Canada joins in some one-sided Israel bashing
More than two years on, we are beginning to discern what the Trudeau government believes should be its foreign policy. It seems to have everything to do with opportunism and little, if anything, to do with principle or a serious world vision.
Which brings us to the peculiar manner in which this government has been aggressively critical of a recent Israeli policy regarding that country’s treatment of asylum seekers who have entered the country illegally since 2005. Approximately 37,000 individuals from Eritrea and Sudan have fled extreme hardship in their home countries and sur- vived treacherous journeys across the Sinai desert to reach relative safety in Israel.
Virtually all of these asylum seekers do not qualify as refugees under Israeli law and are accepted as temporary residents, required to renew their visas every two to three months. After April 1, there will be no further visa renewals permitted and the individuals either face deportation to a third country or indefinite incarceration.
The deportations are to unspecified third countries rumoured to be Uganda and Rwanda. Each individual — only single men will be deported — will receive a one- way airplane ticket and approximately US$ 4,000. Families and all children will be exempted from this measure, which has been decried by some NGOs and many Israeli citizens as being unjust.
Enter the government of Canada. Speaking on behalf of the minister of foreign affairs, Chrystia Freeland, her spokesperson, Adam Austen, commented rather boldly: “Canada does not support policies of mass deportations of asylum seekers. The rights of asylum seekers and refugees are laid out in the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, of which Israel is a signatory.”
The clear insinuation articulated by Mr. Austen, of course, is that in conducting these deportations, Israel is, in fact, contravening the Geneva Convention.
In response to a request to explain this position, the department provided irrelevant written blather about the i mportance of Israel ensuring “equal and nondiscriminatory institutional access to health services to asylum seekers and minorities.” These are all important issues, of course, but not remotely on point.
Speaking on background, a senior Israeli government official confirmed its position that, legally, its treatment of asylum seekers does not run afoul of the Geneva Convention. In fact, the Israeli Supreme Court, known for its activist left- of- centre stance on many issues, raised no such concerns when it considered matters related to contemplated deportations.
Furthermore, prominent Liberal and former Canadian minister of justice and international human rights legal expert, Irwin Cotler,
THE ISRAELI POPULACE IS ACUTELY SENSITIVE TO THE PLIGHT OF REFUGEES.
r ecently commented on the issue and was careful to moderate his criticism of the Israeli policy and process. Presumably, given his peerless stature, he would be the first to call out Israel on such a serious international legal issue.
His main concern, however, seems to be that Israel lacks what he considers to be an “effective and comprehensive refugee status determination process,” and that without such a system in place, even the most wellintentioned policy- makers may act “arbitrarily.” While a significant concern, it falls far short of a breach of an international convention.
Within Israel, this issue is highly divisive. A nation founded by the dispossessed, most of whom either survived the Holocaust or were forcibly expelled from their countries of origin in North Africa and the Middle East, the Israeli populace is acutely sensitive to the plight of refugees.
A few weeks ago, 20,000 Israelis took to the streets of Tel Aviv to express their anger with the government. In January, pilots with Israel’s premier airline — among the elite of Israeli society, with many having served in the storied Israeli Air Force — refused to fly deportees on their aircraft.
Opponents of deportation remind us that asylum seekers are not provided with basic social services and are marginalized economically, leading to desperation. They are outraged that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has resorted to stigmatizing the asylum seekers with highly prejudicial language, like “illegal infiltrators.”
These are all signs of a robust democracy and evidence of the serious discord this policy has caused in Israel. They are, however, ethical, not legal, issues. As cold-hearted as it may seem, the distinction is important to maintain. In February, a special appeal court in Israel held that asylum seekers evading the military draft in Eritrea ( that is reportedly akin to indefinite servitude) may well qualify for protected status in Israel, suggesting that this saga is a work in progress.
In December, 2015, when the Kingdom of Jordan deported 800 Eritrean asylum seekers on the basis that they were in the country for “medical treatment,” Canada was silent. Women and children were among the deportees, many of whom were reportedly nabbed in the street without notice. There were no court hearings or appeals in Jordan nor were there mass civil protests. And there were no harsh comments from Canada.
If there is a principle underlying this rather dissonant Canadian foreign policy approach to the same issue in two neighbouring countries, Israel and Jordan, it is anything but apparent. And Minister Freeland’s office refuses to explain.