Evidence of meeting #124 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was israel.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
There are no more questions.
At this juncture, I'd like to thank our two witnesses. Thank you very much, Mr. Kontorovich and Mr. Levy. We're grateful for your perspective and for kindly appearing before our committee.
Former Israeli Government Spokesman, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We're going to suspend for three minutes, and then we're going to move on to the next panel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We will resume our hearing and go to the second panel.
We're grateful to have Professor Musu with us from the University of Ottawa's graduate school of public and international affairs.
We also have Peter Larson, who is the chair of the Ottawa Forum on Israel/Palestine.
Last, we are very grateful to have Professor Waxman, who is the Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Foundation chair in Israeli studies at UCLA.
We'll start off with Professor Musu. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.
I will ask witnesses to look over here at times, because if you see this sign, it means you should be wrapping it up within 20 seconds.
Professor Musu, welcome. The floor is yours.
Costanza Musu Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to speak today.
I would start with a statement of a position: I believe that there is no other solution than a two-state solution.
This is an opening statement, but I would also like to try to answer a question. I've listened to the other testimonies that you received today and on Tuesday. What I would like to do in these few minutes is to actually try to answer the question of why we are talking about whether Canada should recognize Palestine or not and where this idea that the recognition of Palestine should only come as a result of negotiations comes from.
It's an important question to ask before we actually say it is time to change our position: How did we get there?
I would start from a step back. This idea of the two states is not dated 1947; it actually predates the UN declaration. It really dates from the thirties. The Peel commission in the thirties proposed two states. It was a different two states, but the original idea predates both World War II and the Holocaust.
When the State of Israel was established in 1948 after the first Arab-Israeli war, Israel did not control the West Bank and Gaza was not on the borders of resolution 181 but was rather on what we have now come to call the Green Line. Basically, from 1949 until 1967, the West Bank was controlled by Jordan and Gaza was controlled by Egypt.
Jordan annexed the West Bank; Egypt did not annex the West Bank. The annexation by Jordan was not recognized internationally, other than by the U.K., at least from an administrative point of view, and Pakistan. Egypt kept the Gaza Strip as essentially a refugee area and did not give Egyptian citizenship to the Palestinians, while Jordan did, which is why so many Palestinians still have Jordanian citizenship.
The question is that once Israel got control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967, originally it did not plan to keep this control, so it is important to remember why we are in this position today. The plan and the strategic priority of the State of Israel was actually that of bilateral negotiation with other sovereign states in the region, and reciprocal recognition. We saw that in 1979 with Camp David. We saw that in 1994 with Jordan.
To wrap up, as I'm aware of the time, when the Oslo agreement took place and what we call the Israeli-Palestinian—rather than the Israeli-Arab—peace process started, there was a lot of road still to travel. I would argue that the priorities of Israel were actually not with the Palestinian issue but much more with establishing itself in the region.
The reason there was so much hesitation—by now, it had already been a couple of decades—to immediately recognize the Palestinian state is that this final status negotiation was so complex to address. Reciprocal trust had to be built, and instead of immediately recognizing Palestine when the parties were so far apart and when the Palestine Liberation Organization had just transitioned from essentially being an activist organization or even, as defined by some, a terrorist organization, to the official representative of the Palestinian people, it was quite understandable that this would be a precaution.
I would say that now the question to ask—and I believe this is the question that you're all reflecting on—is this: Are the conditions on the ground different? Is there now a reason to change that policy and think that this can be done before the rest?
Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It's in the questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much for that.
We now go to Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson, welcome. You similarly have five minutes for your opening remarks.
Peter Larson Chair, Ottawa Forum on Israel Palestine
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll do my best.
I thank the members of the committee for having me here today.
I'm honoured to share the same platform as a number of your distinguished witnesses preceding me, including people like Professor Ardi Imseis and former Canadian ambassador to Israel Jon Allen.
My organization, OFIP, endorses Ambassador Allen's view as reported in the press:
Recognizing a Palestinian state now is about sending a message of hope and commitment to Palestinians and sending a clear message to Israel and others that simply managing the conflict, Israel's policy for the last 17 years, is not an option and never was.
I would add that Canada's recognition of Palestinian statehood would enhance the ability of Palestinians to advance their rights internationally, supporting them as they seek representation and justice in international forums. It would send a message more broadly to the global south that Canada exercises its sovereignty by supporting international law without fear or favour, whether applied to friend or foe.
OFIP believes that Canada's former position of agreeing to the idea of a Palestinian state only after it has reached agreement with the State of Israel was untenable. To draw a parallel with domestic policy, it would be like supporting a woman's right to divorce as long as her husband agreed.
We are encouraged by Minister Joly's new formulation, issued a month ago, that Canada reserves the right to recognize the State of Palestine at the right time. We believe the right time is now.
Many would argue that recognition of the State of Palestine is merely a symbolic act because Palestine does not have the powers of a state. That is true. Today the government of Palestine does not control its own borders, its own water, its own airspace or its own telecommunications. It does not have an airport, and its only seaport is under blockade. Israel exerts complete control over the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in defiance of several UN resolutions.
However, recognizing states that are not yet in control of their territory has many precedents. During World War II, many western countries recognized governments in exile from countries under Nazi occupation.
Recognizing Palestine, however, is not only symbolic. If Canada recognizes Palestine, this must have concrete repercussions. Among these are a revision of the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, Canadian support for full membership of Palestine at the UN and full support for Palestine's right to use international institutions, including the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.
Canada's recognition of the State of Palestine should be without prejudice to the outcome of any future negotiations between the parties. A future solution to the Israel-Palestine issue might be a two-state solution, it could be a fusion to create a single state or it could be some kind of confederation.
Canada should prioritize urgent action in support of human rights and freedom. Canada's focus should not be on endless negotiations about a two-state solution but on the urgent need to protect Palestinian rights.
Canada should, without delay, join the over 130 countries in the world today, including several European allies, that officially recognize the State of Palestine.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much, Mr. Larson.
We now turn to Professor Waxman.
Welcome, Professor Waxman. I understand that you're joining us from California. You're a few hours behind. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.
Dov Waxman Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Professor of Israel Studies, University of California Los Angeles, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the standing committee for the opportunity to talk with you today about Canada's advancement of a two-state solution.
Let me begin by saying that I continue to believe that a two-state solution remains the best means for bringing peace to both Israelis and Palestinians. The terrible bloodshed and tragedy over the past year I think underscores the urgent need to bring peace to both peoples.
I think we also have to recognize that the two-state solution is more endangered today, more at risk today, than it has ever been before. The possibility of a two-state solution is diminishing day by day. I think unless significant action is taken, it will soon disappear altogether.
I believe that the most important action Canada could take to save a two-state solution would be to recognize the State of Palestine, as Spain, Norway, and Ireland, of course, already did earlier this year, and as just over 75% of the UN members have done.
Now, some argue that recognition of Palestinian statehood would be an empty gesture. On the contrary; I think if Canada were to recognize the Palestinian state, it would make Canada's recognition of the Palestinian right to self-determination and Canada's support for a two-state solution not merely empty rhetoric. Recognition would be a tangible step that Canada could take to help Palestinians achieve their long-standing quest for national self-determination. Recognition of a Palestinian state at this point in time would help keep the possibility of a two-state solution alive.
I think there is a real danger that this possibility will soon disappear. If Palestinians don't achieve statehood soon, they will likely, as I think surveys show, give up on support for a Palestinian state and increasingly demand equal rights in a one-state framework, as younger Palestinians are already doing. If that becomes the Palestinian norm, then rather than the pursuit of statehood, there will be a very long—I think decades-long—struggle for equal rights within a single state.
Recognition of a Palestinian state would also boost Palestinian support for a two-state solution and save the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority, of course, was established under the Oslo accords as an interim step toward the establishment of the Palestinian state. It has essentially lost its legitimacy among the Palestinian public. I think it could well collapse in the next few years, forcing Israel to take over complete responsibility for the West Bank. Recognizing a Palestinian state I think would really help boost the legitimacy of a reformed Palestinian Authority—I want to emphasize that—in the eyes of the Palestinian public.
It would also, of course, increase diplomatic pressure on Israel to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories and its ongoing settlement activity there. The stationing of international diplomats in the West Bank could also increase scrutiny of Israel's actions in the West Bank.
I want to emphasize that recognizing a Palestinian state is not an alternative to peace talks. On the contrary; I think it's a means to help peace talks succeed. Ultimately, the only solution to the conflict lies in a negotiated solution, but in order to reach such a solution, I think we need to ensure that the prospects for a negotiation are more likely to succeed. Recognizing Palestinian statehood would help do that. It would help to put it on equal par with Israel so that it would be negotiations between two states, the state of Israel and the State of Palestine.
You've already heard earlier today the claim that recognition of Palestinian statehood would be a reward for Hamas's terrorism, but this completely ignores the fact that Hamas does not support a two-state solution. Hamas does not want a Palestinian state alongside Israel; they want a Palestinian state instead of Israel. On the contrary—to the speakers earlier today—recognizing Palestinian statehood would actually undermine and weaken support for Hamas by showing Palestinians that there is an alternative path—a non-violent path, a diplomatic path—to help them achieve their legitimate rights.
Finally, contrary to the claim that some may make that now is not the time to recognize Palestinian statehood and that we should wait, I think waiting will in fact only make the situation worse. Support for a two-state solution is declining day by day. Conditions on the ground, in particular in the West Bank, are continuing to deteriorate.
After what we witnessed over the past year, and particularly what we saw on October 7, it is very clear that managing this conflict and going along with the usual means is not working. It's not bringing safety to Israelis and it's not bringing rights or security to Palestinians.
I think what's urgently needed is bold action to save a two-state solution, and this is the best action Canada can take in the near term to help achieve and create the conditions for a successful two-state solution.
Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Professor Waxman.
We'll now go to the members for their questions.
Mr. Chong, start us off. You have five minutes, but I will undertake to cut everyone off at the five-minute point.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My questions are for Professor Waxman and build off his opening statement.
What territory would this state have? Would it include all of the West Bank, as traditionally delineated by the 1968 borders, or not?
Second, who would the citizens of this state be? Would it include the some two million Israeli Arabs and other Palestinians in Jordan and elsewhere?
Third, what entity would be considered the government of that state?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Professor Waxman, before you respond, can I ask you to move up your mic? I've heard from the technicians that we're having a bit of a hard time picking you up for translation.
Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Professor of Israel Studies, University of California Los Angeles, As an Individual
Yes. I'm sorry.
Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Professor of Israel Studies, University of California Los Angeles, As an Individual
Thank you very much for those very important questions.
First of all, on the question of borders, the recognition of a Palestinian state should be within the June 4 lines, the lines that existed before the 1967 war. In other words, it's within the Green Line. This doesn't preclude the negotiation of final borders between the State of Palestine and the State of Israel. Ultimately, the final borders of a Palestinian state and of the State of Israel have to be negotiated between the two sides. I think the recognition should be within the June 4, 1967 lines.
On the question of citizens, ultimately it is clearly up to the State of Palestine, as a sovereign state, to decide its citizenship policies. We should be very careful about assuming that somehow citizens of Israel who are Palestinian Arabs would be future citizens of such a state. Most have said, quite clearly, that they wish to remain citizens of the State of Israel and that their citizenship should remain in Israel. Of course, they may well be granted dual citizenship by the State of Palestine if they wish to claim that and if the State of Palestine were to grant it.
In terms of the government, there is already a quasi-government functioning in the West Bank. This is, of course, the Palestinian Authority, which, as I mentioned, was established under the Oslo accords. I think recognition of Palestinian statehood should be linked to reforms undertaken by the Palestinian Authority, particularly democratic reforms, such as ensuring judicial reform. We have a kind of embryonic Palestinian government already in existence; that government needs to be given greater legitimacy. Affording it statehood would give it legitimacy and enable it to govern not only the West Bank but also, ultimately, the Gaza Strip.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I would like to ask a second question of Professor Musu as well as you, Professor Waxman.
You both hinted at declining support for a two-state solution on both sides of this conflict. I'd like you to describe what the levels of support are for a two-state solution among both Palestinians and Israelis.
Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Professor of Israel Studies, University of California Los Angeles, As an Individual
Shall I go first?
Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Professor of Israel Studies, University of California Los Angeles, As an Individual
The latest polls of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza that I've seen put support for a two-state solution at around 40%, which is actually an uptick lately. It had declined to around a third of Palestinians. Lately, it's gone up to about 40%. There's actually much higher support currently. Among Israeli Jews, it's only around 21%.
It's important to note that when we look at levels of public support for a two-state solution, a lot of that support depends upon whether they believe a two-state solution is feasible. In other words, when you ask, “Do you support a two-state solution?”, in many ways what they're responding to is whether they believe such a solution is possible. The major reason that support has declined over time is not that they're opposed to such a solution in principle, on either side; rather, it's because they've come to the conclusion that the other side isn't interested in such a solution.
That's why there's—
Conservative
Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I quite agree with my colleague.
The question is framed as, “It is not possible”. We heard from the previous speakers as well that this kind of persuasion has built up since the withdrawal from Lebanon. Lebanon brought us Hezbollah, and then Hamas in Gaza. We shouldn't forget that after multiple Netanyahu governments in Israel, the idea that it's possible to create a peaceful state in Palestine has thinned out to nothing, so the question you're asking is not the one being asked when people are polled.
