A free webinar organized by Honest Reporting Canada (HRC) promised to feature influential operators from the Liberal, Tory and NDP parties and give “an insiders perspective on Canada-Israel relations”. While HRC is stridently pro-Israel, the webinar looked like it could be informative and interesting, even to those who don’t share HRC’s perspective. Unfortunately, it was neither informative nor interesting. Read more…
I was looking forward to the webinar offered by Honest Reporting Canada. I knew of course that HRC supports Israel and Zionism, but I thought I might learn something. Based on its hyped up promotional material, which promised “an exclusive behind the headlines webinar providing you with an insider’s view of Canada-Israel relations!”, it sounded very interesting.
Featuring an incredible panel consisting of Hon. John Baird, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Conservative Cabinet Minister, Hon. Tom Mulcair, former Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, and Hon. Jacques Saada, former Liberal MP and Cabinet Minister; these three political veterans will share their views and insights on Canada-Israel relations, Canada’s role in the Middle East peace process and more.
Baird is a member of the board of directors of CIJA, the largest pro-Israel lobbying organization in Canada, and proudly describes himself as a “Zionist”. Saada is the President of the Council of Montreal Sephardic Jews and a frequent CIJA insider. Mulcair was the leader of the NDP and well known for his debating skills. Based on that it promised to be a pretty interesting debate among knowledgeable people from different political parties.
That’s not how it turned out. For reasons that were not disclosed, Tom Mulcair was not on the panel after all. The remaining two panelists did make a big point of how much they admired Mulcair and regretted his absence.
Saada noted appreciatively that while he was leader, Mulcair had been helpful in keeping the “unseemly” pro-Palestinian elements” in the NDP in check!!
Baird was even more effusive: “Tom Mulcair was the best leader of the opposition since Diefenbaker. When I changed our voting at the UN, TOM HAD MY BACK!!”, reported Baird, “There were NO questions from the opposition on it”.
Despite Mulcair’s absence, I still hoped that the two other former Cabinet ministers would be able to shed light on some key aspects of the Canada-Israel relationship including:
- The inside discussions and debates within each of the political parties on the Israel/Palestine file
- The role of the Canada-Israel Parliamentary Friendship group in shaping Canadian policy toward Israel
- Canada-Israel cooperation in security and intelligence
- The Canada Israel Free Trade agreement (CIFTA)
- The role of pro Israel lobby groups (like CIJA and B’nai Brith Canada) in shaping Canadian policy
- The role of Canadian media in shaping public opinion on this file
- What each of the panelists think would be a fair deal for the Palestinians
- Whether they think the 2 state solution is still a live option
- etc., etc.
Unfortunately, none of that was discussed. And there was no real debate at all as both panelists seemed to be in complete agreement on Israel. In fact, the only discussion of the Canada-Israel relationship focussed on our voting record at the UN. Each panelist (a Martin Liberal and a Harper Conservative) competed to demonstrate to the audience how strongly pro-Israel their respective government’s voting record had been at the UN.
Well – what was discussed?
If they didn’t talk about what was promised, and they didn’t debate policy, what did they talk about? Mostly it involved stock rehearsals of already known arguments recycled regularly by Israel’s defenders. Four main themes emerged.
1. Is Annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel a good thing?
The first 17 minutes of the 45 min panel discussion was devoted to the panelists personal views of Israel’s proposed “annexation” of significant parts of the West Bank.
Neither offered any inside information to bring to bear on the issue. Both assessed the proposed annexation from the point of view of Israeli interests. In fact, both agreed with the Israeli position that this was not really an “annexation” at all, but a legitimate extension of Israeli sovereignty. International law was not mentioned.
Saada did express concern over whether annexation “at this time” might hurt Israel’s strategic position in the Middle East, although he did not seem to oppose it in principle. For his part, Baird refused to pass judgement, preferring to wait until the Israeli government has decided, effectively saying he would support anything Israel decides.
Neither panelist appeared interested in consequences for the Palestinians. “There are hardly any Palestinians in the Jordan Valley in any event,” noted Mr. Baird, studiously overlooking Israel’s five decade long program to push Palestinian farmers out of the Jordan valley since occupying the West Bank in 1967.
2. Why BDS – the international call to boycott Israel – is anti-Semitic
It’s not surprising that both panelists strongly opposed the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions). Saada and Baird both erroneously confused BDS – a call from Palestinian civil society in 2005, to earlier boycotts initiated by the Arab States against Israel.
Both of them expressed opposition to the three BDS demands, which are “Ending the occupation, Equality for all citizens of Israel, and the Right of return for the refugees”.
Baird doesn’t agree that there is an “occupation”. He said he prefers to call the West Bank “disputed” territory. Saada thought the demand for equality was nonsensical insisting that Palestinian citizens of Israel already have equal rights.
He also opposed the “right of return” falsely claiming that only in the case of Palestinians do descendants of refugees continue to have refugee status. That is untrue. Under international law, the children of ALL refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found.
Saada repeated an often made claim that BDS is anti-Semitic, using the example of a boycott of a shoe store in Montreal a few years ago as proof. According to Saada, the boycott was because the store was owned by a Jew, “who had nothing to do with Israel.” Saada’s version is contradicted however by newspaper reports at the time that the store was being boycotted, not because the owner was Jewish, but because it was selling shoes made in Israel.
3. Why the Palestinian right of return should be ignored
Saada really got going on the Palestinian right of return railing against UNRWA. His main argument? – Palestinian refugees get better treatment than Jewish refugees who had to flee Arab countries after the creation of the State of Israel.
A peculiar logic – one that human rights violations can cancel each other out. (So for example, harassment of women might be OK if enough men were also harassed!!!) In fact, under international law, ALL refugees have the right to return, irrespective of their religion.
Saada, an Arab Jew born in Tunisia, knows that many Tunisian Jews, like Saada, have emigrated to the west in search of better opportunity. Some have gone to Israel.
But Saada no doubt knows that Jews do live in many Muslim countries. Furthermore, thousands of Jews (including Israelis) go to Tunisia every year, to visit some of the holy places and beautiful synagogues. They even have the right to apply to immigrate if they want.
4. Why Iran is inherently anti-Semitic and a threat to the world and should be overturned
Saada and Baird competed to score the most points with HRC audience by denouncing Iran. Saada set out to prove that Iran is permanently anti-Semitic by “exposing” a historical agreement between the Iranian Shah Pahlevi and Adolph Hitler to ally to oppose Britain and the USSR. In Saada’s telling however, the objective of the agreement becomes one to jointly wipe out the Jews – Hitler in Europe and Pahlevi in the Middle East rather than a military alliance.
Saada’s story sits awkwardly with the fact that from 1955 to the fall of the Shah in 1979, Iran was Israel’s main ally in the region.
Baird repeated the Trump/Pompeo line that Iran is the “biggest state sponsor of terror” conveniently ignoring the role of Saudia Arabia and proposing “regime change” as an appropriate remedy.
Don’t believe me? – Watch the video yourself
In short, the Honest Reporting Canada webinar did not bring any new “behind the headlines” information. It did not discuss the Canada-Israel relationship in any significant detail. There was no debate or any noticeable difference of opinion.
However, I assume it must have satisfied HRC’s audience of over 300 by confirming their predispositions and reassuring them that their pro-Israel views are accepted by all three main political parties in Canada.
If you think this judgement is too harsh, I encourage you to watch the 45 minute video provided by Honest Reporting Canada yourself and send in your comments.
____________________________________________________________________________
Canada Talks Israel Palestine (CTIP) is the weekly newsletter of Peter Larson, Chair of the Ottawa Forum on Israel/Palestine (OFIP). It aims to promote a serious discussion in Canada about the complicated and emotional Israel/Palestine issue with a focus on the truth, clear analysis and human rights for all. Readers with different points of view are invited to make comment.
Want to learn more about us? Go to http://www.ottawaforumip.org.
Canada Talks Israel/Palestine 
The previous HRC webinar on June 28 cheered me up because one of the panelists, Andrew Pessin, was moaning about the fact that he was having no luck at the U.S. colleges where he was supposed to be pushing Zionism. He complained that BDS resolutions were being passed and that the students, the faculty, and the administration were all anti-Zionist.
Thanks for watching this, so I don’t have to!
Do you have any knowledge why Mulcair failed to appear? Was he definitely scheduled by his own volition? I think it was a set-up by (Dis-)Honest Reporting to make it look as if all three major parties in Canada support the Israeli project in Palestine.
Disappointed? How could it be otherwise with extremely biased panelists. Same old , same old, no honesty here.
“Baird is a member of the board of directors of CIJA, the largest pro-Israel lobbying organization in Canada, and proudly describes himself as a ‘Zionist’”. Is there an issue wherein a board member of a lobby that promotes the positive relationship between Israel and Canada identifies as a “Proud Zionist?” The way you write it, it appears pejorative. But then, you do have antisemitic ideas concerning Zionism.
“Both agreed with the Israeli position that this was not really an “annexation” at all, but a legitimate extension of Israeli sovereignty. International law was not mentioned.” As the extension of sovereignty is a matter of internal politics, international law does not have a say.
“Neither panelist appeared interested in consequences for the Palestinians.” It is for the Palestinian Arabs to be concerned about the fact that their leadership has done nothing which would put this action into question, like agreeing to negotiate.
2. Why BDS – the international call to boycott Israel – is anti-Semitic
“It’s not surprising that both panelists strongly opposed the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions). Saada and Baird both erroneously confused BDS – a call from Palestinian civil society in 2005, to earlier boycotts initiated by the Arab States against Israel.’ No one should be surprised. Additionally, there is no confusion between BDS and the earlier boycott. It is merely a continuation under another name. Both have the same goal, the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state and refuge.
“Both of them expressed opposition to the three BDS demands, which are “… Equality for all citizens of Israel…” No one on the panel is opposed to equal rights for all citizens of Israel. That already exists.
“Baird doesn’t agree that there is an “occupation”. He said he prefers to call the West Bank “disputed” territory.” In accordance with international law, the disputed territory is not occupied. “Saada thought the demand for equality was nonsensical insisting that Palestinian(?) citizens of Israel already have equal rights.” There are no Palestinian citizens of Israel. There are Arab Israeli citizens of Israel. They have equal rights the same as all Israeli citizens. Palestinian Arabs live in the disputed territories and Gaza.
He also opposed the “right of return” There is no “RoR”
“Saada repeated an often made claim that BDS is anti-Semitic, using the example of a boycott of a shoe store in Montreal a few years ago as proof. According to Saada, the boycott was because the store was owned by a Jew, “who had nothing to do with Israel.” Saada’s version is contradicted however by newspaper reports at the time that the store was being boycotted, not because the owner was Jewish, but because it was selling shoes made in Israel.”
Which other shoe stores owned by Christians were boycotted at the same time? None. They all sell shoes from Israel. They are popular brands. It is obvious that a Jew was singled out.
3. Why the Palestinian right of return should be ignored
Because there is no such right.
4. Why Iran is inherently anti-Semitic and a threat to the world and should be overturned
“Saada’s story sits awkwardly with the fact that from 1955 to the fall of the Shah in 1979, Iran was Israel’s main ally in the region.” The previous Shah was antisemitic. The new Shah, enthroned in the 50s, was not.
“Baird repeated the Trump/Pompeo line that Iran is the “biggest state sponsor of terror” conveniently ignoring the role of Saudia Arabia…” Fine. Iran AND Saudi Arabia are the “biggest state sponsor of terror.” Happy?
Mr. Sigman,
If you have something substantive to contribute, please do so. I believe that this blog welcomes all points of view. But barefaced denials (eg. denying the occupation or the right of return), without offering any reasoning, is not constructive. And accusing the author of holding anti-Semitic ideas – again without any substantiation – is not acceptable discourse.
Mr. Ross, there is no such animal as “The Right To Return.” Therefore, there is no need to offer any reasoning why something nonexistent is denied. Additionally, there is no need to repeat the proof, over and over again, regarding an author’s antisemitic intent, just so the occasional reader “gets it.” Finally, while there is an “occupation,” it is not an occupation de jure as the ownership of the land is contested between a sovereign entity and a non-sovereign entity. Only land owned by a sovereign entity can be considered “occupied,” by another such under international law.
Baird is part of the pro Israel lobby giving complete unconditional support to Israel including occupation, annexation, total denial of any Palestinian rights demanded by international law, UN and moral ethics particulatly the Golden rule and utterly rejected by Israel in its current practise of Zionism a la Netanyahu who says so..
Why not contact Mulcair and get his take?
Hey Les, terrific idea. Please go ahead and do so. Let us know what you find out. best
Sounds like this was a repeat of standard Israel lobby talking points which are totally at odds with official Canadian policy supporting a 2 state solution and full national rights for Palestinians and Palestine while opposing continuous occupation and annexatiin. Too bad Baird did not reveal what really happened on his last trip to Israel, where he met on occupied East Jerusalem land with Israeli officials and was badly or not received in Ramallah with a shoe, that forced him to resign as foreign minister and from politics days after his return. That would have been revealing.
Baird opposed the “right of return” claiming that only in the case of Palestinians do descendants of refugees continue to have refugee status. His position is truly hypocritical. Israel grants the right to “make Aliya” (i.e. to make their home in Israel) to the descendants of people who left Palestine thousands of years ago – if they are Jewish. In fact, since many modern Jews are the descendants of converts, they may have no ancestors who left Israel but still have a right to “return”.
Thanks for this Peter. As you have provided a very Honest Review , I think I will take a pass on watching it.
In regard to so called “HONEST REPORTING”, if anyone familiar with it, there’s nothing honest about anything it puts out. Who ever is behind it is more Zionist than Zionist. It’s all about misinformation, cover up, Israel never done anything wrong and distorting anything which one will write in solidarity with the Palestinians.
Replying to Mr. Signman’s comment of August 11…
Mr. Sigman, simply declaring that there is no occupation or no right of return does not make it so. The Palestinian right of return is enshrined in UNGA Resolution 194, just as the right of return for all refugees is enshrined in international law enacted subsequently. This right extends to the descendants of Palestinian refugees, just as it does for all refugees. See the UN Refugee Agency’s statement here: https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/refugees/.
In 2004, The International Court of Justice ruled that the Palestinian territories are under occupation, and all the world’s nations (with the possible exception of the Trump administration) recognize it as such.
Whether or not you believe these facts to be true is frankly irrelevant. Please do not waste our time with your baseless claims.
Mr. Sigman, this blog takes anti-Semitism seriously. You continue to accuse Dr. Larson of holding anti-Semitic ‘ideas’ and having anti-Semitic ‘intent’. Please clarify and substantiate your allegations, or withdraw them.