Normative Canadian foreign policy towards consensus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

ABSTRACT

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a source of much international division and fatigue. Regional and international institutions have become paralyzed by deadlock and most states have reached a sense of helplessness at resolving the conflict or influencing Israel. Although the conflict has been ongoing for decades, it continues to evolve and devastate the lives of civilians. What should Canadian policy be vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine? Is there a role for Canada in attempting to build bridges between interveners and contribute towards resolving the conflict? The United States has traditionally played a role of a biased mediator supporting Israel, a policy that Canada has tended to mirror. What are the different paths towards reaching an international consensus on how to intervene more effectively? This article examines Canadian foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and proposes a more constructive role for Canada as a consensus builder and a potential role as an unbiased and inclusive mediator.

RÉSUMÉ

Le conflit israélo-palestinien est une source de grande fatigue internationale. Les institutions régionales et internationales sont paralysées par l'impasse et la plupart des États ont fini par éprouver un sentiment d'impuissance à résoudre le conflit ou à influencer Israël. Bien que le conflit dure depuis des décennies, il continue à évoluer et à dévaster des vies civiles. Quelle devrait-être la politique canadienne vis-à-vis d'Israël et de la Palestine ? Le Canada a-t-il un rôle à jouer pour tenter de jeter des ponts entre les intervenants et contribuer à la résolution du conflit ? Les États-Unis ont traditionnellement joué un rôle de médiateur partial pour soutenir Israël, une politique que le Canada a eu tendance à refléter. Quels sont les différentes voies pour parvenir à un consensus international sur la manière d'intervenir plus efficacement ? Cet article examine la politique étrangère canadienne vis-à-vis d'Israël et du conflit israélo-palestinien et propose un rôle plus constructif pour le Canada, en tant que créateur de consensus, et un rôle potentiel de médiateur impartial et inclusif.

KEYWORDS:

• Canadian foreign policy
• Israel
• Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• consensus

Introduction

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most divisive conflicts that not only shatters and partitions people within the violent conflict but also drives a wedge between interveners. Divisions on how to intervene have paralyzed international and regional institutions, including the United Nations, the Arab League and the European Union. External divisions have exhausted and exasperated policy makers, making intervention effectively futile. Although Canada played a pivotal role in the creation of a consensus on global Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and is considered a normative leader in human rights, human security and gender, when it comes to Israel, its norms and principles appear to have wavered. Despite international condemnation surrounding the policies of ongoing military occupation, the actions of the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have not ventured far from policies under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Canadian foreign policy has tended to emulate the United States’ unconditional support of Israel. Trudeau’s approach has, thus far, failed to draw clear lines on blatant infringements of international law, sustaining international paralysis (Wildeman, 2021). What should Canadian policy be for Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is international consensus possible and what would it look like? This commentary suggests a need for a more constructive role for Canada as an unbiased and a consensus building intervener. I will briefly outline key ongoing issues in the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, discuss international divisions and suggest a roadmap towards a more effective Canadian foreign policy towards the conflict.

Current realities

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is one of the longest, most discussed and written about violent conflicts. Here, I will briefly mention a few of the most pertinent issues namely: human security, Jerusalem, and annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Although Israeli national security is commonly discussed and emphasized, human security or rather its absence, is one of the most pressing realities of the conflict. Civilians, especially the Palestinian population living under Israeli military occupation in Gaza and the West Bank, are subject to continuous cycles of violence and collective punishment which the Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted as an affront to justice and the rule of law (United Nations Human Rights, 2020). Civilians living in Gaza not only endure indiscriminate bombardment campaigns and ongoing human rights abuses by both Hamas and Israel, but also live without basic needs, including fuel and water. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian Territories noted that with the economy in free fall, 70 per cent youth unemployment, widely contaminated drinking water and a collapsed health care system, Gaza has become “unliveable”, “insisting that all parties – particularly Israel – bring an end to ‘this disaster’” (UN Special Rapporteur, 2018).

Lack of human security is also evident in East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank (under full Israeli military control), where no authority is willing or able to provide protection to civilians. Particularly vulnerable are Palestinian children and teens who are subject to severe military crackdowns including targeted shooting and maiming. Palestinian children who live under Israeli military rule, where the age of legal responsibility is 12, are also subject to arrests and incarceration without adequate representation or trial in a military tribunal (Spitka, 2018). House demolitions, evictions and violent crackdowns on non-violent activists resulting in injuries and death are other routine occurrences that do not get much coverage in the Canadian media (Mastracci, 2020). Although official Israeli annexation of the occupied territory has formally been put on hold, it continues through the systematic displacement and military control of Palestinian land and its population (Berda, 2017).

International division

Foreign policy and international intervention does not take place in a vacuum. Effective multilateral intervention is related to the degree of consensus among key interveners on a type of international intervention (Spitka, 2017). Consensus on foreign policy and intervention in a conflict can be constructed along various spheres including international norms, a peace process, an agreement on a solution to the conflict, national security or human security. Although international norms have been at the forefront of a framework for United Nations and European Union efforts, norms and conventions have been readily disputed and ignored by Israeli and United States administrations, in particular under President Donald Trump (Panke & Petersohn, 2017). Divisions among states and within international and regional bodies towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have made interventions minimal and largely ineffective. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has generated the highest number of vetoes at the United Nations Security Council. Since 2000, the United States has vetoed more than 18 United Nations Security Council resolutions including: sending un-armed monitors to the West Bank and Gaza (2001), condemning all acts of violence including extrajudicial executions and terror (2001), immediate cessation of Israeli settlement activities (2011), and condemning Israel for its violations of international law in Gaza and the West Bank (2015).

Canada has held a similar record in the United Nations General Assembly and other United Nations bodies, consistently voting against resolutions that were critical of Israel and its practices impacting human rights of Palestinians. Canada’s voting record at the United Nations under the Trudeau government remains among the most pro-Israel in the world, closely resembling that of former Prime Minister Harper (Seligman, 2018). Despite Trudeau’s commitment to a feminist international assistance policy, his government also vetoed the 2018 Status of Women Resolution on the Situation of and Assistance to Palestinian Women. As noted by Swan, “given Canada’s recent efforts to champion the rights of women and girls and brand itself as ‘feminist’, it is difficult to understand why Canada would vote against a resolution supporting the human rights of women” (Swan, 2020). Michael Lynk, United Nations special rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, noted that on the Palestinian issue, “Canada has had a bad case of diplomatic laryngitis” (Gazdo, 2020). Still, the Trudeau government has expressed concerns over Israeli annexation and has taken some steps in line with the international consensus (Blanchard, 2020). Trudeau rejected Trump’s controversial lead to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, noting that “Canada's long-standing position is that the status of Jerusalem can be resolved only as part of a general settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute” (Zilio, 2017). Then Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland hinted that Canada changed its historic voting pattern as a statement about human rights and the rise of Israeli populism (Lazaroff, 2020).

Divisions on how to intervene have frozen the functioning of not only United Nations’ bodies but also regional organizations. Divisions can be witnessed in all European institutions, including the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission, linked primarily to new populist regimes which have strayed from European Union norms. The rise of populism in Hungary and Poland has been linked to support for Israel and blocking the European Union consensus (Kingsley, 2019). Divisions can also be witnessed within the Middle East Quartet (made up of the United States, European Union, Russia and United Nations). Created to coordinate a peace process, the Quartet has in recent years been incapable of accomplishing more than producing statements that are ignored and solutions that are humanitarian band-aids. Over the past decades, various official peace agreements and peace processes have failed, leaving a sense of disillusionment with international efforts. The 2003 Quartet’s Road Map was a failed attempt at a performance-based peace process. Camp David II’s official mediation in 2000 toward a two-state solution failed and contributed to serious disillusionment and violence. The Oslo peace process, initiated by Norway, was the only process that had initial results and engaged the public. With the exception of Oslo (the first Oslo Accord was signed in 1993), most peace processes were United States led and none were inclusive in terms of engaging civil society, opposition or women’s groups. Trump’s latest Middle East peace process did not include Palestinians in the talks. There is a fundamental need for international consensus, working within and not hypocritically against international norms and a need for non-biased interventions.

A roadmap towards an effective foreign policy and international consensus

Canada could play a constructive and effective role if it: (1) took a non-partisan principled stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; (2) worked to bridge international divisions; (3) emphasized international norms, human security and the protection of civilians; and (4) promoted inclusive discussion and mediation. Taking sides in a conflict is problematic on many fronts and has been an ineffective foreign policy choice for Ottawa. Supporting a side in a violent conflict, regardless of behaviour, undermines pressure for behavioural change. A partisan stance also weakens legitimacy in the eyes of other conflicting groups, as well as regional states and international institutions. As a non-partisan state, Canada could be well placed to influence Israel as well as Palestinian leadership. Crucially, taking sides in a violent conflict, when a regime ignores international norms and laws, is not conducive towards reaching an international consensus. As a non-threatening, middle-sized state and a close ally of the United States and Israel, Canada is in a good place to play a role in bridging the gaps in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under the Biden administration in Washington, many of the widest gaps across the Transatlantic may be narrowed. For example, the European Union is taking steps to attempt to curb the flames of the rise of undemocratic and racist populism, which have seen allies in President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Trofimov & Hinshaw, 2020). The ideal place to bridge divisions among international interveners is through a policy firmly grounded in international norms with a focus on the protection of civilians. Prioritizing human security for Israeli and Palestinian civilians can bridge national and international gaps. A consensus can best be achieved with inclusive discussion and engagement of civil society.

Canadian partisan support of Israel has not only been a slap against ethics and international norms, it has also contributed to a lack of international consensus on the conflict and most likely cost Ottawa a seat on the United Nations Security Council. In June 2020, more than 100 organisations and dozens of prominent figures delivered an open letter to all United Nations ambassadors, urging countries not to vote in favour of a Canadian seat on the Security Council due to Canada’s policies on Israel (Just Peace Advocates, 2020). Although there has been a recent shift both in statements and voting patterns, such as the Canadian vote in favour of a United Nations resolution in support of Palestinian self-determination, it is not evident whether this signals a permanent shift towards support for human rights. Ottawa appears to be out of touch with a significant portion of Canadian Jews, too, who have distanced themselves from the current Israeli leadership, that not only represses Palestinians but also Israeli civil society, women’s groups, human rights organizations and other critics who have been deemed enemies of the state (Allen, 2020). Criticism of Israel, including even from prominent Jews, has been connected to antisemitism, labelling human rights concerns and non-violent activism as illegitimate.

Conclusion

As we have seen in recent years, distancing itself from international norms and ethics is a slippery slope in state-craft and has undermined Canada’s own ambitions and reputation as a bridge-builder and peacemaker. Further, taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has not helped to promote peace or reduce the conflict, where the best route to security for Israel is peace and human security for everyone. Given international divisions, there is space for a middle power like Canada to contribute to better outcomes by advancing a policy grounded in the very norms and inclusive policies to which Canada claims to adhere. Canada, however, has to have the courage to do so.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Timea Spitka

Timea Spitka conducts research on intervention in violent conflicts, gender, Global Responsibility to Protect (R2P), children in conflict and human security. Dr. Spitka has also worked for several international organizations including for the United Nations and Oxfam in Europe and the Middle East.