PM Stephen Harper’s Knesset Speech: A foundational document

Harper’s speech is, then, a sharp and courageous indictment of the intellectual assault on Israel. It is clarion call for integrity and justice for Israel. It is a bold and noble demand for morality in global policy on the Middle East. It is, in my assessment, one of the most important ethical documents about Jews since the days of Cyrus the Great – a leader, like Harper, who viewed the Jewish return to the Land of Israel as a just, meta-historic and ultimately uplifting drama.

David M. Weinberg..
A Citadel Defending Zion..
21 January '14..

The address yesterday of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the Knesset was a historic moment in diplomacy concerning Israel and the Middle East. Harper’s profound speech should become a foundational document in global discourse about Israel. It should be studied carefully, everywhere.

What Harper laid out went far beyond a message of staunch support for Israel. In fact, the speech wasn’t about friendship for Israel. It was about defeating the campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel.

Harper articulated a moral worldview and an approach of principle that calls-out the hypocrisies, and shames the injustices, of what passes today as “politically correct” policy regarding Israel.

His main thrust, as I understood it, was to explain why Canada refuses to be part of the international chorus (which, sadly, includes most of Europe) that singles-out Israel for criticism on the international stage. In particular, he savaged the campaign to boycott and isolate Israel, and called the application to Israel of the term apartheid “nothing short of sickening.”

“In the world of diplomacy,” said Harper, “with one, solitary, Jewish state and scores of others, it is all too easy ‘to go along to get along’ and single out Israel. But such ‘going along to get along,’ is not a ‘balanced’ approach, nor a ‘sophisticated’ one; it is, quite simply, weak and wrong. Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, we live in a world where that kind of moral relativism runs rampant. And in the garden of such moral relativism, the seeds of much more sinister notions can be easily planted.”

“As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some civil-society leaders today call for a boycott of Israel. On some campuses, intellectualized arguments against Israeli policies thinly mask the underlying realities, such as the shunning of Israeli academics and the harassment of Jewish students. Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state.”

“Think about that. Think about the twisted logic and outright malice behind that: A state, based on freedom, democracy and the rule of law, that was founded so Jews can flourish, as Jews, and seek shelter from the shadow of the worst racist experiment in history, that is condemned, and that condemnation is masked in the language of anti-racism. It is nothing short of sickening.”

The Moral Clarity of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

...I believe the story of Israel is a great example to the world. It is a story, essentially, of a people whose response to suffering has been to move beyond resentment and build a most extraordinary society, a vibrant democracy, a freedom-loving country with an independent and rights-affirming judiciary. An innovative, world-leading “start-up” nation...

Steven Stotsky..
Camera Snapshots..
20 January '14..

In his address to the Israeli Knesset on Jan. 20, 2014, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered moral clarity. To the anti-Israel cult that has taken root in academic circles and most recently passed a boycott resolution under the aegis of the American Studies Association, Harper provided an unequivocating response:

And so we have witnessed, in recent years, the mutation of the old disease of anti-Semitism and the emergence of a new strain... in much of the western world, the old hatred has been translated into more sophisticated language for use in polite society.

As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some civil-society leaders today call for a boycott of Israel. On some campuses, intellectualized arguments against Israeli policies thinly mask the underlying realities, such as the shunning of Israeli academics and the harassment of Jewish students. Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state. Think about that. Think about the twisted logic and outright malice behind that: A state, based on freedom, democracy and the rule of law, that was founded so Jews can flourish, as Jews, and seek shelter from the shadow of the worst racist experiment in history, that is condemned, and that condemnation is masked in the language of anti-racism. It is nothing short of sickening.

Harper bluntly explains why so many nations endlessly chastises Israel:

Canada, Stephen Harper and Moral Leadership

The Canadian prime minister, who arrives in Israel on Sunday, has emerged as a courageous global voice of principle about Jews and Israel. His bold words and actions give Israelis hope that there are indeed many decent people, some of them in positions of power, who will not bow to demonization or to the Orwellian twisting of language and history that habitually pertains to Israel these days.

David M. Weinberg..
A Citadel Defending Zion..
17 January '14..

The Canadian prime minister, who arrives in Israel on Sunday, has emerged as a courageous global voice of principle about Jews and Israel. His bold words and actions give Israelis hope that there are indeed many decent people, some of them in positions of power, who will not bow to demonization or to the Orwellian twisting of language and history that habitually pertains to Israel these days.

It hard to comprehend the depth and consistency of Canada’s strong support for Israel in recent years without appreciating the deep moral underpinnings of Prime Minister Stephen J. Harper’s worldview.

“Canada has proven once again that morals come before political expediency, and that policy must reflect principles and values,” said President Shimon Peres when Canada cut diplomatic relations with Iran in 2012. “I thank Canada for taking a stance based on the highest morals, and hope that other nations will see Canada as a role model.”

There are four pillars that undergird Prime Minister Harper’s approach.

First, the Holocaust weighs heavily on Harper’s mind, and colors his view of world affairs. “Remembering the Holocaust is not merely an act of historical recognition, but an undertaking. The same threats exist today… Memory requires a solemn responsibility to fight those threats…. And unfortunately, Israel remains a country under threat – threatened by those groups and regimes who deny to this day its right to exist,” Harper said in 2006.

Second, Harper clearly understands the nature and dangers of modern anti-Semitism. His government has explicitly adopted Natan Sharansky’s 3-D rubric, and slammed the “constant barrage of rhetorical demonization, double standards, and delegitimization of Israel.” In fact, the government has signed and endorsed the “Ottawa Protocol on Combating Anti-Semitism” (developed at the 2010 meeting in Ottawa of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism), which is the only global working definition and concrete plan for combating anti-Semitism, especially state-sanctioned anti-Semitism.

Harper: “Why does Israel remain under threat? Make no mistake; look beyond the thinly-veiled rationalizations. They (Israel’s enemies) hate Israel, just as they hate the Jewish people. Our government believes that those who threaten Israel also threaten Canada, because, as the last world war showed, hate-fuelled bigotry against some is ultimately a threat to us all, and must be resisted wherever it may lurk.”

Sometimes, nations lead by simply demonstrating friendship, and Canada is the example par excellence

...No country in the world is as generous in its trailblazing support of Israel, without apologies or hesitations. Canada speaks out and acts to defend Israel, consistently before anybody else, without feeling the need to be “politically-correct” and to “balance” its statements with (im)moral ambiguities about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

David M. Weinberg..
A Citadel Defending Zion..
10 January '14..

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen J. Harper, who is to visit Israel in nine days, Canada has emerged as Israel’s staunchest ally in the world.

Yet many observers dismiss Canada as a bit player on the international scene, and write off the relevance of Canada’s interventions on behalf of Israel.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

The record shows that Canada’s support for Israel is comprehensive, concrete and weighty. It is frequently a step ahead of the rest of the world, setting a principled, pro-Israel precedent and example. It is of significant, often critical, diplomatic value.

The senior-most political and diplomatic officials in Jerusalem deeply respect and appreciate Canada’s backing. They hold Prime Minister Harper in the highest regard.

Canada was the first country in the world to immediately suspend direct aid to the Palestinian Authority when Hamas was elected in 2006, because of that terrorist organizations’ refusal to meet the criteria for international legitimacy: an end to violence, unconditional recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Prime Minister Harper said: “If institutions committed to terrorism are playing a role in the Palestinian state…that is an indication to me that the road to [Palestinian] democracy has not been traveled very far. Democracy and the continued advocacy of terrorism are fundamentally incompatible objectives.”

Canada’s position was quickly adopted by the US and the EU.

Canada was the first country in the world to withdraw its support from the second UN World Conference Against Racism, known as Durban II. Noting the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate-fest into which the original Durban conference degenerated, the Government of Canada led the boycott of the 2009 meeting, and was one of only 15 countries to boycott the Durban III summit in 2011.

Again, other Western allies followed Canada’s lead.

Canada was the first country in the world to robustly defend Israel’s operation against Hezbollah, early during the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Harper said that “responsibility for the escalating violence in the Middle East rests entirely with those who have kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Israel has the right to defend itself.” When many countries urged restraint on Israel, Harper said “the onus to end this escalation is on the other side, and I would urge them to return the prisoners.” When other countries accused Israel of over-reacting and using disproportionate force, Harper said “I think Israel’s response under the circumstances has been measured.”

In the aftermath of the war, Prime Minister Harper opposed a one-sided statement at the Francophonie summit that sought to deplore the war and recognize the victims of Lebanon. Harper insisted that the resolution recognize losses on both sides.

Canada’s steadfast position ultimately won the support of the other Francophonie members and led to a balanced consensus resolution.

During Operation Cast Lead in 2009, Canada likewise stood by Israel against Hamas aggression from Gaza. Then-Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon stated: “Israel has a clear right to defend itself against the continued rocket attacks by Palestinian militant groups which have deliberately targeted civilians. First and foremost, those rocket attacks must stop.”

Hornik: Canada Backs Israel’s Survival

P. David Hornik
frontpagemag.com
30 May '11

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/30/canada-backs-israels-survival/

Reuters reported on Friday that Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper prevented the G8 from calling for Israel’s retreat to the 1967 borders in a communiqué. The group of eight leading industrialized countries was meeting in Deauville, France.

All the other seven countries—including the United States—favored calling for the Israeli withdrawal. But “the Canadians,” a European official told Reuters, “were really very adamant, even though Obama expressly referred to 1967 borders in his speech last week.”

Instead, the communiqué said:

Negotiations are the only way toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict.


The framework for these negotiations is well known. We urge both parties to return to substantive talks with a view to concluding a framework agreement on all final status issues.


To that effect, we express our strong support for the vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace outlined by President Obama on May 19, 2011.

The G8, then, appears to be implicitly opposing the Palestinian plans for a unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN in September—without explicitly demanding that Israel commit territorial suicide.

Israel’s Haaretz further reported on Sunday that Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu himself had called Harper last week to request that he keep the 1967 borders out of the G8’s statement—and that Netanyahu had done so after his speech to Congress on Tuesday.

Obama Scraps Decades-Old Policy of Even-Handedness on Israel

Evelyn Gordon
Commentary/Contentions
29 May '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/29/obama-scraps-decades-old-policy-of-even-handedness-on-israel/

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as Jonathan noted, single-handedly prevented last week’s G-8 summit from explicitly endorsing the 1967 lines as a starting point for Israeli-Palestinian talks. What made this remarkable, however, was not merely that Harper once again provided the lone pro-Israel voice in an international forum. It’s that Harper, rather than the U.S. president, was the one Israel’s prime minister telephoned for help — because Barack Obama has blatantly abandoned a longstanding American tradition of insisting that international forums meet minimal standards of even-handedness.

It’s hard to overstate the significance of this shift. For decades, when Israel wanted help defending its case in an international forum, it dialed Washington. It didn’t matter whether Democrats or Republicans occupied the White House; Washington was always the address.

That’s because successive U.S. presidents all adopted a simple policy: You can’t target Israel while giving the Palestinians a free pass. You can’t condemn Israeli military operations without also condemning the rocket fire or suicide bombings that prompted them; you can’t demand Israeli concessions at the negotiating table without also demanding Palestinian concessions. As then-UN Ambassador John Danforth explained in a masterful exposition of this policy in 2004, that is how America defines “even-handedness,” and it won’t accept anything less.

But it’s precisely this policy that Obama has abandoned – and that Harper has stepped in to defend. As the latter told reporters after the summit, he doesn’t share Israel’s opposition to mentioning the 1967 lines in principle. What he objected to was the G-8’s attempt to make demands of Israel without also mentioning the concessions Palestinians will have to make for a two-state solution.

“You can’t cherry pick elements of that speech,” Harper said, referring to Obama’s May 19 Middle East policy address. “I think if you’re going to get into other elements, obviously I would like to see reference to elements that were also in President Obama’s speech. Such as, for instance, the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state. The fact that the Palestinian state must be demilitarized.”

Not so long ago, it would have been the U.S. president insisting on that basic modicum of even-handedness. It’s a measure of how far Obama has undercut the American-Israeli alliance that Jerusalem is now forced to dial Ottawa instead.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.