Is Canada changing its stance on the two state solution?

Hon. Marc Garneau, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, spoke to the UN on September 27th. When discussing the Israel/Palestine issue, he chose his words carefully, moving slightly away from Canada’s repeatedly stated commitment to the two state solution. Why? How significant is it, and what might lie behind it? Read more….

For the past seven decades, Canada has been a staunch supporter of a two state-solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. The official position, to be found on the Global Affairs website, reads as follows: “Canada is committed to (…) the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel.”

Canada’s support for the theory of the two state solution to the conflict has been consistent. According to McGill professor Rex Brynen, as recently as last June, Garneau told Middle East leaders that the “two state solution is the ONLY solution”.

At least that was what Canada has always said publicly. In practice, Canada has done little to advance this outcome, refusing to apply any penalties to Israel, opposing UN resolutions addressing the conflict, and even refraining from open criticism as Israel keeps on appropriating/taking over more and more land in the West Bank. All this while the very idea of a two state solution becomes more and more remote.

But in his September 27 speech to the UN, Minister Garneau appeared to reflect a change in posture. “We believe that a two state solution is the better way to address the needs and concerns of both Israelis and Palestinians, and we encourage direct negotiations to reach this critical objective.”

No longer the “only way” but the “better way”.

Analysis

Does this change of wording represent a subtle shift in Canada’s position? Is Minister Garneau starting to recognize that Canada has been promoting a solution which has run out of gas, even as an empty slogan? Or is it simply a minor change of wording by his speechwriter?

We will see when he makes further statements. But two developments may have influenced his choice of words.

First, Naftali Bennet, Israel’s new prime minister, has been telling everyone who will listen that he does not want to negotiate with the Palestinians and that there will be no Palestinian State while he is prime minister. “For Israel, the two state solution is no solution”, Bennet wrote recently an opinion piece in the New York Times. For Canada to continue to claim that the two state solution is the “ONLY” solution, while Canada’s “friend and ally’ says there will be no such thing, is bound to cause tension between the two.

Secondly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas also has been making vague threats to Israel. In a recent speech he said he is considering moving away from a two state solution, even going so far as to propose one democratic state!!! Israel’s rejection of the two-state solution will force us to go for other options”. (…) We will ask for the implementation of the United Nations Security Council’s resolution passed in 1947, or go to the one democratic state on the land of historic Palestine in which the full political and civil rights of the Palestinians are gained,he said.

Abbas is stuck. Faced with an Israeli government that openly says there will not be a two state solution, he has little room to manoeuver. His entire political career has been based on that single notion. And his political support is plummeting. A recent public opinion polls shows that more than 80 percent of Palestinians want him to resign, and observers feel that if a free election were held Hamas would win handily. Abbas’ tough sounding talk seems almost farcical and is unlikely to bring many Palestinians over to his side. And his ability to actually force the Israelis to DO anything appears very slight.

Significance for Canada

The charade of a two decade long peace process aimed at an unfulfillable promise has allowed Israel to continue to expand settlements in the West Bank, destroy Palestinian houses, force Palestinian farmers off their traditional lands, carry out ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem and devastate Gaza.

Canada, along with other Western countries, has been a party to this charade long enough. Perhaps Minister Garneau senses that game of musical chairs might end up at a different chair.

_______________________________________________________________________________

OF POSSIBLE INTEREST – RECENT MONTHLY STATS FROM THE UN

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OCHA) gathers statistics from the Occupied Territories. Its regular “Protection of Civilians Report” is almost always overwhelmingly a story of Israeli settler and official violence against Palestinians.

Here is the report for the Month of September 2021. Its summary statistics report in the two week period from September August 21 to October 4:

  • 9 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces
  • 328 Palestinians injured by Israeli forces in oPt
  • 0 Israelis killed by Palestinians
  • 3 Palestinian structures demolished by Israelis
  • 20 attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinians
  • 70 Israeli military incursions into the West Bank
  • 2 Israeli military incursions into Gaza

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

If you find this article valuable please feel free to share it with anyone who might be interested.

7 comments

  1. Sadly,in my estimation, Marc Garneau is among the most incompetent and untrustworthy politicians to ever be handed a ministry to fail in.
    Frankly the crisis right now isn’t a two-state solution but the inability or unwillingness of so many nations, Canada included, to bemoan the outright theft of Palestinian homes and land, which all but kills any chance of ever getting closer to a two state deal.
    When Garneau speaks he makes noise.

    1. Thanks Allan,
      I don’t think the fault lies with Garneau, though he may be what you say. He is delivering on the Liberal Party agenda. As far as they are concerned he is competent and trustworthy.
      A two state “deal” if ever signed, would IMHO, collapse almost immediately, because it can’t resolve most of the issues.

  2. You’re right, Peter. Abbas’ empty threat of a one-state solution is history repeating itself – this time as farce, after the first time as tragedy. He’s channeling his younger self when Fatah was engaging in what ultimately proved to be a futile armed struggle for a secular, democratic Palestine in which Hebrew- and Arabic-speakers would enjoy equal rights. As you also note, Abbas and Fatah are now thoroughly discredited and many Palestinians will likely hold their noses in voting for Hamas as the only opposition.

    It’s dismaying we haven’t yet seen the appearance of a significant secular party arising out of Palestinian civil society capable of uniting Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and inside Israel, and increasingly capable of attracting progressive Jewish Israelis.

  3. “Two State Solution” is a chimera. There is no agreement on the definition of “state” (i.e. the powers of a state) and there will never be one. There is no agreement on the borders and there will never be one. Even if borders were imposed by external forces, there would always be people one both sides who believe that they have the right to be on the other side and are willing to fight for that access. There would be no peace and, hence, no solution.

  4. “Two State Solution” is a chimera. There is no agreement on the definition of “state” (i.e. the powers of a state) and there will never be one. There is no agreement on the borders and there will never be one. Even if borders were imposed by external forces, there would always be people one both sides who believe that they have the right to be on the other side and are willing to fight for that access. There would be no peace and, hence, no solution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s