The fact this past week President Trump decided to move the American embassy to Jerusalem has, understandably so, raised intense reactions within Israel, amongst the Palestinians and globally. The fact that Prime Minster Justin Trudeau has been rather mute on the issue does need to be noted. What are some of the reasons the reigning Liberal Party might be pro-Israeli and Zionist (in a subtler sense, perhaps, than the more religiously oriented Conservative Party)? There are 3 reasons I think that might explain such softness towards Israel by such liberals commonly known as Progressives Except Palestine (PEPs).
First, there has been a tendency within the Liberal Party since the days of Lester Pearson to support Israel. Pearson was on the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) in the 1940s that brought the state of Israel into being. Pearson’s break with William Lyon McKenzie King on this issue (King was closer to the British position) set the stage for the Liberal Party to bend more towards the Jews and Israel than the plight of the Palestinians. There is now, in Israel, the Pearson Park that honours his contribution to formally establishing Israel via the UN as a state in 1948. Such a tale has been well told in David Bercuson’s Canada and the Birth of Israel: A Study in Canadian Foreign Policy (1985). Although Pearson is often hailed as Canada’s peacemaker, his track record is much different than the image Canadians hold high about him. The Palestinians certainly don’t nod in respect to Pearson in the same way as does the state of Israel. So, the Liberal Party since Pearson has a history of not substantively critiquing Israel.
Second, there can be no doubt the tragic and ominous reality of the Holocaust lingers in the minds, imaginations and memories of many. The “Never Again” slogan that has captivated many often becomes a justification for an uncritical support of Israel. Those who dare criticise Israel are either called “anti-semitic” or “Jew haters”. Such a circular way of thinking and reason has a way of silencing meaningful criticism. But, it is the memory of the Holocaust that often legitimates the uncritical stance by many PEP liberals of which Trudeau is on the trendy edge.
Third, there is a close historic connection between the Trudeau family and the Bronfman family. Peter Newman, in his fine book, Bronfman Dynasty: The Rothschilds of the New World ((1978), has ably and poignantly tracked and traced the impact of this Jewish family on Canadian public life. The close connection between the Bronfman clan and Israel is a close and intimate one. Charles Bronfman is a leading figure in the “Birthright” heritage that provides North American Jews opportunities to visit Israel. Edgar Bronfman founded “Bronfman Fellows” in 1987, and this organization, yet again, creates webs of opportunities for North American Jews to spend time in Israel. And, of course, not to be denied or missed is the obvious fact that Stephen Bronfman is the chief fundraiser for the Liberal Party. Trudeau is not likely to question the actions of the state of Israel given such close relations between the Bronfman clan, Israel and the Liberal Party.
Needless to say, the Palestinians are the victims of such an establishment silence in regards to the action of the state in Israel in East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza (not to mention the many refugee camps). The many settlements are considered illegal by the UN and International Law, but Trudeau and the Liberal Party are silent on the issue (even though they played the high road with the situation in Myanmar).
The fact that Canada has consistently voted three times since 2015 at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to hold the status quo on Israel/Palestine (I/P) speaks much about how unliberal the Liberal Party is in regards to I/P. The equally important fact that Stanley Michael Lynk was marginalized and opposed by the Liberty Party, when chosen to be the “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestine Territories since 1967” clearly reveals their prejudices and unliberal attitudes in the situation of I/P. The fact that both high ranking Liberals and Zionists linked affectionate arms to oppose Lynk, speaks significantly about the co-opting of Trudeau and the Liberals by the Zionist agenda. The reasons mentioned above (and there are others---investments, Muslim terrorists, rhetoric of Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East etc.) do much to explain why Trudeau is not likely to have much substantive or structural interest in either bringing minimal justice or peace for Palestinians in Israel in his seemingly enlightened approach to Canadian political life.
I should note, by way of closing, two books on the topic of Canada and Israel that are more than worth the reading. The Holocaust, Israel, and Canadian Protestant Churches (2002), by Haim Genizi, has a decidedly Zionist bent, but, in saying that, his descriptive overview on how some churches in Canada moved to a position of questioning the ideology and actions of the state of Israel is a valuable overview of the topic. Also, one of the best known Roman Catholic theologians in Canada is Gregory Baum, and his recently released autobiography, The Oil Has Not Run Dry: The Story of My Theological Pathway (2017) is worth the read for a variety of poignant reasons. But, for the purpose of this missive, his chapters (chapters 5 & 20) on Jewishness, Judaism, Christianity and Israel are poignant and pungent. There are few Canadian theologians of Baum’s significance who, at a minimal level, have dared to question and doubt the ideological of Zionism and its impact on the Palestinians.
Ron Dart
Comments