Former Deputy PM of Canada offers even-handed view of Israel and Palestine

John Manley on Israel: Canada must adhere to its principled, thoughtful approach

The Gazette. Montreal, Quebec
Jul 31, 2006, By John Manley

from http://johnmanley.blogspot.com/2006/08/john-manley-on-israel.html

We have never been neutral in the Middle East - we have always been a friend of Israel

Stephen Harper is right that we are a friend of Israel; but friends tell friends when they are wrong.

When the phone rang on Christmas morning in 2000, I was Canada's foreign affairs minister and enjoying the holiday with my family. It was the Israeli foreign minister, who asked that I encourage Prime Minister Jean Chretien to call Yasser Arafat and urge him to accept the proposal that was on the table during the last days of Bill Clinton's presidency.

The call signified Canada's ability to bridge differences between the protagonists in the Middle East conflict, based on our historic attempt to show good faith to both sides.

Recently, the Canadian policy has been wrongly portrayed in the media as having moved away from a "neutral" position on the Middle East conflict and toward one which is more "pro-Israel."

A few facts are worth remembering.

First, Canada has steadfastly supported the state of Israel, its right to exist and its right to defend its borders against those who would do it harm. This has been the policy of the Canadian government since the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948.

Second, Canada has also recognized that the Palestinian people also have fundamental rights, including the right of refugees either to return to the land from which they were displaced or to receive just compensation.

Third, Canada has always been prepared to offer its constructive views, no matter who might be criticized as a result. Successive governments have criticized Israel for its ever-expanding settlements in areas occupied after the 1967 war, while the PLO, and later Hamas, were chastised for refusing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as well as for their willingness to condone and promote violence against their Israeli neighbours.

But this does not constitute neutrality. Canada has never been a neutral or pacifist country. Rather, Canada has sought to pursue a fair-minded and balanced foreign policy based on principle. This does not mean not taking sides. On the contrary, if you have principles, you must take sides.

This was the government's approach when I was the foreign affairs minister and deputy prime minister from 2000 to 2003, and I could look for precedent to both Liberal and Conservative governments for more than 50 years.

An apparent shift had occurred in 1979 when Prime Minister Joe Clark proposed moving the Canadian embassy to Jerusalem, thereby implicitly recognizing Israel's unilateral occupation of East Jerusalem. On reflection, and after some careful work by the late Robert Stanfield, the government rethought its policy and to this day our embassy remains in Tel Aviv.

For me, the question remains open as to whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper has decided to shift Canada's policy after so many years.

I think he spoke too soon when he pronounced Israel's response to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers to be "measured." Does he now wish he had added the words "thus far"?

And measured against what? If he was saying that Israel's response, though justified, must not be disproportionate to the provocation, then he was squarely within Canada's traditional policy. If he meant to give Israel a carte blanche, he should not be criticized for conforming to U.S. policy; rather, he should be accused of being even more pro-Israel than the Americans.

Having been burned in effigy by the Palestinians, criticized editorially in Beirut (front page, no less) and berated by some members of Canada's Jewish community for positions I took as Canada's foreign minister, I am prepared to give our new prime minister the benefit of the doubt. For now.

However, I remain convinced that Canada has a meaningful role to play in situations of conflict, not because we have been peacekeepers, but because we can bring a thoughtful, principled approach to the resolution of conflict.

Israel's vigorous response to the deplorable behaviour of Hamas and Hezbollah in kidnapping Israeli soldiers from within Israel's own territory contrasts sharply with the response of Israeli governments in the past, whose protests were vehement, but well short of military action. One is forced to wonder if that great champion of Israel's right to defend itself, Ariel Sharon, who late in life abandoned his Likud Party and became the proponent of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, would have felt it necessary to respond with such ferocity.

While I doubt a complete military defeat of Hezbollah is possible, it is arguably justifiable. It would also perform a useful service for beleaguered Lebanon by strengthening the hand of the Lebanese government, which has been incapable of asserting its sovereignty in regions controlled by Hezbollah forces.

For friends of Israel, though, the question is whether the defeat of Hezbollah would be worth the cost if it entailed the destruction of Lebanon and further increased the misery of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. More victims mean more teenagers willing to die for the Hezbollah cause; thus, a military victory might prove Pyrrhic. Hezbollah, as an entity, will not be destroyed, because the deep animosities that led to its creation cannot be removed by 100- pound bombs.

Furthermore, the conflict so far, in addition to increasing support in the Arab world for jihad, has succeeded in driving up the stock of the radical Islamists in Iran and their clients in Syria, both of whom can be counted upon to support anyone who promises to make life difficult for the United States and Israel.

For Canada it remains important to be a true friend to the United States, but we do so by being clear when we disagree with its approach. Now we have three Arab states where the population undoubtedly believes U.S. policy and military support have created chaos and destruction - Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine - the very states the United States had said would point the way to freedom and democracy for other despotic Arab states.

If we have not been expressing concern about the humanitarian and political disaster that has been unfolding before the eyes of the world, then we should be. We should empower our able diplomats to be their most innovative and creative in working to fashion a peace that can endure.

Prime Minister Harper, there are great expectations of Canada in the Middle East, ones that can be met by being impartial, engaging with both sides and being willing to help on the side of reason and moderation. It is not a zero-sum game. So by all means, support Israel and remain a friend to the United States, but remember that Canada's foreign policy is based upon principles - ones we defend even when our friends disagree. It is this quality, not neutrality, that makes us valuable and trusted in world affairs.

With friends and former colleagues on both sides, my heart breaks as I observe the destruction and death that is unfolding.

John Manley is a former foreign affairs minister and deputy prime minister of Canada.