This week, John Ivison was joined by Bob Rae, Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations in New York.
Ivison noted that Canada has joined the U.S. and a host of other countries including Japan and Saudi Arabia in calling for a 21 day ceasefire following the death of Hezbollah leader, Nassan Nasrallah.
He asked if there was any room for diplomacy at the moment, especially given Iran’s missile attacks on Israel.
“I think the challenge is, to try to figure out how to reduce the prospect of a deeper, wider war. And I think the reason for the 21-day ceasefire is in order to get all of the challenges on the table very clearly and see what further progress we can make without any further loss of life,” Rae replied.
Ivison said the ceasefire calls for a diplomatic settlement, consistent with UN Security Council 1701, which ended the hostilities in 2006 and created a demilitarized zone between the Lebanon-Israel border and the Litani River, but which was never respected by Hezbollah. “Can Israel be blamed for not heeding a call based on that resolution?” he asked.
“You’re quite right, Hezbollah has hugely populated that area, not only with people, but also with underground tunnels, with all the other activities that we associate with them, and with rocket launching facilities, and so on. So I don’t think anybody thinks that the 21-day ceasefire line, if you like, is going to be the line that will ultimately be acceptable to Israel. But we do need to figure out how to get the parties to a table and to begin to get serious efforts at mediation underway,” Rae said.
“A three-week peace ceasefire is really an effort to do that. That’s why I think it’s been seen as an important objective to just give us some time to allow for some kind of a discussion to happen. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. But we do need to do something to try to defuse the existing current potential for a wider war, which would include Papa Bear, Iran.”
Ivison noted a statement made in New York this week by Jordanian Foreign Minister, Emma Safadi, who said that the 57 Islamic countries that make up the Organization of Islamic Cooperation were willing to guarantee the security of Israel, if Israel pulled out of Gaza and allowed the emergence of a Palestinian state along June 4th, 1967 lines, which was before the Six-Day War and before Israel conquered Gaza, West Bank and the Golan Heights.
Rae said he didn’t know whether the Israelis would accept that as the basis of a negotiation but that negotiations have historically reflected the reality on the ground.
“Now we have to deal with a situation in which the Israeli parliament has voted against two states. The Israeli government has made it clear that they’re not interested in a two-state approach so far, which complicates how we can create a glimmer of light. But I think what’s significant about the Jordanian proposal is that it is a clear recognition by the OIC of the security interests that Israel has and of the need for a realistic proposal that has to deal with the depth of those security interests,” he said.
He noted that in his speech to the General Assembly, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas made no reference to Israel’s deep-seated security concerns. “(But) I think any proposal which talks about two states and talks about security guarantees is a positive thing. Whether it is sufficient to bring Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu away from his position is something else….We’ve got to keep trying, finding ways in which we can reduce the level of tension and reduce the amount of conflict and get us to a better place, which is what Canada is trying to do.”
Ivison brought up Canada’s position on Palestinian statehood, which is that Canada will recognize it in due course, not necessarily in the final days of a negotiation. “Are we trying to jolt Israel into responding?” he asked.
“No, we’re not trying to jolt Israel into responding,” said Rae. “We’re trying to find a way for us to make progress in a circumstance which is very difficult. It’s been complicated by the negotiations between Fatah and Hamas. And the agreement, or whatever it was, we’re not quite sure what exactly it means, the agreement that was negotiated in Beijing, in which both Fatah and Hamas signed. The problem that that document poses for us is that we’ve been very clear that Hamas (is a terror organization)…That makes it very difficult for governments not only like Canada but other governments like the U.K., the French and others who have not bilaterally recognized the Palestinian state.
“We are looking at the steps that we need to take and how we would get to a point where we felt this was a realistic and helpful and constructive step to take in terms of where we stand in the current situation…We do not support a direct Israeli role in Gaza. And again, Minister Joly has made that very clear. We don’t support a Hamas role in Gaza either. We’ve made that very clear. So we’re doing what we can to get to the place where we think we need to be.”
Rae said making a decision is a process. “It’s not something you wake up one day and say, ‘well, here we are’.”
Ivison pointed out that such a move would be a break with Canada’s long-standing position and a break with allies like the United States. He asked if the U.S. has expressed any reservations about Canada’s emerging position on statehood?
“Not that I’m aware of. Nothing has been raised with me here at the UN,” said Rae.
Ivison asked if there has been a fundamental shift in Canada’s position at the UN, given it has in recent months voted for ceasefires and abstained on votes that it might previously have opposed.
“I don’t think so,” said Rae. “We don’t feel that our position has changed. We sometimes feel the position of others has changed…We need to recognize that the ground is shifting rapidly. We continue to support Israel’s right to security. We have a strong diplomatic and economic social relationship with Israel. But we’re now at a point where we need to understand how dangerous the current situation is. That means that Israel has to take its own decisions about how it proceeds to protect its security, which we fully understand.
“But we also continue to say to them, ‘tell us what the path is to getting to a position of real security’…I think you have to say, ‘okay, let’s see how that can be done, how can Canada play, (while) maintaining our strong relationship with Israel…We’re not going to go back on that but we do have to move forward and say, ‘how can we support the creation of a Palestinian state’. It is a process. It’s not something that is instantly done.”
Ivison said that this more nuanced position, which includes banning arms exports to Israel, is leading politicians in Israel and Washington to say that Canada is an unreliable ally.
Rae said that is not a fair characterization. “But I don’t think you can say you support a ceasefire and then say, ‘but until the ceasefire happens, we’re just gonna continue to send whatever to whoever’. We have to say ‘no, we’re gonna make sure that we will support Israel’s defensive needs, but we will limit other particular kinds of exports’. It was a difficult decision for the government, but that’s the decision the government made. (But) I don’t see it’s a sign of unreliability.”
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.