Canada always presents itself as an honest actor that respects international law and human rights. As far as Palestine is concerned, there is a deep illusion here.
It has been three quarters of a century since the Nakba, that is to say the expulsion of the majority of Palestinians from the land they inhabited, was the inevitable consequence of the partition of Palestine. Begun in 1947, before the establishment of the new state, the operation of ethnic cleansing continued after the partition. The systematic destruction of more than 450 Palestinian villages, emptied of their inhabitants, was the logical consequence. Otherwise, how to establish a state for the Jews when the territory had been populated, for centuries, by a majority of non-Jews?
The partition of Palestine was not the only possible solution to the tensions resulting from the massive influx of European Jewish refugees fleeing persecution, pogroms and genocide. The solution of a confederation uniting the European Jewish refugees and the Palestinians, who constituted the host society, had been proposed by Arab countries. They had asked the UN to address the International Court of Justice to rule on the legality of the imposition of a partition that the majority of the population of the territory refused.
The combined action of two Canadians, Lester B. Pearson and Judge Ivan C. Rand, within UNSCOP (the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine), was decisive in ruling out the solution of a confederation, and that only the partition solution be put to the vote of the UN General Assembly. The partition had as an immediate consequence the expulsion of the Palestinians from their land, and in the longer term, a system that many observers no longer hesitate to qualify as apartheid. Canada bears a heavy responsibility for having directly contributed to this injustice.
The 1993 Oslo Accords renewed hope for a peaceful outcome to the conflict. Realizing that Western countries would never correct the injustice they created, the Palestinians made a huge historical compromise: to settle for the remaining 22% of Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza. This solution was not fair to them, but it would end the conflict by enshrining Israeli supremacy.
Even unfair, the Oslo agreements were only a decoy. Israel still wanted to nibble on that remaining 22%. Under the pretext of gradually returning control of the occupied territories to the Palestinians, these agreements have allowed the major intensification of colonization in the areas under Israeli control, ie the majority of the territory of the West Bank.
During the so-called “peace negotiations”, the number of Israeli settlements increased rapidly, as did the number of settlers. Building bans and the destruction of Palestinian homes that had already been built continued. The Judaization of the Arab part of Jerusalem has intensified aggressively, and many Palestinian families in Jerusalem and Hebron have been evicted from their homes to make way for Jewish families. Hundreds of Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank have crippled the Palestinian economy and made daily life painful and humiliating for Palestinians.
Canadian politics
Canadian policy has been relatively consistent on substance. Although liberals have tended to want to help the Palestinians economically and developmentally, successive governments, regardless of color, have never seriously opposed Israel’s policies of apartheid, while claiming to recognize international law.
Indeed, the statement on the Canadian Policy on the Key Aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is slightly modified from time to time, but it maintains a constant course: respect for international law is proclaimed, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 is recognized as applying to the occupied territories, Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal, as is the annexation of Jerusalem. The desire to see a Palestinian state is also affirmed.
But where is the problem then?
The problem is that after asserting its respect for international law, Canada believes that the solution will be achieved through “direct negotiation between the parties”. However, given the enormous difference in political, economic and military power between the two parties, without direct and strong pressure on Israel by its allies and friends, it is not international law that will be applied. It is the raw balance of power that will dictate the terms of the solution. The Palestinians do not have the power to impose a just solution. But they just have the right to refuse to sign agreements that enshrine injustice. They have international law on their side, but they have neither the strength to enforce it nor the allies who can help them.
No Canadian government has ever taken the slightest concrete action that would induce the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territories. For 30 years, an asymmetrical showdown has pitted a state that is intensifying its occupation policies with the direct support of Western powers against a Palestinian Authority lacking in resources. The strategy chosen consists rather in exerting all possible pressure on the Palestinians so that they sign so-called “peace” agreements which consecrate and legitimize their dispossession, by corrupting their elites if necessary.
In this way, the fiction of Canada’s respect for international law is preserved, but the situation of apartheid is perpetuated. The two main parties sharing power at the federal level are multiplying gestures of friendship and praise for the occupying power. The Canadian government’s silence on the Nakba on the occasion of the celebration of the 75e anniversary of the establishment of what became an apartheid state is very significant in this regard.
As long as this short-sighted strategy is not questioned, there is nothing positive to be expected from the Canadian government on this issue. Without a strategy of real sanctions and an end to political, economic, scientific, industrial and security cooperation with Israel, the political situation will only worsen, with probable disastrous consequences for all the peoples of the region. In the long term, it is also Canada’s interests and its international credibility that are threatened.