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
October 31st, 2024 / 4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I welcome all the witnesses.
I'll go to you, Ms. Musu, if I may.
Your research has really explored Canada's relations with the United States, as well as with its European allies, concerning this conflict.
How do you think Canada could leverage its partnerships with the United States and Europe, with which it maintains close relations, to try to support significant progress towards a two-state solution? How can Canada specifically leverage its alliances with the United States and with European countries to achieve this?
Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you very much for the question. I will answer in English, since it will be easier for me.
I would premise that the role that Canada can have and has had in the peace process has been, by necessity, quite limited, in the sense that Canada has been able to contribute at different times to the peace process as kind of a holder of the refugee working group on occasion.
You mentioned my research. I think this has not necessarily been the priority for Canada. A lot of the priority has been how to place the Middle East policy in the context of alliances. This is why I was suggesting to go back and think about why Canada agreed with this idea of waiting to recognize Palestine. Is there now something that can suggest a departure from that regional position?
It is not unknown for Canada to depart from its previous alliances. It has done so on a number of occasions. Obviously, the dominating factor here is whether the recognition of a Palestinian state could possibly—I'll be quite blunt—hurt our relations with the United States in a context in which the United States does not support that particular step.
I think we are a little bit at a crossroads in deciding what the priorities are and what kind of contribution this kind of recognition would give to the peace process. I do think that at this stage, given the situation on the ground, a recognition of a Palestinian state not coupled with any other initiative to actually further the process will mostly be symbolic and have relatively little impact on the ground. I think there should be a little bit more than just that.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you very much, Ms. Musu.
I know I don't have much time left, but I'd like to turn to you, Mr. Waxman.
You argued that recognizing a Palestinian state could strengthen the two-state solution. Can you tell us a little more specifically about the outcome we might expect if Canada were to take the step of recognizing the Palestinian state? What would be the positive impact not only on Israeli politics, but also on regional dynamics? You mentioned earlier that this could give Palestine the status it needs to undertake these important negotiations on an equal footing, but beyond that, would there be more concrete results?
Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Professor of Israel Studies, University of California Los Angeles, As an Individual
Thank you for your question.
In some ways, I think the recognition of a Palestinian state at this point in time is a preventive measure. It's about providing Palestinians with another option, one that is not represented by Hamas's armies. It's about showing that they can achieve an end to their occupation and achieve their national rights through diplomacy. That, in turn, would not only boost Palestinian support for a two-state solution, thereby making a resumption of the peace process more likely in the future; it would also boost legitimacy for the Palestinian Authority.
We have to really take seriously the possibility, as many have been warning, of a collapse of the Palestinian Authority in the near future if its legitimacy is not boosted.
I would also say, though, that if and when negotiations were to take place, having negotiations between two equal parties, two states, rather than, as has been the case in the past, between a state and a people that is not a state, increases the likelihood of success. It gives the State of Palestine more leverage in peace talks, more legitimacy, and it puts more pressure on Israel to end the occupation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Professor Waxman.
We now go to Monsieur Bergeron.
You have the floor for five minutes.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us and for enlightening us with their comments.
I think some of you have responded to the argument that others are trying to make, that the lack of support for the two-state solution in both Palestine and Israel should prevent the recognition of the state of Palestine by the Government of Canada. What we understand from your testimony is that, on the contrary, Canada's recognition of Palestine could increase support for the two-state solution in both Palestine and Israel. I think that offers a great deal of hope. So this argument is in favour of such recognition.
As our colleague Ms. Fry pointed out earlier, the purpose of our study isn't so much to determine whether it's appropriate to recognize Palestine, but rather to determine when it should be recognized.
My colleague Ms. McPherson often repeats that the government could immediately recognize Palestine, so much so that some see the process we are currently engaged in as a kind of ultimate delay, a dilatory measure designed to postpone what should be done now.
My question is for all three witnesses.
The government says it is waiting for the right time, but it has never defined the right time to recognize Palestine. Do you think the time is right?
Let's start with Mr. Larson, who hasn't had a chance to answer any questions yet.
Chair, Ottawa Forum on Israel Palestine
Why wait? What would be the logic behind that?
We really need to understand the situation we are facing right now. It's very difficult to find a Palestinian who wants a two-state solution. That said, a lot of Palestinians will accept it, although they may want something else.
I challenge you to find a Palestinian who thinks that Jaffa and Haifa are not part of Palestine. When I arrive at Ben Gurion airport, the poster in Hebrew and English welcomes me to Israel, but when my Palestinian friends see me there, they welcome me to Palestine. So in the hearts of all Palestinians, Jaffa, Beersheba and Haifa are still part of Palestine.
We have been saying for a long time that we are going to recognize the state of Palestine. In my opinion, the longer this drags on, the more frustrating it gets.
Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It is not a great moment in the sense that the timing following October 7 opens the move to a lot of questions. I think that is problematic. The idea itself of supporting the two-state solution, however, which is enshrined in the Canadian policy, remains valid.
I do think there is a problem with the timing, in the sense that it does come really on the heels of something that opens up...especially if it's done exclusively as a recognition, but with no other action.
The problem I see is that in the past several years, the Palestinian question has been completely on the back burner for everyone. One could travel, as you might have done, to Israel and not at all know that there is a Palestinian question that needs to be resolved. As someone who has observed this, you would think that this would have been maybe a better time to really try to build, and now the confidence between the two parties is at an all-time low. This is why I said that recognition alone, without any other more substantial plan, a move that is concerted, is a limited step.
Bloc
Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Professor of Israel Studies, University of California Los Angeles, As an Individual
Thank you.
In the century-long history—
Liberal
Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Professor of Israel Studies, University of California Los Angeles, As an Individual
Yes, I think now is exactly the right time, although obviously there are very difficult circumstances in Gaza, in the West Bank and politically in Israel.
I think it is really important for a significant initiative to be launched at this time. There's no prospect for a resumption of serious negotiations. In the absence of that, taking the initiative and making it clear that Palestinian hopes can be realized in the form of a two-state solution would save that and counter the radicalization processes that are happening, not only in the region but around the world, as more people start to call for a one-state solution and believe that and give up hope in a two-state solution.
I think, actually, this is—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Professor Waxman, I'm sorry. I'm going to have to cut you off.
MP McPherson, you have five minutes.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today and sharing their expertise with us.
I'm going to start with you, Professor Waxman.
I appreciate when you said that the most important thing Canada could do to save the two-state solution is recognition of Palestine. I think that's a vital piece of testimony.
I'm also interested in the conversation that is happening in the United States right now regarding American arms sales to Israel. We've seen many experts wondering why the Biden administration is ignoring the Leahy law, which declares that the U.S. cannot arm human rights abusers. It's similar to our Canadian legislation, which our government is also not respecting. We've called for an arms embargo while this genocide continues.
I'm wondering if you could talk about where the conversation is in the United States and why that law is not being upheld.
Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Professor of Israel Studies, University of California Los Angeles, As an Individual
I think there has certainly been a growing criticism, both inside the Beltway in Washington and within the Democratic Party, over the Biden administration's apparent unwillingness to uphold U.S. law with regard to arms sales.
There does seem to be some movement recently. A few weeks ago, a letter was sent, basically telling the Israeli government that unless they allowed more humanitarian aid in, there would be a restriction on arms sales.
Clearly, things are shifting. I think the conversation is shifting toward thinking about imposing restrictions on U.S. military aid to Israel. President Biden has made it very clear that he's not willing to countenance that, but if there's a different administration—if there's a Harris administration—I think you will see more willingness to do that.
More broadly, I think there is a recognition that there needs to be some fundamental changes in the U.S. approach to this conflict. I think that even includes considering the recognition of a Palestinian state as well.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you. That comes to my next question.
I am very curious. The whole world, of course, is watching the United States next week, as you have your presidential elections. I will be in Milwaukee as part of an observation mission.
I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about the impacts of this conflict on the election. What can you tell us about what this might mean for the future of the Middle East? How could the Middle East-U.S. relationship potentially change?
We're going through something similar in Canada, and I'd like your perspective.
Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Professor of Israel Studies, University of California Los Angeles, As an Individual
I think we're really at a pivot point in terms of U.S. policy. If there is a Trump administration, I think it's quite clear that a Trump administration would give Prime Minister Netanyahu and his far-right government a green light to do whatever they want. He's already talking about wrapping up the war in Gaza very quickly, but I think that might well be followed by support for Israeli annexation measures in the West Bank, as well as potentially annexing parts of the Gaza Strip.
Again, that underlines the need for making it very clear where the international community stands and making it very clear that Israeli annexation of the West Bank would be illegal and unacceptable.
Conversely, I think a Harris administration is likely to shift or depart somewhat. I don't think there's going to be a radical shift from the Biden administration's approach, but clearly there is a recognition that the approach that the Biden administration has taken, however well-meaning, has failed. For many months now, the Biden administration has put its hopes in achieving a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, followed by a resumption of negotiations and tying that to the possibility of a normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia and a broader agreement between the United States and the Saudis.
Were that possible and were that in the cards, I would be less forceful in advocating a recognition of a Palestinian state. However, I don't think that's going to happen. It's very clear that this government in Israel is not interested in a Palestinian state and is certainly not interested in a resumption of peace talks.
It's really important, given the fact that the U.S. policy is currently very much in flux, not to wait for U.S. leadership and certainly not to wait for the Trump administration, because they've made it very clear that they have no regard for international law. I think they would support the kind of far-right ambitions of the Israeli government.
I think it is important to signal to the Harris administration, were that to come into office, where the international community stands and where the United States' allies stand. The Europeans are doing the same, and at the moment, I think the United States could actually take heed from its allies, particularly from Canada.
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Okay, fair enough.
Now we go to Mr. Aboultaif.
You have three minutes, sir.