Canada’s Foreign Policy on the Middle East: How to be Practical and Constructive
The Canadian government recently tabled a response to a citizens’ petition in parliament calling on Justin Trudeau to take more direct action to end the fighting between Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East, and to address the suffering there. Ottawa’s statement, partly to mollify the petition signatories, reiterated Canada’s position on the conflict: it condemned Hamas and declared support for both the Palestinian and Israeli people to live together in peace, while reiterating Canada’s commitment to work towards a more lasting political solution in the region.
That pronouncement was worded in meticulously ‘balanced’ language, and tailored to satisfy everyone—and no one. Activists and partisans of the social justice community would likely damn it as a heartless position while children die in Gaza, implying a symmetry between victim [read: Palestinian] and oppressor [read: Israeli]. It is probably equally unsatisfactory to those with an opposing opinion.
This neutral-sounding and mostly hands-off policy may alienate people across the board because it has little to do with the actual conflict and more to do with electoral constituencies—namely important Jewish and Arab votes in an upcoming election.
There is a longstanding adage that all foreign policy is domestic policy, and being a country of immigrants, we are especially prone to this tendency. So, for many there is nothing new here. However if this were true in an absolute sense, there would have not have been any serious foreign policy at any time, only attempts to square circles domestically that would have not resulted in decisions such as Canada’s long participation in the US-led war in Afghanistan, or its abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol during the Harper years.
Foreign policy does have roots in a nation’s values, interests and culture; however, it is also important to look outwards and see how we can constructively act in that circumstance. The wishes of domestic constituents are important, but they are only one piece of the puzzle.
Other factors determining foreign policy include the positions of our allies, the implications and consequences of a war, humanitarian concerns, a long read of geopolitical context, and manoeuvring on the world stage to further our core interests —something we Canadians don’t do particularly well. All of this drives foreign policy along with domestic considerations.
In the case of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th, and the ensuing war in Gaza, many would conclude that Canada must do all it can to stop the violence, demand a ceasefire, and side with the victims, i.e. the Palestinians. Others, still remembering the violence perpetrated against southern Israeli towns and cities on October 7th, consider Hamas beyond the pale, and support Israel’s attempt to destroy the organization because of its terrorist actions, even at a high civilian cost.
The fact that both these realties may be true at the same time is somehow beyond the media’s ability to portray, the citizens’ ability to hold in the mind, and, apparently, the policymakers’ capacity to develop a position. The highly inflamed and polarized nature of the Gaza war also creates risks to internal security that prevent Ottawa from taking a stronger line out of concern for creating an explosive situation at home. Better safe than sorry in such a volatile circumstance.
Yet, there is a different way to approach this situation, and this is to attend to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Gaza war from a practical and constructive approach rooted in traditional Canadian values, and that even serves our interests in furthering stability in the Middle East. This approach is something that Canada used to do well when it was a more engaged international actor, and as it once tried to blaze a Canadian foreign policy that was parallel to but distinct from that of the United States. In this difficult case, such a policy would work towards an end to the war, and help the move towards peaceable arrangements between the conflicted parties alongside like-minded countries.
Such steps can include a tougher stance against Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (one with actual teeth) balanced by a hard position against Hamas and other Palestinian terror actions. This is because both these factors diminish the likelihood of peace. This tough medicine approach now includes actions by the United States, the UK and France sanctioning violent Israeli settlers in the West Bank, as well as consideration of the recognition of a Palestinian state. Such concrete steps may be more productive than coddling the antagonists in their currently destructive stances and necessary given the serious nature of the situation.
Canada can join in these constructive moves and also re-engage, even take a lead again, on moving the international community towards answers to the Palestinian refugee file. If there is going to be a sustainable solution to the conflict, this will have to be addressed after years of lying fallow. We have a record of working on this and the expertise to address it.
These are only some ideas and other approaches are sure to come up. But at least such actions—action being the operative word—would constitute foreign policy, rather than the avoidance of decisions in the hope of angering no one and because all actions have consequences. Furthermore, a foreign policy worth its name would likely prove more constructive than the crusading cries of the polarized ready to herald an age of virtue and equality—before they move on to the next emotional cause that hits our social media feeds.
Canada is by geography distant from the world. That distance can encourage virtual realities, and an inward gaze. It can also be the constructive observer position to see more clearly what can actually be of service, or help. This is the case in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as with all others.
Related Stories
