Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 31st, 2024

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for appearing today.

The Oslo accords were probably the time when both parties negotiated for something that I believe was the most advanced as far as finding a final solution for the conflict was concerned.

Where do you see the Oslo accords now? Do you see that people are walking away from them, or could they still be the best framework to start a serious negotiation towards something feasible and something that is going to solve the issue once and for all?

[Peter Larson]

Thank you very much for your question.

It might surprise members of the committee to know that Avis supports a one-state solution. This is the map I got about eight years ago when I went to Israel to drive around. There's no indication of an occupied territory. It's all Israel.

Canada for years has allowed the conversation about a potential two-state negotiation to fester so that now this is normalized in Israel. Israelis believe this is all Israel; it's not a Palestinian territory. We've allowed that to develop by not insisting on a two-state solution, so I think that we are partly culpable for the situation today when the idea of Palestinian statehood is very low in Israel.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Go ahead, Dr. Waxman.

[Dov Waxman]

I think the most significant achievement of the Oslo accords was to underline the legitimate rights and national aspirations of both peoples for mutual recognition. The most damaging development in recent years has been the reversal of that mutual recognition.

Recently, a poll showed—a survey in Israel—that now only around 30% of Israelis recognize the Palestinian right to statehood. A lot of what was achieved at Oslo, and particularly that recognition, has been undermined and reversed over the years.

The one surviving remnant of the Oslo accords is the Palestinian Authority, and that won't last forever. In order to save the Palestinian Authority, which was meant to be the way station toward a Palestinian state, I think it's important to take action, because otherwise the Palestinian Authority has no raison d'être. There's no reason for the Palestinian Authority to survive in the eyes of Palestinians if it isn't on a pathway towards statehood.

In a sense, that is the last part of the Oslo accords left standing, and that's what needs to be saved.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Ms. Musu, would you comment?

[Costanza Musu]

I'd say that for both sides, even the word “Oslo” has kind of become anathema, in the sense that both sides have lived through a lot of disappointment from what was a really positive starting point.

One of the main issues—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm sorry. You can respond to that in the next round.

[Costanza Musu]

Certainly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Professor Musu. I apologize for that.

Next we'll go to MP Oliphant for three minutes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, witnesses.

Just to put my bias out on the table, for me, hope is perhaps the most important factor and most powerful tool to end terrorism and to end militancy. For me, a two-state solution provides hope. For me, it is necessary to have two states to have a two-state solution. If we want to end this conflict, to me, hope is absolutely critical.

I also wanted to say that I don't believe there are two sides, as has been said in this meeting; I think there are many sides. I want to raise that we have governments, but we also have people and civil society organizations and many people who are working for solutions that are important to get to peace.

My question is related to the fact that we are not talking about the world's recognition of the State of Palestine; we're talking about Canada's recognition. We're a country that has some influence, but not a lot. Can you tell me why you think Canada's recognition of the State of Palestine could be helpful in the pursuit of peace? I don't mean generic recognition, but Canada's.

Let's start with Professor Waxman, and then we'll go to the table.

[Dov Waxman]

I think it's important because as a member of the G7 in particular—as a leading western country—Canada would lead the way among western countries in affirming that recognition. It's particularly important for Palestinians to see that, but we're also at a time when, because of the destruction and devastation in the Gaza Strip over the past year, western policy and international law have really been called into question around the world.

I think it's very important, not only for Canada's reputation and to show Canada living up to its commitment to support a two-state solution and its commitment to the Palestinian right to self-determination, but also in leading the way for western countries to show that we actually care about this—

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

That's perfect. Thank you.

I want to give Professor Larson a chance.

[Peter Larson]

I completely concur with what he just said. I don't have anything new to add to that—

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

Professor Musu, would you comment?

[Costanza Musu]

One of the things that could potentially be positive that comes from this is giving more support to the Palestinian Authority.

This is because, arguably, one of the problems that the Palestinian Authority has had is that the support that it has received from the west has been more of a kiss of death, because it's been seen as less than legitimate. If that recognition comes, it can potentially also produce some kind of result for the Palestinian Authority to say that yes, it is supported by the west, but that this doesn't mean that it's a puppet of the west. We are actually also advancing the cause of Palestinian independence.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you all, very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Mr. Bergeron, you have a minute and a half, please, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In 1977, there were 1,900 settlers in the occupied territories. In 1997, there were 331,000. In 2022, there were 741,000.

In your opinion, Mr. Waxman, what is the purpose of colonizing the occupied territories?

[Dov Waxman]

First and foremost, the goal is to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. I would distinguish between the Israeli government's goals, though.

I mean, obviously they vary from time to time under different governments, but generally speaking, the goal in settling or colonizing the heart of the West Bank goal is to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

As for the settlers themselves, they have a variety of goals. Obviously, for the most religious Zionists among them, it is to ultimately bring about the coming of the Messiah. However, I think the more secular goal is to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and allowing the ongoing settlement is doing that, essentially. Every new settlement and every additional settler makes the establishment of a Palestinian state that much harder.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We now go to MP McPherson.

I will remind you that you have one minute and 40 seconds.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Professor Larson, I have some questions for you with regard to the ICJ cases, both on the illegality of the occupation, for which the decision was granted on July 19, and on the South African case on the plausible genocide in Gaza. Considering those two cases, I'd like you to talk a little bit about how Canada has responded to those two cases and also what the recognition of the State of Palestine would mean going forward.

[Peter Larson]

Thank you very much.

I consider that a set-up question, because you know what I'm going to say.

I think Canada's abstention on the ICJ decision on the occupation was appalling. I think our reputation around the world is going....

In the global south, we're maintaining a reputation with our American and European allies, but I think the world is seeing this atrocious development, and Canada is not living up to our claim to support international human rights and international humanitarian law.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You still have about 30 seconds.

Could you tell me what this could mean? If there was recognition of a State of Palestine, what would that mean? What would the obligations of Canada be then, in that situation?

[Peter Larson]

For example, if Palestine were recognized at the United Nations as a member, Palestine would have standing at the ICJ and would have standing at other international organizations.

Canada's recognition will not do that. Canada will be one more pebble on the balance of what's happening. We will be—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm talking as well about the trade agreements that we would be obligated to—