Skip to main content

In media coverage of political events, content and substance often get lost to hype and sensationalism. The proceedings of the Prime Minister's visit to the Middle East, and the manifestations of his foot-in-mouth disease, stole the show from the trip's foreign policy implications. To those of us with a vested interest in Canadian policy in the region, more concerns have arisen as a result of the PM's visit than existed prior to it. Here's why.

Canada has long refused to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, stating that the fate of the city is to be determined through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Why then did the PM have all his meetings with Israeli officials in Jerusalem instead of Tel Aviv? Why did Jean Chrétien not offer similar treatment to Palestinian officials? Not only did he refuse to set foot in Arab East Jerusalem, he made light of the situation by proclaiming not to know which part of the city he actually was in. Was that the PM's awkward way to signal Canada's support of Israeli claims on the city?

The PM's statement that it is acceptable for the Palestinians to use the threat of unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) as part of the negotiations with Israel was equally clumsy. Rather than advocate the use of UDI as a bargaining chip, the PM should have made a clear statement indicating Canadian support for a Palestinian state. Seeing as Canada recognizes the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as occupied territories, and has long acknowledged the Palestinian plight consequent to the creation of Israel in 1948, supporting the right of Palestinians to a homeland would have been the right and honourable thing to do. It would also have been consistent with the evolution of Canadian policy regarding the Palestinians. Long-standing Canadian policy has been to maintain neutrality in the negotiations between Israel and Syria over the status of the Golan heights. Declaring that Israel ought to keep control over the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias) was a serious break from that policy. Knowing that water is the region's scarcest and most valuable resource, and that the negotiations between Syria and Israel are at an almost-explosive impasse, what value did the PM's declaration add? Again, was this a change in Canadian policy or just the off-the-cuff remark it appeared to be?

Story continues below advertisement

Canada is chair of the Refugee Working Group, an international committee charged with determining the fate of 3.5 million Palestinian refugees. The future of these refugees is also the stickiest point in the final-status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The phrase "right of return" (to homes in pre-Israel Palestine) has been an integral part of five decades of Palestinian history and psyche. Regardless of whether the PM has committed Canada to accepting a specific number (15,000 was reported) of Palestinian refugees, he has clearly accepted that part of the Palestinian refugee population may be settled outside of Palestine. Why did the PM pre-empt the negotiations by accepting the Israeli position that Palestinians do not have the "right of return?" Finally, the PM's itinerary was conspicuously lacking an acknowledgment of Palestinians as a people and a culture. This could have been achieved by visiting some of the main centres of Palestinian cultural, intellectual, political and spiritual life such as Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Bethlehem, Birzeit University, and Orient House. Instead, he limited his dealings to a one-hour meeting with Yasser Arafat in Gaza.

The actual motives and achievements of the PM's visit to the Middle East are yet to unfold. Positive outcomes, for Canada and the region, if any, are hard to surmise at this stage. The only certainty is that Canada's policy in the region is badly in need of clarification. Raja George Khouri is vice-president of the Canadian Arab Federation.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter