I was shocked at the bias demonstrated by the June 6, 2003 "A Proposal for a Canadian Position on Israel and the Middle East" by Irwin Cotler and other members of Parliament. [http://www.imopa.ca/june_canada_middleeast.htm] I am even more upset that the Canadian government seems to have bought into it.
Irwin Cotler's document plays on Canadian ignorance 1) of the historical facts 2) of international and Canadian legal obligations, 3) of the well-documented failure of Israel to negotiate in good faith with a powerless partner and 4) the legal legitimacy of Palestinian resistance.
Does Cotler really think readers of his report will buy his claims that the IDF minimizes "collateral" civilian death and has a commitment to international law in the face of:
damning Israeli B'Tselem and witness reports of criminal attacks on civilians,
the bombing and bulldozing of homes with occupants, and
shooting of unarmed demonstrators?
It's surprising that Cotler, a lawyer, does not support any role based on international law to settle this conflict. Although Cotler now is Minister of Justice, the word "justice" or its concept are not to be found in this document. And another legal nicety: Cotler does not choose to explain why he finds the word "disputed" so preferable to the legal description "occupied" territory. In fact, the UN has repeatedly claimed that the Palestinians are covered by the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects civilians living under a military occupation. To be protected, civilians must be living in their own "occupied" territory; by advising us to avoid the use of the word "occupied", he is trying to negate Israel's -- and our -- contractual legal obligations to the protection of these civilians.
While Cotler continually complains about double standards, he conveniently adopts one in which attacks on Israeli's are all "terrorism" while IDF attacks on Palestinian civilians are for "security." The fact that the legitimate rights of Palestinians to their own security and self-defense are protected by international law is thus denied. (Israel was not always squeamish about admitting it was guilty of terrorism: Prime Minister Shamir once noted that he was not against terrorism, only terrorism aimed at Israel.)
Cotler portrays Israel, one of the world's great military powers, as the "victim state", victimized by a poor and marginalized people without even a functioning police force, let alone a military force. We are supposed to believe that pathetic suicide bombers are more deadly than Israel's Apache-loaded missiles, F16s or gunships. Needless to say, Cotler does not mention that Israel has been declared guilty of "crimes against humanity" by the UN for its treatment of Palestinians, the same crime, incidentally, that Germany was convicted of after WW II. Cotler pretends the UN's problems with Israel are based on racism rather than on Israel's well-documented war crimes, crimes against humanity and violations of Israeli legal obligations. By this logic, any efforts to hold Israel to any standards of behaviour automatically become "anti-Semitic"!
Further insulting his readers as well as damaging his own credibility, Cotler equates al Quaida to Hamas, attemptiing to negate the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance. Is Cotler aware that a year ago Hamas scaled down its territorial demands to what the PLO is demanding, which is the minimum under international law?
What is particularly tragic is the role Canada is playing in encouraging violence in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. The Palestinian legal route, in which the International Court of Justice and the UN recently laid the foundations for a peaceful resolution of grievances, is a clear alternative to violence; this route was to demonstrate that progress can be made to peace through peaceful, nonviolent methods. Canada's nonsupport of these important decisions plays directly into the hands of those driven to violence. If the Canadian Government refuses to support the peaceful routes to resolve the Israeli/ Palestinian issue, it is, in effect, supporting the violent routes. We cannot continue to point fingers at suicide bombers if we are blocking the only peaceful routes open to Palestinians.
Canada should maintain a position that has some connection to morality; Canada must maintain its contractual obligations under international law. Our current position in not supporting legal routes to peace is shameful.
I would appreciate an answer to this letter.
Karin Brothers
