Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Ms. Verrier-Fréchette for her testimony.

When we're looking at this issue, I think it's important.... If people are just tuning in now, they might be under the incorrect notion that this conversation has never taken place before, but there have been many attempts in modern history to make peace and to have two states.

Some examples are the United Nations partition plan, which led to the establishment of the State of Israel; the Camp David accords; the Madrid conference; the Oslo accords; and the Camp David summit.

Even though this wasn't a peace negotiation, I think you could argue that it was a precursor to what happened on October 7: the decision of the Sharon government to disengage from Gaza. There were Israeli citizens living there. The Israeli government actually went there, dismantled settlements of its own citizens and moved them back into Israel.

There have been very legitimate, sincere attempts over the years by the Israeli government to make peace and to have two states living side by side in peace and security. Would you not agree, Ms. Verrier-Fréchette?

[Katherine Verrier-Frechette]

I think that much more could have been done. I think there is still an opportunity for the international community to do much more.

That being said, Palestinians and Israelis have made a lot of efforts. Is this sufficient? I think, as we see now, it was not. It has not been sufficient.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

With respect to the issue of what happened on October 7—the worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust—I hear people around this table saying, “Well, Canada should just recognize a Palestinian state.”

Wouldn't that be rewarding terrorism? The long-standing position of Global Affairs Canada is that terrorism must be rejected as a means for achieving political ends. However, here we are, just barely a year since these atrocities took place, and for some reason, this committee saw fit to hold these meetings to reward Hamas for committing these terrible atrocities.

Would you agree that this is improper?

[Katherine Verrier-Frechette]

I do agree that the massacres and the tragedy of October were the most horrible things since the Holocaust. You will not get any dispute on that from me.

Is there a benefit to discussing the issue? I do believe that there is a benefit to debate between citizens.

My position is that Israelis and Palestinians would greatly benefit from negotiating towards the establishment of a Palestinian state and an Israeli state living in peace and security. Is the moment now ripe for these negotiations? It might be naive to think so, but I do think that we have tools in our tool box to press for this outcome of a negotiated settlement.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We next go to MP Alghabra.

You have four minutes.

I would ask the witnesses to look up. If they're very close to the time, I will be holding up a sign, which means you should be wrapping it up soon.

MP Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, let me applaud the witnesses today for your thoughtful interventions. This is going to help the committee tremendously in our efforts to write a report at the end of this study.

Maybe I'll start with Professor Kersten.

My first question to you is this: Do you see the right of self-determination for Palestinians as a fundamental right or a conditional right?

[Mark Kersten]

It's a fundamental right, and it's an inalienable right, meaning that it cannot legally be held conditional on anything.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

One then asks, if it is a fundamental right, why hasn't the Palestinian state been recognized by many, especially western, countries? Today, I would argue one of the reasons is that, 30 years ago, there were the Oslo accords that started a process that seemed to have a light at the end of the tunnel.

What changed now? Why do you think now is the right time for that policy to pivot?

[Mark Kersten]

I would quote my colleague former ambassador Allen in saying that recognizing Palestinian statehood is important because it provides a “horizon for peace”. There is an extreme shortage of hope for the Palestinian people. I think that's obvious in the way they speak about what they have endured for many decades now.

I think it's incumbent on states that retain hope and peace, and that retain hope and justice, to act in accordance with both peace and justice. I think providing people who have been stripped of their hope with a degree of hope that a two-state solution is in fact possible is critically important at this moment. One way of doing so is to actually recognize the Palestinian state now and then to continue the hard work of negotiating the parameters of what those two states look like.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Allen, my question is for you.

There appears to be confusion between a political recognition of the state of Palestine and a final status resolution or end to the conflict. Can you help us differentiate between a political recognition of the state of Palestine and the fact of the matter that, yes, there still need to be negotiations to resolve the final status?

[Jon Allen]

Yes, there is a clear distinction here. The fact that 146 states, including many of our EU member allies, have recognized Palestine acknowledges that difference. We all understand that the final status issues of Jerusalem—refugees, borders, security—have to be negotiated. The problem is that the Netanyahu government, for over 17 years, has essentially refused to negotiate. We can't allow that to continue. You can't have a negotiation with one side only.

I agree that there have been previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution and they failed, but that doesn't mean that we give up now and that we never try again. It's essential that we do try again, with a firm commitment on both sides to that reality.

The last time there was a negotiation with the Obama government and former secretary of state John Kerry, he specifically blamed the Netanyahu government for that failure. Therefore, let's get both sides to the table and get them talking.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Allen, I have a short question—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Alghabra, you have three seconds remaining.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Okay. It's a very short question. He talked about the security of Israel.

Do you believe that the recognition of the state of Palestine would undermine the security of Israel?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Answer very briefly.

[Jon Allen]

Absolutely not. I don't see any way that it could. A recognition does not, absolutely does not, give any benefit to Hamas. Hamas does not support two states. Hamas does not want to see the existence of Israel. A recognition of two states is contrary to what Hamas wants and is contrary to what radical-right ministers in Israel want. They both want one state—their own.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

We next go to MP Bergeron.

You have four minutes, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I thank Mr. Allen for the last answer he gave. I found it extremely enlightening about the spurious objections to recognizing the state of Palestine that are often raised.

Mr. Kersten, when countries like Slovenia, Spain, Norway and Ireland say that, in recognizing the Palestinian state, they are not recognizing, legitimizing or supporting Hamas in any way, it may seem a bit contradictory in the minds of lay people.

In your experience as a lawyer, what is the difference between recognizing a state and recognizing a government?

[Mark Kersten]

Thank you very much for the question.

I think you're absolutely correct that Spain, Sweden and, of course, the Norway of the Oslo accords have recognized Palestine, yet have zero interest in recognizing terrorist activity or supporting Hamas.

Again, I think the question, in part, goes back to what Ambassador Allen was saying, which is that Hamas doesn't want a two-state solution. That's very important to recognize. Neither government—Israel or Hamas—wants a two-state solution. It is my opinion, having thought about this and worked on this issue for a long time, that it is the civilians who want a two-state solution.

Recognition is not in favour of the current Israeli government or any particular entity in Palestine. It is the right thing to do. It is the right of the Palestinian people, and it is the right of the Israeli people.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Allen, on October 9, 2023, an article appeared in the Toronto Star following the October 7 massacre.

The article was titled, “The violence between Israelis and Palestinians will not end until each side recognizes the other’s legitimacy”.

In it, you stated that in the current circumstances, the two-state solution was less and less possible.

Today, you began your remarks by saying that the two-state solution was the only solution.

Could you help us reconcile these two positions?

[Jon Allen]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I meant and said was that, following the tragedy of the massacre of October 7 and, frankly, what's happened in Gaza and the West Bank since, you can't expect people to be thinking about two states. The Germans and Brits, following the Second World War, could not have imagined they would eventually be in the EU together or major allies. The Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, who killed each other for 400 years, couldn't have imagined they would agree to a peace deal. Israelis and Palestinians will never get over their tragedies, but they must realize that, for their own peace and security, they have to come together. There are 7.5 million Jews and 7.5 million Arabs sharing this land, and neither group is going away. None of them is going away.

What I'm saying is that, beginning now but over time, good people in both countries will realize that continuing the violence—sending their soldiers to war and death—is not the answer. That will come, but it will take time, especially because of October 7 and what's happened since.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

We next go to MP McPherson.

You have four minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today for this very important conversation.

Professor Kersten, you spoke about how the day to do this is today. I want to reiterate that a minister could recognize the state of Palestine today. This is something that does not require a parliamentary vote.

I guess what I want to talk about for a moment is the urgency of this issue. We know that, over the past few weeks, the situation has gotten far worse. We know the work of the international community has clearly not prevented a genocide from taking place. It has not reined in Israel's extremist government.

Can you speak to the deteriorating conditions, including in the West Bank through further settlement construction, and why ending the occupation and recognizing the state of Palestine would help with this injustice?

[Mark Kersten]

Thank you for the questions.

I think we need to recognize, when we're talking about a two-state solution, that the illegal occupation of the West Bank, the ongoing settlement activity and the settler violence are intended to undermine the prospects of a two-state solution in and of itself.

When we talk about the different elements that make a state a state, including controlling territory, etc., if another state—in this instance, the Government of Israel—is intentionally seeking to ruin the chances that the Palestinian people have control over their own territory, they are literally engaged in the direct undermining of the two-state solution, which makes it appear less possible. Again, I think that's dangerous and duplicitous, and we see the ongoing, everyday violence that people in the West Bank experience.

I think it's important for the committee to know that, yes, we see the bombs and the missiles, but we also see people who just want to pick olives every now and then, who are targeted for picking olives when it's time to harvest them. They are shot and moved off their land. We see ministers openly declare that those people are right and that they would like to hand them guns so that they can commit their settler violence more easily.

Now we see the possible expansion of settlements to Gaza.

This is all open. No one is hiding these things. It's all available to us right now.

I think recognition is important as a right of the Palestinians, but it also sends an important signal that West Bank land is Palestinian land and is in line with international law and the most recent decisions of the International Court of Justice on the subject.