Lia Tarachansky,
Cooperation
Not Confrontation?
Israeli and Jordanian
Ambassadors are faced with
tough questions at
Rockliffe Park last night.
In a talk entitled “The Fruits of Peace”
Israeli Ambassador, Alan Baker shares
the stage with the Ambassador of Jordan,
Nabil Barto. The talk was facilitated by
Thomas D’Aquino’s wife Susan, and was
delivered at the Rockcliffe Park Community
Centre, home of Ottawa’s mansion-sprawled
power neighbourhood. What they didn’t
expect was instead of nodding heads,
they received a plateful of dissent.
A short but directed speech by Nabil Barto outlined Israeli-Jordanian peace
talks and a stated dedication to ending the Middle Eastern conflict.
“We will not leave a single stone unturned until the parties involved
reach peace” he claimed, while describing his relationship with his
Israeli colleague as “very close.”
Reminding the audience that the end of the conflict will bring “security,
stability, and prosperity to the entire region” Barto finished his speech
by naming Jordan “a very quiet house in a very troubled neighbourhood.”
Taking the floor, Alan Baker spent his time articulating and reiterating
that if Palestinians simply cooperated there would be no conflict,
as Israel would not have to use whatever means necessary to
“ensure its own security.”
He took his point further by comparing that if Aylmer were to
indiscriminately fire rockets into Rockcliffe, its citizens would
also seek defence. “Any government that’s faced with constant
bombardment” he says “has to defend itself.” When later challenged
on this point by an audience member, Baker stated
“Israel is not indiscriminately bombing Palestinians.”
When the audience member inquired how this relates to the
proportionality of 4,528 Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians
and Security Forces compared to 1,031 Israelis killed since
the beginning of the Second Intifadah. Baker took on a different tone.
“Would you feel better if I were able to say more Israelis died?”
He then changed the subject to his qualifications as a contributor to
the peace process naming the Trade, Postal, and Transportation
Treaties between Jordan and Israel as examples.
“Peace” according to Baker “is a word. But it has to be filled with
content.” Content which will allow for a “peace that’s profitable for
everyone. Not only Jordan and Israel but also Canada and hopefully
the United States.” He used the rest of his floor time to demonstrate
unity between the two countries in their joint efforts to fight airport
traffic at Israel’s resort town of Eilat and the ongoing struggle
against mosquitoes in the area.
To the dismay of the facilitator what followed was, with the exception
of one, an entire Q&A of challenging, confronting questions from Jewish,
Palestinian, Israeli, and Canadian audience members. To questions of the
Israeli occupation of Palestine, Baker assured
“you can trust the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli negotiators”
to solve the conflict. When asked about the continuous harassment of
Palestinians by Israeli civilians in Hebron, he explained that “sometimes it
annoys me and others to see what they are doing.”
Another audience member brought forward the apartheid imposed
by checkpoints and Israel-only roads, Baker responded that
“if we impose limitations to transport it is because someone is
carrying a suicide bomb and they need to be stopped.”
The Q&A period would have continued without a hitch a
diplomatic exercise in bullet dodging, were it not for
Dr. Mahmoud El Saeed, Egyptian Ambassador to Canada
speaking out from the crowd. “We have a peace agreement with
Israel, I don’t know why” he started. “There is no peace in the
Middle East.” Taking on Baker’s comparison, he explained
“occupation is humiliating and a basic violation of human rights.
If these patient, polite Canadians were subjected to this occupation,
they would also be angry.”
Baker's legislative portfolio was then brought to question by
an audience member who brought forward article 49 of the
Fourth Geneva Convention which made it illegal under
international law to occupy land taken in wartime.
Yet, Israeli settlements continue to proliferate to this day.
When the Israeli ambassador explained
"article 49 does not apply to Israel, because there is element
of permanence here" his Egyptian colleague inquired
whether this statement is legally binding.
Next, the issue of Palestinian refugees' right to return to their
land was brought up by a Canadian Palestinian refugee.
To it, Baker stated "there is no such thing as a right-of-return."
Later, an Israeli member of Not In Our Name: Jewish Voices
Against Israel's Wars (NION) spoke. Mentioning growing up in
the West Bank and losing friends to suicide bombings, she still
refused to justify the brutality of Israel upon Palestine.
In response, Baker's wife stormed the stage. In a deeply touching
personal story, she told the Israeli audience member she does not
know what it is like to live in Israel nor what it is like
to lose friends to terrorism.
Finally, a Canadian woman concluded the discussions
explaining Canada too has perpetuated the conflict and it is therefore
the responsibility of its citizens to fight this oppression.
To this, Baker took on a defensive role, writing off the points
brought forward as misdirected anger. He closed the evening with
“it is not through harbouring resentment that we will bring about this
peace. As you have seen tonight, it is impossible to come to any
conclusions” once and for all chucking the idea of fruits
growing from a yet-to-be-planted peace.
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment