C08(b) - Canada, the Palestinians and the Middle East Peace Process
Date: Jun 3 | Time: 08:45am to 10:15am | Location:
Chair/Président/Présidente : Emily Wils (University of Ottawa)
Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Abigail Bakan (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education)
Session Abstract: This panel explores how the contentious Canadian political divide on Israel/Palestine has affected Canada’s foreign policy toward the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP). Canada has been one of the largest Palestinian aid providers, spending more than $CAD 1 billion between the 1996/97 and 2016/17 financial years. Canada has played a key role in UN resolutions concerning Palestinian rights and self-determination. Canada was once a leader on some of the most sensitive political files in the MEPP, like the refugee file, the Track II ‘Ottawa’ process and a search for political solutions for Jerusalem. Canada could contribute to these because its Middle East policy was at first built around finding a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as recommended in a 1980 report by former Conservative Party leader Robert Stanfield. This approach was clearly rejected in the mid-2000s by the Harper Conservative government and maintained by the Trudeau Liberal government. The newer approach can be defined as partisan in favour of Israel and parochial towards the Palestinians. The first paper explores how that shift took place and what the impact has been on Canada, the Palestinians and the MEPP. The second paper considers what that partisanship has meant in Canada’s work with the UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA). The third paper describes how Canada’s partisan approach to humanitarian aid delivery in Gaza has reinforced violence there. The final paper assesses Canadian policy on forced displacement in Palestine/Israel based on its voting record in the UN General Assembly, and its implications.
The Stanfield Report and Canada's Middle East Policy 40 years Later: Jeremy Wildeman (University of Bath)
Abstract: This paper looks at the policy recommendations in the 1980 ‘Stanfield Report’. It was produced by one-time Conservative Party leader Robert Stanfield (1967-76) following his 1979 appointment as ‘Special Representative of the Government of Canada and Ambassador-at-Large’ to study Canada's relationships with the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. This appointment was made in response to a furious reaction by Arab states to then Prime Minister Joe Clark’s 1979 electoral platform, which pledged to move the Canadian Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Ultimately, Stanfield produced a report which focused on Israel and the Palestinians. There he said each side in the broader Middle East conflict – Israeli and Arab – would want Canada's full and unqualified support, neither position of which he felt Canada should fully back, saying neither was entirely right. He reiterated Canada's friendship with Israel, but also expressed a growing concern by Canadians for the lot of the Palestinians. His report clearly presented their situation as sitting at the centre of peace-making in, and good relations with the broader Middle East. It is a report that had a significant impact on Canadian Middle East policy in the 1980s up to the mid-2000s, before being abandoned when Canada shifted to a more partisan stance in favour of Israel. Now nearly forgotten after successive Harper and Trudeau governments took a different foreign policy approach, this essay explores the impact of that shift as compared to the previous policy, and its impact on Canada, the Palestinians and MEPP.
Canada, the Palestinian Refugees and UNRWA: Randa Farah (Western University), Peige Desjarlais (York University)
Abstract: Canada has been actively engaged on the Palestinian issue, especially with refugees and with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) since the Palestinian Nakba in 1948. Many scholars and political pundits claim that this involvement has been characterised by ‘neutrality’, due to Canada’s reputation as an advocate of mediation, reconciliation and peace. Drawing on historical and scholarly research alongside material from anthropological fieldwork in Palestinian refugee camps, the chapter argues that Canada’s humanitarianism is couched in ‘neutrality’ but never neutral, and the government’s position has not moved far beyond that of the US-Israeli position toward Palestinian refugees and UNRWA advocating for resettlement and integration, and opposing the refugees’ right of return. Within this Canadian framework to Palestinian refugees, UNRWA is regarded as an institution that contains and manages an otherwise explosive situation, and thus needs to be constantly monitored and ‘depoliticised’.
Canada’s Humanitarian Approach in Gaza: Redefining the Legitimacy Terrain and the Role of the Occupying Power: Ruby Dagher (University of Ottawa)
Abstract: Canada’s humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza was redefined following the 2006 Hamas election. The decision to focus solely on humanitarian assistance was informed by Canada’s desire to limit Hamas’ power, any possibility of funding Hamas and to send a message regarding Canada’s discontentment with the legitimacy Palestinian’s accorded Hamas. However, Canada’s approach led to an increase in Hamas’ legitimacy, as it takes care of Palestinians’ needs controlling donor assistance and sneaking in goods from Egypt. Moreover, Canada’s approach played into Hamas’ rhetoric, which attempts to benefit from the perception of Western favouritism of Israel. Canada’s approach also influenced Israel’s in Gaza. By replacing Israel’s duty under international law to ensure minimum public health standards, and provide food and medical care, Canada and other donors offered Israel two important exemptions: to avoid spending on Palestinians, and avoid being officially regarded as the occupier and any meaningful debate on its role.
Canada's Foreign Policy on Forced Displacement Arising from the Struggle Over Palestine/Israel: Examining Canada's UNGA Voting Record: Terry Rempel (University of Exeter)
Abstract: The paper examines Canadian policy on forced displacement in Palestine/Israel through Canada's voting record in the United Nations General Assembly. It begins with a brief discussion of forced displacement since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war before turning to a detailed examination of Canada's voting record on resolutions relating to Palestinian refugees and other displaced persons. Drawing upon the previous discussion, the paper's final section explores what, if anything, Canada's voting record reveals about forced displacement in Palestine/Israel, that is to say, how have Canadian policymakers conceptualized forced displacement; the degree to which Canada's voting record on Palestinian refugees and displaced persons reflects stated interests and values; and, finally, the implications of the above findings for prevention, protection and crafting durable solutions. While not prescriptive, the paper aims to provoke new thinking on Canadian foreign policy relating to forced displacement in Palestine/Israel.