Canada should speak louder on Jerusalem
Whatever one thinks ought to be done with what is traditionally known as “the situation in the Middle East,” most observers agree that, first, it is a bad situation and, further, one ought not make a bad situation worse.
U.S. President Donald Trump admits that the situation between Israel and Palestine is bad. However, he departs boldly from the broader mainstream consensus that it is undesirable to worsen situations that are quite bad enough already. By recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Trump handicaps any possibility for improved relations and calls this act of international sabotage “the right thing to do.”
By Trump’s calculus, to do the right thing means to give Hamas a chance to demand an intifada against Israel, spark protests that by Friday morning resulted in one Gazan man shot dead, move American diplomats to a riskier site, jeopardize peace talks between Israel and Palestine, diminish the United States’ influence in the Middle East as a mediator while alienating it from European allies, possibly embolden reactionaries from Israel to increasingly insist on kicking Arab people out of Jerusalem, possibly embolden reactionaries from Arab states to increasingly insist on kicking Israel out of existence and fuel tensions in an unstable region.
Trump’s right thing, then, is the dangerous thing.
Happily for Trump, the right thing is also the politically expedient thing. His advisers told the Washington Post that “he did not seem to have a full understanding of the issue and instead appeared to be focused on ‘seeming pro-Israel.’ ”
Trump may not achieve peace in the Middle East — he may even incite violence — but his efforts to pacify campaign donors will surely be heralded as a historic success.
But never mind all that. This is about principle!
Indeed, this principle — the principle of doing wrong by doing right — is so self-evident that we are asked not merely to ignore the dangers of upholding the principle, but rather to consider the potential for danger proof that the principle ought to be upheld.
“If violence is the only argument against moving the embassy to Jerusalem, then it only proves it is the right thing to do,” said one Israeli politician.
But how ought the side comprised of liberal democracies deal with an ally who acts in bad faith — especially when confronting it may make other bad situations worse, such as trade?
Given the disproportionate power of their American ally, ideally
Western states would form a united front against its intrepid idiocy. As they have failed to do so, it’s instructive to compare and contrast.
The U.K., having cut itself loose from Europe, is anxious to build stronger trade relations with the U.S.; Canada, having long enjoyed very strong trade relations with the U.S., is anxious not to see those relations blown to smithereens. Both, then, may be tempted to look away from Trump’s Jerusalem stunt.
Only Canada has done so.
Like other European states, the U.K. responded to Trump’s decision by censuring it: “We disagree with the U.S. decision to . . . recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital before a final status agreement. We believe it is unhelpful in terms of prospects for peace in the region,” said Prime Minister Theresa May.
Canada responded to Trump’s decision by scarcely responding. But there’s scant evidence that refusing to criticize Trump for any wrong supports the principle of influencing Trump to do any single thing right.
Just once then, can a government that claims better is always possible call out its closest ally for making the world manifestly worse? — Shannon Gormley is an Ottawa Citizen global affairs columnist and freelance journalist.