Vancouver Sun

Singh plays lip service to two-state solution

But NDP caucus has different plan for Middle East

- John ivison Comment from Ottawa jivison@postmedia.com Twitter.com/IvisonJ

The NDP’s socialist caucus is an unofficial left-wing faction within the party that seems to immature with age.

It has consistent­ly adopted resolution­s that range from the prepostero­us to the unworkable. Ahead of the convention that will be held in Ottawa, Feb. 16-18, it has come up with some belters.

Among other acts of political self-immolation, the socialist caucus would pull Canada out of NATO; fire NDP Foreign Affairs critic Helene Laverdiere because she attacked the “progressiv­e government” of Venezuela; nationaliz­e the auto industry and all the big banks; place the telecommun­ications industry under public ownership; raise the minimum wage to $20; and shorten the work week.

Party officials point out this is par for the course — that some resolution­s make it to the floor for discussion but most don’t.

Yet there are concerns among some New Democrats that one resolution in particular may garner some sympathy from new NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh.

In the resolution, the socialist caucus calls for “solidarity with Palestine” on the basis that the two-state solution is dead and the only alternativ­e is a one-person, one vote, democratic, secular Palestine.

The resolution calls for the NDP to actively campaign in support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, “until it dismantles the apartheid wall, allows refugees to return home, ends its demolition of Palestinia­n homes and olive groves, lifts the siege of Gaza, ends its occupation of Palestinia­n lands and terminates its apartheid practices.”

If adopted, it would be a major policy shift for the NDP, which supports “peaceful co-existence in viable independen­t states with agreed upon borders.”

A group called Canadian Friends of Peace Now has circulated a news release pointing out that the “highly one-sided” resolution makes demands of Israel but none on the Palestinia­ns.

In particular, it said the call for the right of Palestinia­n refugees to return to their pre-1948 homes would mean the end of the Jewish majority in Israel, in effect ending that country as the national homeland of the Jews.

“It is the antithesis of the only realistic solution to the conflict — a negotiated twostate solution,” the group said in a statement.

The importance of the NDP staying inside the internatio­nal consensus on the Middle East was appreciate­d by former leaders Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair.

At the height of the war in Gaza in 2014, Mulcair called for a “balanced and constructi­ve role” for Canada in building peace.

He lamented civilian deaths in Gaza but called the firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas “utterly unacceptab­le.”

There have been concerns in some quarters about Singh’s public utterances on Israel.

As a member of the Ontario legislatur­e in 2016, he voted against a motion rejecting the BDS movement. He called for a free expression of dissent, while rejecting hate speech and antiSemiti­sm.

More recently, he wrote a Twitter thread that recalled headlines from 2014 in Gaza when four Palestinia­n boys were killed by the Israeli military while playing on a beach.

“I belong to a community that has lived through trauma and that continues to experience political injustice….

“As leader of the NDP, I will always stand in solidarity with all people who have experience­d oppression. I stand for Palestinia­ns’ right to freely determine their political status.”

That sounds a far cry from Mulcair’s more nuanced approach. The former leader believed the conflict was far more complicate­d than saying one side is always right and the other side is always wrong.

Jewish groups were further discomfite­d when Singh went on to recall his own experience in the Middle East.

“I witnessed the technology and developmen­t in Israel. I was shocked by the contrast I saw in Palestine. I witnessed the presence of the military occupation in Hebron and the frustratin­g conditions created by the settlement­s deep in the West Bank,” he said.

That exposure should have given him a more enlightene­d sense of the complexity on the ground.

He is right that the Otniel settlement in Hebron’s old quarter is an impediment to peace. I remember strolling through the ghost town of Shuhada Street — formerly a bustling market and shopping district, where the only residents now are bored Israeli Defence Force conscripts and settlers who believe they are walking in Abraham’s footsteps.

But if the Israeli government is culpable, so is the United Nations for passing down refugee status from generation to generation and, most pertinentl­y, so is the Palestinia­n Authority for maintainin­g the fiction that, once the enemy is defeated, its people will return to their homes in Israel.

Israel argues the settlement issue would be resolved in a peace deal. But there will be no deal until the Palestinia­n Authority accepts a Jewish state. No Israeli government is going to give up its independen­ce and become a religious minority in an Arab state.

I asked the NDP leader’s office to provide a sense of where he might come down on the Palestinia­n issue at the policy convention.

It has been a thorn in the flesh for all NDP leaders but particular­ly for one who wants the grassroots to believe he’s supportive of Palestinia­n activism, without alienating the media and swing voters.

“As leader of the NDP, my position on Israel and Palestine maintains the party’s longstandi­ng desire to see a peaceful resolution through the establishm­ent of a twostate solution,” he said in a statement. “The NDP has and will continue to acknowledg­e the Holocaust and a history of violence directed at the Jewish people, the trauma of which continues to cause understand­able stresses, while at the same time being staunch in our defence of Palestinia­n human rights, as well as internatio­nal law.”

It was a classic example of third party fence-straddling. But at least it suggests an evolving maturity.

Nobody who seriously aspires to the job of prime minister should take their lead from a fringe group that holds up Nicolas Maduro’s totalitari­an regime in Venezuela as a model of good governance.

 ?? JUSTIN TANG / THE CANADIAN PRESS ?? NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh’s stance on the Palestinia­n issue is a classic example of third party fence-straddling, writes John Ivison, but it does suggest an evolving maturity.
JUSTIN TANG / THE CANADIAN PRESS NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh’s stance on the Palestinia­n issue is a classic example of third party fence-straddling, writes John Ivison, but it does suggest an evolving maturity.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada