Liberals, NDP and Tories in violent agreement on Israel.
The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are generally in favour of political disharmony, but they are not dogmatic about it.
In a debate on Israel Thursday, the parties agreed that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against the only democracy in the Middle East is a misguided idea that undermines the prospects of peace.
But even though they were in agreement on the subject, the debate was marked with the usual rhetorical hair-pulling and eye-gouging.
What’s the point of politics if voters can’t differentiate between the quintessence of virtue on your side and the charlatans across the aisle?
“This is not a partisan issue,” said Tony Clement, the Conservative foreign affairs critic, secretly hoping the Liberals would make it one.
Clement led off the debate, calling BDS a form of discrimination, “just like boycotts that have targeted Jews throughout history.”
He said the movement is bringing the conflict in the Middle East to Canada, targeting business and universities.
Michelle Rempel, the Calgary Conservative, detailed the experience of Jewish students on Canadian campuses who have experienced physical intimidation because of BDS.
But there was no disguising the fact this was a political ambush.
The Conservatives brought forward a toughly worded motion that called on the government to condemn anyone who promoted BDS, with the aim of bogging down the Liberals in the quagmire of security versus free speech.
To his credit, Stéphane Dion, the global affairs minister, was on to Clement’s game.
The Conservatives use Israel and the Jewish community as a partisan issue, he said. “We know very well that the goal is to create division. Canadians have had enough of their hyper-partisanship.”
The motion, necessarily supported by ministers and parliamentary secretaries but up for a free vote by backbenchers, was carefully worded to goad the Liberals into appearing offside with Israel.
The government has already made some moves the Jewish community in Canada has found disconcerting. It is considering renewing funding for the United Nations Relief and Work Agency, cut off by the Harper government because it was considered a front for Hamas. The government has also eased sanctions on Iran, despite its record on human rights and the export of terrorism.
But the Liberals have continued to vote against Arab-sponsored United Nations resolutions targeting the Jewish state, and Dion was rocksolid in opposition to BDS.
“We must fight anti- Semitism in all its forms,” he said. “We must oppose the boycott, divest, sanctions campaign in our communities and continue to speak out forcefully against them.”
He said a boycott would hurt Jewish and Arab workers in the region, citing the impact on SodaStream International Ltd., which was forced by the threat of BDS to close its factory in the West Bank, with the loss of hundreds of well-paying jobs for Palestinians.
“The world will win nothing from boycotting Israel but depriving itself of the talents of its inventiveness,” he said.
The NDP, keen to exploit the Liberals’ exposed left flank, took issue with the wording of the motion. Charlie Angus pronounced himself “shocked” that Dion would support a motion that condemns the right to dissent.
“Coming from the party of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, why would he stand with the Conservatives and condemn individuals? Because that is what the member is voting for. He is taking the same position he took on Bill C-51. The Liberals are afraid of the Conservative rhetoric machine and will not stand up for individual rights,” he said.
Dion acknowledged that the Liberals were being baited by the Tories, with the aim of labelling anyone who voted against the motion as “dissident.”
“It is what they are trained to do and we know that. The government made the call that, all in all, we think it is better to send the message that a boycott of Israel is a bad solution,” he said.
It was not a particularly edifying spectacle — in violent agreement on BDS, while trying to tarnish one another as either an enemy of Israel or of free speech.
It was like watching Gandhi and Mother Teresa agree on the benefits of non- violence, then bicker about who was thinner.