Canada's Relative Irrelevance to Israel

Canadians who believe that Ottawa has much to contribute to the Middle East dialogue have an exaggerated sense of their country’s global importance.

That Ottawa is not a significant player in the current Middle East peace negotiations might come as a surprise to some Canadians: after all, the federal government has been outspoken in its support for Israel and has implied – in its fundraising efforts at least – that its diplomatic approach makes a difference.

The reality, however, is that Canadians who believe that Ottawa has much to contribute to the Middle East dialogue have an exaggerated sense of their country’s global importance.

Canada is not a great power, and its inclusion in significant international discussions is never automatic. When it comes to the Middle East, Canada lacks the military capabilities – nuclear or conventional – to be a decisive force. While noteworthy from a Canadian point of view, our economic interests in the region are negligible in the global context. Our professional foreign service is underfunded and over-extended, and no amount of government or activist rhetoric is likely to change this.

Nevertheless, Canadians discuss the Middle East (often in online forums like this one) to no end. The disproportionate focus likely stems from three separate trends. The first two can and should be avoided; the last one is a part of political life that must be accommodated.

For starters, not unlike its immediate Liberal predecessor, Canada’s Conservative government appears to be convinced that outspoken support for Israel will serve it well domestically. Israel’s backers, the political strategists seem to suggest, vote as a bloc, and come election-time they will privilege a party’s attitude towards Israel over all else.

These Israel supporters, it follows, are also either naive or so blinded by emotion that they fail to recognize how relatively unimportant Canadian views are to Middle Eastern politics. Strong words will convince them that Canada’s support is critical to Israel – or at least that the opposition’s policy might cause Israel harm.

This political strategy is misguided. Eventually, voters will realize that in spite of the government’s rhetoric, Canada has continued to be, and will continue to be, excluded from significant discussions on the future of the Middle East, not to mention from significant Israeli military decisions that could have international ramifications (such as, for example, the 2007 attack on an alleged Syrian missile site). When this happens, voters’ frustration with the government’s failure to deliver will be palpable.

The second trend reflects a long-standing tradition among Canadian activists to adopt American causes as their own. This time the cause is the alleged power of the so-called pro-Israel lobby to influence public policy.

There can be no denying that lax campaign financing rules make it easier for well-funded interest groups to exert pressure on electoral candidates in the U.S. But as was the case in the 1960s when Canadians protested Ottawa’s (non-existent) segregationist policies, Canadian critics of Israel must accept that restrictions on campaign donations north of the border seriously constrain the impact of lobbyists on the Canadian government, regardless of their level of funding.

Finally, discussions about the future of Israel have triggered – and will continue to trigger – emotional reactions among sympathizers and critics of the government’s policies. Regrettably, such strong sentiments often appeal to the basest of inclinations of the political class, dividing the public through meaningless rhetoric.

The Canadian government should avoid inflaming public attitudes by staying out of the spotlight on the Middle East. It should conserve its diplomatic capital by acknowledging that it is the role of the more powerful nations to take the lead.

Such advice is not a call for neutrality – Canada should never be neutral on Israel’s right to exist and live in peace – but rather an effort to establish the capacity for impartiality. If Ottawa wishes to play a role in the future of the Middle East, it must present itself as a concerned player capable of exercising reason over emotion.

The Middle East needs sober voices, and that is all that a country like Canada can hope to provide.