Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you.

Dr. Antonius, I have a question. The framework of the Oslo accord was agreed to by 70% of Palestinians. The number before last year, last October, was only 30%. By the same token, only 20% of Israelis aged 18 to 34 support the two-state solution. It seems like the support among both Palestinians and Israelis, whether for the Oslo accord or for the two-state solution, is low.

Can you elaborate on this and what Canada can do to enhance this further in the cloud of what's going on right now, with everybody's stance over the war taking place on the ground?

[Rachad Antonius]

It is very difficult to get two people who are at war at this moment to talk and recognize each other. This can be done only by well-intentioned people outside of the immediate circle of confrontation in order to keep the dialogue open.

However, again, why did it go down? Why did this big support we had right after Oslo go down? It's because Oslo was used as an excuse to take over more land, with the blessing of Canada. Canada, on paper, said it was illegal but never exercised any serious pressure on Israel.

Therefore, the first thing to do now is to stop the massacres, and then try to put something into effect. Of course, Israel would not withdraw any moment now, but if Israel could say that it plans to withdraw, that would help.

Right now, I believe that none of the solutions that are available is fair, and none of the fair solutions is available now. We're at an impasse because of the war and because of the policy of taking over the land, including the occupied land in contravention of international law and in contravention of Canadian policy.

The road is not easy, but it must be done stepwise. The first thing is to stop the violence now.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

It's not fair to blame, let's say, Canada. I hear some blame from you on this.

Do you believe Palestinians made a mistake in going to Oslo?

[Rachad Antonius]

I don't think they made a mistake of engaging in talks. They may have made a mistake in some of the provisions of Oslo. They should have negotiated better provisions in Oslo, because in Oslo, the recognition is not symmetrical. The Palestinians do recognize an Israeli state, but Israel recognizes only the right of the Palestinian Authority to speak in the name of some of the Palestinians.

The idea of a Palestinian state is not present in Oslo at all. It's absent. The only legal reference is resolution 242, which does not mention the word “Palestine” once.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We next go to MP Housefather, for three minutes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here with committee members as we talk about how we can reach peace in the Middle East, ideally with a two-state solution, with Israel, the world's only majority Jewish state, living in peace and security with its Palestinian neighbours. Ideally, this would be through negotiations between the two parties, but if not, we need to understand what conditions would be needed to recognize the state of Palestine.

Professor Imseis, I'd like to start with you. I read several of the things you've written, including a document you presented earlier this year at the United Nations entitled “The Nakba and the UN's Permanent Responsibility for the Question of Palestine”. I'll read one paragraph. It states:

For that, it is essential to discuss the fateful decision made by the then western dominated UN General Assembly to recommend partition of Palestine against the will of the country’s indigenous majority population through resolution 181 of 29 November 1947. A review of the terms of the partition plan and the accompanying UN record...reveals that the plan was illegal under prevailing international law. This illegality helped lay the ground-work for the Nakba of 1948 [which means “catastrophe”] and its painfully unjust results that have continued and, indeed, accelerated ever since.

It sounds to me, and I've read through it, that your thesis is essentially that the creation of Israel was illegal under international law. Therefore, I'm going to ask you, do you recognize the State of Israel? We talk about a two-state solution.

Do you recognize that Israel has a right to exist as a democratic and Jewish state?

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

Thank you very much for the question, sir. You've skipped a portion of it. The proposition that resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, is illegal does not equate to suggesting that in 2024 Israel does not have a right to exist. Let's be clear. Israel is a fact. It is a state. It has the right to territorial integrity and political independence as a state. It's a state—full stop. That's a fact.

The question that I was looking at in that speech and as a scholar, which I have done in a book I would commend to you called The United Nations and the Question of Palestine—see chapter 4—is that actions taken in November 1947 by the UN General Assembly to partition Palestine did not comport with the requirements of international law as international law stood at that date. The principle of inter-temporal law requires that we apply the law as it exists at the time in question that you're looking at. Israel exists today. It is established.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm reclaiming my time, Professor.

Again, I understand that, but your thesis, as I understand it, is that there should have been, at the time, a vote amongst the majority population to determine if they wanted one state and not two states.

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

That's what we call democracy, sir, yes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Okay, so today is that your position as well? If you're arguing that, are you saying that you would prefer to have one state as opposed to two states voted on by the majority of the population of the entire territory?

In essence, are you arguing that you would actually prefer to submit one of the two to the majority will?

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

Are you suggesting that democracy is a good idea, sir?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm suggesting that what you're suggesting seems to make the State of Israel's existence very tenuous—

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

Not at all.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

—because your argument is, okay, Israel exists, so—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather. You're 20 seconds over.

Next we go to Mr. Bergeron. You have a minute and a half, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In a sense, Israel was created by UN Resolution 181 of 1947. The resolution called for the partition of Mandatory Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

I have a question for Professor Antonius and Professor Imseis, and I'd like a quick answer, please.

How do you explain the Israeli government's current hostility to the UN?

[Rachad Antonius]

I think the hostility of the Israeli government is mostly towards international law. Its hostility towards the UN is the result of its hostility to international law, because the UN is the guardian of international law.

That's how I see it.

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

There's a long answer to that. I'll try to keep it tight. The United Nations is not a monolithic body. It has six principle organs. The United Nations has the Security Council, where Israel has enjoyed a privileged position by virtue of its special relationship with a permanent member there. The Israelis have no problem with the Security Council, save and except for decisions that have been taken by the Security Council that they have violated for many a year.

Second, with respect to the General Assembly, Israel has a real problem there, and it's because the political dynamic of the General Assembly is different. It's top-heavy for the global south, which has historically been very supportive of the Palestinian people by virtue of the historical ravages of colonialism and imperialism and so on, so it has a problem with what the General Assembly says.

It also has a problem with the Secretary-General. They have indicated to him that he's a persona non grata. That would deal with the UN Secretariat. That's another body of the UN. When the International Court of Justice was looking at this last advisory opinion, the Israelis called this a form of legal terrorism, and so on.

The problem has to do exactly with what Professor Antonius said. The United Nations is a standard-bearer of international law, and when the UN bodies pronounce upon Israeli actions in the occupied Palestinian territory and determine those actions to be unlawful, understandably, the Israelis don't like it. This is the basis of their concern with the UN.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Now we go to MP McPherson.

You have a minute and a half.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, and thank you for your testimony, Professor, in terms of recognizing that the state of Palestine does already exist. It is simply the recognition of Canada that we were talking about and debating today, which brings me to my question.

We know that allies—Norway, Sweden, Spain, Ireland, etc.—have recognized the state of Palestine. Why do you believe it's taken Canada so long to get there, so long to take that step?

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

Look, I can only surmise a guess based on my read. I think it's because the Canadians are bound in their foreign policy when it comes to this issue to the Washington consensus. The position of Washington for a long time, because it is so close to the Israelis, is to say that you cannot have the establishment of a Palestinian state and, therefore, the recognition of said state by other countries unless you have a negotiated resolution.

As I have said, this runs completely counter to relevant principles of international law. The Palestinian people are a people juridically. They have a right to self-determination. Their self-determination unit is the occupied Palestinian territory. They have a right to establish a state in that territory to the exclusion of all other peoples. Israel is not sovereign in that territory.

The principal judicial organ of the UN has determined that Israel has an obligation to withdraw from that territory “as rapidly as possible”. The General Assembly on September 18, 2024, with the passage of emergency special session resolution ES-10/24 has indicated that this means that September 17, 2025, is the deadline by which Israel must withdraw from the territory. That's international law.

There's no reason why the Canadians should not recognize...absent these negotiations, which will never happen. The historical record is very clear. Let's take the Israelis seriously for what they say and do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Next, we go to MP Chong.

You have three minutes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk about the larger geopolitical context of all of this.

Only 8% of the world's population lives in democracies. Forty per cent of the world's population lives in authoritarian states. That's according to the Economist Intelligence Unit. Of the 190 or so member states in the United Nations, only maybe three dozen are full-fledged democracies. The rest, some 150-plus states, are not considered full-fledged democracies. When we look at democracies, the vast majority of democracies believe that the recognition of a Palestinian state should come as a result of a negotiated two-state solution, and not immediately.

I think we need to situate this conflict in the Middle East in a larger context. Canada is a liberal democracy, as I think everybody around the table would agree. Israel is also a liberal democracy. Democracies are flawed. They're not perfect, but Canada and Israel are both liberal democracies.

The conflicts between Israel and Hamas, between Israel and Hezbollah, and between Israel and Iran are not taking place in a vacuum. It is part of a rising clash between a rising authoritarianism and democracies like Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.

On the other side of that clash are authoritarian states like the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In our view, there is no question on which side of the line Canada should stand. We stand with liberal democracies.

I'd just like the witness's commentary on the situation in that larger context.

[Rachad Antonius]

There have been, in the last year, over 42,000 people killed, about 80% of whom are civilians and 60% of whom are women and children. I'm not sure how you would qualify the political force that does that as a liberal democracy. It's a liberal democracy within its own borders. It's not a liberal democracy in the territories it occupies. By siding with those who committed these massacres, we are not standing for liberal democracies.

I would like to quote Omer Bartov, a Jewish Israeli citizen who served in the Israeli army and is a professor of history specializing in genocides. He wrote a column in The Guardian, on August 13, where he says that he now believes that what is going on is genocide. This is an Israeli Jewish citizen who served in the Israeli army. We have to take that into account when taking a stand on this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I apologize, but we are out of time.

For the last question, we go to MP Zuberi.

You have three minutes.