Here is an interesting article on Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's position on the 1967 Israel border.
Ed Corrigan
It was bound to cause ripples, coming as it did so soon after the controversial speech in which Barack Obama pressed for Middle East peace and the tense photo-op between the US president and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Still, while reports Prime Minister Stephen Harper sided against some of Canada's closest allies, including Mr. Obama, and singlehandedly blocked any reference to pre-1967 borders from the final G8 communiqué—perhaps at Mr. Netanyahu's urging—are being applauded by some, others say it crosses a new and dangerous threshold.
At the same time, an increasing number of questions are being raised about Canada's real views on the occupation of Palestinian territory and the building of settlements. While the government said its position remains unchanged, some are seeing increasing signs of ambiguity—and perhaps even tacit approval for what is considered by many to be violations of international law.
Sticks and stones
The controversy started in the aftermath of Mr. Obama's May 19 speech, in which he said Israel's pre-1967 borders should serve as the starting point for peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and other territory during that year's Six Day War.
While it has since withdrawn from Gaza and some other Palestinian areas, Israel has built large fortified towns across the West Bank and apartment complexes in East Jerusalem called settlements.
These settlements are the touchstone of much controversy and anger in the region as most of the international community sees Israel as an occupying power and feels the towns are designed to permanently settle what should be Palestinian territory—territory that would ostensibly belong to a new Palestinian state should a successful peace agreement be reached.
In his speech, Mr. Obama made accommodation for some of these settlements to remain by calling for mutually agreed upon land swaps. But by referencing the pre-1967 borders, he made clear his position that the US does not consider and will not consider the West Bank, East Jerusalem and other occupied territories to be part of Israel.
This reflects Canada's long-standing position on Middle East peace. In addition to advocating for the creation of two states, the Department of Foreign Affairs website indicates that "Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip)." It also describes Israel as an occupying power over those territories.
Mike Molloy, former Canadian Middle East peace process co-ordinator and former Canadian ambassador to Jordan, said the basis for Canada's position begins with UN resolution 242, which puts down in international law that it is illegal to seize land by force.
"This is not a trivial or local notion," he said. "When you start tinkering with that, you aren't just tinkering with something that may please one side or another, but you are tinkering with a whole principle."
At the same time, said Steve Hibbard, Canada's former representative to Ramallah, the Foreign Affairs department's policy has traditionally tried to be fair-minded between Israelis and Palestinians.
Yet experts say there have been increasing indications over the years that since the Harper government has been in power, Canada's position on the occupation and settlements, while perhaps not changing on the Foreign Affairs website, is shifting in practice.
For example, during the three years Canada sat on the UN Human Rights Council, it was consistently the only member to vote against resolutions condemning the settlements and occupation. Even European members like the UK and France, which traditionally abstained from resolutions censuring Israel, supported it. In addition, former foreign ministers Maxime Bernier and Lawrence Cannon both gave vague answers on Canada's position about the settlements.
In explaining why he blocked efforts to include references to the pre-1967 borders in the final G8 communiqué, Mr. Harper said the memo needed to be "balanced" and that fellow members shouldn't be picking and choosing what gets included and what doesn't.
"You can't cherry pick elements of that speech," Mr. Harper told journalists in a news conference after the summit. He said the draft statement was missing some important elements, "such as, for instance, the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state. The fact that the Palestinian state must be de-militarized. I think it's important that any statement on this be balanced, as was President Obama's."
This position was applauded by pro-Israel groups. In a press release, B'nai Brith Canada said that it is proud of Mr. Harper for taking what it called "such a principled position on the world stage."
But in an interview with the Globe and Mail following the summit, former Canadian ambassador to Israel Michael Bell said Mr. Harper's opposition to the 1967 reference created ambiguity on Canada's policy towards the Middle East peace process. This comment has become increasingly echoed by the likes of Liberal interim leader Bob Rae and others.
"What is Canada's position?" asked NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar. "Is it what's on the website? Or is what Mr. Harper said to the G8? Or is it when Mr. Harper said he accepts President Obama's speech in totality? It's absolutely confusing."
Added Thomas Woodley, president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East: "It doesn't matter what's written, it matters what is said."
At odds with friends
While Mr. Harper's comments were seen to have further clouded Canada's official position on the Occupied Territories and the settlements, experts and observers say there is now no question that the Harper government is the most pro-Israel administration in the world. And that position has now officially led to this country bumping heads with its closest allies.
Mr. Molloy, who has worked to find ways to move the peace process forward, including through an innovative plan to police Old Jerusalem, describes Mr. Harper's position at the G8 summit as "very surprising" and "highly regrettable"—not least because of who else was in the room when Mr. Harper stood his ground.
"We are not talking about being at odds with Sweden, we are being at odds with our fundamental allies, like the British or the French," Mr. Molloy said.
Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Canada-Israel Committee, said such rhetoric is overblown and that if the rest of the G8 leaders wanted to press the issue, they had every way to do so.
"[Mr. Harper] staked out his position and my understanding is he persuaded [other members] of the logic of the position he recommended," Mr. Fogel said. "There was no arm twisting, it's not like Canada was holding the other members hostage."
Mr. Fogel said people are attributing to Canada "the kind of weight and influence that just isn't reflected in the way these are working."
If the other G8 leaders followed Mr. Harper's advice, then Canadians should feel proud that others agreed to that position.
"Why are we treating it as anything else but that?" he asked.
But in his closing remarks, the summit's host French President Nicolas Sarkozy made it clear he and Mr. Harper had a significant difference of opinion on the border issue.
"I think it's appropriate to talk about 1967 borders, because we can't talk about borders without specifying which ones," Mr. Sarkozy said. "I think precisely what made Mr. Obama's speech courageous is that he evoked the 1967 borders."
The biggest surprise for those who took issue with Mr. Harper's position, however, is that Canada is now out of step with the US—a fact that will likely not sit well with the Obama administration.
"At a time when Obama has been struggling so hard to get the peace talks going, why would we take a position which basically undercuts it?" Mr. Molloy asked.
Mr. Hibbard echoed those comments, saying that Mr. Harper's stand will not sit well with the US president—which has the potential to incur long-term impacts on relations between Canada and the US.
"When you have our prime minister undercutting the president of the United States, who faces a very difficult situation domestically on this issue, then he's losing credibility with the president," Mr. Hibbard said. "I cannot imagine that Harper will have a lot of influence in Washington. I thought that he would have been more sophisticated."
Rex Brynen, a McGill University professor who researches the Arab-Israeli peace process, said there might also be other consequences following Mr. Harper's break with the international consensus on peace negotiations—and not just in Canada-US relations.
"By not endorsing the 1967 line as the starting point for negotiations," Mr. Brynen wrote in an email, "it also encourages extremists on both sides: those Israelis who favour continued occupation of Palestinian territories, and those Palestinian radicals who also reject the 1967 lines and instead favour the destruction of Israel."
agurzu@embassymag.ca
http://embassymag.ca/page/printpage/israel-06-01-2011
Still, while reports Prime Minister Stephen Harper sided against some of Canada's closest allies, including Mr. Obama, and singlehandedly blocked any reference to pre-1967 borders from the final G8 communiqué—perhaps at Mr. Netanyahu's urging—are being applauded by some, others say it crosses a new and dangerous threshold.
At the same time, an increasing number of questions are being raised about Canada's real views on the occupation of Palestinian territory and the building of settlements. While the government said its position remains unchanged, some are seeing increasing signs of ambiguity—and perhaps even tacit approval for what is considered by many to be violations of international law.
Sticks and stones
The controversy started in the aftermath of Mr. Obama's May 19 speech, in which he said Israel's pre-1967 borders should serve as the starting point for peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and other territory during that year's Six Day War.
While it has since withdrawn from Gaza and some other Palestinian areas, Israel has built large fortified towns across the West Bank and apartment complexes in East Jerusalem called settlements.
These settlements are the touchstone of much controversy and anger in the region as most of the international community sees Israel as an occupying power and feels the towns are designed to permanently settle what should be Palestinian territory—territory that would ostensibly belong to a new Palestinian state should a successful peace agreement be reached.
In his speech, Mr. Obama made accommodation for some of these settlements to remain by calling for mutually agreed upon land swaps. But by referencing the pre-1967 borders, he made clear his position that the US does not consider and will not consider the West Bank, East Jerusalem and other occupied territories to be part of Israel.
This reflects Canada's long-standing position on Middle East peace. In addition to advocating for the creation of two states, the Department of Foreign Affairs website indicates that "Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip)." It also describes Israel as an occupying power over those territories.
Mike Molloy, former Canadian Middle East peace process co-ordinator and former Canadian ambassador to Jordan, said the basis for Canada's position begins with UN resolution 242, which puts down in international law that it is illegal to seize land by force.
"This is not a trivial or local notion," he said. "When you start tinkering with that, you aren't just tinkering with something that may please one side or another, but you are tinkering with a whole principle."
At the same time, said Steve Hibbard, Canada's former representative to Ramallah, the Foreign Affairs department's policy has traditionally tried to be fair-minded between Israelis and Palestinians.
Yet experts say there have been increasing indications over the years that since the Harper government has been in power, Canada's position on the occupation and settlements, while perhaps not changing on the Foreign Affairs website, is shifting in practice.
For example, during the three years Canada sat on the UN Human Rights Council, it was consistently the only member to vote against resolutions condemning the settlements and occupation. Even European members like the UK and France, which traditionally abstained from resolutions censuring Israel, supported it. In addition, former foreign ministers Maxime Bernier and Lawrence Cannon both gave vague answers on Canada's position about the settlements.
In explaining why he blocked efforts to include references to the pre-1967 borders in the final G8 communiqué, Mr. Harper said the memo needed to be "balanced" and that fellow members shouldn't be picking and choosing what gets included and what doesn't.
"You can't cherry pick elements of that speech," Mr. Harper told journalists in a news conference after the summit. He said the draft statement was missing some important elements, "such as, for instance, the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state. The fact that the Palestinian state must be de-militarized. I think it's important that any statement on this be balanced, as was President Obama's."
This position was applauded by pro-Israel groups. In a press release, B'nai Brith Canada said that it is proud of Mr. Harper for taking what it called "such a principled position on the world stage."
But in an interview with the Globe and Mail following the summit, former Canadian ambassador to Israel Michael Bell said Mr. Harper's opposition to the 1967 reference created ambiguity on Canada's policy towards the Middle East peace process. This comment has become increasingly echoed by the likes of Liberal interim leader Bob Rae and others.
"What is Canada's position?" asked NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar. "Is it what's on the website? Or is what Mr. Harper said to the G8? Or is it when Mr. Harper said he accepts President Obama's speech in totality? It's absolutely confusing."
Added Thomas Woodley, president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East: "It doesn't matter what's written, it matters what is said."
At odds with friends
While Mr. Harper's comments were seen to have further clouded Canada's official position on the Occupied Territories and the settlements, experts and observers say there is now no question that the Harper government is the most pro-Israel administration in the world. And that position has now officially led to this country bumping heads with its closest allies.
Mr. Molloy, who has worked to find ways to move the peace process forward, including through an innovative plan to police Old Jerusalem, describes Mr. Harper's position at the G8 summit as "very surprising" and "highly regrettable"—not least because of who else was in the room when Mr. Harper stood his ground.
"We are not talking about being at odds with Sweden, we are being at odds with our fundamental allies, like the British or the French," Mr. Molloy said.
Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Canada-Israel Committee, said such rhetoric is overblown and that if the rest of the G8 leaders wanted to press the issue, they had every way to do so.
"[Mr. Harper] staked out his position and my understanding is he persuaded [other members] of the logic of the position he recommended," Mr. Fogel said. "There was no arm twisting, it's not like Canada was holding the other members hostage."
Mr. Fogel said people are attributing to Canada "the kind of weight and influence that just isn't reflected in the way these are working."
If the other G8 leaders followed Mr. Harper's advice, then Canadians should feel proud that others agreed to that position.
"Why are we treating it as anything else but that?" he asked.
But in his closing remarks, the summit's host French President Nicolas Sarkozy made it clear he and Mr. Harper had a significant difference of opinion on the border issue.
"I think it's appropriate to talk about 1967 borders, because we can't talk about borders without specifying which ones," Mr. Sarkozy said. "I think precisely what made Mr. Obama's speech courageous is that he evoked the 1967 borders."
The biggest surprise for those who took issue with Mr. Harper's position, however, is that Canada is now out of step with the US—a fact that will likely not sit well with the Obama administration.
"At a time when Obama has been struggling so hard to get the peace talks going, why would we take a position which basically undercuts it?" Mr. Molloy asked.
Mr. Hibbard echoed those comments, saying that Mr. Harper's stand will not sit well with the US president—which has the potential to incur long-term impacts on relations between Canada and the US.
"When you have our prime minister undercutting the president of the United States, who faces a very difficult situation domestically on this issue, then he's losing credibility with the president," Mr. Hibbard said. "I cannot imagine that Harper will have a lot of influence in Washington. I thought that he would have been more sophisticated."
Rex Brynen, a McGill University professor who researches the Arab-Israeli peace process, said there might also be other consequences following Mr. Harper's break with the international consensus on peace negotiations—and not just in Canada-US relations.
"By not endorsing the 1967 line as the starting point for negotiations," Mr. Brynen wrote in an email, "it also encourages extremists on both sides: those Israelis who favour continued occupation of Palestinian territories, and those Palestinian radicals who also reject the 1967 lines and instead favour the destruction of Israel."
agurzu@embassymag.ca
http://embassymag.ca/page/printpage/israel-06-01-2011
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment