Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you can see, this is a heated debate and it will certainly raise differences of opinion, but we need to have this debate.
As the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, we should have addressed what's currently happening in the Middle East several months ago. We chose not to, other than briefings from Global Affairs Canada staff. Was that a headlong rush to steer clear of uncomfortable discussions? Be that as it may, as the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, turning a blind eye to what was going on in the Middle East certainly wasn't the responsible thing to do, From the moment Hamas savagely attacked Israel to Israel's response in Gaza, and now in Lebanon, an independent country that's being attacked by a neighbour, the response has violated international law.
Item by item, I'm going to repeat the points raised in the amended motion proposed by Mr. Chong and say that I'm going to have to vote against it. It's not because I don't think there's anything worthwhile in this motion, but because what it proposes overall seems unacceptable to me. For example, point b. talks about supporting Israel's right to defend itself. Within minutes of the savage Hamas attack in Israel, we denounced the attack and recognized Israel's right to defend itself. Of course, like most members of the international community, we added that it had to be done in adherence with international humanitarian law and so on, and yet so far Israel has shown no respect for international humanitarian law in the way it has defended itself against Hamas. So Israel's right to defend itself is not an issue. We recognized that right from the get-go. We could add what we added at the time, that is to say in adherence with international humanitarian law. We could also add that we recognize the right to defend oneself against aggression and resist oppression and occupation.
Mr. Chong invoked the fact that, during the Second World War, apparently, the countries that supported recognizing the Palestinian state were not on the same side as Canada. I find that startling because, although we can say that Spain wasn't on Canada's side, how can we say the same thing about Norway, which was occupied by the Nazis during the Second World War? How could we say such a thing? Slovenia was occupied by Germany during the Second World War. How could we say Slovenia wasn't on our side? During the Second World War, Canada recognized the right to defend oneself against aggression and resist oppression and occupation. Why has Canada remained silent for so many years about the aggression, occupation and oppression Palestinians have been experiencing since 1967? It's an illegal occupation. We could have said that in the motion. The settlements in the occupied territory are illegal. We could have said that in the motion. We chose not to mention those illegalities.
Now, point c. talks about recognizing the Palestinian state following negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The United Nations did not want there to be just one state in the former British protectorate of Palestine, but two. Today, there is only one. Several decades later, there is still only one of the two states the international community wants. The other is recognized by much of the international community, but many industrialized nations still refuse to recognize the Palestinian state.
Most countries that used to be called third world countries or developing nations, whatever you want to call them, recognize the state of Palestine. There are more and more industrialized nations doing it or looking at doing it. Spain did it recently, as did Norway and even Ireland. I hope Mr. Chong is not suggesting that Ireland was on the other side during World War II. Slovenia has done it, and Belgium is considering it. What is Canada waiting for?
As Ms. McPherson said, in the past, Canada was bold and brave. Canada stood alone at the front in its fight against apartheid in South Africa. A Conservative government did that. Should we be any less bold and brave today because that's always been the policy? Not recognizing the Palestinian state was a bad policy, because from the outset, the international community always wanted the Palestinian state to be recognized.
I hear the argument that, if we were to recognize the Palestinian state, we would be saying we believe in Hamas and the absolutely brutal acts perpetrated on October 7. Yes, they were brutal acts, but we're quick to forget that the State of Israel itself was born of terrorist acts against Great Britain. We may want to forget the fact that Jewish organizations in Palestine, not the population itself, carried out terrorist acts against Great Britain so that the State of Israel would be created.
Don't get me wrong: I make no apologies for terrorism, not by any stretch of the imagination. I think that these are despicable, unspeakable and unacceptable acts, that any violence against civilians is completely unacceptable and intolerable. This applies to terrorist organizations, but it applies to countries that deliberately engage in vicious attacks on civilian populations as well. We've seen it in Gaza and the West Bank, and now we're seeing it in Lebanon. Where does it all end?
If it were true that keeping the Palestinian state from being recognized would eventually lead to fruitful negotiations that allow the state of Palestine to be recognized and, ultimately, lead to the conclusion of a peace agreement that benefits both Israelis and Palestinians, we would know it. It would already be done. It doesn't work, because there's an imbalance of power: One internationally recognized state has the backing of powerful nations around the world, and the other has been under illegal occupation since 1967. Slowly but surely, the country under occupation is being eaten up.
Will this situation continue for decades to come, or will we decide to be bold and brave to force all the parties to sit at the table and finally agree to lasting peace that will benefit both the Israelis and the Palestinians? These two peoples can't possibly live in a state of permanent war. That is what they're doing, since the original United Nations resolution, which was supposed to create two states, has not been respected and implemented. There are many historical reasons for that, but let's get back to the spirit of having two states.
As Mr. Oliphant mentioned—and I agree with him—for there to be a two-state solution, there have to be two states. It has to be two states at the negotiating table, not one state and a country under occupation. In the current situation, there is a state and a country under occupation, a country whose territory is being eaten up by the occupying power.
During World War II, Canada would have been on the front lines denouncing a situation like this and encouraging people to fight this oppression, this occupation. What happened to Canada's boldness, its tradition of bravery that Mr. Chong referred to when he talked about World War II? We hope to get it back. As Ms. McPherson said, we don't need a study from this committee for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to do that immediately.
If I may say so, I fear that a study would help sidestep the issue so that the minister doesn't have to do it. Also, the original motion suggested that we devote “no less than six meetings” to it.
You're aware of the tense atmosphere in our Parliament at the moment. There's a constant threat of non-confidence motions from the official opposition. The government is hanging on by a thread, and we think we can hold at least six meetings to debate whether or not to recognize the Palestinian state?
I asked last week that the number of meetings be reduced to four at the most. However, the amended motion before us proposes “no less than four meetings”. I think it has to be “no more than four meetings”, otherwise it will never happen. But it has to happen. It's an absolute necessity.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Chair, I'm sad to say that I'm going to have to vote against this amended motion and support the government's original motion, even if I don't like it, because to me it seems to be all about saving the minister's skin, plain and simple. It's to save her from having to speak out publicly, to buy her some time. It will dodge the issue and kick the can down the road, and keep from having to make a decision while the committee reflects on the issue.
We should be able to do this today, but we are choosing not to by moving this motion. I don't like the way the government is proceeding right now, but it's better than nothing. I will therefore be supporting the government's original motion.
Thank you.