Some Canadians seem puzzled by Prime Minister Stephen Harper鈥檚 expedition to Israel last week. They wonder what benefits sa国际传媒 or Israel got from it.
They wonder what political advantage Harper gained or how he helped the peace process by embracing one side of what our department of Foreign Affairs鈥� website refers to as the 鈥淧alestinian-Israeli dispute.鈥�
John Bell, a former Canadian ambassador to Israel and Jordan, wrote a piece for Al-Jazeera with a headline calling Harper鈥檚 politics in Israel 鈥渂affling.鈥� He said sa国际传媒, which could be a catalyst for Middle East solutions, has as prime minister someone who is mired in 19th-century myths.
I suspect Harper is mired in several myths, as shown by his belief that punishment is justice, his faith that pipelines knit a nation and that sovereignty is all that matters in the Arctic, and his peculiar version of the War of 1812.
The most frequent criticism of his expedition to Israel 鈥� with a contingent of hangers-on and camp followers that would have done Alexander the Great proud 鈥� was that it lacked balance.
In a speech to the Knesset, he praised Israel as 鈥渢he light of freedom and democracy鈥� shining in a 鈥渞egion of darkness鈥� 鈥� the only Middle East country anchored in 鈥渢he ideals of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.鈥�
He made no mention of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied territories, the plight of Palestinian refugees or Israeli incursions into Gaza and Lebanon as other world leaders including U.S. President Barack Obama and French President Fran莽ois Hollande did in Knesset addresses.
Harper said bluntly that he would not criticize Israel, but would leave to others 鈥渕oral relativism鈥� from which 鈥渕ore sinister notions鈥� grow.
At least he didn鈥檛 fudge, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself indicated that those seeking balance would have been somewhat relieved by the leaders鈥� private conversations.
If Harper鈥檚 declaration of solidarity didn鈥檛 please everyone in that Israeli house of factions, it certainly pleased Netanyahu, for both live the world of black and white, good and evil, right and wrong.
I don鈥檛 understand the impression being given that Harper has changed sa国际传媒鈥檚 sacrosanct policy in the Middle East suddenly.
After all, sa国际传媒 was one of 33 members of the UN Special Committee on Palestine that voted for the establishment of a state of Israel in 1947, despite pressure from Britain not to, and was one of the first to recognize it as such in 1949 after it was admitted to the UN.
In 2006, Harper called the Israeli attack on Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon 鈥渁 measured response鈥� to the kidnapping of a few Israeli soldiers.
In 2009, sa国际传媒 alone voted against a UN Humans Rights Council resolution condemning Israel for an attack on Gaza without mentioning Hamas rocket attacks that provoked it. European nations, more cowardly, abstained.
Yet sa国际传媒鈥檚 policy hasn鈥檛 changed at all, unless the toffs in Foreign Affairs haven鈥檛 got the message yet. The department鈥檚 website still says Israel is a country without a capital and that sa国际传媒 doesn鈥檛 recognize Israeli control over 鈥渢erritories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip).鈥�
It also calls continuing Israeli settlements in the 鈥渙ccupied territories鈥� 鈥渁 serious obstacle鈥� to 鈥渁 comprehensive, just and lasting peace.鈥�
Bell is reported to have asked: 鈥淎re we going to change the policy document?鈥� Of course not: Such an amendment wouldn鈥檛 fit into an omnibus bill.
Harper wasn鈥檛 preparing the ground for a policy change. He wasn鈥檛, with 329,000 Jews in sa国际传媒 compared to one million Muslims, seeking political support. He wasn鈥檛, with the annual value of trade with Israel the equivalent of a day鈥檚 trade with the U.S., pursuing economic goals 鈥� though the steakhouse owners and toymakers accompanying him might have been.
Our PM might not have much time for the UN, but he feels comfortable on the world stage.
Remember his climb to Davos in 2012 to announce 鈥渢ransformations鈥� necessary for economic growth and prosperity in sa国际传媒 and to call old folks, like me, 鈥渁 threat to social programs鈥�?
Prime ministers often say things abroad that they鈥檇 rather not say at home 鈥� just to get it off their chests.
