There’s Israel and then there’s Canada

 

 

 

Comments.    Considerations.     Questions.

 

          

                   by Kenneth Bagnell

       A friend of mine -– an academic with an earned doctorate in theology — once began a sermon with a quotation drawn from the so-called “God is Dead” movement which came and went in the 1960s. “If God died,” my friend said, “He probably died trying to solve the middle east problem between the Israelis and  the Palestinians.” You get the point. Sad to say, the recent Israel election offers small hope for resolution of the longstanding grievances that plague the region with tensions, worries and anxieties that reach us all. The election solved nothing, indeed may have exacerbated everything, the main indication being the neck and neck result between the Netanyahu Likud Party and the Hertzog Zionist Union party. (As of yesterday, March 19, Netanyahu is the victor with 30 seats compared to Isaac Hertzog’s center left party with 24.  Time will reveal the complex makeup of the 120 seat assembly.

       Moreover, perhaps close to being as troubling as the complex election outcome, was something said during the run up to it. Mr. Netanyahu (to describe him generously) is a strong personality. To go a bit further he is also a skilled orator. But, he should never have made the decision to deliver a campaign speech in Washington just days before election day. In and of itself, that decision led to considerable skepticism in Israel and more in the US political culture. (The distain for his decision was not just reflected in the American President, who clearly keeps his distance, but in one of the most respected female politicians in American history and the most high ranking. I mean the minority leader in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelossi. Ms. Pelossi is, in the best sense, a true lady; she is also a lifelong advocate of Israel as, so it happens, am I.  Ms. Pelossi was so distressed, indeed indignant, at Mr. Netanyahu’s tactic and message, she seemed on the verge of tears or tantrum.

 

       Moreover, once back in Israel, and on the very day of the election, Mr. Netanyahu sent out a hasty electronic message no political media manager would ever permit.  It had -– I’m quite sad to say — an inflammatory if not racial undertone. It contained this statement:  “Right-wing rule is in danger. Arab voters are streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations.” Promptly, no less a media institution than the august New York Times commented on Netanyahu’s self-centered comment in its lead editorial: “This outrageous appeal to hardline voters implied that only he could save Israel from its enemies, including the country’s Arab citizens who represent 20 percent of the population…..” So sad. It’s as if a Canadian political leader publically expressed anxiety because in Quebec, Francophonie voters were streaming to the polling stations over a promise by a provincial leader to be more accommodating to Muslims. I find all this very surprising in Mr. Netanyahu who is, so obviously, intellectually and politically savvy. He may well have done more harm than he realizes by alienating Americans who did not appreciate his speech in Washington which they saw as intrusion. Some of his critics are already suggesting it will help “galvanize” a movement to isolate the country.

      Despite all this, Mr. Netanyahu — ever pragmatic as well as provocative — has a significant measure of confidence from well-regarded members of Canada’s diplomatic corps. For example, Michael Bell — who has had almost 40 years experience in external affairs, was twice Canada’s Ambassador to Israel, and is now Senior Scholar on International Affairs at the University of Windsor — seems to be calmly confident as to Mr. Netanyahu’s future.  In a Globe and Mail essay following election day, he described the Netanyahu campaign as “remarkably rough”.  But he also pointed out that, probably as a result of Netanyahu’s provocations, the voter turnout was high: a notable 72 percent, a surprise to many.  Prof. Bell went on to predict that Netanyahu will probably have no trouble building his coalition which may be as center right as he can make it. (To my surprise and maybe your own, Netanyahu is likely on his way to becoming the longest serving Prime Minister in Israel history.)

        Given this reflection on both the state of Israel and its leader, it’s natural, going forward, to reflect also on the strong –to some very admirable – support of both Israel and its Prime Minister by our own Prime Minister and his Conservative government. To many supporters of Israel (I count myself as one) it’s exactly the way it should be. But in recent years, within the Jewish community and within the broader society, there’s growing skepticism over the degree to which the Harper government displays deliberately unreserved and almost uncritical loyalty to one side in the exceedingly complex issue of Israel and the Palestinians.

       In late January, 2014 The Vancouver Sun, disclosed on its front page — along with a photo of Prime Minister Harper standing reverently at the Western Wall — an embarrassing junket: the PM had led a contingent of over 200 Canadians, including roughly ten evangelical pastors on a tour of Israel’s religious sites. There were, on the trip, no Bishops, Catholic or Anglican, and no mainline Protestant leaders from say, the United, Presbyterian, Anglican or Lutheran churches. As the article put it: “Even though the census shows more than four out of ten Canadians are Catholics, there were no Catholic Bishops or other Catholic officials on the Prime Ministerial tour which was almost unprecedented for its size.” I don’t approve of this. For one thing –- and to be brief about it –- the Middle East tension is an issue for scholarly experts to pronounce upon: seasoned, credible ambassadors, political science scholars, experienced, mature journalists. Less so evangelicals whose predetermined views on religion if not politics are strictly their own.   

    When I consider our Prime Minister’s view on this matter, I recall a comment of Andrew Cohen, a very gifted journalist, once a Washington correspondent for The Globe and Mail, then a university academic and author of a gracefully written book on Lester Pearson. (I reviewed it and highly commend it.)  In an article written by Bernie Farber, Cohen is frank: “Mr. Harper talks about sophistication in our policy with Israel. Yet he fills Canada’s official delegation with evangelical Christians, a score of rabbis, and prominent Canadians Jews who support the Conservatives as if they speak for all Jews. They don’t.”

     Moreover, Bernie Farber — he’s a former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress — had a strong title above his article. It read: “What has happened to the Jewish community that historically put social justice and human rights at the top of the agenda…” In the body of his piece Farber writes this: “My community is far more diverse than those handpicked to fly with the Prime Minister to Israel and back. Given the myriad feelings this trip has evoked, the changing nature of Canadian Jewry and our deeply held scared values, it behooves us to do some real soul-searching and honestly assess our role as the Canadian Jewish community.” Naturally he’s been rebuked from within the community. But Bernie –who is now working in a partnership with native people to create sustainable industry on reserves — is on to something. It’s good for both our Jewish community and for our diverse country and political culture. He supports Israel. But he also has critical faculties. And he puts them to use.  

 

    All my past blogs are archived on my website: your comments are welcome there: www.kennethbagnell.com.