The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2
Canada
Dear Stephen,
How do you reconcile Canada’s staunch and rigid support
towards the Israeli state with that country’s universally illegal settlements
programme?
Whoa there, Stephen – hold on! Don’t tear up my letter just yet! Look, I’m sure you think that anyone who
poses such a (logical and pertinent) question to you doesn’t deserve to be
answered. Everything you’ve said and
done on the Palestine portfolio indicates as much. By even breathing such (logical and
pertinent) words I must be a radical, socialist, terrorist-loving, brainwashed,
red-flagged pariah of good sense, right? But wait!
I haven’t yet used any of the following (logical and pertinent) words in
association with Israel: apartheid, racism, belligerence, ethnic cleansing, genocide,
human rights, and United Nations. So can
you bear with me?
Thanks.
Listen, I think I get why you as a pragmatist support the
present government of Israel. There are
two possible main reasons. First, you’re
following the electorate who you judge, perhaps correctly, to be mostly
indifferent to Palestine and the Middle East; and thus, by default, are more
comfortable on Israel’s side. And for
the second reason, I’ll quote you: “Israel is the one strong stable democratic
western ally that we have in” the Middle East.
And, if you aren’t a pragmatist?
Well, there’s corruption (maybe Israeli proxies help fund your election
campaigns), there’s personal preference (maybe you just really like the
country’s angular shape on a map without a West Bank aberration), and there’s
even religion (maybe you think the Israeli Jews are the Chosen 144,000 who will
play a revelatory part in the coming Apocalypse; or maybe you just don’t like
Muslims).
I mention the non-pragmatic stuff just to show I’m not
ignorant. But I’ll assume you’re the
cold, calculating political wizard everyone thinks you are, and that it’s one
or both of the first two. Now, in and of
themselves, those are pretty good reasons, Stephen. So I get it.
You don’t have to explain it.
What you need to explain, though – besides merely stating that more
Israeli settlements are “not helpful” to the peace process – is how you can
countenance such blatant, illegal and profoundly avaricious aggression, as the
West Bank settlements are and have always been, within your grand,
high-principled, earth-shattering Canada-Israel Democratic Alliance.
Because, here are the problems. The Canadian public may indeed be indifferent
to Israel, Palestine and the settlements.
When they see the simply-presented news (rocket attacks and bus bombings
by one side, nice new homes built by the other), they might think it obvious
which way to sway. But what if you told
them what the new homes are all about, where they’re being built, who they’re
kicking out, what they’re doing to those they kick out, how these actions are designed
as political tools, and what long-term effect these new homes will have? What if you showed them that map of the West Bank,
where Palestinian land ownership has gone since 1968 from a total shade of
colour, to perforated, to split, to a few scattered blots? I think, and I’m tempted to say that you’d
agree with me, that if Canadians really cared, and really knew what was happening
in Palestine, they’d at the very least be asking the same question as me.
And, to the argument that Israel is all the west has
got? Firstly, to say that a
racially-motivated, religiously-constituted state which does not recognize a
huge portion of its inhabitants, walls off conquered territory which it refuses
to allow real or nominal independence whilst embarking on a programme of
veritable annexation and ethnic cleansing, is a democracy is a little pessimistic on the term, don’t you think? I mean, was the slave-owning United States a
democracy prior to 1865? Maybe at the
time, but we’d certainly laugh at such a nation calling itself democratic
today. As many laughed, and cringed, at
apartheid South Africa. Oh, and speaking
of South Africa, do you remember what stubborn world leaders said about that
country through the 60s, 70s and 80s?
Yep, that’s right: it was “the one strong stable democratic western ally
that we have” in sub-Saharan Africa. Woops!
There’s very little mystery here, so your chance to maneuver
around my question in the name of realpolitik
is slim. The Israeli government
barely attempts to conceal its rationale for the newer settlements: to “punish”
the Palestinians for their recent statehood bid; and, in the run-up to the
coming peace talks in Washington, DC, to grab more bargaining chips which they
can return in exchange for more permanent concessions. Even if we put the older settlements (which
the present Israelis, especially with your support, won’t give up any time
soon) and the long-term goal of the whole programme aside (many Israeli
politicians are not afraid of talking about exterminating Palestine as a nation
and a people, to make lebensraum for
Israel), we’re still left with some pretty awful behaviour. I mean, seriously Stephen, what if the US
started to “punish” illegal immigrants?
What if Britain was forced to make a new peace agreement in Northern
Ireland, but in advance of the actual peace talks, they started kicking
Republicans out of their homes and turning the land over to Unionists, for no
reason other than to gain bargaining chips?
I guess you’d say that those actions “weren’t helpful”. The correct answer would be – and is – that those
actions are “wrong”.
And please, let me say it again, in case the UN, the Geneva
Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, unanimously accepted international
law, and official Canadian foreign policy itself (which does not recognize – cannot legitimately recognize – Israel’s
claims, despite Mr. Baird’s coffee break), are all too communist and
terror-loving to have the right to remind you: Israel’s actions are illegal.
So how about it? How
do you reconcile Canada’s unquestioning support for Israel with that country’s
criminal behaviour?
To save you the sweat, try not to respond with the
following:
1) What about those who support the illegal, violent actions of the Israel’s opponents?
Why not? Because no non-blacklisted nation supports these assholes or what they do.
2) What about Israel’s right to defend itself?
Why not? Because this has nothing to do with the settlements.
3) What about the those who refuse to recognise Israel’s right to exist?
Why not? Because this has nothing to do with the settlements.
4) If Canada softened its stance towards Israel, it would be caving into the demands of oil-rich Arab powers, and weakening in the face of terrorism.
Why not? Because this has nothing to do with the settlements. Just because you’re oh-so-brave, doesn’t mean your friends are justified to commit crimes.
5) What about Canada being a maverick in the UN, one of only nine votes against Palestinian membership?
Why not? Because there’s a reason everyone else voted for it, or abstained. And, because this has nothing to do with the settlements.
6) It was insensitive for me to use the word lebensraum in reference to the settlements.
Why not? Because it is insenstive for the Israelis to use Palestinian land for lebensraum.
7) The United States was a democracy before 1865.
Why not? Right, so should Palestinians get more or less than 2/5 of a vote? That is, if they can vote at all? Apply to “democratic” ancient Greece, “democratic” nations before women's’ suffrage, and “democratic” South Africa while Nelson Mandela was on Robben Island.
8) Apartheid South Africa and Israel should not be compared.
Why not? Because they should. Ask Rob Anders, MP.
Hey Stephen, did you see how I got through that whole letter
without being too radical? Isn’t that
great? I’m pretty proud of myself.
Anyway, I hope that means you took the time to read. I look forward to your answer.
Yours moderately,
QM
