. The milder ones have made do with the familiar lip service of proclaiming the settlements an 'obstacle to peace,' while the tougher ones have demanded that Israel halt construction, so as not to create facts on the ground that would thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank."
"Given that Israel is saying strong and loud 'I will stay in the West Bank and I will support the settlers,'" says Mr. Antonius, "when you say you are supporting Israel, you are also saying, 'I support the occupation and I support the violation of the Geneva Convention.'
"So when Jason Kenney says he supports Israel, either he does not read what his staff is writing, or he reads it, he knows it, and he doesn't care.... By giving such a strong support for Israel, Canada is violating its own principles."
Some have gone further, alleging that the Harper government is actually working with the Israeli government to pressure Palestinians to drop their claims to the occupied territories. The government's decision in January to stop providing $15 million in essential core funding to the UN agency supporting Palestinian refugees in the region is seen as backing up that theory. However, there is nothing to prove the allegation, which means it's no more than a conspiracy theory.
Liberal Foreign Affairs critic Bob Rae doesn't believe the conspiracy theories. Canada's longstanding positions on the settlements, a two-state solution and the rest remain unchanged, he says.
"Our objective as a country is to recognize that both sides have legitimate aspirations," he says.
What has changed, he says, is that the Harper government has been trying to use Israel and the Middle East for political purposes.
"What I object to is the attempt to use the support of Israel as a wedge issue and try to create an impression that other parties do not share their support for a sovereign and secure Israel, which is completely false," he says. "And their failure to speak up more clearly about the statement of public policy which is very much on public view on the website.
"So far as I'm aware, Mr. Harper has never made a public statement about the conditions Canada believes would be necessary to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East. And his failure to articulate that aside from a few bromides is a significant failing on his part."
Set the record straight
Rising to address the UN General Assembly on Dec. 1, 2009, Canada's ambassador to the world body, John McNee, laid out his country's position on what is colloquially known as "the Question on Palestine."
He reiterated Canada's support for a two-state solution, Israel's right to live within secure borders and "the establishment of a sovereign, independent and viable Palestinian state as part of a negotiated settlement."
"In that light, we would like to highlight Israel's recent announcement of a 10-month suspension of private construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem," Mr. McNee said.
"While not the complete settlement freeze that Canada would have preferred, this is nonetheless a significant step, it is a starting point. We hope this announcement will be accepted by the Palestinians and lead to the resumption of negotiations."
Three months later, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu shocked the world when he revealed that his government had approved a plan to build 1,600 apartments in occupied East Jerusalem. The international uproar was fast and furious.
This time, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, sent out a statement expressing regret over the decision. Yet the Harper government took pains to highlight that its position was "consistent with the positions of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and other key partners."
Critics immediately accused the government of paying lip service to the issue and merely trying to appease the Obama administration.
On March 16, during an appearance before the Commons' Foreign Affairs committee, Mr. Cannon went a big step further. Asked what the government was doing to help get the peace process back on track, the foreign minister said: "On the expansion into East Jerusalem, we feel that this is contrary to international law and therefore condemn it. We are very concerned with what is taking place now."
The reaction was immediate, yet surprising. For the first time since taking power in January 2006, the Harper government was being applauded by pro-Palestinian groups and others who had long decried the Conservatives' largely unquestioning support for Israel. Meanwhile, pro-Israel groups were shaken.
"We regret Minister Cannon's remarks condemning Israel's decision to build in its capital," said Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'Nai Brith Canada, in a statement, which described the foreign minister's statement as "disparaging."
Mr. Dimant went on to say that he was confident the remarks "do not in any way reflect a shift in the Government's principled position with respect to its Israeli ally."
On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu will be in Ottawa. NDP Foreign Affairs Paul Dewar says this is a key opportunity for Mr. Harper to set the record straight on his government's position on Israel, Palestine and Middle East peace, including vis-à-vis the settlements.
"If the government wants to stand side-by-side with Israel, that's fine," says Mr. Dewar. "But there needs to be a signal from Canada.
"Is this just a chance for the two [Messr. Harper and Netanyahu] to be on stage and show they are good friends and that's it? Or is it going to be about having a serious discussion?"
lee@embassymag.ca
Embassy Twitter Updates