Who speaks for Canada?

Editorial

In the last few months, in these Bulletin editorials, we have called on readers not to jump to conclusions about someone's loyalty to Israel. It should be possible, we have said, for well-intentioned Zionists to criticize aspects of Israeli government policy without being branded with the all-too-easy accusation of being "anti-Israel."

So readers might think that we would not find fault with what happened at the Canada-Israel Committee meeting in Ottawa last week. Canada's new foreign affairs minister, Bill Graham, criticized Israel, saying that his strong words are the sort that could be shared only between good friends.

This is a heartwarming concept: that Canada and Israel are such close allies that Graham is free to harshly attack Israel with impunity. The problem is, Canada has not proven itself to be such a good friend recently. At a time when Israel has been under constant denunciation, Canada's support has been far from unequivocal.

In the last several years, Canada has repeatedly sided with United Nations motions attacking the Jewish state. Graham's implication that he should be free to lambaste Israel is based on a very false premise.

A foreign affairs minister is always free to express dismay with another country's policy, we suppose, but let's not pretend we're doing it out of unconditional love. This is not a family intervention.

When Graham said that "Innocent civilian casualties, for example, no matter what their background or religion, are not justifiable and ultimately compromise Israel's image as a vital and compassionate nation...." he essentially ignored the realities of a Jewish state defending itself against a band of well-organized terrorists supported by Arab nations who, together, would like to see the end of Israel. It was one of those remarkably naive statements we have heard repeated recently from people in the peaceful comfort of western nations tsk-tsking the loss of life in a part of the world they can't even begin to comprehend.

What was most galling, however, was the contrast between Graham's speech and that of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, several hours later, before the same audience. The National Post dubbed the performance a "good cop, bad cop" routine.

The prime minister, in his most likable, aw-shucks mode was almost unambiguous in his moral support for Israel.

Graham, perhaps trying to counter suspicions that he is a lightweight who was recently snapped off the backbenches and handed this country's senior external policy position, lectured Israel as if he was a seasoned, tough old hand at this sort of anti-diplomacy.

So, someone should ask, who speaks for this government on foreign policy? Good cop, bad cop is fine for policing. It is no way to run a country. Israelis - but even more importantly, Canadians - deserve to know what this country's foreign policy is toward Israel. When the foreign affairs minister gives one perspective and the prime minister gives a starkly different view, it is worth pondering who speaks for Canada. In fact, according to our parliamentary tradition, when a cabinet minister has a fundamental policy disagreement with the prime minister, it is his duty to resign.

Perhaps there is another issue at play. The various machinations within the Liberal government over who might succeed Chrétien as party leader have spilled out into open warfare in recent weeks. Is it possible that Chrétien no longer has the sway in his own government to set policy direction, or that he is so preoccupied with whether he will be betrayed by his erstwhile allies that he is letting them all go off on whatever direction they choose?

Whatever the case, the two speeches before the Canada-Israel Committee suggest that Canada doesn't really know what its policy is toward Israel. More frightening, perhaps, for Canadians should be the fact that we're not really sure who speaks for this country in the international realm.

^TOP