Behind Canada’s Shifting Rhetoric on Israel

Published in the Ottawa Citizen, August 5, 2014

The current round of violence between Israel and Hamas has given rise to a renewed wave of criticism of the Canadian government’s close support for Israel. Underlying such criticism is often a longing for a return to an alleged period when Canada’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was more balanced, when by virtue of its even-handedness Canada could play the role of honest broker.

But is the Conservative government’s policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict so different than that of its predecessors? By some measures, the answer is clearly yes: rhetoric emanating from Ottawa, much more so than in the past, unambiguously supports Israel.

Canada’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has changed, but much less than either critics or supporters of the Conservative government would have it.

But rhetoric is only one aspect of policy – and a secondary one. More important is the substance: how many resources a state allocates to an issue, and what it does with these assets. By this more important standard, Canada’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has changed, but much less than either critics or supporters of the Conservative government would have it.

Canada has increased its cooperation with Israel in a variety of sectors, while high-level visits and staff exchanges have become increasingly frequent. Our voting pattern at the United Nations has shifted, avoiding the past’s frequent abstentions in favour of systematic support for Israel.

But looking more closely, one sees that Canada still supports a two-state solution, and the Conservative government has continued to provide material and political backing to the Palestinian Authority, notably through a large development assistance program and support for the Palestinian security forces.

Canada’s Sharpest International Affairs Commentary
Don’t miss future posts on the CIPS Blog. Subscribe to our email newsletter.

At the same time, we must recall that Liberals – and even more so under Paul Martin – systematically emphasized Israel’s “right to defend itself”, and their occasional criticism of Israeli actions rarely ventured beyond the timid.

Foreign policy shifts, moreover, are often shaped more by changes in a state’s external environment than by its domestic politics. To compare Conservative and Liberal approaches, it is therefore essential to factor in the rise of Hamas, which took full control of the Gaza Strip in 2007. Were the Liberals in power today, how different would their approach be?

It is not unreasonable to assume that they would call more forcefully on Israel to exercise restraint. Yet beyond this rhetoric, it would be awkward for a Liberal government – or any other – to move significantly away from the substance of current policy for fear of criticism that it favours Hamas.

Why, then, these real but ultimately limited changes?

Critics tend to emphasize domestic politics, especially the electoral imperative of winning votes in specific constituencies. Supporters tend to justify close support for Israel on moral grounds: simply put, supporting a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile regimes dominated by autocrats and terrorists is the right thing to do.

Reality mixes these two rationales, and adds other factors. The evangelical vote is locked in for the Conservatives, so adopting such positions allows the government to consolidate their vote – but probably not to make net gains. Among Jewish Canadians, the Conservatives have made some limited gains, including in crucial Toronto-area ridings. But have the Conservatives lost votes because of these choices? Evidence is inconclusive, though intuition suggests that those most offended by Canada’s Israel policy would not vote Conservative anyway.


See also:


The moral argument also carries weight: by most accounts, Stephen Harper genuinely believes that strongly supporting the Israeli government is the right thing to do.

What of the strategic argument? Perhaps Canadians need to have a more elaborate debate on this final aspect.

Indeed, critics often hit a wall: none has demonstrated that Canada has been concretely penalized for its Israel policy. Granted, this would be difficult to quantify. But for critics to land a blow, they would have to demonstrate that, for example, Canada has lost trade opportunities with Arab states because of its policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict, that it lost repeated opportunities to exercise its influence in the conflict because of its policy, or that terrorist groups target Canada – either the homeland or its interests abroad – in direct reprisal.

Conversely, supporters of the Harper government’s policy would do well to justify their approach by moving beyond moralizing tirades and baseless attacks on their critics and instead explain the concrete benefits for Canada.

Related Articles

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

The CIPS Blog is written only by subject-matter experts. 

 

CIPS blogs are protected by the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

 


 

[custom-twitter-feeds]