Canadian politicians are starting to grapple with the ramifications of the Israel-Hamas war

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says, as he has on three occasions over the last week, that Israel has the “right to defend itself in accordance with international law,” it is both parts of the sentence that seem to matter — both the right and the obligation.

Even if a country’s right to defend itself is unquestionable, the prosecution of that right isn’t immune from scrutiny or criticism. And Canadian political leaders — like leaders across the Western world — are now beginning to grapple with inevitable questions about what comes after the shock and terror of Hamas’s attack on Israel.

The first half of the prime minister’s remarks to the House of Commons on Monday afternoon closely followed the sentiments expressed in a statement issued by his office on Saturday night — but with certain points apparently underlined for emphasis. The “humanitarian situation” in Gaza was said to be not just “dire” but “worsening.” The “unimpeded” access for humanitarian aid and the establishment of a humanitarian corridor was described as “essential” on Saturday but “imperative” on Monday.

Trudeau’s condemnation of Hamas was clear and unequivocal and bracing in its language, and he insisted that the government “fully supports” Israel’s right to defend itself in accordance with international law. But after emphasizing the brutality of Hamas, he also dwelled on the importance of international law.

“In Gaza, as elsewhere, international law must be upheld by all. This includes humanitarian law. Even wars have rules,” Trudeau said. “The rule of law is what we stand up for here in Parliament, what we advocate through diplomacy and what we will always fight for no matter the circumstance.”

By Tuesday afternoon, Trudeau’s rhetoric was already being put to the test by reports that hundreds of people had died after a missile struck a hospital in Gaza. While Palestinian officials initially blamed Israel, the Israel Defence Force said a rocket fired by Islamic Jihad hit the hospital. Without explicitly blaming either side, Trudeau told reporters the bombing was “horrific and absolutely unacceptable.”

Trudeau’s words on Monday may have spoken to the conflicted views of the Canadian public — conflicted views that would soon be on display.

A crack in the political consensus

“Indeed, Israel does have the right to defend itself in accordance with international law, and it has the right to respond, just as Canadians would respond,” Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said, rising after Trudeau in the House of Commons. He invoked the American government’s killing of Osama bin Laden as a point of comparison.

But Poilievre also said that “every innocent human life, Palestinian, Israeli, Jewish, Muslim, Christian or otherwise, is of equal, precious value” and that “all of us must do everything in our power to preserve this precious life and minimize the suffering of innocent civilians.” He expressed his party’s support for “safe zones for civilians in Gaza” and a “humanitarian corridor for food, water and medical supplies.”

Speaking during a take-note debate on Monday evening, NDP foreign affairs critic Heather McPherson said that “Israel has every right to eradicate Hamas.” But where the other parties are so far adamant only about the need to act in accordance with international law, the NDP has seen enough already to conclude that international law is being violated in Gaza.

“It is a siege with no water, no electricity and no food,” McPherson told the House while delivering the NDP’s response to the prime minister on Monday afternoon. “Entire communities have been destroyed. Entire families have been wiped out.”

The evacuation order issued by Israel to Palestinians in northern Gaza amounted to an “illegal” and “forcible” transfer of a million people, McPherson said. She described what was happening in the Gaza Strip as “collective punishment.” She asked whether Canadian officials had made it clear to their Israeli counterparts that these “clear violations of law” were “unacceptable.”

In his remarks to the House on Monday night, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh made his party’s position clear. “Canada must call for a ceasefire to end the killing of innocent civilians in Gaza immediately,” he said.

This is the first major crack in the Canadian political consensus on Israel’s response to the Hamas attacks of October 7. It almost certainly won’t be the last.

The logic of a ceasefire at this moment is at least debatable. What would happen next? How would Hamas be eradicated? But the New Democrats are not alone in calling for one. Liberal MPs Yasir Naqvi and Iqra Khalid have also advocated for a ceasefire. Liberal MP Arielle Kayabaga has criticized Israel’s evacuation order.

Canadian leaders are not alone in their concerns.

The example and lesson of 9/11

When U.S. President Joe Biden spoke from the White House last Tuesday, he said he had just told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “if the United States experienced what Israel is experiencing, our response would be swift, decisive, and overwhelming.” But he said they also discussed “how democracies like Israel and the United States are stronger and more secure when we act according to the rule of law.”

“Terrorists purposefully target civilians, kill them,” Biden said. “We uphold the laws of war. It matters. There’s a difference.”

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken put it most succinctly this weekend: “The way that Israel does this matters.”

American politicians should understand that well. As the New York Times editorial board suggested, American leaders may have important lessons to impart.

In the wake of Hamas’s attack, as Israelis and outside commentators groped for words to convey the enormity of the tragedy, comparisons were drawn to the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001.

But the example of 9/11 is also a reminder of all the ways a country can undermine itself in responding to a national trauma — from the officially authorized use of torture and rendition to the calamitous invasion of Iraq.

The world may have stood in solidarity with the United States after Sept. 11, but countries were under no obligation to support everything the American government did in response to that attack — and what the American government did in the name of the “war on terror” raised very real questions for other leaders. A previous generation of Canadian leaders learned that first-hand.

Canada supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but Jean Chretien’s decision to stay out of the Iraq war is one of the most important decisions in the history of Canadian foreign policy. Stephen Harper was trailed for years by his public support for that war. Jack Layton was roundly mocked for suggesting in 2006 that Canada and other countries pursue a negotiated solution with the Taliban — however premature, the former NDP leader was at least not wrong about how that war would end.

As late as 2017, Canada was still wrestling with the ramifications of the so-called “war on terror,” with the federal government paying out $10.5 million in compensation to Omar Khadr for Canada having been complicit in his torture by the United States.

No historical comparison is perfect. But recent experience makes the case both for standing firmly by an ally in its hour of need and for standing solidly by one’s principles and values.

And if those two things ever come into conflict, political leaders must make difficult, even brave, decisions.

 

Source link