Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s rock-solid support for Israel’s actions in Lebanon should come as no surprise. It results not simply from Harper’s desire to score points with Canada’s traditionally Liberal Jewish voters (although that’s part of it). It stems also from his firm belief, articulated well before his Conservatives won the last election, that Canadian foreign policy must be based on the morality of certitude. Put simply, he believes in choosing sides and staying there.

He has no sympathy for those who argue that in places like the Middle East or Afghanistan, competing claims must be understood and dealt with in order to come up with workable solutions. In Harper’s moral and political universe, a country makes its alliances with others on the basis of shared core values. And then it supports those countries, no matter what. Hence, his comments early on in the Lebanon war that Israel’s actions were a “measured” response to provocations by Hezbollah.

To many, including former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, as well as the leaders of Amnesty International, Israel’s massive bombardment was anything but measured. Amnesty has called Israel’s actions war crimes. Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court justice, has warned that both Hezbollah and Israel may be held culpable for crimes against humanity. But for Harper, all this is carping. In his world view, the morality of means takes second place to the morality of ends.

That Israel killed almost 10 times as many civilians as Hezbollah is irrelevant; for Harper, Israel’s cause was just and that is all that matters. Harper spelled out his moral vision of foreign affairs three years ago in a publication called Citizen Centre Report. While not referring specifically to either the Middle East or Afghanistan, it is an essay that illuminates his approach to both conflicts. “The emerging debate on foreign affairs should be fought on moral grounds,” he wrote then. “Current challenges in dealing with terrorism and its sponsors… will be well-served by conservative insights on preserving historic values and moral insights on right and wrong… “These are debates where modern liberals (with the exception of Tony Blair) have no answers; they are trapped in their framework of moral neutrality, moral relativism and moral equivalence. But conservatives should have answers. We understand, however imperfectly… that politics is a moral affair… “Conservatives must take the moral stand, with our allies, in favour of the fundamental values of our society including democracy, free enterprise and individual freedom.

This moral stand should not just give us the right to stand with our allies but the duty to do so and the responsibility to put `hard power’ behind our international commitments.” As an intellectual theory of foreign affairs, Harper’s vision is not new. It echoes that of U.S. neo-conservatives, particularly their disdain for what they call moral equivalence, or what used to be called fair-mindedness. Fair-mindedness is based on the notion that in any dispute, both sides may have legitimate complaints.

If polls are right, it is also viewed by most Canadians as one of the country’s fundamental values. But to neo-cons, fairness is a value too often abused. It allows those whom neo-cons view as demonstrably evil to be treated with the same respect as the patently good. In the neo-con view, Hezbollah rocket attacks against civilians are crimes, but Israeli missile attacks against civilians are not – even if the latter are far more destructive. Actions matter less than the motives behind them. Perhaps the most striking element of Harper’s approach is his sense of absolute certainty. They are no shades of grey. Any Afghan fighting Canadian troops is an enemy of freedom. Any Lebanese civilian fighting Israeli invaders is a terrorist.

For that reason, every struggle everywhere takes on existential dimensions. If the war in Afghanistan is a battle between good and evil, we have no choice but to fight there – even if, as my shrewd colleague Jim Travers has argued, our military efforts there are pointless. So far, Harper’s Manichean stance has discomfited the Liberals (not a difficult task these days). But polls indicate it has cost him support among the public. This too should not be surprising. A great many Canadians are uncomfortable with black and white views of the world. Harper may dismiss their reluctance as moral relativism. But for a lot of people in this country, considering both sides of the argument is still considered a virtue.