“the violence in Jerusalem (…) should not have been a surprise to anyone.” – Jon Allen, former Canadian Ambassador to Israel

Jon Allen

Senior Fellow, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy

Former Canadian Ambassador to Israel (2006- 2010)

In a recent post, Canada Talks Israel Palestine (CTIP) called on religous leaders including “ministers, priests, imams and rabbis” to begin a serious conversation with their parishioners about the challenging Israel/Palestine issue.

As violence erupts in Gaza, in Jerusalem, in the West Bank and even inside Israel, it is time to open up a conversation that many find difficult. Difficult for everyone, but arguably most difficult for Canadian Jews.

Jon Allen is NOT a rabbi, but he was invited by a rabbi at an important synagogue in Toronto to talk about the Israel/Palestine issue.

He took up the challenge, knowing that some (even many) in the Jewish community could be angry with some of his views. But having lived for 4 years in Israel as Canada’s ambassador, Allen is better positioned than many to understand and explain some of the background to the current violence.

CTIP does not necessarily agree with ALL of the former Ambassador’s views. But we applaud his courage and his willingness to enter into a conversation that many people prefer to avoid. His remarks are presented here complete and unedited. The underlining is mine, however.

Former ambassador Allen’s remarks

Thanks to Rabbi Goodman and Holy Blossom for organizing this today. I was asked to talk about the causes of current conflict.

Let me begin by making it clear that what I have to say is not about justifying the almost 2000 rockets that have been launched against Israel over the past few days. I condemn Hamas’ rocket attacks as pure political opportunism as I will explain later. Nor does it justify Arab on Jewish violence in Israel’s mixed cities, the shocking new dimension to this conflict. Not only are these actions terrifying for all Israelis, men, women and especially children – and they must stop, but they also feed the belief that there is no, and never will be, a partner for peace on the Palestinian side, and that an independent Palestinian state would be a constant threat to Israel. I don’t agree with either of those suggestions but many Israelis and many Jews in the diaspora do and the violence this week further fuels the mistrust and in some cases hatred that are major obstacles to peace going forward.

In my view, the causes for the disturbances leading up to and including the rocket fire are multiple: they are secular and religious, they are long standing and immediate and they are political. But they are ultimately centered on the question of Palestinian rights and the lack thereof.

Let’s begin with the immediate causes. The first was the barricading of Damascus Gate during Ramadan. This is an area where young Palestinians traditionally gather while waiting for the evening meal and after. I don’t know why the decision was taken to do it. (There is some speculation that the commanders of the police were new and inexperienced.) At any rate, it was a provocation and it set off the first demonstrations and acts of real violence on both sides. It brought out radical Jewish extremists, and innocent Jews and Arabs were attacked during the protests and police actions that followed.

The second was the intervention by the Kahanist MP Itamar Gvir. According to the Times of Israel, Israeli Police Commissioner Kobi Shabtai told Prime Minister Netanyahu that the extreme-right MK was responsible for ongoing riots in Jewish-Arab cities. He said that every time police appeared to be getting an area under control, Ben Gvir, the Kahanist member of the Religious Zionism party, showed up to fan the flames.

The third cause was the pending, now postponed, Supreme Court decision on whether a number of Palestinian families would be evicted from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah – homes they have lived in since 1948. Derek will explain this issue in detail. Let me just say that scheduling the court decision and possible evictions during Ramadan was not well thought out. The evictions are perceived by Palestinians and others as part of a larger effort to surround the Old City with “Jewish only” settlements and thereby cut off East Jerusalem from the West Bank.

The proposed march to celebrate Jerusalem Day that was intended to finish at the Damascus Gate, but which was re-routed at the last minute, also did not help. The simultaneous expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and the celebration of Jerusalem Day, which for the marchers means all of Jerusalem, both East and West, are also perceived as an effort to unilaterally settle one of the most sensitive of the final status issues between Israel and Palestine – the status of Jerusalem. The Trump Peace Plan’s formal recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol and his encouragement of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem are controversial backdrops to Palestinians concerns.

The fifth and by far most provocative cause, especially given that tensions were already high and that violence on both sides had already erupted, was the use of force by the police on the grounds of the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa. No one in the Israeli government seemed to recall that it was a visit by Ariel Sharon to this same site that provoked the Second Intifada, or to realize that it’s violation, especially during Ramadan, was guaranteed to provoke a strong reaction, not only in Jerusalem but throughout Israel and the Muslim world. The media coverage of police firing rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse demonstrators further stoked the flames.

As a result, even secular Muslims and non-Muslims could easily identify with these issues.

So why did Hamas act when it did and why with such force. The easy answer is that Hamas gave Israel an ultimatum to leave Al Aqsa and Israel didn’t comply. A more likely reason is far more political and opportunist. Hamas sought to take advantage of the Palestinian’s anger and long-standing frustration and fill a vacuum at a time when Fatah and its leader Mahmoud Abbas were silent. Recall also that this was taking place shortly after Abbas had cancelled the Palestinian elections – the first in almost 15 years – elections that many predicted Hamas would win. Another possible reason for Hamas’ reaction is that Hamas (and some say Bibi Netanyahu) believed that a conflict of this nature and magnitude would disrupt the efforts of the anti-Bibi bloc to form a government in Israel. As we know, that bloc could have succeeded in forming a government only with the support of one of the Israeli-Arab parties. Hamas, you see, prefers a Netanyahu government just as Bibi prefers to quietly support Hamas. Both want to weaken Fatah, and neither are interested in a two-state solution.

As Shlomo Ben Ami stated in an article yesterday: Hamas connected all the dots needed to gain primacy in the Palestinian national movement. It positioned itself as the protector of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, as the spearhead of the Palestinians’ national and religious struggle against the Israeli-Jewish occupier, and also as the voice of the Arab minority in Israel proper. In the process, it became immediately responsible for much of the death and destruction that has taken place.


I want to conclude, however, by saying that the violence in Jerusalem, that so unfortunately has also spread to the mixed cities of Israel, should not have been a surprise to anyone. The occupation is 54 years long. There has been no path towards peace or even a glimmer of hope in that direction for 12 years since Bibi Netanyahu became Prime Minister.

Just how long did Israel think that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would put up with military rule and military courts; with house demolitions and evictions; with settler expansion and daily settler violence ignored by the IDF; with severe restrictions on their movement, both within the Territories and between the Territories and the outside world? How long would the residents of Jerusalem – they are denied Israeli citizenship – accept their third-class status?

Did Israeli government officials think that Palestinian Israelis in Lod, Akko and Ramle were either ignorant of or immune to the treatment of Palestinians in the territories or the provocations at Al Aqsa? For how long do Israelis and we Jews in the Diaspora think that this situation is sustainable? If nothing is done to fix this larger problem, I fear we will back here in a few years having a very similar conversation.

Thank you

Former Ambassador Allen participated a month ago in an hour long webinar interview organized by the Ottawa Forum on Israel Palestine, where interviewers asked him some tough questions. His presentation to Holy Blossom Synagogue is reproduced with his permission. An abridged version of his remarks also appeared as an op ed in The Globe and Mail on Wednesday, May 19th.


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 Canada’s response to 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


  1. I agree with Jon Allen that we need to do something to “fix a larger problem” – the problem started in 1947-48 and not just in the past 12 years. Here is a real and sustainable fix as suggested by an Israeli organization Zochrot:

    ” Ending the violence now is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. What’s needed is courageous cultural and political change, a shift of consciousness towards a transitional justice process. The only viable solution to the conflict is the country’s decolonization. We will only have peace once all of the country’s inhabitants and refugees are able to live in it without the threat of expulsion or denial of return.”


    As long as liberal Zionists, including Allen himself, are in a state of denial when it comes to Nakba and the colonial-settler nature of Israel, they will continue to be part of the problem and not the solution. We are still waiting for their “courageous cultural and political change”. Until then, Palestinian resistance and international solidarity should continue.

  2. Bravo to Ambassador Allen (Jon to his friends qnd tennis partners) for his views in explain8ng the current round of violence in the long running Israel Palestine conflict which now 8ncludes Arab Jewish violence inside Israel itself. In other contexts, have heard him advance quite eloquently strong support and specific ideas on how to achieve a 2 state solution of Israel and Palestine with equality and freedom for all inhabitants Jews qnd Arabs between the river qnd sea. He would be a great person to serve on any Canadiian team working for such a 2 state equality soln.

    1. George lets not try to bury the real issues by pretending that there is a path to a two-state solution. I don’t think that there ever was a two-state solution and Israel’s actions in the past few decades have made it even less likely (if that was possible). As Ambassador Allen has pointed out, neither Israel nor Hamas has any interest in it. What Israel describes when it even mentions the two-state solution would not be acceptable to any Palestinian faction.

      Finding a way to improve the situation requires a realistic target. Achieving any solution will require hard pressure on Israel because Israel feels that in the status quo it has the upper hand.

  3. In a more simple world the words of an experienced diplomat would strike louder in the halls of government and might even encourage leadership to move beyond tried and tested cliches meant more as vehicles to send the can rattling down future’s hallway.
    At the very least, this is the sort of expression of fact that MPs of all persuasions could take up in Parliament to allow a discussion on a piece of foreign policy too long left for those hiding behind power to avoid.
    Put parliament in the driver’s seat and demand our leader take direction from it.

  4. Sorry your instruction to make donation diificult would prefer to send Chequer to you and mail to an address. Sorry

    Please respond to my new email address kouridonald@gmail.com


  5. The inference that planned evictions from East Jerusalem are “part of a larger effort to surround the Old City with “Jewish only” settlements and thereby cut off East Jerusalem from the West Bank” is undoubtedly correct. But there is a further inference obvious to anyone who has followed Israel’s efforts for some time. Cutting off East Jerusalem is prelude for evacuating all Palestinians. This is to be accomplished in the longer term by continuing to deny re-entry to Palestinian residents who had to leave for whatever reason, making life so difficult that many leave voluntarily or more quickly by evictions. But there can be no doubt about ultimate goal.

  6. Thank you for this excellent report.

    Has Netanyahu been directly implicated with initiating the events at the Damascus Gate and with police force desecrating Al Aqsa during Ramadan?

    Given that many provocations of Palestinians in recent 12 years were instigated under Netanyahu’s rule, I think this report is being very kind to him.

    1. Donald Trump, when he realized he was not to be re-elected may well have thought of Netanyahu’s repeated failures to form government as he unleashed his big lie about being cheated at the ballot box,knowing that Netanyahu’s repeat failures were always overturned by a sudden serious and profound breakdown in relations between Israeli security and the Palestinian peoples.
      Geila Bar-David, you have outlined the impetus used this time, which eerily suggests that perhaps for once Netanyahu was impressed by Trump’s January 6 failed insurection strategy and opted to start a fire that he could then control.

Comments are closed.