The B’nai Brith Canada Institute for International Affairs has a mandate to protest the abuse of human rights throughout the world and advocate on behalf of worldwide Jewish communities in distress. The Institute has a special focus on pro-Israel advocacy and education.
Rochelle Wilner President	Frank Dimant Chief Executive Officer	Amos Sochaczevski National Chair	Ruth Klein National Director

A CRITIQUE OF CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY
IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Submission to the Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade

A: INTRODUCTION

B’nai Brith Canada’s Institute for International Affairs submits this report to the Department of Foreign Affairs on the occasion of the annual Human Rights consultations, which are held in preparation for Canada’s participation at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. B’nai Brith appreciates this opportunity to share information and explain positions in the spirit of maintaining open lines of communication with the Department.

B’nai Brith Canada, active in the country since 1875, has a mandate to protest abuses of human rights wherever they may take place. It therefore established its Institute for International Affairs to monitor human rights issues worldwide. The Institute has been particularly active in studying the complexities involved in the current ongoing crisis in the Middle East and examining the responses of the international community, with particular reference to the Canadian approach.

At a time when western democracies are grappling with the grave threats to world security evident in the aftermath of the September 11^th attacks, it is timely to re-examine Canada’s foreign policy imperatives and to re-evaluate some of its responses to key issues relating to the global struggle against terrorism and extremism. The Institute for International Affairs has customarily undertaken an annual review of this nature in preparation for our Government’s participation at the Commission ⁱ, one of the key bodies of the UN infrastructure.

As Commission members gear up for the annual ritual of anti-Israel rhetoric that has become the hallmark of these proceedings, it is also useful to examine how the Middle East crisis is customarily treated at international fora such as the Commission, and to evaluate how Canada’s stated policies manifest themselves in this setting.

This study will therefore concentrate on Canadian foreign policy, with particular reference to the Middle East and the struggle against terrorism, as well as on the treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the international arena and Canada’s role in this context. Reports that the Government of Canada is planning to review its foreign affairs and defense priorities strongly suggest that the public will be consulted as part of this process. This report is therefore presented as a timely contribution to a debate of significance to all Canadians.

B: CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY

Canadian foreign policy, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, is characterized by three main imperatives ⁱⁱ. The first goal is "the promotion of prosperity and employment by advancing Canada’s international trade and economic interests abroad…" Trade and economic interest are thus high on our list of national priorities. The "protection of our security" is naturally an essential foreign policy component. The third principle, "the projection of Canadian values and culture in the world by promoting universal respect for human rights, the development of participatory government and stable institutions, the rule of law…" is also cited as a priority. Thus, Canadian policy blends national self-interest with a measure of altruism directed at encouraging a democratic and rights-protecting world order.

The specific role of human rights within Canada’s overall foreign policy receives added attention in a Department backgrounder that speaks of "the central role of human rights in Canada’s foreign policy, not only as a fundamental value but also as a crucial element in the development of stable, democratic and prosperous societies at peace with each other…" ⁱⁱⁱ [our emphasis]

In seeking to advance human rights internationally, how can Canada most effectively influence others to respect international human rights principles? The Government’s position is as follows:

“Our ultimate aim is not to punish offending governments, and certainly not their innocent citizens, but rather to influence governments to respect their people’s rights. Responses to specific situations require a careful balancing of many considerations: a government’s relative commitment to human rights, the range of Canadian interests at play and above all the effectiveness of the means of influence at our disposal. Bilaterally, in most cases, Canada finds it can maximize its influence by continuing dialogue with the government in question, rather than isolating it, and by employing positive measures, rather than coercion. Positive measures include direct support for development of democratic institutions and practices…" ^iv [our emphasis].

Canada’s policies in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be analyzed against the backdrop of these overall priorities which place such apparent emphasis on human rights and democracy, though the Department appears to lower the bar on its expectations and judgments by making allowances for “a government’s relative commitment to human rights”.

The Backgrounder speaks of the necessity of taking into account “the effectiveness of the means of influence at our disposal”, yet it is irrefutable that Canada holds a position of some influence in the world arena and, specifically, in the Middle East. As part of the multilateral negotiation process, Canada is the chair or "Gavel-holder" of the Refugee Working Group (RWG), and is one of eleven members of the Steering Group that oversees the activity of five working groups. It is also a member of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, which co-ordinates international assistance to the Palestinian Authority. Thus Canada, through direct interventions in the form of participation at the United Nations and other international fora, as well as indirect initiatives as part of the "multilateral" track, brings significant influence to bear on discussion of a conflict that continues to command world attention.

C: CANADA’S POSITION ON KEY ISSUES

For the purposes of this submission, Canada’s foreign policy as it relates to the Middle East conflict will be examined through the components of the Department’s Position on Key Issues. ^v

1) SECURITY OF ISRAEL

Canada supports the security, well-being and rights of Israel as a legitimate, independent state. This has been a fundamental aspect of the policy of successive Canadian governments since the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948.

Israel counts Canada as one of its most supportive sister democracies and the range and breadth of ties between the two countries is impressive. Trade between Canada and Israel in the year 2000 alone consisted of $308,506,000 in exports and $596,696,000 in imports, according to government statistics ^vi. A common interest in democratic traditions and institutions binds the two countries together in friendship and joint endeavour. However, current Canadian practice in terms of the need to support Israel’s existence and legitimacy is not sufficient to meet the changing realities of the current ongoing campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel. Nor does it address the fact that Israel’s neighbours might, at best, be prepared to contemplate Israel’s existence, but have given no real evidence to date that they truly accept Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state in the region.

In fact, Canada has been too passive in the face of numerous egregious attempts to undermine Israel’s position in the international community. It has been silent on too many issues that, left untouched, have only festered. For example, Canada failed to respond when Iran recently threatened Israel with annihilation by nuclear attack. A fellow member of the United Nations was publicly threatened with annihilation and Canada’s voice was not heard.

There is no justification whatsoever to dismiss such threats as merely preposterous bluster not worthy of a response by Canada. Iran has amply demonstrated in the past in its war with Iraq that its threats cannot be taken likely. Israel’s detractors could well take this silence for tacit support for the acceptability of such a threat. Canada should have publicly voiced its official displeasure to the Iranian threat of genocide. It should have brought this issue forward to the international arena for appropriate condemnation. In spite of the automatic anti-Israel majority at human rights commissions and similar fora, which would have dismissed such concerns out of hand, the moral force of Canada’s intervention would have been potent.

Canada’s role in the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) is well known, in terms of its commendable efforts at Durban to stem the tide of the rabid anti-Zionist and antisemitic propaganda that was the hallmark of the proceedings ^vii. The links between the entrenched racism of some of Israel’s detractors and their efforts to attack and delegitimize Israel were all to obvious. When the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the Baha’i delegation were effectively barred from participation in the regional preparatory conference hosted by Tehran, that was the time for Canada to speak out, for such an example of racial discrimination, under the very auspices of the UN and with its tacit approval, signaled the mood that was to predominate at Durban. The efforts that Canada subsequently put forth at Durban, while worthy, would have been far more effective had Canada made a stand earlier in the process. At Durban itself, once it was obvious that attacks to delegitimize the State of Israel and antisemitism would prevail, Canada should have walked out of the conference, as it was pressed to do by human rights organizations such as B’nai Brith Canada.

As this report goes to press, Canada has just abstained, along with Australia, on a draft resolution on the follow-up to the WCAR that was approved by the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee ^viii. This resolution supported a decision by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to establish an “anti-discrimination unit” to combat racism and to promote equality and non-discrimination. It also requested the Secretary-General to appoint five “independent” experts, one from each region, to follow the implementation of the provisions of the Declaration and Programme of Action approved at the Conference. A budget of US$1.2 million for 2002-2003 was approved by the resolution to implement these recommendations.

Canada’s opposition to this draft resolution was, according to its explanation of the vote, significant. Canada’s representative was reported as saying that the “Durban Conference had been inexcusably mired in issues related to the Middle East… His delegation disassociated itself from all references in the Durban outcome to the Middle East… His delegation had had serious concerns about both the Durban process and its outcome documents.” ^ix Canada’s comments are certainly welcome, but one has to wonder why such strong opposition did not translate into a vote against the resolution rather than an abstention. The only two countries that opposed the draft resolution were the United States and Israel. Standing with Israel on this issue would have been a potent expression of Canada support in the midst of the attacks inherent in the Durban process against Israel’s legitimacy.

It is also indisputable that in order to be a truly effective advocate for the “security, well-being and rights of Israel as a legitimate, independent state”, Canada must speak out not just on issues relating to Durban, but on the widespread, state-sanctioned antisemitism that has become the hallmark of the modern Arab world. This is the type of antisemitism that has fostered the widespread dissemination and apparent acceptance of the myth that four thousand Jews stayed home from the World Trade Centre on the morning of September 11, 2001 and that Israel, rather than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, was somehow responsible for the attacks. It is the type of antisemitism that has made a gruesome jihad recruitment video of the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl, following his “confession” that he was a Jew, a hot-selling item in the region.

This antisemitism has already spilled over into the west, as evidenced by the intensification of antisemitic activity worldwide. Though often expressed in the guise of anti-Zionism, it is merely a variant of the age-old phenomenon, using the same metaphors of well-poisoning, drinking the blood of children etc., that were popular in a bygone age. This type of rhetoric has been termed the “New Antisemitism” since it actively seeks to diminish the collective rights of the Jews as a people rather than the entitlements of Jews as individuals. It is thus the very principle of the national self-determination of the Jewish people that is now under attack, and Canada needs to speak up whenever this new form of "politically correct" terminology is used to undermine Israel’s existence and legitimacy.

When Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad welcomed Pope John Paul II to Syria on May 5, 2001, the following outrageous statement went unchallenged by Canadian officials, as well as by the Vatican. "They [Israelis and Jews] try to kill all the principles of divine faiths with the same mentality of betraying Jesus Christ and torturing Him, and in the same way that they tried to commit treachery against Prophet Mohammad..." ^x Canada yet again missed an opportunity to speak out against the type of blatant incitement to hatred that contributes to the ongoing Arab campaign to criminalize and delegitimize Israel.

As history has demonstrated, ugly rhetoric leads to the type of offensive action that logic demands must follow such vitriol. Even Arab states that have peace treaties with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan, foster rigid anti-normalization policies. Professional associations, for example, regularly censure and harass members who pursue contacts in Israel, and Israeli delegates are regularly barred from regional meetings in their field. It was the European Union, interestingly, that set an important example last year by canceling its sponsorship and financing of an economic conference of European and Mediterranean chambers of commence because the Egyptian organizers refused to invite Israeli delegates. Canada should be vigilant in ensuring that Canadian participation is not contemplated in events that exclude Israelis, since such attempts at exclusion are akin to an assault on Israel’s legitimacy.

Canada should also be cautious in its assessment of the much publicized “peace proposal” put forward by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. This proposal is indeed alluring, with its promises of full recognition of Israel by the entire Arab world as well as normalization of relations, but so far no details have been offered on how such a utopian outcome could ever be guaranteed, nor on what demands would be made in terms of the claimed Palestinian “right of return”. Even more ominously, Canada should be mindful of the threat just last summer by the author of this proposal:

“Every single drop of Arab blood that has been spilled on our usurped Arab territories will be duly wrested from those who dared to shed it. The womb of every Arab woman carries retribution and every fallen martyr has left behind a loud roar, vibrating in the chest of every child who is looking towards martyrdom.”

In light of this charge by the Crown Prince to the next generation, how can his offer of recognition and normalization be considered credible? Canadian support for any proposal that does not guarantee the “security, well-being and rights of Israel” would contravene what has been “a fundamental aspect of successive Canadian governments since…1948”.

Recommendations

• Canada should boycott fora which are used by Arab and Muslim totalitarian states to attack the democratic State of Israel.
• Canada should speak out against the "New Antisemitism" that seeks to undermine the rights of the Jewish people to national self determination.
• Canada should be wary of peace proposals that do not guarantee the security of the State of Israel.

2) SUPPORT FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PEACE SETTLEMENT

Canada firmly supports the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles signed on September 13, 1993. These should lead to a comprehensive agreement based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, including the right of all countries in the region to live within secure and recognized boundaries and the requirement for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967. Canada also firmly supports the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty of March 26, 1979 and the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty of October 26, 1994.

Canada voices its support for a comprehensive peace settlement with the only a priori "requirement" being "Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967", which, it is implied, will pave the way for "secure and recognized boundaries". It is necessary to recall that there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area, neither in 1949 nor in 1967. An oft-forgotten requirement of Resolution 242, as expressed in Paragraph 3, stipulated that these boundaries should be "free from threats or acts of force". That terminology should be part of the Canadian requirement for a "comprehensive peace settlement".

Given the unremitting atmosphere of hostility against Israel in the Middle East, involving both verbal threats and tangible support for terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians (aka: "legitimate resistance against the occupiers"), Canada should stand firm on this crucial aspect of building peace in the Middle East. Neither terrorist incursions nor threats of belligerency can have any part of a true and lasting settlement in the Middle East.

Recommendations

• Canada’s policy statement should include the requirement of Resolution 242 that Israel’s borders must be "free from threats or acts of force".
• Canada should ensure this terminology is included in the language of international fora on the Middle East situation.

3) OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over the territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip) and opposes all unilateral actions intended to predetermine the outcome of negotiations, including the establishment of settlements in the territories and unilateral moves to annex East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Canada considers such actions to be contrary to international law and unproductive for the peace process.

By titling this section "Occupied Territories" rather than "Disputed Territories", Canada is itself prejudging and predetermining the outcome of negotiations. By labeling "settlements" in the territories as "contrary to international law", Canada ignores the fact that the West Bank and Gaza were not under the recognized sovereignty of any state when they came under Israel’s control in yet another defensive war imposed upon Israel as part of an ongoing pan-Arab policy of "driving the Jews into the sea". Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on historic claims but also on valid security concerns. Indeed, Jewish settlement in these areas has existed since time immemorial and was expressly recognized as legitimate in the Mandate of Palestine adopted by the League of Nations. It is only during the years of Jordan’s occupation of the West Bank that it became a capital offense to sell land to Jews. It is thus political will and not international law that has labeled these areas "occupied territories".

When Jerusalem was under the control of Jordan from 1948-67, Jews were barred from visiting their holy places, Jewish residents of the age-old Jewish Quarter were expelled and synagogues were wantonly destroyed or desecrated. At that time, neither Canada nor any other member of the international community spoke up to condemn these actions or label them as “contrary to international law”, let alone to take Jordan to task for contravening its commitments under the Armistice Agreements that it had signed with Israel in April 1949. And yet Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem, the historic capital of the Jewish nation - within a framework that respects the rights of all religions, is opposed by Canada as "contrary to international law”. It is obvious that international law is only invoked in certain selected circumstances.

Notwithstanding the above, in the interests of reaching a comprehensive and lasting solution to the conflict, Israel has already signified its willingness to address the issue of withdrawal from disputed territories within the context of a real and lasting peace. This has included withdrawal from the Sinai as part of a comprehensive peace agreement with Egypt, withdrawals from the West Bank in the context of the Oslo peace process, offers regarding sovereignty arrangements in Jerusalem, and attempts to negotiate with Syria over the Golan Heights. The stated Canadian position on "occupied territories" thus does not address the totality or legal complexities of the situation, and merely contributes to the hardening of attitudes and unwillingness to compromise evident in Yasser Arafat’s blunt refusal of the most far-reaching peace terms ever offered at Camp David II in July 2000.

Recommendations

• Canada should abandon use of the politically explosive and inherently biased term "occupied territories" and instead refer to the areas under discussion as "disputed territories".
• Canada should uphold the right of Jews to live in the territories where there has been a Jewish presence for millennia.

4) RIGHTS OF PALESTINIANS

Canada recognizes that the legitimate rights of the Palestinians must be realized, including the right to self-determination to be exercised through peace negotiations.

Canada’s recognition that the Palestinian “right to self determination” should be “exercised through peace negotiations” represents a crucial recognition that negotiation rather than violence is the only legitimate means to gain such rights. It is recommended that Canada adhere strictly to this principle in all its statements and expressions of policy, such as votes in international fora, lest mixed messages be given to the Palestinians that Canada legitimizes in any way the return to violence that has been evident since September 2000.

Recommendation

• Canada’s unequivocal insistence on the necessity of "peaceful negotiations" in order to realize Palestinian aspirations should be re-affirmed in all its public statements.

5) PALESTINIAN REPRESENTATION

Canada recognizes the Palestinian Liberation Organization as the principal representative of the Palestinian people. Canada recognizes Yasser Arafat at the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Canada’s recognition of Yasser Arafat as PLO Chairman, with no preconditions whatsoever, represents the granting of legitimacy to Arafat with what amounts to exculpatory immunity. This is in spite of periodic Canadian government statements chiding Arafat for his failure to act against terrorists operating from areas under his control. "We have called on Chairman Arafat to make explicit his denunciation of terrorism…" said Foreign Minister John Manley last fall in a series of statements issued after terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.^xi Yet since these statements never demand compliance as a precondition for support, their impact is seriously diminished. Given Arafat’s continued refusal to take the required sustained action against Palestinian terrorist groups, and his propensity for making highly publicized condemnations of terrorism that appear to comply with Canadian requests at the same time as he glorifies the perpetrators and calls for more martyrs, ^xii Canada’s continued unconditional legitimization of his leadership is unacceptable.

Similarly, Canada’s failure to speak out in criticism of Arafat over the shameful Karine A weapons ship basically gives him a license to act in such matters with complete impunity. On January 3, 2002, Israel intercepted the Karine A, a ship bound for the Palestinian Authority (PA) packed with more than 50 tons of offensive weapons, including Katyusha rockets with a range of 20 kilometres, 107 mm Katyusha rockets with a range of 8 kilometres, rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPG) and Sager missiles, 80 mm and 120 mm long-range mortar shells, land mines, Kalashnikov assault rifles, ammunition and other explosive devices. The weapons on the ship had been purchased from Iran by officials of the PA and transferred to the ship in a secret operation off the coast of the Iranian island of Qeshm. The captain of the ship was an officer in the Palestinian Authority coastal police, the same body that last year received a grant of $225,000 from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for “capacity building”. Information from CIDA noted additional funding for a "search and rescue seminar" that presumably relates to that same coastal guard, one of the segments of Arafat’s security forces.

Reports that the arms shipment was to be dropped off the Gaza coast north of Alexandria, to be picked up by Palestinian officials posing as fisherman, add a worrying dimension to Canada’s role in providing Zodiac search and rescue craft for the Palestinian Coastal Guard.^xiii What guarantees does Canada have - and what guarantees does it insist on - that such craft, purchased in good faith to aid Palestinian fishermen caught in storms off Gaza, will not be used to facilitate operations of the Karine A variety? After all, this is not the first time that the Palestinian factions, in league with Arafat, have tried to smuggle weapons into the country. The weapons smuggling ship Santorini, for example, was intercepted by IDF forces on May 6, 2001.

After weeks of denying any official Palestinian role in this affair, which was in direct contravention of commitments under the Oslo Accords, Arafat finally admitted Palestinian Authority responsibility, while disavowing any personal blame. After all, he was at that time publicly espousing support for a ceasefire.

Given the proximity of Israel’s population centers to hostile fire emanating from areas under the control of the PA, the implications of such attempts to build up an offensive arsenal cannot be ignored. And yet Canada delayed speaking out publicly against the Palestinian Authority for its role in the affair for three and a half weeks. On January 29, 2002, in his first day in the House as Foreign Minister, Bill Graham stated in response to a question: "The government has clearly condemned any implication of the Palestinian Authority in that shipment…We have completely condemned that shipment".^xiv Apart from the fact the condemnation should have been more prompt, it is clear from his comments that the Canadian Government is reluctant to place any blame on Arafat’s shoulders.

Recommendations

• Canada should denounce Arafat publicly for his ongoing complicity in the use of violence, encouragement of terrorist activities, incitement to hatred, corruption and human rights abuses.
• Canada should insist on Palestinian leadership that is committed to educating its people to value a culture of peace.
• Canada should withdraw its unconditional recognition of Arafat’s regime.

6) PALESTINIAN STATE

Canada fully supports the right of the Palestinian people to self determination. We are fully supportive of the creation of a Palestinian state. But, Canada believes that while the right to a state is implicit in the Palestinian right to self-determination, the interests of the Palestinians, as well as of the peoples of the region as a whole, will be best served if that right is exercised through the negotiating process.

Canada reiterates the important principle that Palestinian self-determination “will be best served if that right is exercised through the negotiating process”. However, in Canada’s statement of support for the creation of a Palestinian state, there is no insistence that it be either democratic or freedom protecting. Canada’s obligation should not be to promote a despotism, but rather to impose requirements and preconditions to ensure that the ranks of the international community are not swelled by yet another rogue state which combines repression and corruption with increased militarization and support for extremist groups linked to international terror.

In this respect, Canada should speak out about the growing dangers posed by the PA’s armed forces, which have proliferated in recent years. The PA’s forces number at least 70,000 using pre-Intifada figures, with estimates as high as 85,000 ^xv, which is in blatant contravention of Palestinian commitments under the Oslo Accords to limit its forces to 30,000. ^xvi The current number includes the various arms of the uniformed PA forces, including Preventive Security, Intelligence, Coastal Guard, National Police, Arafat’s Force 17 bodyguard and other, smaller units.

This number also includes Fatah’s Tanzim units and the deadly Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, a terrorist strike force made up of elite members of a number of these branches of the PA. Al Aksa and Force 17 have been implicated in numerous terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. More ominous, perhaps, is the growing and continuing coordination between arms of the PA and its Fatah faction on the one hand and, on the other hand, cells of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) and, lately, the Iranian-backed, Lebanon-based Hezbollah. Under the auspices of the Fatah, local commanders of the various services co-ordinate attacks and responsibilities with their terrorist counterparts. Thus the Ramallah commander of Fatah’s Tanzim, Marwan Barghouti, is able co-ordinate with the local commander of Hamas regarding attacks on Israeli civilians and IDF forces.

The repressive nature of Arafat’s regime against his own people also does not appear prominently on Canada’s radar screen. In a debate at last year’s UN Commission of Human Rights, Canada did say that it was “troubled by the use of the Palestinian-controlled media as a tool for incitement to violence against Israel", and joined Norway in expressing “concern” over the human rights record of the Palestinian Authority. ^xvii However, being “troubled” and expressing “concern” constitute a somewhat lame choice of terminology to describe the well-documented human rights abuses of Arafat’s regime. The Palestinian advocacy group, LAW, for example, has documented "a number of cases of torture and maltreatment of detainees in Palestinian prisons and detention centers. Most of the forms of torture proscribed by international agreements have been used by Palestinian interrogators, whose victims are not confined to those suspected of criminal acts but also include those whose ’crimes’ are political association and the expression of opinion." ^xviii

A recent Human Rights Watch Report has estimated that 450 Palestinians are currently being held without trial in PA prisons, where some are subjected to “routine use of torture”. The Report cites at least 30 vigilante executions in the past 14 months that have gone uninvestigated and unpunished, as well as five deaths in custody. It furthermore noted that at least ten security forces operate above the law. ^xix

Corruption is rife in the Palestinian Authority to such an extent that even Arab countries hesitate to deliver on promises of substantial aid dollars. In the face of numerous reports of siphoning off local tax revenue, corruption within a system of state monopolies and channeling of aid funds to Arafat and his private circle, it is unclear what accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that Canadian aid reaches Palestinians in need.

The European Union (EU) is clearly concerned about this issue. Christopher Patten, EU Commissioner for External Relations, stated that the EU has in the past "made it clear that in order for us to go on and provide substantial assistance to the Palestinian administration, we will need to see a tough realistic budget, some real transparency" and measures to ensure "complete anti-corruption".^xx The EU has also pressed for tangible proof of anti-terrorist measures on the part of the PA.

The subcommittee on Foreign Relations of the US House of Representatives passed an additional requirement for approving foreign aid to the PA last summer, requiring confirmation that the Palestinians are acting against terrorism, otherwise aid sanctions may be imposed. And American aid is substantial. Since 1994, the US has committed over US$1.1 billion in economic assistance to aid projects in the West Bank and Gaza. ^xxi

Recommendations

• Canada should insist that the proposed Palestinian state respect human rights and be democratic and freedom protecting.
• Canada should demand that the Palestinian Authority renounce the use of violence and terrorism against Israel, and cease its push for militarization.

PROGRESS THROUGH DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT FOR PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Canada is a strong advocate of moderation and of diplomatic support for those who take risks for peace. Canada has emphasized the importance of practical contributions such as participation in peacekeeping forces, support for human rights and the establishment of development assistance programs in the region.

Canada’s stated commitment to "development assistance programs" is expressed through funding to the West Bank and Gaza, and to the area in general through contributions to UNWRA. Such funding is an extension of Canada’s foreign policy principles and priorities. The Canadian International Development Agency’s (CIDA) official development assistance program for the Middle East is “Canada’s primary vehicle for addressing humanitarian concerns in the region and assists Canadian efforts to promote peace”. ^xxii According to CIDA, "Canada’s current aid to the Palestinian territories is perfectly consistent with our long-standing investments in peace in the region as well as with Canada’s foreign policy objectives of peace building and promotion of human security.”

Canada does not give direct funding to the Palestinian Authority, yet its aid to the West Bank and Gaza, directed through non-governmental organizations ostensibly independent of the PA, contains an impressive range of projects evidently designed to provide humanitarian assistance. Between 1993 and March 31, 2001, CIDA contributed $185 million in aid to the West Bank and Gaza. The Middle East Program’s current annual bilateral programming budget is approximately $10 million, an amount increased in 1998 from an annual contribution level of $5 million. A contribution of $92 million over four years was announced in 1998 (including the annual budget line), an amount that is presumably only partly accounted for in the total figure of $185 million.

A list of projects in three defined aid sections was made available by CIDA for the purposes of this study, but since this list includes "committed" though not necessarily disbursed funds, some of the amounts - it is not specified which ones - are not included in the total aid figure given. ^xxiii It is thus unclear which items refer to past projects, and which ones relate to ongoing or future initiatives. A request for further information has been made to CIDA in order to clarify the information supplied. It is certainly evident that a complete review of reporting mechanisms is called for, as well as a comprehensive audit of each individual program. In addition, in terms of the export of Canadian values of democracy and tolerance, it remains unclear what accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that such funding is used in a fashion consistent with Canadian standards.

As well, there are some funding streams that are difficult to define, being dependent on the discretion of the Canadian Representative Office in Ramallah and its local employees. As an example, it has been difficult to ascertain the eligibility requirements for projects funded by the Development and Dialogue Fund or the Local Initiatives Fund. Indeed, the Department itself seemed unaware until after the fact that "discretionary" funding had been granted by the Canadian Representative Office in Ramallah for publication of a booklet espousing the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees, as well as assistance with distribution through the Canadian office. The suitability of using Canadian funds earmarked for humanitarian purposes to produce propaganda is a serious enough issue, but the fact that Ottawa was apparently unaware of such decisions on the ground is even more disturbing, since it is patently obvious that such decisions are being influenced by local staff who have their own political agenda and affiliations and remain beyond Ottawa’s executive control.

As another example, Canadian funding to Palestinian educational initiatives should be contraindicated in cases where textbooks are used which are an anathema to peace and tolerance. This is an area where Canada must be far more proactive in determining the situation on the ground. The evidence has already been compiled, without requiring any efforts by the Ramallah Representative Office, which has over the years professed complete unawareness that there was any problem with the texts. The Centre for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, a non-governmental organization, has done extensive research on the textbooks of the Palestinian Authority, including the PA’s attempts at revising the curriculum and the supplementary teachers’ guides.

The Centre, in its study of 55 new textbooks and two teachers’ guides for grades 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 introduced by the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), found that the educational approach employed by the PNA does not reflect international standards as defined by UNESCO. The Centre’s summary notes that the concept of peace with Israel is entirely absent from the Palestinian schoolbooks. The peace process, based on the Oslo Accords, is not mentioned. The Jews’ return to Palestine is described as "infiltration" and Zionism is referred to in a negative context only. 5.5 million Jewish inhabitants are not counted as inhabitants, nor is Hebrew considered one of the languages of the land. The Centre report continues:

“The State of Israel, a member state of the UN since 1949, is not recognized. It is referred to by substitute names such as the lands within the ’green line’, ’interior’ or ’1948 lands’. Its name does not appear on any map, nor do any towns, villages and projects (industries, harbors, railways, etc.) created and developed by Israel. In maps Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and is exclusively Arab.” ^xxiv

The central importance and holiness of Jerusalem to the Jews is not mentioned, nor is the Jewish population of Jerusalem, while the holy places are described as exclusively Muslim and Christian. The Jewish connection to holy sites is only mentioned in the context of alleged attempts by Israel to “Judaize” these sites. The Centre report continues:

“There is an explicit reference to the Israeli occupation of 1948 and another to the need to establish an independent Palestinian state on the entire national soil. The struggle for the liberation of Palestine is presented mainly as a military one. There is no direct support of terror in the textbooks, but the Feda’i and the Shahid are praised as the spearheads of this struggle. Several of these references, however, contain negative generalizations attributing traits of trickery, greed and barbarity to the Jews, and insinuation that they do not keep agreements and treaties as Muslims do.” ^xxv

Canada’s traditional allies take this issue very seriously. The European Union, for example, which has long been a staunch funder of the PA in general and the new textbooks in particular, has begun to demand far more transparency and accountability. Between 1994-1998, the EU gave more than $2 billion to finance projects in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, more than half of the world’s aid to the region and also gives about $250 million per year "in direct support of the Palestinian Authority, refugees and regional peace projects". ^xxvi

It was the issue of the schoolbooks that prompted this paradigm shift. A rider was recently attached to the EU budget (Draft Amendment 5043, budget line B7-42) stating that funding used for projects to promote the peace process must not be used "for activities, projects, and programs that are not consistent with the basic values of the European Union. On the contrary, this money is to be used only for projects that support peace, understanding, reconciliation, and a decrease of hate." ^xxvii Aid under this budget line had originally included funding for new Palestinian texts, which fall far short of any attempt to promote peace through education.

In Draft Amendment 5044, Article B7-420, with regards to “Community operations connected with the Israel/PLO Peace Agreement”, the EU further decided:

”Parliament, alarmed by signs that direct or indirect assistance has been given to projects violating the fundamental values of the European Union, calls on the Commission to submit a report to it, prior to the second reading of the 2002 budget, with the aim of clarifying the situation and explaining the measures which are taken to prevent projects and values incompatible with the fundamental values of the European Union from being assisted by EU monies, directly or indirectly, when the budget is implemented.” [our emphasis]

Since Canada, by its own admission, adheres closely to the foreign policy direction of the EU, it would be appropriate to incorporate such preconditions into the eligibility requirements of CIDA-funded projects.

Accountability remains a key problem. It is instructive to recall that even the Arab countries appear to be wary of trusting Arafat’s regime with precious aid dollars. Palestinians involved with the East Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce have lamented the damage done to the "Arab Jerusalem" economy by the Intifada, specifically to the tourist industry. At the same time they complain that money promised by the Jerusalem Fund for Development created by the Arab League, but never delivered, could have averted some of the financial strain by tiding over tour bus companies and hotels until refinancing could be arranged. ^xxviii It appears that Canada requires less in the way of accountability and guarantees than the Arab states.

These strictures should also apply to Canadian funding that at present goes to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNWRA), a body envisaged as a temporary measure by the United Nations General Assembly resolution that created it in December 1949. CIDA contributes considerable annual core funding ($9 million in 2000/01) to UNRWA, and since October 2000 an additional $1.25 million has been provided, earmarked for emergency aid. Enquiries to government officials regarding the uses to which the Canadian contribution to UNWRA is put have never elicited any clear answers. This funding is awarded without any guarantees whatsoever that UNWRA-run schools use textbooks and curriculum material appropriate to Canadian values, such as tolerance, diversity and pluralism, as well as the reconciliation of differences through peaceful means.

UNRWA’s influence in this respect is unmistakable; it operates one of the largest school systems in the Middle East, with 650 schools in five fields of operation and thus has had an opportunity to influence the minds and hearts of successive generations in the region. Education is UNRWA’s single largest area of activity, accounting for half its budget and two-thirds of its staff. The education programme had a cash budget of US$161.7 million for 2000 alone. Over 99 per cent of UNRWA staff, including those in the education program, are locally recruited Palestinians who call themselves, according to the UNWRA website, Palestinian refugees.

There seems to be a disturbing assumption in government that Canada’s responsibility ends once the Canadian contribution has reached UNWRA. Canadian officials seem unwilling to believe that schoolbooks teaching hate are actually used in UNWRA schools, funded in part by Canadian tax dollars. Canada has taken no steps to ascertain the truth of the matter for itself.

In fact, it only takes a cursory glance at the UNWRA website to ascertain that “UNRWA schools use the same curricula and textbooks as the host government/Authority schools".^xxix This means that PA books are used in UNWRA schools in the West Bank and Gaza, Syrian school books are used in UNWRA schools based in that country etc., etc.

The content of such texts is, again, readily available. The Centre for Monitoring the Impact of Peace has also undertaken a study of books used in Syria, including those in use at UNWRA-funded and operated schools. These results are even more discouraging than those of the PA textbook study. Jews are portrayed as the enemies of Arabs, of Islam, of G-d and of all mankind, and deserving of hatred and contempt. Israel is portrayed as a spreading cancer, with no legitimacy whatsoever, and Zionism as a racist and aggressive movement. Making peace with Israel is portrayed as treachery, and the liberation of the whole of “Palestine” is described as a major goal of Syria and a “holy war” (jihad) in order to “purify” the region.

It should be recalled that UNWRA is a major source of employment in the region, with 99% of its employees being locals. Since UNWRA was only designed to be temporary, pending a resolution to the status of the refugees, its mandate must be renewed periodically. One might well wonder whether it is in the interests of these employees to perpetuate the existence of the organization, an objective which can best be accomplished by perpetuating a culture of rejectionism that sees any accommodation with Israel as inimical to the Palestinian “national interest”.

It should be the responsibility of the Canadian government to follow-up on these disturbing findings and to begin to require some accountability for the funds CIDA awards to international aid organizations. In terms of fiscal responsibility as well, some attention is needed. It is not as if UNWRA has been scandal-free in terms of its accounting procedures if complaints by the beneficiaries are anything to go by. The Palestinian Popular Committee at the Ain Al-Helweh refugee camp in the southern city of Sidon, Lebanon, complained for many years about corruption and mismanagement within UNWRA. According to the Egyptian weekly Al Ahram, the Director General of UNWRA in Lebanon, Wolfgang Plaza, urged the UN to launch a thorough investigation into reported acts of embezzlement and squandering of funds at UNWRA. "UNWRA suffers from an unexplainable deficit," he said at the time. "The evidence I have is not tangible, but I have indicators that should be investigated." ^xxx

The issue of funding accountability in the Middle East has taken on an additional dimension post September 11^th. UN agencies commonly use local organizations to implement humanitarian programs. UNICEF, for example, used as an intermediary Blessed Relief, a Saudi-based charity operating in the Sudan in the 1990’s. Subsequent revelations suggesting that the charity was a front for sending funds to Osama bin Laden underscore the necessity of meticulous investigation of aid partners and aid relief mechanisms abroad.

An Advisory Commission was mandated as part of the overall UNWRA framework, and it would seem long overdue for this body to examine overall accountability and decision-making processes. Canada should require such an evaluation, as well as complete accountability as to how its funding assistance is spent, as a pre-condition for future contributions.

There is another aspect to Canada’s support for UNWRA. In view of the volatile situation in the West Bank and Gaza and the fact that Israel has been targeted by terrorists operating from these areas, it can hardly be considered untoward that Israel searches UNWRA trucks in the same way that it carries out security checks on other vehicles. It is therefore outrageous that Peter Hansen, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, has demanded a blanket immunity in response: “We need essentially a clear recognition of the fact that the movement of UNRWA vehicles and staff does not in any way pose a threat to the security of the Israeli Defence Forces or Israeli citizens.” ^xxxi According to the 1967 Comay-Michelmore Agreement between Israel and UNWRA, Israel is entitled to carry out such searches, and certainly the current security emergency mandates such action as a necessary and prudent step that every sovereign state would carry out to protect its citizens. Yet Hansen took his complaint to the Special Political and Decolonization Committee of the UN General Assembly, and the resulting resolution chastised Israel on demand. More surprisingly, Canada supported this resolution, an outrageous response given the certainty that Canada under daily attack would be every bit as scrupulous in its search procedures.

In addition, the urgent need to intensify inspections of all vehicles as the security situation dictates, is well illustrated by reports that explosives have been transported in Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances by employees of that organization, and that suicide bomber Wafa Idris - responsible for murder and mayhem in Jerusalem on January 27, 2002 - may well have transported her deadly payload through such a means. UNWRA’s local employees also have their own political biases, sympathies and affiliations and can hardly be charged with ensuring that UNWRA trucks are not abused in a similar fashion. It would, in any case, be an impossible task for them and completely outside their humanitarian mandate. Peter Hansen is the head of an organization that is supposed to concern itself solely with humanitarian projects and not with political issues or security concerns. He is in no position to guarantee that UNWRA trucks are not used to transport arms, explosives, suicide bombers or their logistical support personnel. He is, therefore, in no position to demand blanket immunity for the UNWRA trucks and it is both illogical and immoral for Canada to support such a move.

Recommendations

• Canada should demand full and transparent accountability for funds directed to the West Bank and Gaza from all outside sources, and especially through CIDA.
• Canada should cease its contribution to UNWRA until such time as it is provided with exact information as to how the Canadian contribution is spent.
• Canada should undertake its own audit of the school books and educational material used in the schools and projects it helps to fund, either directly or indirectly.
• Canada should add a requirement to its funding eligibility requirements, similar to the EU provision, which will make it impossible for Canadian taxpayers’ money to be used to help fund projects inconsistent with our values and standards.
• Canada should support Israel’s right to carry out security inspections of UNWRA trucks, in order that it can take the measures necessary to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks.

8) SUPPORT FOR FAIR MINDED PEACE INITIATIVES

Canada firmly supports the Madrid bilateral negotiations launched in October 1991 by the United States and the former Soviet Union. Canada has also supported the decision of the Palestine National Council to accept Security Council Resolution 242 as a basis for peace negotiations, the mutual recognition by Israel and the PLO of September 9-10, 1993 and the Israel-Palestinian Declaration of Principles of September 13, 1993. Canada fully endorses the report of the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-finding Committee (Mitchell Report) of April 30, 2001 and urges the parties to use the recommendations contained in the Mitchell Report as a basis to end the current cycle of violence. Canada supported the statement released on July 19, 2001 by the G-8 Foreign Ministers which noted that third-party monitoring accepted by both parties would serve their interests in implementing the Mitchell Report.

Canada urges the parties to use the Mitchell Report’s recommendations “as a basis to end the current cycle of violence”, and yet the sole a priori requirement of that Report is the “immediate” and “unconditional” end to violence and the resumption by the Palestinian Authority of full security cooperation with Israel. Other suggestions, including a proposed freeze on new Israeli settlement activity, are recommended as confidence-building measures that will naturally ensue. Canada should demand that the current sustained campaign of Palestinian violence ends as a pre-requisite to consideration of the rest of the Mitchell Report. It is noteworthy in this context that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw recently made a public statement requiring that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat must clamp down on violence against Israelis as the first step towards renewed negotiations. ^xxxii

Canada’s support for "third party monitoring" disregard the fact that Israel’s experiences with this mechanism prove that such provision will not protect it against attack and abuse. Reliance on international observers has not been a salutary experience for Israel. Protection of Israelis or Israeli interests has not been a component of such arrangements in the past.

Recall that in 1967 when Egyptian President Nasser demanded the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers from the Sinai, the UN immediately complied, which allowed Egypt to remilitarize the Sinai front in contravention of the agreements that concluded the 1956 Suez War. Witness, for example, the dubious role of the UN peacekeepers stationed on the Israeli-Lebanese border at the time of the kidnap of three Israeli soldiers - now presumed dead - by the Hezbollah in October 2000. The role of these peacekeepers in "turning a blind eye" to the abduction and concealing valuable evidence as to the victims’ fate has never been properly investigated. Their conduct certainly showed more concern for the UN’s image in the eyes of local Hezbollah operatives than for their reporting responsibilities to a member-state of the UN.

More recently, it has become evident that neither the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Sinai that was established to monitor compliance with the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, nor the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, have any involvement in monitoring the ongoing smuggling of weapons from Egypt into Palestinian-controlled territory. These bodies apparently have no mandate as far as such operations are concerned, whether overland or through a complex maze of tunnels linking Egypt with homes in the refugee camps of the southern Gaza Strip. ^xxxiii

This type of track record in terms of international observers does nothing to increase Israel’s confidence in the impartiality of such "third party" arrangements. Canada needs to appreciate these concerns and address them in its apparent support for such arrangements.

Recommendations

• The Department of Foreign Affairs needs to clarify its statement to reflect the precondition of the Mitchell Report that there must be an "immediate" and "unconditional" end to violence against Israel before the recommended "confidence building" measures can be addressed.
• Canada should demand that the mandate of such "third party monitoring" bodies as the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Sinai, and the UN Truce Supervision Organization include the monitoring of arms smuggling by the Palestinians.

9) STATUS OF JERUSALEM

Canada believes that the status of Jerusalem can be resolved only as part of a general settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute and opposes Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem.

While Canada, in general, appears to view resolutions to the dispute in terms of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian solutions, it makes a surprising departure from this framework in its discussion of the status of Jerusalem to embrace the entire Arab-Israeli dispute. This addition widens the list of stakeholders that Canada appears to recognize on the issue to an alarming array of states hostile to any idea of rapprochement with Israel. These states can no doubt be counted on to reject whatever limited notion of accommodation on the issue of Jerusalem might gain acceptance amongst moderate Palestinians. Canada is well aware that much of the Arab world is implacable on this subject.

This apparent Canadian recognition that Arab Muslim countries have some pre-ordained right to be included in the decision making process relating to Jerusalem is troubling. Canada should recall that it was only under Arab rule - that of Jordan - between 1948-1967 that Jews were denied their religious rights in Jerusalem. It is only under the reunified sovereignty of Israel that all Jerusalem’s faith communities are guaranteed freedom of religion. In addition, Jerusalem has only ever been the national capital of one country, Israel. The Canadian position appears to bestow an apparent right of refusal on the Muslim inhabitants of the region, which it denies to any other religion with links to the Holy City.

After pressing for a "resolution" to Jerusalem’s status as part of a settlement, the Canadian statement proceeds to prejudge the outcome of negotiations by a priori denying Israeli claims to the eastern part of Jerusalem, including, by extension, the Jewish holy sites of the Old City.

Recommendations

• Canada should recognize the indisputable ties of Israel and the Jewish people to Jerusalem, as expressed by centuries of national, religious and cultural presence.
• Canada should not prejudice the outcome of deliberations between Israel and the Palestinians by framing the issue of Jerusalem as a Jewish/Arab issue.

10) TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF LEBANON

Canada supports Lebanon’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. In accordance with the UNSC Resolution 425 of 1978 and the Taif Accord of 1989, Canada supports the progressive extension of the Lebanese government’s authority over all of its territory and the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon. We have welcomed Israel’s withdrawal of its forces from southern Lebanon which we consider an important step towards lasting peace in the Middle East. We look forward to agreement in due course between Syria and Lebanon on the withdrawal of Syrian forces which are in Lebanon at the request of the Lebanese Government. It is up to the Government of Lebanon to determine when domestic conditions are propitious for a Syrian withdrawal.

The Syrian military presence in Lebanon dates back over a quarter of a century to the time of Lebanon’s civil war. It was never meant to be a long-term solution to Lebanon’s internal crises. And yet the current entrenched Syrian occupation of Lebanon, through means of some 35,000-40,000 troops, violates Lebanese “independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity” to such an extent that the policies and actions of the Lebanese Government are effectively dictated by Damascus. Numerous operatives of the Syrian security services are also ensconced in Lebanon, for example, General Ghazi Kanaan, commander of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon, who is “by all accounts the paramount power broker in the country. All high-ranking Lebanese officials report directly to Kanaan and he has the final word on all major political and security decisions made by the Lebanese government." ^xxxiv

Anti-Syrian feeling in Lebanon has also intensified due to the perception that Syria has “squeezed the Lebanese economy to its own advantage”. ^xxxv There are estimates that as many as one million Syrians work in Lebanon and that while they were once employed as menial workers, many now hold more senior posts. Lebanese farmers have also protested the “flooding of Lebanese markets by cheap Syrian imports”. ^xxxvi

In light of these harsh realities, the Canadian Government’s stated policy objective that Syrian withdrawal is to be sought solely at the behest of its Lebanese satellite regime is highly unrealistic. Canada must stress Syria’s obligations under international law and under its own commitments, and emphasize that there is no pretext or justification for Syria to remain in Lebanon. Canada should insist on Syria’s immediate withdrawal.

There is no doubt that Syria has violated its own commitments to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, starting as far back as October 1976 as part of the Riyadh-Cairo accords. When it signed the Fez Declaration in September 1982, it again committed itself to begin withdrawal negotiations. And under the Taif Accord, signed in October 1989 in the name of “national reconciliation”, Syria committed itself to begin a phased redeployment and subsequent withdrawal of its troops. Syria is also clearly in contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 425 of 1978 and 520 of 1982, which obligate it to pull out its troops from Lebanon.

By shifting the entire onus for implementing Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon onto the beleaguered Beirut government, Canada is in danger of being complicit in allowing de facto Syrian domination in Lebanon, albeit informal. Such an approach can merely serve to perpetuate Syria’s control and weaken the power of the Lebanese authorities to resist it. It also fails to empower the growing voice of dissent within Lebanon itself.

In the United States, there have been attempts to bolster rather than weaken the international voice on Syria’s occupation of Lebanon, along the lines mandated by Security Council resolution 520. Both the US Senate and the House of Representatives have passed resolutions calling for a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon.

Canadian foreign policy statements also fail to mention the dangers of terrorist activities by the Hezbollah, which has led to an increased militarization of southern Lebanon and a renewed threat of cross-border attacks against Israel’s northern towns. It does not address the Lebanese Government’s ongoing failure to fill the vacuum in the south of the country after the Israeli withdrawal of May 2000. It is the clear responsibility of the Lebanese government, as reiterated by UN Security Council 1391 on 22 January, 2001, "to ensure the return of its effective authority throughout the south, including the deployment of Lebanese armed forces."

Completely absent from the Canadian policy statement is Hezbollah’s October 2000 incursion across the UN-recognized Israeli-Lebanese border and the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers - now presumed dead - who were on routine patrol on the Israeli side of that border. Although Canada reportedly used its good offices to make enquiries about the fate of the abductees during the many months when all information about their health, welfare and whereabouts was withheld, the Canadian position now seems to write off this issue. It should have been considered worthy of mention in the context of the Lebanese government’s inability or refusal to intervene with those who effectively control its southern border.

There is a tragic irony in the numerous concerns currently being raised over the entitlements of terror suspects apprehended in the war in Afghanistan, when compared with the total absence of concern for the welfare or status under international law of the three Israeli soldiers, or of numerous other soldiers missing in action, some of them since 1982. ^xxxvii Canada should invoke Lebanon’s responsibilities under the 1949 Geneva Convention on this issue. ^xxxviii It should also intervene with the Lebanese government on behalf of kidnap victim Elchanan Tanenbaum, an Israeli civilian abducted from Europe by the Hezbollah, who is currently being held hostage in Lebanon.

In fact, the Canadian policy statement omits any mention of Hezbollah, an organization responsible for numerous terrorist attacks against western, as well as Israeli and Jewish targets. Hezbollah has as its avowed aim the destruction of the State of Israel. Shiekh Hassan Nasrallah, the group’s general secretary, has in the past described Israel as a "cancerous, usurping entity without legitimacy or legal character" and has called on Palestinians to "fight the Zionists with stones, daggers, knives and bombs, expel them from the land…" ^xxxix Canada’s approach to Hezbollah can perhaps best be characterized as schizophrenic in that it brands the military wing of the organization, the Hezbollah Foreign Security Apparatus, as "terrorist", and yet facilitates aid to its "social service" arm. At present, donations to the "social service" programs of Hezbollah are legal in Canada and fully tax receiptable.

Recent reports even alleged that "Canadians directly give substantial humanitarian aid money to Hezbollah", according to Hussein Hajj Hassan, one of nine Hezbollah deputies in Lebanon’s federal parliament. This aid is said to reach "social service agencies, including those run by Hezbollah".^xl CIDA has denied that any Canadian aid money reaches Hezbollah, but does confirm that $4.6 million will be spent this year in Lebanon on projects run by Canadian non-governmental organizations or local companies contracted by the Canadian government. It is unclear, though, what mechanisms are in place to ensure that these local companies do not have dealings with Hezbollah affiliates and supporters. In fact, CIDA representative Dominique Hetu stated that "Canada has no quarrel with Hezbollah’s peaceful, democratic and social programs which enjoy widespread popular support." [our emphasis] It should be noted, however, that some observers on the ground consider that "Hezbollah only helps those who help the party".^xli

Given CIDA’s official position on this issue, which legitimizes Hezbollah’s social service programs, local representatives could hardly be faulted by the Canadian government if such contacts did exist. The CIDA statement in fact completely underestimates the value of these services as a valuable recruiting tool for a terrorist organization and a means of garnering support for its more deadly political objectives. Canada recognizes that it is difficult to track where funding goes in terms of charitable organizations being used as a front for terrorist fundraising activities or logistical support, and this difficulty must logically apply to social service agencies as well. Canada has just recently removed the artificial barrier between the military and "social service" arms of the terrorist organization Hamas in terms of domestic financial transactions, and should do the same for Hezbollah until such time as that organization renounces its agenda of violence and terrorism. Certainly, the Canadian position completely ignores warnings that "Hezbollah is fomenting terrorism in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority and building up massive arms caches at Israel’s northern border."^xlii

The Canadian position on Lebanon also fails to address the broader dimension of Syria’s occupation of Lebanon, as broached in the Human Rights Watch World Report 2002:

“The issue of Lebanese in secret Syrian custody, including those who were apprehended on Lebanese soil by Lebanese or Syrian security forces and then ‘disappeared’, remained unresolved…” ^xliii

Late last year, about 250 Christian Lebanese activists were rounded up and jailed on trumped-up charges, while their only "crime" was opposing Syrian occupation and calling for an independent, self-governing Lebanon. Three Lebanese Christians were recently charged by a military prosecutor of an offense punishable by death: their sole crime was their reputed meeting with Israeli officials. ^xliv

The Canadian statement ignores the growing numbers of Lebanese who have expressed their opposition to continued Syrian military presence, including the Council of Maronite Bishops, Maronite Patriarch Nasr’allah Sfeir, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, student groups and many competing political factions who find common ground on this issue. Less than one year ago, before public protests against the Syrian occupation were banned, over 100,000 Lebanese held a public demonstration that clearly demonstrated the will of the people. Canada should support rather than marginalize their determination to be free of Syrian domination.

Recommendations

• Canada should include in its position on Lebanon an explicit call for Syria to withdraw its troops and security personnel from Lebanon immediately, in compliance with its commitments and in conformity with UN Security Resolutions 425 and 520.
• Canada should demand that the Lebanese Government immediately move to fill the vacuum in its southern region following Israel’s withdrawal, in order to contain and counter the military and power build-up of the Hezbollah and ensure that incursions into Israel cease.
• Canada should invoke Lebanon’s responsibilities under the 1949 Geneva Convention in terms of the fate of Israeli soldiers missing in action (MIA’s).

11) UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS

Canada opposes all attempts to prejudge the outcome of negotiations by one-sided resolutions in international fora. Successive Canadian governments have been concerned that the polemical nature of many resolutions diverts UN agencies from pursuing their mandates. Canada has strongly opposed any move to suspend or expel Israel from the United Nations or its specialized agencies and was a leader in resisting UNGA Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism, and played a major role in having that resolution rescinded by the General Assembly. However, when UN resolutions, such as the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Territories, have been consistent with Canadian policy, Canada has supported them along with virtually all of its Western allies.

Canada considers the United Nations a prime outlet for its foreign policy. Bill Graham, Canada’s new Minister of Foreign Affairs, recently said: “The UN is a core part of our foreign policy. We have to make sure it is constantly effective. I believe strongly in the UN.” According to Mr. Graham, Canada votes in the UN in a way that “will help the [Middle East] peace process.” ^xlv

In spite of Mr. Graham’s optimism, it is instructive to note that any significant progress that has been made in the Arab-Israeli overall dispute so far has been achieved through bilateral negotiations, and not through the pronouncements and interventions of international bodies such as the UN. Thus the Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan peace treaties, as well as the Oslo Accords, stemmed from the bilateral process alone.

In spite of this indisputable fact, the United Nations and its agencies spend an inordinate amount of time on an annual ritual of condemnation of Israel specifically that extends to all UN bodies. It is particularly marked at the General Assembly where special "emergency" sessions are regularly convened with the sole purpose of condemning Israel, at the Security Council, and at the UN Commission on Human Rights. This anti-Israel bias is so widespread throughout the entire UN system that it even extends to support entities such as the United Nations Development Program, which helped the PA Ministry of Tourism produce a map that entirely ignores the existence of Israel. ^xlvi

Perhaps the most singular body in the UN infrastructure in this respect is the UN Commission on Human Rights, a body that issues 30% of all its resolutions against Israel. Indeed, the agenda for the upcoming meeting is heavily swayed from the outset towards a priori condemnation of Israel. Thus two separate agenda items are used every year to attack Israel. Firstly, Israel is the only country specific situation that has an entire agenda item devoted solely to it, Agenda item no. 8. - Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, while the human rights situation of the entire rest of the world is dealt with in Agenda item no. 9 - Question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. In addition, Agenda item no. 5 - The right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation - is similarly invoked to attack Israel. Practically all other agenda items can be manipulated to discuss in some fashion, Israel’s alleged crimes, which serves the additional purpose of diverting attention away from some of the world’s most egregious human rights abuses and abusers.

These attacks are particularly ironic given the composition of the 53-member Commission, which includes the world’s chronic human rights violators. Every year Freedom House, an independent think tank, publishes an index measuring global political rights and civil liberties. ^xlvii An analysis by UN Watch of the rankings of the Commission members shows an overall deterioration on the Freedom House Index ranking this year, with five members - including Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia - rated amongst the most repressive states in the world. ^xlviii

The outrageous and often bizarre propaganda disseminated at the UNCHR against Israel is therefore all the more contemptible given the disgraceful human right rights records of the majority of Israel’s accusers. It should be recalled that it was at the UNCHR that a Palestinian official perpetrated the vicious and outrageous lie that Israel was poisoning West Bank and Gaza water with the virus causing AIDS, a charge that is but a modern day variation on the age-old antisemitic "well poisoning" canard. This outrageous accusation sits untouched in the official records of the UN to this day. It should be noted that there is a precedent for UN records to be amended. When Arab/Muslim sensibilities were “offended” by the 1997 findings of the Special Rapporteur on Racism that Islamic militants were using the Koran to disparage Jews, the offending section was deleted as an “affront” to Islam. Why is Canada silent on these issues?

The tone of the accusations at the Commission and other UN bodies reflect the endemic antisemitism in Palestinian society which extends to all facets of its culture and society, including the state-controlled media, educational system, the sermons delivered at mosques by PA-appointees and even such normally innocuous entertainments as crossword puzzles. ^xlix

The litany of allegations include, for example, charges that Israel uses depleted uranium shells, sets rabid dogs against Palestinians, distributes poisoned candies, exports radioactive belts to them to decrease their fertility, sells them carcinogenic foods and, according to the official Palestinian daily Al Hayat Al Jadida, steals the body parts of "martyrs" for use in Israeli hospitals.^l Fresh charges surfaced at the World Health Organization last summer where, according to the Palestinian report that remains, once again, part of the official record, Israel was charged with using "new types of gases which caused damage to the nervous system and respiratory system". ^li

Now that the US has been voted off the Commission, the prospects for this year’s session are even bleaker than usual and Canada will have to be much more vigilant and forceful than ever before. Canada must demonstrate leadership by forcefully denouncing every discussion that targets Israel in such an outrageous manner.

The politicization of the UN Security Council is another case in point. The election of Syria as a non-permanent member of the Security Council last fall should have given the Canadian government pause. Syria’s shocking human rights record should have been reason enough for it to be barred from such an influential post, as should its clear objective of using all such fora to advance a partisan and biased agenda. According to Human Rights Watch 2002 Report on Syria:

“Human rights organizations lacked official legal status and could be denied authorization in arbitrary fashion under the broadly worded 1958 private associations law, article 2, which states: ‘Any association which is established for an illicit reason or purpose, or which contravenes the law or the moral code, or the purpose of which is to prejudice the integrity or form of the republican government shall be null and void.’ ” ^lii

The Syrian Human Rights Committee (SHRC), an independent and neutral human rights organization concerned with defending general liberties and human rights of the Syrian people, is temporarily based in London, since it is prohibited from operating in Syria. It gave Syria a dismal human rights rating for 2001, noting as a particular concern the fate of Lebanese in secret Syrian custody, “including those who were apprehended on Lebanese soil by Lebanese or Syrian security forces and then disappeared". ^liii

Canada’s silence on the whole issue of Syria’s election to the Security Council is troubling. Although it is traditional for one Arab country to be included among the non-permanent members, other countries still have the power to influence the choice of candidate. During the 1990’s, the UK and US were reportedly successful in blocking the accession of Libya to the Council, supporting Egypt as the alternative candidate. ^liv Canada could have made a difference on the issue of Syria’s candidacy if it had taken a firm and principled stand along the lines of its allies’ example in the case of Libya.

In fact, the treatment of Israel at the United Nations does not correspond to or support Canada’s stated desire to conduct itself in ways that will assist the peace process. In recent years, Canada has often voted according to the majority rule in favour of resolutions that unfairly condemn and criticize Israeli actions, without regard to the context, i.e., Palestinian violent provocations and the vulnerability of Israeli civilians to vicious terrorist attacks. ^lv Canada’s outrageous vote in favour of a resolution condemning Israel for carrying out security checks on UNWRA vehicles has already been discussed in this context.

Canada’s willingness to routinely support these biased resolutions, and to participate in “emergency sessions” called for this express purpose, only serves to reinforce the Palestinian Authority’s belief that it can successfully bypass the bilateral negotiation process that it agreed to in the Oslo Accords. These resolutions place the onus for ending the ongoing violence and for making additional concessions exclusively on Israel. Canada therefore contributes to, rather than diminishes, the current crisis since the Palestinians are thereby rewarded for resorting to violence and encouraged to rely on international pressure to achieve their political objectives. Although Canada has in certain selected cases recently changed its vote to an abstention in order to signify its disagreement with a particular resolution, the practice of registering an equivocal abstention rather than firm opposition is an ineffectual way of expressing an opinion, and does little to strengthen the forces of reason at the UN or the impetus for institutional reform.

In the same way, Canada’s presence at the November 2001 convening of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention bestowed moral support on a process that has never before been invoked in the case of any other world crisis. Canada apparently did not agree on parts of the declaration, but chose to attend anyway and enter its dissent onto the official record, apparently the only country to express such a reservation publicly. In spite of Canada’s efforts in this regard, its voice of reason was drowned out and it was unfortunately still complicit by its participation in a highly suspect process. Considering that only 60% of the signatories chose to attend what promised from the outset to be a highly politicized conference - three countries in fact boycotted the proceedings - Canada achieved nothing by its presence in terms of supporting the peace process.

Recommendations

• Canada should vigorously criticize the politicization of the UN by forces inimical to Israel.
• Canada should denounce each and every resolution that directly or indirectly attacks Israel’s legitimacy and sovereign right to protect its citizens.
• Canada should lead the charge for long overdue reform of the United Nations.

12) PALESTINIAN REFUGEES

Canada considers there must be a just solution of the Palestinian refugee issue as called for in Security Council Resolution 242. As agreed at the Madrid Conference (1991) the process for resolving this issue is through bilateral negotiations. The multilateral Refugee Working Group, which Canada chairs, supports that bilateral negotiating process.

Canada narrows the original thrust of Security Council Resolution 242 which called for a “just settlement of the refugee problem” to a focus solely on the Palestinian issue, completely ignoring the historical fact that a Jewish refugee question was created simultaneously when Jews were expelled or fled out of fear from neighbouring Arab and Muslim countries, primarily in the post-1948 period. At the same time as Arab leaders tried to destroy the nascent Jewish state, they also evicted and destroyed age-old Jewish communities in their own countries, and more than 700,000 Jews fled for their lives, leaving behind an estimated US$30 billion in assets. Israel’s approach was to absorb and integrate these Jewish refugees, while Arab and Palestinian leaders have decreed that Palestinian refugees be used as political pawns in an endless war against Israel, with no attempt to absorb or integrate them. With the exception of Jordan, Palestinians have been denied citizenship in Arab countries, denied access to certain professions, made subject to petty restrictions, and are inundated with propaganda that will ensure they never compromise on their “right of return”.

Under UNRWA’s operational definition, “Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict… UNRWA’s definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. The number of registered Palestine refugees has subsequently grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than 3.8 million in 2001, and continues to rise due to natural population growth.” [our emphasis] The PLO calculates the figure at over 5 million.

The definition used by UNWRA is in stark contrast to the criteria employed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), established in 1951 by the UN General Assembly to address all refugee problems around the world and already successful in a number of instances. The Palestinians were the only group excluded from the UNHCR mandate, which extends to every other refugee group in the world. According to the UNHCR standards, the number of Palestinians who would qualify as refugees would be less than one million. In fact, the vast majority of UNWRA’s 3.8 million refugees were not born within the borders of today’s sovereign Israel.

And yet a recent survey of inhabitants in the refugee camps conducted by the Jerusalem-based Israel/Palestine Centre for Research and Information showed that over 97% of the sample would not accept a permanent peace agreement with Israel unless it recognized their “right of return”. 97% of those respondents said that meant return to their “original town homes” inside Israel, while 91% insisted that they must return to their “exact places of original residence”.

It should be recalled that the closest historical parallel to partition of British Mandate Palestine was the 1947 division of the Indian sub-continent into two states, one predominately Moslem -Pakistan, and one predominantly Hindu - India. After partition there was a mass movement of Hindus to India and Moslems to Pakistan, against a backdrop of conflict and confusion. Nobody now calls for a “right of return” of those who moved after partition of the Indian sub-continent, whether those who moved did so voluntarily or out of fear. If the international community is going to call for the "right of return" of the Palestinians, then this "right" must logically apply to every other refugee situation in the world and be binding on every single country on the world. ^lvi

Recommendations

• Canada should formally accept the criteria of the UNHCR in terms of defining the status of Palestinians who claim refugee status.
• Canada should recognize that the events leading up to re-establishment of the State of Israel created a refugee situation that applies equally to Jewish refugees forced to flee their ancestral homes in Arab and Muslim lands.

13) TERRORISM

Canada condemns all acts of terrorism, wherever they may occur. Canada has called for the dismantlement of terrorist networks, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

From September 29, 2000 until February 27, 2001, 288 Israelis were murdered in the campaign of violence unleashed against the country, and 2878 were injured, many of them critically. Most of these victims - many of them children or the elderly - were killed or wounded in terrorist
attacks that expressly targeted the civilian population. There were 86 suicide bombings that caused loss of life or injury to Israelis, as well as numerous other attempts to kill, maim or mutilate. The attacks and attempted attacks have reached such a pace that incidents currently occur on a daily basis, though they routinely go unreported if casualties are averted or minimized.

It should be recalled that terrorism of this nature is not a new phenomenon for Israel and did not commence post 1967. There were widespread Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israelis prior to 1967, before the West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli rule. It should also be recalled that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Fatah were established prior to the Arab-Israeli 1967 War rather than as a response to it. Indeed, Arab terrorist attacks against Jews in the area were widespread even prior to Israel’s establishment in 1948.

Canada is unequivocal in its repudiation of terrorist attacks “wherever they may occur”, clearly dismissing spurious distinctions between the terrorist attacks against the US on September 11, 2001, and terrorist attacks that target Israel. Prime Minister Jean Chretien “responded with anger” to the terrorist attacks in Haifa and Jerusalem on December 2, 2001, which he termed “this latest provocation”:

“All Canadians are outraged at this monstrous taking of innocent life. We reject absolutely any suggestion that such abhorrent action can ever be justified in any way." ^lvii

Canada has been forced for the first time to face the very real threat of terrorism on its doorstep, and thus has been thrust into a position that its fellow democracy, Israel, understands only too well. As Pakistani brigadier S. K. Malik wrote in a work first published in 1979: “Terror struck into the hearts of the enemy is not only a means, it is the end itself.” ^lviii This new understanding of the clear and present danger of terrorism has resulted, in general, in more outspoken Canadian condemnations of terrorist attacks against Israel, but this shift in language has not yet translated itself into any major change in Canada’s positions at the United Nations and related agencies. Canada should instill in its foreign policies and priorities recognition of the fact that terror is a potent weapon against all democracies.

Domestically as well, recent moves by Canada to bring its policies into line with its international obligations under anti-terror conventions need to be applied consistently. As discussed earlier, the Government recently issued a directive to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) to place Hamas in its entirety on the list of proscribed terrorist organizations. Previously, only the military wing of Hamas, Hamas-Izz al-din as-Qassem, was banned as a terrorist organization, while the "social service" arm was regarded as a legitimate funding destination for the charitable contributions of Canadians. The OSFI has instructed all Canadian financial institutions accordingly.^lix

This is a belated but welcome development. However, in order to send the message that any organization that espouses and carries out violence against civilians for political aims is not considered a legitimate partner for Canadian enterprises and partnerships, Hezbollah should also be added to that list in its entirety. At present, the intolerable situation exists whereby donations to fund a day care run by Hezbollah, that likely teaches an al-Qaida style philosophy and advocates the destruction of western civilization, is eligible for a Canadian tax receipt.

It is instructive to note that not only does the U.S. regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, but the FBI has added the former head of Hezbollah’s operational wing, Imad Mughniya, to the Bureau’s “most wanted list”. And it is illogical to ban Hamas and Islamic Jihad alone when there are such intimate links between these groups and Hezbollah. For example, top representatives of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad recently participated in a religious convention in Beirut headed by the General Secretary of the Hezbollah, Hassan Nasser Alla. The conference was attended by Muslim clerics from Lebanon, the PA, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Algeria and Jordan. The participants issued an official declaration in support of suicide bombings against Israel, stating that “the suicide attacks against Israel are legitimate according to the Koran…a strategic weapon which enables us to regain the strategic balance with the Zionist enemy”. September 11^th has taught us, however, that Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers do not just target Israel, but aim towards the destruction of western civilization as a whole.

Recommendations

• Canada’s abhorrence of Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israelis has to be forcefully and continuously expressed in all Canadian policy statements, and not just on a periodic basis based on the indignation of the moment following an atrocity.
• Canada should not differentiate between the military and "social service" objectives of organzations that have as their mandate the use of terrorism and violence as a political tool.
• Canada should issue directives to all its domestic and Foreign Service employees to prohibit any contact whatsoever with individuals or organizations that have either direct or indirect ties to terrorist groups.

14) TERRORISM & SECURITY

Canada respects Israel’s right to a proportionate response against attacks, including terrorism. However, Canada believes that force in the absence of political engagement will not result in a solution to the underlying security problem.

In spite of Canada’s recognition that Israel has the right to respond to "attacks, including terrorism", this entitlement is qualified by the proviso that response must be "proportionate". There are no parameters suggested as to what the Canadian government considers a "proportionate" response, leaving the option open for criticism of any Israeli response or pre-emptive operation if the death toll from the terrorist attack that triggers this action is not deemed to be sufficiently high. One can only imagine what the tolerance level would be if Canadians were subject to the ongoing and constant threat of violent attacks, commonly directed against youngsters and family venues, that represents Israel’s daily experience.

There has been a tendency for the Canadian government to comment on these matters by drawing a parallel between, for example, mortar attacks on Israel and Israeli positions from Palestinian-controlled areas and the resulting Israeli incursions. On April 18, 2001, Foreign Minister John Manley stated that “both parties” must realize that violence on either side will not serve a purpose. "The Palestinian Authority must do everything in its power to end attacks such as the firing of mortars from territory within its control, and must demonstrate that it is making efforts to combat terrorism. For its part, Israel must refrain from incursions into Palestinian-controlled territory, and from expanding the illegal settlements in the occupied territories." By this statement, Mr. Manley was in effect drawing a moral equivalence between premeditated terrorism and violence on the one hand and, on the other hand, Israel’s legitimate attempts to protect its citizens. Such a position is akin to asking the United States not to go into Afghanistan in pursuit of terrorists and their infrastructure, at the very same time as Canada has entered into a strategic partnership with the U.S. for precisely this purpose.

Furthermore, the juxtaposition of the discussion of Israel’s response to terrorism and criticism of “expanding illegal settlements in the occupied territories” is puzzling, and has no place in Canada’s policy statement on terrorism. Its inclusion could well give Palestinians the impression that Canada sees the "settlement" issue as justifying in some way terrorist activities, or that it equates a Jewish presence in the territories with terrorist activity.

Post September 11, Canadian statements did become less equivocal. On September 16, 2001, just days after the attacks against the US, Mr. Manley pledged Canada’s “unambiguous” support for the war against terrorism, and also condemned the “terrorist campaign” against Israel, pointing to Arafat’s decision to release more than 33 Palestinian extremists from the PA’s jails. ^lx It is puzzling, therefore, that when Mr. Manley traveled to the Middle East in October, 2001 to visit Israel, as well as Arab countries known to sponsor and aid terrorist groups but sought-after nonetheless in the "coalition" against terror, his approach was less specific. When asked about what constituted terrorism, his reply was disappointing: “I’m not here to give definitions to a word. We have a situation here which is complex and difficult and there’s plenty of blame to be shared.” ^lxi

And yet, at other times the Canadian position has not been ambivalent in this fashion. In terms of Israel’s right to respond, Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s answer to a question in the House, following the December 2-3, 2001 terror attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa, was unambiguous: “If people are attacked, it is natural that they will respond. If there is no attack by one, there will be no response by the other.”

Following yet another terror outrage against Israelis on December 13, 2001, Mr. Manley stated: “Canadians are struck with horror. Canada understands Israel’s need to defend itself against terrorist attacks. Furthermore, Canada has called on Chairman Yasser Arafat and all Palestinians to bring an end to the armed intifada and to dismantle terrorist networks. The Palestinian Authority must take strong, clear and immediate measures against all those who use violence. Action must be serious and sustained and those guilty of terrorist acts must be brought to justice.” ^lxii [Our emphasis]

However, there appears to be a discrepancy between the statements of Mr. Chretien and Mr. Manley on the one hand, and the approach taken by Canada’s Mission at the UN on the other. Thus the comment of Ambassador Paul Heinbecker, Canada’s Permanent Representative to the UN, at a recent Security Council debate on the Middle East crisis was reported as: “Unilateral measures to enhance security succeeded only in undermining it.” ^lxiii The Canadian Government should speak with one voice on this crucial issue, both at home and abroad.

A state’s right of response to terrorism is, in fact, entirely consistent with the sanction of the international community in theory. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, passed on September 28, 2001 as a direct response to the September 11 terrorist attacks against the US, reaffirmed “the inherent individual or collective right of defence against terrorism”, which it recognized as a “threat to international peace and security”. Canada needs to be firm and consistent in affirming this message as it relates to Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism, albeit that it does not wish to offend possible "coalition" partners and seeks to be regarded as "impartial" in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

In terms of Canada’s own "right of response", the prime objective of the Government of Canada’s anti-terrorism plan is to "stop terrorists from getting into Canada and protect Canadians from terrorist acts", objectives that the State of Israel understands only too well. The new Anti-terrorism Act is thus a corollary to Security Council Resolution 1373. This legislation confirms that it an offence to knowingly participate in, facilitate or contribute to the activities of a terrorist group. Through this legislation, Canada has made strides in clarifying what constitutes terrorist activity, whether it takes place in Ottawa, Washington, or Jerusalem. Arafat’s ongoing dealings with terrorist groups operating from areas under his control must be viewed by Canada with the same concern and resolve as if the targets of such attacks were based in Toronto. The terrorist groups of the world have ongoing communications and linkages that cannot be ignored. And indeed Jewish targets - Canadian citizens, it should be emphasized - in Montreal were reportedly on the radar screen of terrorist cells operating from this country. It is no longer possible to separate discussion of Israel’s response to terrorism and Canada’s response to terrorism.

In terms of the global response to terrorism, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 also called on members to work together urgently to prevent and suppress future acts of terrorism. In that respect, ongoing efforts to cobble together an international coalition against terror have led to overtures to known state sponsors of terror. These countries persist in maintaining that terrorist attacks against Israel are "legitimate resistance" rather than terrorism. Given the intimate links between terror groups operating from areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority and sister organizations operating throughout the world, it is unclear how these states can be legitimate partners for Canada in the struggle against international terror. In this respect, Canada’s relations with state sponsors of terror constitute a highly problematic issue.

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan are still designated as state sponsors of international terrorism by the U.S. Secretary of State.^lxiv Just concentrating on Canada’s relations with Iran, Syria and Libya alone indicates a range of economic and diplomatic ties that appear to be unaffected by these states’ support for terrorist groups, or their abysmal human rights records. Canada has at times raised concerns about such issues, but both Syria and Libya were entirely omitted from discussions at this year’s Department of Foreign Affairs human rights consultations. Israel, by contrast, is routinely subject to scrutiny in this fashion and is one of only a small group of true democracies on the agenda for this year’s consultations.

The world’s leading terrorist organizations have been nurtured by Libya, Iran, and Syria. Support in the form of training facilities and personnel, funding, and operational and logistic support, effectively upgrades the capabilities of terrorist organizations, which enables them to carry out much larger scale attacks than would otherwise be possible. Ignoring these aspects seems to contradict Canada’s stated objectives of countering "all acts of terrorism, wherever they may occur".

Just last summer, Canada announced the establishment of full diplomatic relations with Libya. On June 28, 2001, Foreign Minister John Manley declared: "The presence of a Canadian diplomat and embassy in Tripoli opens a new era in our relations with Libya…It will reinforce our trade relations and expand political dialogue between the two countries." In what was described as "a reflection of Canada’s enhanced dialogue on a variety of issues and our increasing commercial ties", Secretary of State David Kilgour became the first ever Canadian minister to visit Libya from January 16 to 18, 2002. It appears to have been forgotten that Colonel Gaddafi was involved by proxy in a number of lethal terror attacks, and that it was a Libyan agent who was convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in which 270 people were killed.

Syria, the main powerbroker in Lebanon, has not ended its support to terrorist organizations, and yet Canada continues to seek closer relations without any preconditions. Trade between the two countries shows a healthy balance with annual exports of $12,347,000 and imports of $45,390,000. In spite of the benefits of increasing Canada’s trade relations, the Syrian regime should be held accountable for the arrest, trial and/or extradition of wanted terrorists. It should not be allowed to benefit from the immunity that it enjoys through using the Hezbollah in Lebanon as its proxy instrument of aggression against Israel.

Iran supplies the Hezbollah via flights to Damascus, where combat gear and equipment for the Hezbollah are unloaded and then transferred without hindrance to Lebanon. This assistance from Iran has enabled the Hezbollah to expand its arsenal of weapons, which currently include powerful, long-range rockets that can reach Israel’s northern towns. Canada has a duty to demand accountability on this issue from Iran. Canada has never publicly commented on Iran’s role in the Karine A weapons ship either. With exports to the tune of $655,804,000 and imports of $45,390,000, Canada is entitled to make its voice heard and demand accountability from Iran.

Recommendations

• Canada should uphold in Israel’s case the same right of response to terrorism and the threat of terrorism that it reserves for itself and the US in their joint efforts to combat al-Qaeda and its international affiliates.
• Canada should end the apparent move towards ever-closer ties with state sponsors of terror.

D: CONCLUSION