For Harper of the Holy Land, not long enough. He spoke to the Knesset; he was feted at a state dinner (for which he retaliated from the piano, with a rendering of “Hey, Jude”); he received an honorary degree; he visited the Stephen J. Harper Bird Sanctuary.
At every turn, “Stephen” — as Benjamin Netanyahu calls him in public, as if patting him on the head — was the toast of Israel. “Stephen” felt a love he does not at home.
If the visit was a personal success for him, it was less so for Canada. That’s because Harper missed an opportunity to use Canada’s currency with Israel — our full faith and credit as its best friend — to open a conversation that Netanyahu does not want to have.
Loyalty is what Canada offers Israel. When Harper talks of supporting it through “fire and water,” that’s rhetoric. Are we going to go to war with Israel?
It means moral support. We traffic in that, these days. As the world’s moral superpower, a role refined under the Conservatives, we bring succour to Israel.
That’s what Canada brings to the United Nations, and that’s what Harper brought to the Knesset — even if he implies that Israel is as isolated internationally as, say, Taiwan. Israel has enemies, yes, but also influential friends. This is not your father’s Israel, thank God.
But Harper is more Zionist than Theodore Herzl. He wants Canadians to believe — particularly Jewish Canadians — that no governments before his embraced Israel. He ignores Lester Pearson’s role in the founding of Israel and defusing the Suez Crisis. It is inconvenient, as is any narrative of Liberal Canada.
The question is how Harper used his official visit, for himself and for Canada, whatever personal gratification it brought. (Curiously, for a guy so taken with the place, this was his first visit).
In public, Harper uttered not a discouraging word. This isn’t to suggest he should have insulted his hosts. Still, other friends of Israel have raised reservations about its policies. Not Canada.
Instead, Harper talked about anti-Semitism in a generic speech that Sarah Palin praised. Of course, he’s right about the hypocritical academic boycotts of Israeli universities. He’s also right about celebrating the only democracy in the region, even if he implies that a nuclear, smart, wealthy Israel is less powerful than it is.
But he would have also been shrewder if he had celebrated Israel’s creativity in the arts, its vibrant civic culture and its innovation in science, which has made it “a startup nation” — and then talked about how all this may come apart if Israel does not find a way to face its demographic and existential challenges.
Practically, Harper might have found a way to tell the Israelis that Israel’s settlements are unsustainable. Rather than annexing parts of the West Bank, as some want, Israel will eventually have to leave it, or some of it, through a land swap. Ariel Sharon knew that when he left Gaza. In the meantime, Israel cannot keep building settlements.
More pointedly, Harper might have used his good offices to persuade Israel to give the new international agreement with Iran a chance. Instead, alone among leading western nations, he rejects it.
He knows that the only alternative to diplomacy with Iran is intervention. He also knows that hitting Iran would not destroy all its facilities. Instead, an attack would inflame Iranians, invite retaliation and ensure that Iran develops the bomb in “self-defence.”
When Netanyahu rattled sabres two years ago, as he has in the past, Harper just nodded.
Harper talks about “sophistication” in our policy with Israel. Yet his fills Canada’s official delegation with evangelical Christians, a score of rabbis (many Orthodox) and prominent Canadian Jews who support the Conservatives — as if they speak for all Canadian Jews. They don’t.
He appoints as our new ambassador a Toronto lawyer and commentator with ties to the Conservatives whose strongest credential seems to be her full-throated support for Likud.
Harper could have brought a delegation that reflects Canada’s success as a diverse society, including Jews of achievement who don’t agree with him. At the same time, he could have spent more time in Israel meeting Israelis of other views — if he met any at all — which might broaden his perspective.
Ultimately, we might ask, just what did this visit do except reinforce a status quo with some mutually soothing, self-comforting delusions? Did the visit urge Netanyahu to give the nuclear deal with Iran a chance? Did it introduce Netanyahu to a broader Canada, and Harper to a broader Israel?
To some Israelis, Harper looked like the Messiah. To most Canadians, he looks like the innocent who stayed too long and asked too little.
Original Article
Source: ottawacitizen.com/
Author: ANDREW COHEN
No comments:
Post a Comment