Harper and Lebanon

http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/july/19/position/

The above is a well balanced article on Canada's foreign policy in the
Middle East and underlines that changes in Canadian foreign policy vis a vis
Israel began under Liberal leader Paul Martin.

Has Canada gone too far? As usual the answer depends entirely on where you
sit. Some commenters believe Hippo's position undermines Canada's small,
niche role in the Middle East (providing assistance in creating and managing
institutional effectivness as well as managing refugee settlement/issues)
others argue that Canada was responding to a clear breach in Israel's
territorial integrity, that Canada objected to the violation of Israel's
border. That is, by saying nothing it legitimizes Hezbollah's actions.

Clearly by 'taking sides' Hippo creates problems at home politically. Had he
echoed the basic position of the Liberals - which is to risk nothing by
doing nothing - he'd be far better off. So why the change? It may be a silly
attempt to split or sway the Jewish vote in Ontario but this is highly
unlikely to occur as the Ontario Jewish community has deep ties to the
Liberals and disagrees with the Tories on a variety of other issues. Another
possibility was that by appearing to side with Israel Hippo would improve
his access to the Israeli leadership and assist the evacuation. This is a
stretch. I doubt either of these explanatioins are valid. I think it is most
likely a rookie mstake. Hippo said what he believed was occurring based on
the info he had at the time...an incursion by Hezbollah killed three Israeli
soldiers, kidnapped two others across an internationally recognized
border...without clearly thinking through the political implications at
home.

That said, there has not been a PM since Joe Clark that has not blown off a
political limb or two stepping on a Middle East political landmine.

One comment: those who beleive that Canada's intervention in the Suez crisis
was to help bring peace between Egypt and Israel misunderstand Canada's
foreign policy intent at the time. Canada was not brokering a Middle East
peace plan, it was brokering a major disagreement between the United States
and the United Kingdom, which disagreed over Egypt's nationalizing the Suez
Canal and a British inspired plan to occupy the canal.

The US opposed the British and French involvement in the Suez affair
(the British and French arranged, encouraged and most likely instigated the
Israeli attack as a precurser to assuming control of the canal). Canada was
attempting to resurrect its role as mediator in the All Anglophone Alliance,
not help Israel and Egypt sort out it's problems. The peace-keeping force
was intended to replace British, French and Israeli forces thereby giving
saving British face. Thus the national interest was maintaining the balanced
relations between allies, not Canada's interest in Suez (of which we had
little).

pc
--
"When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit
of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power,"
Alston Chase.
A nation is a collective enterprise; outside of that it is mostly a gambling
space for the opportuism and adventurism of power - Wole Soyinka