Green Party of Canada ratifies motion to increase pressure on Israel


The Green Party of Canada (GPC) has announced that a motion adopted in convention last December to increase pressure on Israel for its violations of international law has been ratified by an on-line vote conducted among its general membership. It now stands as GPC policy. Read more…

The Green Party of Canada’s long, and sometimes acrimonious, debate over its Israel/Palestine policy has come to a conclusion. By an overwhelming 90% vote, its general membership has approved a policy aimed at increasing pressure on Israel for its continued violation of international law and Palestinian human rights.

The final result was announced by the Green Party in the form of a letter from outside consulting firm Simply Voting, which audited the count.

The GPC has struggled with its Israel/Palestine policy for over 6 months. An initial motion, calling for the party to support the international movement to boycott Israel (called BDS Movement for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) over its violation of human rights and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, was submitted to the Party’s regular convention in August 2016. Leading up to the convention, the motion had been severely criticized by Israel lobby groups who labelled it “anti-Semitic”. Their bitter attack on the Green Party and on its leader Elizabeth May, contributed to May’s disavowal of the motion, which she opposed at the convention.

Nonetheless, to the dismay of GPC leadership, the motion passed handily in convention. A shaken Elizabeth May even threatened to resign. In order to avoid a disaster, the party quickly decided to hold a special convention 5 months later to review the decision.


A consensus resolution on Israel/Palestine, worked out by Dimitri Lascaris (l) and Elizabeth May, was overwhelmingly adopted

In the preparation for the special convention, a consensus resolution was worked out between May’s group and Dimitri Lascaris the de facto leader of those seeking a stronger GPC statement on Palestinian human rights.

The consensus resolution avoided any explicit link to the contentious BDS movement, but endorsed its objectives and supported the idea of bringing pressure on Israel through a boycott of consumer products. The new resolution actually went further than the August motion because it not only called for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, but also called for equality for the 1.5 million Palestinian citizens of Israel and supported the right of return for the over 5 million Palestinian refugees. It also urges the International Criminal Court to investigate alleged Israeli war crimes.

The consensus resolution passed in the special convention by a very large margin.

According to party rules, this new resolution had to be submitted to an on-line “ratification vote” by all GPC members before becoming party policy. That vote has now been completed and the motion is now official GPC policy.

What now?

Now that the dust has settled, what will the GPC do? It now has a strong policy supporting human rights for Palestinians. But it remains that only 17% of its members participated in the on-line ratification process for all the resolutions arising from the December meeting, so it is probably fair to conclude that many GPC members are still not very aware of, or very concerned about, the Israel/Palestine issue. But the new resolution opens the door for those who want to do more education among GPC members on the issue.

One possibility would be to organize an official GPC trip to visit Israel/Palestine and report back to the membership. Environmental issues are very high on the political agenda in Israel/Palestine, with water at the top of the list.A representative delegation of GPC officials from national or provincial executive bodies could spend a week or ten days visiting Israel, the West Bank and even Gaza.  It could be interesting to meet with Israeli and Palestinian environmental organizations, including Israel’s small Green Party, for example, to understand the issues from their perspectives.

Another idea would be to organize a cross-Canada speaking tour for a knowledgeable environmental expert from the region (e.g. former Yale University professor Mazin Qumsiyeh who now lives in Bethlehem and is director of The Palestinian Museum of Natural History) to raise awareness about environmental issues at stake in Israel/Palestine.

GPC members interested in the Israel/Palestine issue will now have to decide their next steps.


“Raise the issue, but lower the temperature”

Canada Talks Israel Palestine (CTIP) aims to promote a serious discussion in Canada about the complicated and emotional Israel/Palestine issue and Canada’s policy toward it. We encourage all readers, including Canadian Jews who describe themselves as Zionists, to join in the conversation. Please use the “reply” function to express disagreement on any point. To submit an article, make a donation or learn more about what we do, contact us at:





  1. If Prime Minister Trudeau is not interested in the international criminality that is happening daily in Israel and Palestine .then Canada does not deserve a place at the table

  2. Many of the 2392 voters who voted for that resolution are a one-cause GPC members who were signed to the party by Dimitri Lascaris and doesn’t have any intention of voting for the party in the federal elections.

    This resolution is unlikely to have any effect on the Middle East , but it might doom the GPC into oblivion.
    When we remember what is at stake (our planet) this is a sad day for people who are truly committed to the green cause

    1. First, where is your evidence for “a one-cause” members? Second, your “unlikely to have any effect” remark is defeatist and certainly not in keeping with GPC values, which you may want to re-read.

    2. Gee Ike, I think Dimitri would be happy if he had recruited more than a couple of hundred at most. I did see him in debate on this question in Ottawa. When he was here, he was definitely encouraging people to join the GPC, but he made it clear that he felt they shouldn’t do so ONLY because of the I/P issue. They should only join the GPC, he said in Ottawa, if they agreed with the GPC agenda.

    3. You cite zero evidence to support your claim that those who voted for this resolution are “one-cause” GPC members. Look at the list of those who sponsored the original BDS resolution. The vast majority of its sponsors are long-standing members of the party who advocated for a variety of causes that are fully consistent with the values of the party. Moreover, the consensus resolution was supported by Elizabeth May and the GPC’s shadow cabinet. Do you seriously believe that Elizabeth May and the shadow cabinet members are “one-cause” GPC members? Finally, a 2014 BBC poll found that 55% of Canadians believe Israel has a negative influence on the world whereas only 30% believe it has a positive influence: This BBC poll cannot be reconciled with your wholly unsubstantiated claim that the consensus resolution “might doom the GPC into oblivion.”

    4. Canada should have enough sense to leave the negotiations up the the parties — the Canadian people should have enough bargaining knowledge to grasp that if a third party injects what they want as an outcome of the negotiations, that this interference undermines the whole negotiation process.

  3. 90-10 on an anti Israel resolution is good for you all. Pressure Israel is obviously in the BDS direction. Preserve the 2 state solution not really at all, that’s more mainstream and in accord with Liberal Zionism.

    I’d be curious what the numbers would be for something more in line with BDS policy “amend the current platform to indicate that Israel should be considered an enemy of the state of Canada. Demonstrate this state of enmity this with harsh bans in the area of trade including prohibitions on almost all cultural exchange. Policy should remain in effect until such time as a regime change has occurred leaving Israel is under Arab rule“. That’s more of an accurate description of BDS at a party level.

      1. The source is me. I’m creating a hypothetical resolution that more accurately reflects the BDS position. The BDS position is extreme. It passes for moderate because of misleading language. When the policies it advocates are phrased bluntly it sounds extreme.

  4. Questions:

    1/ Re “…only 17% of its members participated in the on-line ratification process…” How does that compare with previous ratification votes? Is it significantly lower, higher, or about average? Correct me if I’m mistaken, but didn’t Dimitri Lascaris say that ratification votes are generally low?

    2/ Re “Environmental issues are very high on the political agenda in Israel/Palestine…” I don’t recall environmental issues even being mentioned in the “new resolution” or in the discussions leading up to the vote. So why suggest environmental issues? Is it because they are likely the least controversial of all issues facing the Palestinians? Why not start with the seven sanctions called for by the new resolution? After all, isn’t the purpose of a policy to facilitate the translation of words into meaningful actions?

    3/ Re “…the new resolution opens the door for those who want to do more education among GPC members on the issue.” First, why the presumption that GPC members need to be educated on the issue? Second, based on my limited experience as a GPC member, I read the comments of many members who appear to be very knowledgable and who took a leading role in advancing the case for support of the new resolution. We’re dealing here with life and death issues facing Palestinians every day. Is more awareness-raising necessary or helpful?

    4/ The question that hasn’t been asked (or has it?) is when will Elizabeth May take the new resolution out for a test drive?

    1. @Fjwhite

      — The question that hasn’t been asked (or has it?) is when will Elizabeth May take the new resolution out for a test drive?

      By doing what? She has one seat. What is she going to do with the 300 or so seats that oppose sanctions?

  5. Thanks for the message, CD-Host. Your terse description of what the BDS proposition is, provides a realistic grasp of what going down that road would mean. Canada and the countries that subscribe to – or at one time subscribed to, the principles of universal human rights, must act to create a contextual path for resolving the impasse between Israel and Palestinian Arabs. Those Arabs who still subscribe to the obstruction policy of the Arab Higher Committee that was supposed to be figuring out a post-UN Mandate future for Palestine, in the period 1945 onward, have to be apprised of the factual record.

    The Arab Higher Committee had no interest in discussing any kind of division of sovereignty in the post-independence Palestine. It wanted the right to impose arbitrary and unaccountable force on minorities. That was a very dated and unworkable idea in 1948, of all years. That was the year the framework for universal rights was articulated – for the purpose of enabling human societies to acculturate the practices that would immunize the human race from another episode of homicidal dehumanization that occurred during the WWII years. That is why we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR]. Israel became the instrument of minorities in Palestine to be able to imagine a pluralist future.

    I invite members of the Green Party who treat the UDHR and the 1966 Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, with the seriousness they require, to help create a proposal to the Government of Canada that it help to facilitate the creation of an enforcement brigade that will implement the 1948 convention on genocide. The free world has to begin to practice the 30 Articles of the UDHR – and it needs to take the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights out of moth balls since Parliament ratified it in 1976 – and then has proceeded to act in direct contradiction to many of these principles. Especially on matters of economic self determination. We have allowed a weak and useless form of corporatism to infect national policy instead of what Canadians need in order to actualize our potential as a society and as an economy.

    An action force of UN signatories who want to put self determination rights of communities ahead of any discredited claims of exclusivity to exercise power – especially that espoused by religious fanatics that are devoted to dark ages barbarity – we have to assert a clarification of values on this point. Palestinians who do not see any chance of allying with Israel should be relocated to other regions of the world where their rights as full citizens will be attainable. They should NOT be subjected to an impossible negotiation process that would never enable the realization of Israel’s security. We have to begin a process of proclaiming the UDHR rights of all people to be something that has to be recognized as a practical and attainable demand that the UN must facilitate. The Arabs who want to be able to maintain their ties with their ancestral home – even though they refuse to recognize Israel at present – should be educated to the fact that the universal rights of all will be upheld as an international duty – and only when Israel is fully integrated into its neighbourhood, can there be any participation by the Arab community that was unwilling to participate in resolving issues with Israel. Those Arabs who understand that Israel is not an enemy – but a society that is a privilege to be a part of – are valued citizens of that state.

    1. @AlanB

      Couldn’t agree more. The UN’s position is terrible and contravenes principles of human rights including self determination for people’s living in a territory and non-discrimination. Agree with you as well that ethnic Palestinians willing to become Israelis should be welcomed as full citizens and those that don’t want to be Israelis should leave. All people should be expected to participate in the society that actually exists in a territory not imaginary societies that don’t. Also agree with you that peace comes from better integration.

      Great post.

      1. I am glad that there is evidence that a Green Party enthusiast comprehends a way out of this futile saga. There is Green FB page in the US that I participate in – and I will post this discussion there. It is an urgent priority that the original signatories to the UN Charter begin to resurrect a credible action plan in support of universal rights – and to begin a process of doing so through an action force to implement the 1948 convention on genocide. It is long over due that this approach be facilitated, and with the neo-liberal sham in full disgrace and retreat, it may be possible to find a way to get the US and Russia to engage on this goal. Canada is a bit behind on this, due to our federal position on trade remaining the obsolete corporatist ISDS absurdity.

  6. @AlanB

    Don’t want to mislead you. I’m American and a mainstream Democrat. I can’t stand the USA Green party. I think I’d pick Jill Stein over Donald Trump but I would have voted Johnson before Stein.

    Green Party USA is more hostile to Israel than Green Party Canada. (No offensive intended to Canadians with this comment). Canada can be and is meaningfully uninvolved in most middle east positions and their policy choices / positions are rhetorical. The USA doesn’t have that luxury. Both parties are similar in that they simply refuse to deal with the reality that the disposition of the West Bank is a vital national security interest of Israel and thus an unfavorable disposition of that territory is something that Israel would be willing to war over to prevent. But Green Party USA is located in a political system more used to deploying violence to achieve political aims than Green Party Canada.

    1. You state that the “reality” is that “the disposition of the West Bank is a vital national security interest of Israel.” According to whom? The government of Israel? Occupied land is not ‘in reality’ a “vital national security interest” just because Israel’s racist and fanatical government says so. Israel’s brutal occupation of and settlements in the West Bank in fact undermine its security.

      In any event, Israel’s conception of its security interests do not trump the fundamental human rights of the indigenous population of the West Bank.

      There is a clear path out of this morass, a path that has never been so much as attempted. That path is the enforcement of international law in the occupied territories by means of peaceful economic sanctions on Israel. A law that is never enforced is a dead letter. The principal cause of the impasse is that Israel has never been made to incur meaningful penalties for its brazen disregard of Palestinian human rights.

      But then again, I don’t expect a “mainstream Democrat” who “can’t stand the USA Green Party” and who would vote for a vacuous Johnson over Jill Stein to appreciate any of this. Perhaps no one is more responsible for the suffering of the Palestinian people than mainstream Democrats.

      1. @dimitrilascaris

        You state that the “reality” is that “the disposition of the West Bank is a vital national security interest of Israel.” According to whom?

        Geography, history and infrastructure. The West Bank has no natural boundaries with ’67 Israel. The infrastructure is intertwined both from the time of the mandate and the last 50 years. The populations are intertwined, the Jews of Israel view the Jews of the West Bank as being in the same nation (I’m using nation in the proper sense as distinguished from state). The Palestinians of Israel view the Palestinians of the West Bank as being in the same nation. The various parts of a interwoven history. They are part of the same country.

        But even if one imagines a future where the populations are disentangled through 2 way ethnic cleansing, the infrastructure disentangled and an artificial boundary created the west bank’s disposition would still be a vital national security interest. They are direct neighbors and Israel lacks strategic depth. Israel will always need to ensure that the government of the West Bank is either friendly or controlled for their own protection. Wars between neighboring countries spill over as Iraq’s civil war spreading to Syria demonstrates quite well.

        Israel’s brutal occupation of and settlements in the West Bank in fact undermine its security.

        I don’t agree. But even if that were true, that’s irrelevant to whether the West Bank’s disposition is a vital interest or not.

        In any event, Israel’s conception of its security interests do not trump the fundamental human rights of the indigenous population of the West Bank.

        What do you mean by “don’t trump”. I’m assuming something along the lines of “dimitrilascaris’s political views differ from the Israelis and thus I don’t think Israel should be doing what its doing”. Which is fine but also mostly irrelevant. You don’t control an army near the West Bank, the Israelis do. What the Israeli believe about how the Israeli army should act has immediate impact on the ground, what you believe about how it should act doesn’t.

        People can disagree with your assertions. I reject racism which means I reject the notion of “indigenous rights”. I think that all inhabitants in a territory are entitled to equality and don’t privilege early immigrants over later. So I have reason to privilege a culture derived from 7th and 8th century immigrants over the one derived from 19th and 20th century immigrant.

        We can exchange views but neither my view nor your view has impact on what happens in the West Bank.

        That path is the enforcement of international law in the occupied territories by means of peaceful economic sanctions on Israel

        And this I don’t agree with as well. For several reasons. What you mean by “international law” (which I wouldn’t quite concede is actually international law) is a level societal destruction that a nation-state would tolerate without losing likely multiple wars. Economic sanctions can often induce moderate policy reforms, they cannot get a society to agree to acts which amount to committing suicide. The BDS demands if implemented would be worse than any reasonable sanctions would be. The rational choice for the Israelis would always be the sanctions not complying with what you mean by “international law”.

        Moreover even if economic sanctions were possible Israel is a not easy country to sanction peacefully. It has multiple times in its history responded to pressure particularly arms sanctions from the USA by starting wars. It has proven itself to have a whorish foreign policy, and quickly changes sponsors when under pressure. It has proven itself useful to its sponsors. And finally it has cultivated a a strong group of domestic supporters in the USA that would make a sustained anti-Israel campaign quite politically difficult.

        The principal cause of the impasse is that Israel has never been made to incur meaningful penalties for its brazen disregard of Palestinian human rights.

        That is simply false. Israel has had to fight multiple wars caused by its bad relationship to the Palestinians. It has had to militarize its culture. It has had to incur substantial economic costs due to terrorist outbreaks and the loss of what would otherwise be an effective labor pool. It has had to endure terrible trade relations with its neighbors. It has faced substantial diplomatic penalties throughout its existence. It however has been willing to pay those costs which should give you some pause. The cost in 2017 of not integrating Palestinian labor into the Israeli economy exceeds what most likely sanctions regimes would impose many times over. Yet Israel pays that cost to avoid giving the Palestinians leverage. This should give you some pause in your belief that a few sanctions and Israelis would roll over.

    2. Thanks for the clarification, CD-Host! Perhaps a common front of mainstream Democrats, Greens and Canadian Action Party members could align in the cause of getting a broad consensus among other parties to resume the pursuit of the universal rights goal that was created at the end of the Second World War.

      The USA has even less engagement on this universal rights mission – in that unlike Canada, it has yet to ratify the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Canada’s ratification appears to be rather perfunctory, in that shortly after Parliament ratified this Covenant in 1976, we have proceeded to act in the opposite direction. Canadian policy has been hypocritical on Indigenous title, and has demonstrated absolute contempt for the right of communities to economic self determination – by adopting secretive corporate rights trade deals that masquerade under the term ‘free’ trade.

      An inter-party organizing committee has to be created ASAP to get support for an action force to operationalize the 1948 convention on genocide. As soon as this is put together – and I hope that this goal could get the endorsement of a multitude of parties. From there, we could begin to rationalize the jam that has been left to become a escalating tangle between Israel and Palestinian Arabs. The boycott by the Arab Higher Committee, is in my view, the reason that a compact of agreement and solidarity was never able to germinate in the Palestine situation. It is up to the original UN signatory countries to help create a process that can put this on track.

      1. The USA I think has a pretty good record on self determination issues. We encouraged the breakup of empires and we have quite often sided with minorities in establishing homelands and been willing to divide countries. Instability worries us less than European countries. Our record is far from perfect but it ain’t bad. So we are an ally on self determination.

        As far as the covenant, it goes much too far for most Americans. Americans are mixed on paid family leave. Equality in higher education is mostly rejected here. Americans would probably reject a “right” to housing. And certainly you are aware of the controversy regarding a “right” to healthcare. So I wouldn’t expect the USA to in the coming decades (ever) ratify the treaty. I’d say we are more likely to formally repudiate than ratify.

  7. I am grateful for the comment, CD…I feel that the Sanders Our Revolution cadres may feel a bit more disposed to the conception of what kind of rights are required in order to avoid the descent into a society of dehumanization. I would urge the Trump/Sanders brigades to spend a bit of time overhauling the anti-Baathist/pro BP political choice that created so much antipathy in the Middle East against American influence – and Bremer’s 100 orders when Iraq was occupied in 2003 stands out as a jack-booting of self determination.

    It would be very helpful if Zionists could take up the cause of restoring the universal human rights mission that originally undergirded the whole project of the UN. I am persuaded that with the involvement of principled Zionists, the future of Palestinians in a culture that puts universal rights ahead of pseudo-religious prerogatives to inflict atrocities, is attainable. It could only be achieved using a methodical process – and that begins with the inviting of the original signatory countries to band together in an alliance to deal with the cause and prevention of genocide. It is 69 years since the convention on this – and there is no excuse why the world has yet to treat the problem with due seriousness.

    1. I feel that the Sanders Our Revolution cadres may feel a bit more disposed to the conception of what kind of rights are required in order to avoid the descent into a society of dehumanization.

      Well sort of. Obviously Sanders was to Clinton’s left on economic issues particularly another round of healthcare reform and large increases in the minimum wage. Sanders put focus on the needs of under 30 voters which is mostly rare with American politicians.

      However you seem to be pushing for an America that’s actively engaged externally. Clinton was far and away the leading candidate for that. Sanders represented a liberal form of American isolationism. He ran very much on opposition to American military involvement abroad and reducing international trade. Both Sanders and Trump represented a rejection of the political compromise needed to actually enact substantial change both externally and internally.

      I would urge the Trump/Sanders brigades to spend a bit of time overhauling the anti-Baathist/pro BP political choice that created so much antipathy in the Middle East against American influence

      I think they would have. They would (and since Trump is in power likely will) see America even more restrained than in the Obama years both on soft and hard power. Clearly Trump being more sympathetic to Russian policy is less likely to pursue anti-Ba’aathist policy. FWIW its worth BTW I am a firm anti-Ba’aathist. Ba’aathism with its strong racial identity politics is IMHO Arab Nazism. From the Copts of Egypt to the Kurds to the Berbers of North Africa to the Christians throughout the region pan-Arabism is a horror show. I’m quite happy to see Assad discredited and becoming an Alawite leader with the possibility of an Alawite nation-state emerging in place of Western Syria. While I wish the process were less violent I certainly don’t object to the middle eastern states being replaced by states capable of representing the interests of a unified population. And of course the PLO is Ba’athist and that Ba’athism is arguably the primary reason the Palestinians have been unable to make peace. One of the things I find so distressing about BDS is that it is spreading Ba’athist racism to millions of young in the west. Young people who have never heard an apologetic for anti-Catholic, anti-black or anti-Asian racism are being fed and seeking out a diet of pan-Arabist racist apologetics.

      As far as pro-BP, the thing that’s weakened international oil more than anything else is fracking. The USA cares less about the middle east because our energy dependence is much lower. Sanders was going to switch towards more green energy which would likely have had similar effect. That’s also somewhat bipartisan as green energy has gotten much cheaper. Mostly independent of who won there is a broader structural change having to do with economics that is likely to reduce the “pro-BP” aspects of USA policy.

      Finally on the issue of Zionism and rights. I think Zionists are doing a great job on this. Zionism is an advertisement to minority groups all over the world of hope that one day they can establish a state and not be helpless victims of history. One of the reasons the hard left hates Zionism so intensely is that Zionism ideologically attacks the idea of non-nationalist rights, often placed in the UN. Rather Zionism proudly asserts the source or rights is the older and still effectual framework of deriving from nation-states.

      The Yazidis are the latest example of how bankrupt the idea that national minorities can ever be safe because some UN resolutions demand it. Certainly the division of Sudan and the Kurds are more recent examples of self determination freeing people from being victims and turning them into agents of self determination. But I think the Jews still stand as the foremost example. A people hated and destroyed for millennia rising from the ashes of the Holocaust to finally find their freedom in Israel. BDS itself in a backwards way even agrees with this. Its whole reason for its claimed existence is that the governments aren’t acting i.e. the Arab-Israeli wars are over and Israel is being politically incorporated into the region. The Arab countries no longer have as an aim “freeing Palestine from the river to the sea”.

      Israel stands still as a wonderful symbol to hundreds of millions that there is hope. Life does not have to be a never ending cycle of oppression and massacre.

      1. Thanks for the detailed, response, CD-Host! The vulnerability of the Yazidis is a clear example of why there needs to be a wide common front of UN Charter signatories to put together an enforcement policy for the 1948 convention on genocide….and I see this as being best served by adopting a policy of community legal clinics everywhere that can be grounded on the premise that the Universal Declaration on Human Rights needs to become acculturated as a basis for lawful treatment of persons.

        I will be attempting to get this idea developed through the Idle No More movement and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals for 2030.

  8. My hat is off to the green partyon this issue. That said I would question the figure of 5.5m Palestinians having the right of return unless it also includes what is envisaged as future Palestinian territory as well. I am not disputing the figure but merely questioning it.

    Action is needed to bring Israel into compliance with international law. While there are scoflaws, even at this site, the fact is international law does exist and many of the laws being broken were brought in for good reason as a result of WW II.

    Liberal zionism is a bit of an oxymoron. Israel has been an expansionist state since it’s founding moments and it has been appeased far too often. It consistently violates the sovereignty of it’s neighbours then complains that it’s neighbours won’t normalize relations. It still occuppies land belonging to three other states. Liberal zionism is responsible for much, if not the majority, of this situation. Their support for a 2SS is fictional as Palestine has never been offered actual statehood but something quite less. Peace offers made by the Arab nations which involve Palestinian statehood (and removal of the Arab boycoot) have been rejected with no counter offers from the GoI. Negotiations are fruitless as the theft of land continues unabated. Many have said it is similar to negotiating a division of the pizza while one party continues to eat it. Even the risible settlement freeze contained a natural expansion of the settlement boundaries as if any other state is enabled to increase it’s sovereign territory as it’s population increases.

    Israel has verbally expressed a desire for peace and a 2SS however it’s actions have always been to the opposite effect and shows that it does not desire either peace nor a 2SS but territorial expansion for Israel. As Ya’alon famously tweeted with a broad smile on his face… The threat of peace is off the table.

    If Israel sets an example to the world we will be beset with regional and world conflcts as we have in the past. It’s sad that some people prefer a lawless world but that’s between them and their conscience. Luckily they are a small minority and the vast majority of the world stands for international law and an end to Israel depriving millions of people of their basic human rights.

    1. @Anonymous

      the fact is international law does exist

      The UN exists. The ability for the UN to enforce it rules doesn’t exist.

      many of the laws being broken were brought in for good reason as a result of WW II.

      Or they were an over reaction to particular situations from people traumatized from having watched 100m people die. Those people unwisely looked at just the past conflict without a more complete historical view and created a series of policies which have proven unworkable in just about every conflict encountered since then. Most importantly the UN became the foremost advocate for stability over good governance and thus to this day huge portions of the planet are living in tyranny and misery.

      If international law is real as actual law why is it not applied to say North Korea which was one of the earliest crisis. Why does that regime still exist?

      it has been appeased far too often

      When has it ever been appeased? Situations that for most countries are just resolved quickly and simply in the case of Israel are dragged out for decades. Normal countries adjust their borders regularly when situations change to make a border unworkable. The USA / Canada border being a good example. In the case of Israel we have a terrible border with a non existent state that makes no sense for everyone and a ridiculous amount of pressure being applied to prevent adjusting it.

      It still occuppies land belonging to three other states.

      If you are going to claim international law, the UN has ruled against Lebanon’s claim repeatedly. This is typical BDS, international law only applies when it goes against Israel.

      Their support for a 2SS is fictional as Palestine has never been offered actual statehood but something quite less.

      The Palestinians were offered the entire territories in exchange for a full peace in 1967.

      Peace offers made by the Arab nations which involve Palestinian statehood (and removal of the Arab boycoot) have been rejected with no counter offers from the GoI.

      The actual government of Israel was quite interested in the offer and Sharon offered immediate negotiations. As for counter offers Israel has made numerous offers to the Palestinians in the last generation: Camp David, Taba, Olmert plan…

      as if any other state is enabled to increase it’s sovereign territory as it’s population increases.

      First off under your version of international law where there is an occupation and Palestine is “sovereign territory” those settlers aren’t Israel’s population anymore. Those are emigrants from Israel to the country of Palestine. They are no different than Canadians who move to the USA or visa versa. Israel isn’t a dictatorship, people are allowed to leave to emigrate whether to the USA, to Germany or to Palestine. You can’t have it both ways. If Israel can’t expand its borders then settlers aren’t living in Israel.

      As for other countries that changed their borders based on them being unworkable yours has done so. Eritrea, Nigeria, India immediately come to mind. I could make a list of 50 if I worked at it.

      it does not desire either peace nor a 2SS but territorial expansion for Israel.

      I think its actions in practice are fully consistent with a country that has some level of interest in 2SS and some interest in territorial expansion reacting rationally to the other side’s incentive structures. Certainly the incentives for the 2SS have diminished in the last 50 years. The total failure of the Gazans to live in peace has rightfully discredited Palestinian intentions. The fact is the Gazans got a total withdraw and still elected Hamas. You really need to ask yourself which side more firmly rejects peace.

      vast majority of the world stands for international law and an end to Israel depriving millions of people of their basic human rights.

      No one is advocating a permanent situation where Palestines are deprived of human rights. This situation is going to work itself out.

      As for the vast majority of the world. In your own country most of your parties are pro Israel and friendship is law. Among even the Green Party a realistic assessment of the degree of force and the likely backlash required to get Israel to give up huge chunks of its territory; either agree to mass ethnic cleansing or being forced to leave 10% of its population trapped behind enemy lines; to reject all claims to the most historical parts of Israel … wouldn’t pass. It would never pass in mainstream Canada. Canada is not willing to go to war for Palestine. It isn’t willing to do anything remotely close to war for Palestine. There is fantasy talk. The vast majority of the world is not going to challenge a nuclear power on a vital national interest. No they do not support your view of the law as law. They do support it as a prayer.

      1. You know cd-host I have mulled this over.

        If you really believe international law is “UN rules” then your lack of knowledge is beyond my time constraints to provide you a basic education. I am sorry but but seek a basic introduction elsewhere.

        If you do know that international law is not “UN rules” then you are simply being dishonest.

        In either scenario you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

        The same goes for the rest of your dissembling.

      2. Just to add cd-host personally I don’t think you are that ignorant but that doesn’t leave a polite alternative.

  9. good move and good ideas for moving forward. The Israel lobby will of course seek to silence any voices that challenge the status quo.

  10. @Anonymous —

    You realize you aren’t making an argument you are just throwing out insults. The “I don’t have time to defend my point” isn’t going to fly. The reality of the world conforms we see conforms to one where the UN provides a ground for discussion but is not able to enforce the “laws” it purports exist. Moreover those “laws” lack a broad base of support among the nations of the world.

    BDS right now is centered in a fragment of the far left. You want to convince people regarding BDS to become broad policy, you are going to need to convince people who aren’t on the hard left. That is people who don’t already agree with you on a host of issues.

    Now I don’t even think that’s going to work because most BDS supporters only support a fictional view of how sanctions regime plays out and wouldn’t support the actual consequences of their policies in the real world where the other side responds with counter pressures.

    1. Enforcement is done under Chapter 7. Enforcement has been done on a number of occassions against a number of countries.

      Those laws enjoy a very wide base of support. If you knew what international law was you could verify that quite easily by looking at the signatories to what constitutes international law amongst other things.

      This is the end of my argument. And probably the last time I will ever respond to your nonsense. As I noted on an earlier thread your comments are disingenuous in the extreme.

Comments are closed.