By Ted Belman
Haaretz reports on Harper’s speech but includes this:
On the eve of Harper’s visit to Israel, the Foreign Ministry in Ottawa issued an updated policy paper on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although many on the right believe the Harper government to be a full-fledged supporter of Israeli policy on the Palestinian issue, the policy paper states that Canada believes the settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace.
The policy statement, published on January 13, six days before Harper’s arrival in Jerusalem, points out that Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories conquered in 1967 and says the settlements constitute a violation of UN Security Council resolutions. “Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace,” it reads.
The policy paper reveals that the Canadian government also does not support Israeli policy on Jerusalem, for Netanyahu’s demand for recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people, nor Netanyahu’s position that not a single Palestinian refugee will return to Israel.
I haven’t read the paper itself to decide whether Haaretz has paraphrased it correctly. But I would point out that it refers to territories and not all territories.
Last night I went to one function and met with a lot of old friends including Jacques Gauthier, Irwin Cotler, Stockwell Day, Frand Dimant, Julius Zaretsky, Rhonda Spivak plus some people who were policy advisers to a Cabinet Minister. I had gone to the get together intending to meet with two friends of mine who I campaigned for, before making aliya, namely, Peter Kent and Joe Oliver both of whom are currently in Harper’s cabinet. Unfortunately I misunderstood where we were to meet.
Today I sent them all a number of links to convince them the settlements are legal. I intend to follow this up and keep pressing. Jacques Gauthier told me he was meeting later in the week with Alan Baker.
My daughter Aliza was invited to a special dinner that CIJA was hosting. I guess she is more important than I am as I wasn’t invited.
UPDATE
I have provided a link to the policy paper above. The policy couldn’t be worse. It reads inter alia:
-
“As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.”
I was unaware of these two resolutions passed in 1979 and 1980 respectively. Canada is following these resolutions exactly.
I don’t think the Levy Report took these resolutions of the UNSC into account because the SC doesn’t make law.
Carter was President for the first one and Reagan was president for the second one. But Reagan who said that the settlements weren’t illegal still didn’t veto the resolution.
No, Ted.
Carter was President for BOTH of them.
Your link to the text of Resolution 465 confirms that it was “Adopted by the Security Council at its 2203rd meeting on 1 March 1980.”
The presidential election was held later that year, first Tuesday in November 1980
— and Reagan took office three months after THAT, on January 20, 1981.
Sad to say that its possible Harper’s overt support for Israel may be just a diversionary tactic hiding a more sinister agenda. I hope I am wrong and just being paranoid and that this policy paper has nothing to do with the Harper government.
Our Government’s support here in the USA has been fought over between Oil interests and AIPAC.
Apparently, for Canada’s government to issue such a paper ahead of Harper’s visit indicates that Canada’s position is just as divided as ours is.
The difference seems to be that it is our Congress which is pro-Israel while the President is not.
The opposite may be true in your Canada.
@ Ted Belman:
Yes, this is a grave concern. However, the best defense is a good offense. On MSM tonite the CTV which is a little more balanced than CBC showed Harpers support for Israel as a Jewish state and he stated that the new anti-Semitism is opposing Israel as a Jewish State – the only democracy in the whole region. blah blah blah. Of coarse he mentioned (spit) the support for the Palestinian state and the pledge of money. But it clearly showed the whiners (arabs) walking out and complaining afterwards. THEY LOOKED BAD!! They are showing that they don’t approve of ANY KIND of support for Israel. That is what we have to count on to buy us more time. Harper did look genuinely disgusted that Israel is constantly being demonized as an apartheid state. BB CANNOT sign anything that is going to jeopardize the security of Israel or split Jerusalem!!
I updated the post so please read the update.
@ Ted Belman:
I also get Frank’s blog ‘Frankly Speaking’. I can assure you that there are many Jews in Canada who strongly support the homeland as a Jewish State. I could do some other ‘name dropping’ but I rather not on a public forum.
@ Laura:
Where I sit the jury is not out yet. He could be a ‘replacement Christian’ which could spell trouble. I was always concerned about his take on the Palestinians. Not pleased he has pledged another 600 and some million. Maybe they could use that money to relocate to the U.S.? Just kidding.
Is this Canadian government a wolf in sheep’s clothing? I wanted to believe that Stephen Harper is a true friend of Israel, but this policy paper contradicts his public pronouncements.
“Canada must change its policy on the settlements”
That’s exactly what I thought when you were gushing over Harper’s speech in the Knesset, expressed in today’s earlier Canada-related post.
Following your posts from one thought to another, I can clearly see that the right hand knoweth not what the left hand doeth.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Good. I am happy to hear it.
I had corresponded with Frank Dimant many years ago. He sent me an interesting piece on ‘The Oil Mighty Dollar’.
Rhonda and I correspond as well. We are on each others mailing list.