On Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke by phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On Tuesday, he spoke by phone with Israeli “alternate” Prime Minister Benny Gantz.
Israel has two prime ministers who loathe each other because that arrangement was the only way to form a halfway-functioning government in a polarized country that staged three elections in 12 months without producing a clear result.
The two PMs have agreed not so much to share power as to operate two parallel administrations at the same time. Many Israeli political observers expect the two men to continue their in-fighting on a different plane.
But there is one long-term project of Netanyahu’s that Gantz has promised not to oppose after July 1: the formal annexation by Israel of part of the West Bank, occupied by Israel since 1967 but never recognized as part of Israel by any government.
Trudeau has had separate conversations with both Israeli PMs. But if the Canadian government’s anodyne readouts of the calls are accurate, he had exactly the same conversation with both men.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz, centrist Blue and White leader and Netanyahu’s partner in his new unity government, wear face masks as they talk during a swearing-in ceremony for the new government at the Knesset in Jerusalem on May 17, 2020. (Adina Valman/Knesset Spokesperson’s Office via Reuters)
Canada won’t recognize the annexation
The words “annexation”, “West Bank” and “occupied territories” do not appear anywhere in the readouts. Although government officials who spoke to CBC News pointed to a passing reference to the “two-state solution”, they were unable to say that the prime minister had warned his Israeli counterpart not to proceed with the annexation.
Two officials did tell CBC News there is no chance that Canada will recognize the annexation.
Global Affairs spokesman Adam Austen told CBC News that “Canada is very concerned that Israel moving forward with unilateral annexation would be damaging to peace negotiations and contrary to international law. This could lead to further insecurity for Israelis and Palestinians at a critical time for peace and stability in the region.”
But the Trudeau government, which has largely continued the UN voting pattern of the Harper government rather than those of the Chrétien and Martin governments, does not appear keen on challenging Israel.
In fact, the readout says Canada is seeking closer ties: “Prime Minister Trudeau expressed Canada’s continued support for Israel as a friend and ally, and the two leaders discussed ways to continue strengthening their bilateral relationship …”
No support for annexation in Ottawa
No major Canadian federal party appears to support recognition of annexation. Conservative foreign affairs critic Leona Alleslev told CBC News that “Conservatives continue to believe in the two-state solution, as part of a negotiated settlement to this conflict, as well as the right of Israel to defend itself and secure its borders.”
The NDP’s Jack Harris pointed out that “other nations, including the U.K., Norway, Ireland and France, have made strong declarations” against annexation.
“Now that the incoming government of Israel has committed to a plan to annex lands in the occupied territories, Canada must speak out and condemn such action,” he said in a statement. “It would be a clear violation of international law and the Geneva Convention to which Canada is party.”
The Green Party caucus sent a letter to Trudeau earlier this month asking him to apply the same standards to Israel’s proposed annexation that his government applied to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.
“The attempt by the Netanyahu government to take this action while the world is busy dealing with an unprecedented global public health crisis is reprehensible,” said the letter.
Hawks against hawks
The annexation plan has split opinion in Israel. The Israeli peace camp rejects it as the last nail in the coffin of the Oslo Accords, but the plan is also opposed by a large part of Israel’s hawkish security establishment.
A group of former Israel Defence Forces generals recently warned that “unilateral annexation has the potential to ignite a serious conflagration” and “any partial annexation is likely to set in motion a chain reaction over which Israel will have no control.”
But the proposal is popular with the Trump administration, which has encouraged Netanyahu to move forward. In fact the annexation map is being drawn up by a joint U.S.-Israeli “mapping team” that includes U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, his adviser Aryeh Lightstone and C. Scott Leith, a senior adviser on the U.S. National Security Council.
Palestinian demonstrators run away from tear gas fired by Israeli forces during a protest against Israeli settlements and U.S. President Donald Trump’s Mideast initiative in the West Bank village of Beita on Feb. 28, 2020. (Majdi Mohammed/The Associated Press)
Israel’s supporters unconvinced
Some Israeli observers have argued President Trump, rather than PM Netanyahu, is driving the annexation schedule in order to have something to show his evangelical supporters in time for the presidential election in November.
But the move may be more popular with American evangelicals than with American Jews.
“We cannot overstate the long-term damage such a move would have on the U.S.-Israel alliance,” Mark Mellman, a longtime strategist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), warned in letters sent to both of Israel’s new prime ministers.
‘No fuss being made’
The doubts over the wisdom of annexation being felt in Israel and the U.S. may be mirrored in the pro-Israel community in Canada, which hasn’t greeted the proposal with any real enthusiasm. CBC News asked the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs for its take on the issue, but it declined to comment.
From the other side of the debate, though, the group Independent Jewish Voices, which opposes the occupation of the West Bank, called the plan “a test to countries like Canada which claim to stand for a rules-based international order, but in reality only do so selectively, whenever it is politically expedient.”
IJV’s Corey Balsam said merely withholding recognition isn’t a good enough response from a government that claims to be a guardian of international law.
“If there’s no fuss being made, then Israel will continue annexing land,” he told CBC News. “At this point, what Israel requires is punitive measures where it’s being deterred. That’s where the conversation is globally, especially in Europe, where allies like Ireland and France are exploring avenues to deter Israel. Not just staying silent and refusing to recognize annexation.”
Free trade with annexed territory?
Balsam notes that Canada imports dates from Jewish settlements in the Jordan Valley that are on the list of lands to be annexed. “The government may say that they won’t recognize annexation, but will they modify the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA) to exclude those territories from privileged trade status?” he asked. “I highly doubt that”.
CBC News asked officials in Global Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Office about that issue but was told that they had no comment on the matter.
Canada currently allows products from illegal West Bank settlements to enter the country duty-free under CIFTA, arguing that Israel and the West Bank are part of a customs union agreed to mutually by Israel and the Palestinian Authority. That agreement would no longer exist following annexation.
A farmer harvests wheat near the West Bank city of Jenin on April 24, 2014. (Mohammed Ballas/The Associated Press)
Balsam criticized the statement issued after Trudeau’s call to Netanyahu for its talk of “increasing ties, improving relations, adding to trade and collaboration.”
“You’d think that if Canada’s trying to send a strong message that they’re not happy with the direction Israel is going, they would perhaps suggest that type of collaboration is based upon Israel not annexing territory,” he said.
Double standard
Michael Lynk, the UN’s Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Territories (who also teaches law at the University of Western Ontario), said the Trudeau government’s mild reaction to Israeli annexation plans stand in stark contrast to its response to Russia’s unilateral annexation of Crimea in 2014.
That provoked a flood of retaliatory measures that have only escalated since.
When she was Canada’s foreign affairs minister, Chrystia Freeland repeatedly spoke about the need to defend what she has called “the vital international norm” established after the Second World War that no country should be allowed to alter its borders by force.
“Today’s sanctions demonstrate that Canada and the international community are ready to impose costs on Russia when it ignores international law and the rules-based international order,” she said last year on the fifth anniversary of the Crimean annexation, as she announced that Canada had increased the number of Russian individuals and organizations facing sanctions for that act to more than 400.
A flag bearing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s face waves over a Moscow crowd during the Vesna (Spring) festival commemorating the annexation of Crimea on March 18, 2017. (Ivan Sekretarev/Associated Press)
Lynk said the Trudeau government appears to be much less interested in upholding international law and the rules-based system when it comes to Israel.
“Russia was expelled from the G8. There was an import and export ban imposed on the goods manufactured in Crimea,” he said. “There were a range of sanctions against Russia and individual asset freezes and travel bans were imposed on Russia as well.
“There is no daylight between the Russian annexation of Crimea, and the Israeli annexation of any of the territory it conquered in 1967. For Canada to remain silent … tells me that Canada is applying different standards to situations that are essentially the same.
“It’s surprising to me that Canada has lost its voice on this, given its commitment to a rules-based international order.”
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
CALGARY – Sam Edney and Jesse Lumsden sat on a bench on Parliament Hill during an athlete celebration after the 2014 Winter Olympic Games.
Having just represented Canada in their sliding sports — Lumsden in bobsled and Edney in luge — the two men pondered their futures together.
“There was actually one moment about, are we going to keep going? Talking about, what are each of us going to do? What’s the next four years look like?” Edney recalled a decade later.
“I do remember talking about that now. That was a big moment,” Lumsden said.
As the two men were sounding boards for each other as athletes, they are again as high-performance directors of their respective sliding sports.
Edney, an Olympic relay silver medallist in 2018 and the first Canadian man to win a World Cup gold medal, became Luge Canada’s HPD upon his retirement the following year.
Lumsden, a world and World Cup bobsled champion who raced his third Olympic Games in 2018, leaned on his sliding compatriot when he returned from five years of working in the financial sector to become HPD at Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton in July.
“The first person I called when BCS reached out to me about the role that I’m in now is Sam,” Lumsden said recently at Calgary’s WinSport, where they spent much of their competitive careers and now have offices.
“It’s been four months. I was squatting in the luge offices for the first two months beside him.
“We had all these ideas about we’re going to have weekly coffees and workouts Tuesday and Thursday and in the four months now, we’ve had two coffees and zero workouts.”
Canada has won at least one sliding-sport Olympic medal in each of the last five Winter Games, but Edney and Lumsden face a challenge as team leaders that they didn’t as athletes.
WinSport’s sliding track, built for the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary and where Edney and Lumsden did hundreds of runs as athletes, has been closed since 2019 needing a $25-million renovation.
There is no sign that will happen. WinSport took the $10 million the provincial government offered for the sliding track and put the money toward a renovation of the Frank King Lodge used by recreational skiers and snowboarders.
Canada’s only other sliding track in the resort town of Whistler, B.C., has a fraction of Calgary’s population from which to recruit and develop athletes.
“The comparison is if you took half the ice rinks away in the country, hockey and figure skating would be disarray,” Edney said.
“It just changes the dynamic of the sports completely, in terms of we’re now scrambling to find ways to bring people to a location that’s not as easy to get to, or to live out of, or to train out of full time.
“We’re realizing how good we had it when Calgary’s (track) was here. It’s not going to be the end of us, but it’s definitely made it more difficult.”
Lumsden, a former CFL running back as well as an Olympian, returned to a national sport organization still recovering from internal upheaval that included the athlete-led ouster of the former president and CEO after the 2022 Winter Olympics, and Olympic champion pilot Kaillie Humphries suing the organization for her release to compete for the U.S. in 2019.
“NSOs like Luge Canada and Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton, they’re startups,” Lumsden said. “You have to think like a startup, operate like a startup, job stack, do more with less, especially in the current environment.
“I felt it was the right time for me to take my sporting experience and the skill set that I learned at Neo Financial and working with some of the most talented people in Canada and try to inject that into an NSO that is in a state of distress right now, and try to work with the great staff we have and the athletes we have to start to turn this thing around.”
Edney, 40, and Lumsden, 42, take comfort in each other holding the same roles in their sports.
“It goes both ways. I couldn’t have been more excited about who they hired,” Edney said. “When Jesse was coming in, I knew that we were going to be able to collaborate and work together and get things happening for our sports.”
Added Lumsden: “We’ve been friends for a long time, so I knew how he was going to do in his role and before taking the role, having the conversation with him, I felt a lot of comfort.
“I asked ‘are you going to be around for a long time?’ He said ‘yeah, I’m not going anywhere.’ I said ‘OK, good.'”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 4, 2024.
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – Canada’s Gabriela Dabrowski and New Zealand’s Erin Routliffe remain undefeated in women’s doubles at the WTA Finals.
The 2023 U.S. Open champions, seeded second at the event, secured a 1-6, 7-6 (1), (11-9) super-tiebreak win over fourth-seeded Italians Sara Errani and Jasmine Paolini in round-robin play on Tuesday.
The season-ending tournament features the WTA Tour’s top eight women’s doubles teams.
Dabrowski and Routliffe lost the first set in 22 minutes but levelled the match by breaking Errani’s serve three times in the second, including at 6-5. They clinched victory with Routliffe saving a match point on her serve and Dabrowski ending Errani’s final serve-and-volley attempt.
Dabrowski and Routliffe will next face fifth-seeded Americans Caroline Dolehide and Desirae Krawczyk on Thursday, where a win would secure a spot in the semifinals.
The final is scheduled for Saturday.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published on Nov. 5, 2024.
