Excellent article from political affairs columnist Thomas Walkom published in the Toronto Star.
Ed CorriganHow to explain Canada's position on Gaza? This country used to tread a delicate diplomatic line between Israel and Palestine. But today, both the governing Conservatives and opposition Liberals are hewing tightly to Israel.
The carnage in Gaza is both lopsided and graphic. As the death toll among Palestinians rises, even neutral international bodies have become critical of Israel.
The UN suspended relief supplies to Gaza after Israeli troops allegedly shot and killed one of its aid drivers. The International Committee of the Red Cross has broken its usual tactful silence to accuse Israel of breaching international humanitarian law.
Yet both the Conservatives, through their junior foreign minister Peter Kent, and the Liberals, through newly-annointed leader Michael Ignatieff, insist that Israel bears no responsibility, that its destruction of Gaza is a measured response to Hamas' sporadic rocket attacks and that the Islamic organization is solely to blame.
For a country that once prided itself on its even-handed approach to the Middle East, Canada's new position represents a curious shift.
The reasons are twofold. The first has to do with 9/11 and the rethinking in many world capitals about organizations, like Hamas, that explicitly endorse terrorism.
In Canada's case, this was heightened by the government's desire to cleave to U.S. President George W. Bush.
The second reason, however, has to do with domestic politics and the succession of minority parliaments in Ottawa. In a world where no single party can command a majority of MPs, individual ridings become even more significant.
And among some voters in some ridings, support for Israel is a make-or-break issue.
At one level, none of this new. Identity politics predates Confederation. The fact that Brampton produces Sikh politicians is not unrelated to the number of Sikhs living in that city. In some parts of what used to be called Scotch Ontario, canny politicians still show up at events in their kilts.
Similarly, and for understandable reasons, many – if not most – Jews vigorously support Israel.
In ridings where there is a significant Jewish population, this matters. Kent, for instance, may back Israel as a matter of deeply held principle. But if he did not, this might well hurt him in Thornhill, a riding that he narrowly won last year and one in which the electorate, according to Statistics Canada, is about 36 per cent Jewish.
As for Ignatieff, he's still trying to recover from his 2006 accusation that Israel's bombing of Qana in Lebanon constituted a war crime.
Indeed, he was arguably correct. But for a politician operating in an environment where one seat could make the difference between opposition and government, it was a dangerous remark.
Theoretically, identity politics should also work for pro-Palestinians, particularly in ridings containing significant numbers of Muslims. But it does not. In part, this is because Muslims tend to be new immigrants who have not yet mastered the techniques of Canadian ethnic politics. In part, it is because those who hail from places outside the Middle East, such as South Asia, do not necessarily view Palestine as an existential issue.
For many Canadian Jews, however, Israel is literally a matter of life and death. As long as enough hold this view, Israel's welfare will be a defining issue in a handful of ridings. And as long as Canada's Parliament remains hung, no major political party will want to risk alienating this handful.
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment