Howard Gerson practises law in Toronto. Tuvia Blumenthal is Professor Emeritus of Economics at Israel’s Ben Gurion University and a member of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.
The Harper government faces criticism for its continued support of Israel’s military response to aggression from Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The tragedy in Qana, resulting from Israel’s air strike on a Hezbollah rocket launching site, stoked the anger of the international community and emboldened the government’s detractors.
The Prime Minister’s approach represents a break with the “balanced approach” of previous governments. In fact, that approach was a refusal to take a position at all. It was a policy designed to appeal to all sides rather than taking a principled stand on the conflict, which could alienate some voters. It was premised on the romantic and untenable notion of a Canadian role as the soft-power honest-broker in the conflict.
The Harper government’s opposition to an unconditional ceasefire as Israel’s ground war continues is not motivated, as critics allege, by a desire to align Canada’s foreign policy with that of the U.S.; nor is it a play for Jewish votes. Rather, it recognizes that in most conflicts often one side, in this case Israel, is more in the right than its enemies. Canadian courts make such determinations all the time. Canada made this determination when it took sides in two World Wars and the Korean War.
The government’s position reflects the view that it is not acceptable for Israel or Lebanon to return to the status quo ante that existed prior to the present hostilities. Israel, like Canada and its allies in earlier times, is entitled to eliminate threats to its survival and Lebanon’s government must exercize sovereignty throughout Lebanon to prevent a repeat of the present situation.
When assessing their government’s position, Canadians should consider the explicitly stated goals of Hamas and Hezbollah, which precipitated the war by attacking Israel from Lebanon and Gaza with Iranian and Syrian support.
Hamas secured a majority in the Palestinian Authority’s parliament after Israel withdrew from Gaza. Its Covenant of Aug. 18, 1988 states: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: It, or any part of it, should not be given up.” “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours.”
Hezbollah’s program is equally explicit: “Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore, our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no ceasefire and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated. We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore, we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan… and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.”
In 2000, Israel withdrew from Lebanon where it had occupied a buffer zone since 1982 and UN Security Council Resolution No. 1559 mandated the disarming of Lebanese militias. Hezbollah refused to comply, created a state within a state in south Lebanon along Israel’s northern border and acquired some 12,000 rockets and missiles from Iran and Syria. It started firing rockets indiscriminately at civilians in northern Israel as a prelude to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. Similarly, after Israel withdrew from Gaza a year ago, the Palestinians elected a Hamas government and began to fire rockets at Israeli towns.
This demonstrates that the positions of these groups, mandating the violent destruction of Israel, are not merely empty rhetoric and are not based on Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and its past occupation of Gaza, but rather on opposition to Israel’s existence. It shows that Israel deserves international support for its present campaign and should be permitted to defeat its enemies decisively rather than tolerating an interminable war of attrition.
Israel’s failure so far to defeat Hezbollah shows the limitations of air power against guerrilla forces, political concerns in Israel over Israeli casualties from the major ground invasion required to win the war, as well as Israel’s fervent desire not to reoccupy Lebanon. Israeli leaders fear that once their forces are in Lebanon en masse, the momentum for an international force to replace them will diminish.
While Israel has agreed to an immediate ceasefire once an international force is in place, there will be no robust multinational force enabling the Lebanese government to extend its sovereignty to its border with Israel if that force has to shoot its way into position. That tough job has been left for Israel to do and Israel should be permitted to finish it.