Tonight on The Brian Crombie Hour, Brian interviews Jack Cunningham and Peter Biro on: Should Canada recognize Palestine? Brian hosts them on to discuss Canada's recent announcement to recognize the Palestinian state.
Jack and Peter believe the decision was flawed, as it rewarded terrorism, reduced chances for a negotiated settlement, and recognized a state that did not exist. They also criticize the decision for being morally and practically flawed, and emphasize the need for a coherent approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They criticize Keir Starmer's approach, highlighting that it operates as a rebuke to Israel rather than supporting Palestinian human rights. Jack emphasizes that Hamas's military defeat is necessary for peace, and he questions the incentives created by recognizing a Palestinian state, which could encourage Hamas to dig in its heels. Peter believes that the recent calls for recognizing Palestine as an independent state by countries like Canada, Britain, and France are part of a broader trend where Israel's legitimacy is increasingly questioned in international human rights discourse. He argues that while the focus on Palestinian rights is important, the current emphasis is on challenging Israel's founding and ongoing actions, particularly regarding the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Peter warns that Canada's shift in position could deepen polarization and insecurity among Jewish people, as support for Palestinian statehood might be misinterpreted as anti-Semitism.
Jack is Fellow and Assistant Professor at Trinity College in the University of Toronto, where he teaches in the International Relations Program. He is also Program Coordinator at the Bill Graham Centre for Contemporary International History and former editor of “International Journal”, Canada’s leading journal on international affairs. In addition to his academic writings, he is a frequent commentator in the media on world events, including several opinion pieces on the war in Gaza and Canadian policy in the Middle East.
Peter L. Biro is a lawyer, NGO leader, and the Founder and President of democracy think-tank, Section 1. He is a Senior Fellow of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights and of Massey College, and Chair Emeritus of the Jane Goodall Institute. He is an Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, where he teaches constitutional law. Peter served as a Governor of the University of Haifa and has written and commented on the Arab-Israeli conflict and on developments after the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza.
Jack and Peter believe the decision was flawed, as it rewarded terrorism, reduced chances for a negotiated settlement, and recognized a state that did not exist. They also criticize the decision for being morally and practically flawed, and emphasize the need for a coherent approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They criticize Keir Starmer's approach, highlighting that it operates as a rebuke to Israel rather than supporting Palestinian human rights. Jack emphasizes that Hamas's military defeat is necessary for peace, and he questions the incentives created by recognizing a Palestinian state, which could encourage Hamas to dig in its heels. Peter believes that the recent calls for recognizing Palestine as an independent state by countries like Canada, Britain, and France are part of a broader trend where Israel's legitimacy is increasingly questioned in international human rights discourse. He argues that while the focus on Palestinian rights is important, the current emphasis is on challenging Israel's founding and ongoing actions, particularly regarding the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Peter warns that Canada's shift in position could deepen polarization and insecurity among Jewish people, as support for Palestinian statehood might be misinterpreted as anti-Semitism.
Jack is Fellow and Assistant Professor at Trinity College in the University of Toronto, where he teaches in the International Relations Program. He is also Program Coordinator at the Bill Graham Centre for Contemporary International History and former editor of “International Journal”, Canada’s leading journal on international affairs. In addition to his academic writings, he is a frequent commentator in the media on world events, including several opinion pieces on the war in Gaza and Canadian policy in the Middle East.
Peter L. Biro is a lawyer, NGO leader, and the Founder and President of democracy think-tank, Section 1. He is a Senior Fellow of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights and of Massey College, and Chair Emeritus of the Jane Goodall Institute. He is an Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, where he teaches constitutional law. Peter served as a Governor of the University of Haifa and has written and commented on the Arab-Israeli conflict and on developments after the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
SAGA nine sixty am or its management.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Brian Crimeby Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
I've got two gentlemen with us tonight to talk about
the Canadian government, or at least the Prime Minister's announcement
that Canada is going to recognize the Palestinian state. And
this is obviously a very important and interesting development in
what's going on in Canada from a foreign avers standpoint,
and obviously in the Middle East.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I'm joined by Jack Cunningham.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
He is a fellow and assistant professor at Trinity College
at the University of Toronto.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
He teaches international relations. He's also the.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Program coordinator at the Bill Graham Center for Contemporary International
History and a former editor of the International Journal, Cana's
leading journal and international affairs. In addition to academic he
is a frequent commentator in the media on world events,
including several opinion pieces on the war in Gazat and
Canadian policy in the Middle East. Sir, thank you very
(01:10):
much for joining us.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
How are you.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
Today, I'm just fine, Brian. Good to be with you.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
I appreciate it, and I've also got Peter Bireau with
us today. Peter is a lawyer, he's an NGO leader,
and he's the founder and president of a democracy think
tank called Section One. He is a senior fellow at
a Center for Human Rights at Massey College, and he's
Chameritus of the Jane Goodall Institute. He is adjunct professor
in the Faculty of a Law University of Toronto, where
(01:37):
he teaches constitution law. He served as the governor of
the University of Haifa and has written commented on Arab
Israeli conflicts and on developments after the October seventh, twenty
twenty three attack on Israel and the ensuring war in Gaza. Gentlemen,
was the Prime Minister right in saying that we should
Canada should recognize Palestine as a independent state?
Speaker 5 (02:04):
Jack, you can, you can kick it off, Okay, thank
you well.
Speaker 4 (02:07):
The the advocates of recognition seem to think that this
is a a propitious time to to initiate unilateral recognition,
which is a break from Canada's long standing policy that
doing so would would help bring about the so called
two state solution. That Canadian policy has long called for that. Uh,
(02:33):
there is a possibility of an acceptable government being brought
into a future Palestinian state, and that U and that
it is Israel's actions, including the conduct of the war
on Gaza right now, that are the main obstacle to
a two state solution. So bringing pressure to bear on
(02:55):
Israel is part of what's going on. My own view
is at the annals of the situation is fundamentally flawed
and these recommendations are very unlikely to bring about the
desired result.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
Peter, Yeah, I agree one percent with what Jack said.
Canada's decision rewards terrorism reduces the chances of a negotiated
settlement and recognizes the state that doesn't exist at the
present time. But that's really just the beginning of it.
(03:31):
It is morally flawed, it is practically irrational and incoherent.
It's let's not sort of lose sight of the larger context.
Canada is joining now a group of countries that is
piling on Israel. And just to go back to Kere
(03:53):
Starmer's approach to this, which he's now kind of modified
or walked back to some extent, he said, Israel either
stops this war. There's either a ceasefire on Israel's part,
or the UK will recognize the Palestinian state. Think about
(04:14):
the logic of that, and that really is the logic
that underpins all of this. This is operating not as
support for the human rights of the Palestinian people, which
I think Jack and I both also support. This is
not really about Palestinian statehood. This is about reinforcing Israel's
(04:37):
status as a global pariah, and it's operating more as rebuke. Now,
think about recognition of political statehood all right, as being
used as a sword, as a threat, as a rebuke
to Israel for how it has conducted the war. So
(04:59):
it's operating as a means of punishing Israel. But it's
more than that. The logic is breathtaking, lee flawed and disingenious.
Remember that Prime Minister Karney said that this declaration of
statehood will be predicated. Predicated, he said, not condition on
(05:23):
a series of undertakings being performed and commitments given or
promises made by mahmur abas none of which he has
any intention of delivering on. But even if he did,
none of which he would be capable of delivering. But
(05:47):
one of those has to do with recognizing that Hamas
will play no part in any future talks or in
any future statehood in any future political entity called called Palestine.
And yet the only way that Kamas disappears is if
it is destroyed completely. Now we can disagree, as certainly
(06:11):
I do, with the Israeli approach to the war in Gaza,
because it's been clear for some time, more or less
from the date that they finally got rid of Sinowa
until the present, that there were no further achievable strategic objectives.
The hostages dead and alive, are still detained, have not
(06:37):
been returned. Israel is no more secure than it was before. However,
Hamas is still a presence, and it will continue to
be a presence. And if you're making a declaration of
statehood conditional on the idea that Kamas disappears from the
political equation, now I'll shut yourself in the foot, because
(07:03):
Hamas will treat this as a victory and Tamaus will
continue to operate to have influence, and in fact, it
is seriously emboldened by this. They are a whole host
of other reasons that go to domestic issues, the domestic
political culture in Canada that I hope will get into
pertaining to anti Semitism and the insecurity now of the
(07:27):
Jewish people in Canada, which is seriously enhanced by virtue
of this statement. But I'll stop there, Jack.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Maybe I could turn to you, sir.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
You message me and commented about recent a little by
former diplomats that are advocating recognition with various other proposals.
Peter's spoken about the British and the French response, and
I think there has been, and maybe not a global
but but but but a profound response worldwide to the
(08:10):
number of casualties, the number of deaths in in Gaza.
If you had an opportunity to sit down with our
new prime minister, what would you tell.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Him to do right now?
Speaker 4 (08:21):
Well, I would tell him, first of all that it's
absolutely undeniable that there's been horrendous suffering in in gazahuh.
But it a war waged against an enemy that uses
its entire civilian population, its entire civilian infrastructure as shields,
(08:42):
simply cannot be defeated, cannot even be significantly damaged without
large scale civilian casualties. But if we if we actually
look at what's going on, Israel is doing better than
Almale any other belligerent has has fared in any comparable undertaking.
(09:05):
John Spencer of the Urban War Institute at at West
Point has Uh has has Has has said that if
you actually look at what numbers we have that are reliable,
and those are pretty few. Uh, the the the civilian
casualties are lower than in most comparable conflicts.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
Now.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
Now, to be sure, the numbers are unreliable because they
they tend they tend to come from the Gaza Health Ministry,
which is a Hamas h Hamas operation, from journalists who
are either sympathetic to Hamas or are if if they're
operating on the ground, are intimidated by it and fear
(09:50):
for their lives if they don't parrot the required orthodoxy.
But I would point out that uh, recognition has to
has to be looked at within a broader context. What
are the incentives that this gesture creates. I agree with
Peter's criticism of Starmer's version of the initiative. I mean,
(10:10):
this is terribly misguided. If you essentially say to Hamas uh, well,
it essentially says to Hamas, hang on, uh, We're we're
asking Israel to make these concessions, and you get recognition
as a state. At the end of the day. If
that doesn't happen, well, Hamas is left with absolutely no
(10:32):
incentive to make any concessions whatsoever. You en, you end
up with Hamas digging in its heels yet further UH
and and a stable piece remains further away. It's it's
absolutely true that the only way to bring peace to
Gaza is to destroy Hamas militarily, to remove it as
(10:57):
a political force. And of course the war could end
tomorrow with Hamas would disarm, surrender and evacuate Gaza. That's
that's not that's not going to happen. The UH. The
Israeli effort to defeat Hamas has i I I agree
with Peter not not been well handled in every particular,
(11:21):
and the civilians suffering in Gaza, most notably the the
ongoing controversy about food insecurity and humanitarian aid has very
much played into Hamas's hands. But we perhaps we can
get into that as a separate matter. I don't think
that situation is is well understood. But this UH, this
(11:44):
ganging up on israel Is is not going to make
a stable peace. More likely, the UH, the Palestinian authority
is not an acceptable alternative to Hamas, even could Hamas
be brought out of the picture. Mah Mudabas himself is
an unregenerate anti Semite. He wrote a doctoral dissertation for
(12:07):
a Soviet Bloc university blaming the Holocaust and Jews, as
well as minimizing the numbers the numbers the numbers killed.
Fatah has on occasion cooperated very closely with Hamas. They
formed a unity government at one point. Mister Abbas was
only belatedly and reluctantly brought around, even condemning October seventh,
(12:33):
when the odious mister Sinoir was killed, Fatah celebrated him
as a martyr, as a hero. My acquaintances in Israel
referred to Fatah as Hamas in suits. The only difference
is that where Hamas is openly genocidal, Fatah tells gullible
(12:55):
Westerners they're committed to a two state solution to peaceful coexist,
but they tell their own people Palestinian statehood would be
just the first step in incrementally removing Israel from the
Middle East, wiping it off the map. In order to
believe that they're an acceptable alternative, you have to believe
(13:17):
that they're being honest when they talk to us and
lying when they talk to their own constituents. Oarkham's razor here.
I think it's more likely to be the other way around.
We do know that recognition of a Palestinian state would
not bring peace, no, even if it were under Fatah's auspices.
(13:39):
This issue has been debated before. In twenty twelve, there
was a debate in the UN over a full recognition
of a Palestinian state. Now it failed largely because of
a US veto in the Security Council, but Mahmad O
Bas had an op ed in the New York Times.
It's readily available online, and he made it quite clear
(14:03):
that what he wanted was recognition of a Palestinian state,
and that once that status was secured, he would weaponize it.
He would use it to pursue further claims against Israel
through the International Court of Justice, through the UN, through
multilateral bodies, and it would create a situation where should
(14:26):
should the Palestinian state be construed to include the West
Bank and Gaza Israeli military operations There would not be
military operations in disputed territories. They would be incursions into
the territory of a recognized state. So all of this
would simply increase the pressure on Israel, strengthen the hands
(14:49):
of those who want to destroy Israel, and again a stable,
secure piece would be further away.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
Is it going to be a fascinating conversation and an
important one today? Everyone stay with us. We'll give me
back in two minutes. I want to ask Peter Bureau
when we get back. So, if what the two of
you are saying is so obvious and so true, why
is this happening? Why is Canada recognizing? Why is Britain?
Why is France suggesting? Why are there so many calls
(15:21):
for recognition? Is this domestic politics?
Speaker 2 (15:24):
What's going on here?
Speaker 5 (15:25):
Stay with us?
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Everyone back in two minutes.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
Stream us Live at SAGA nine sixty am dot CA.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
A welcome back everyone to the brand crime area. We're
talking about the Prime Minister of Canada. The new Prime
Minister of Canada last week suggesting that Canada will recognize
(15:55):
Palestine as an independent state. I've got with us, Jack Cunningham.
He's a professor at Trinity College and Peter Burrow of
an NGO. He's an adjunct professor and a frequent contributor
to my show, a really great articulate speaker, Peter. I
want to turn to you, if I could, and ask
(16:15):
you what's going on, what's happening?
Speaker 2 (16:19):
If what you and Jack say is the truth? Why
is Britain, Why is France? Why is Canada?
Speaker 3 (16:25):
Why are so many calls worldwide for recognition of Palestine
right now?
Speaker 5 (16:31):
Well, as with many things, it's complicated, Brian, But let's
put this in a broad context so that we can
really at least begin to try to understand this. The
Israel vilification has now for many years, long before October seventh,
(16:52):
effectively become the language and the currency can temporary human
rights discourse, and the world is kind of catching up. Two.
Let's call it the activism and the advocacy of that
community that is the international contemporary human rights community for
(17:18):
some time. And by the way, while I'm critical of
that community, I'll remind you I am a senior fellow
of the Raoul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights Huniman rights
is very much a part of what I do, what
I believe in it, and I think that's the case
for Jack as well. So this is not an argument
against human rights discourse, but rather the way in which
(17:38):
it's been carried out by the current establishment. What is
that vilification of Israel really predicated on. Well, we see
in the post October seventh period what it's really about,
and what it's really about is not so much about
Palestinian human rights, which isn't to diminish the critical importance
(17:59):
of umhuman rights for Palestinians and indeed a right to
self determination, which by the way, doesn't necessarily translate immediately
into statehood, but that's for another discussion. What it's really
about is getting at Israel's original sin, if you will,
and what was that sin. It's very founding, and this
(18:20):
is what contemporary human rights discourse has had a problem
with from the beginning. That is the very legitimacy of
the state of Israel. Now in recent years, the occupation,
particularly particularly in the net Yahoo period, throughout his entire tenure,
and it now gets accentuated and amplified with the current
(18:44):
series of coalitions that he has had. The question of
whether a two state solution is even a possibility, given
the increased polarization that exists not just in Israeli society
but between Arabs and Israelis, is a serious issue but
(19:11):
Canada steps in to the peace in a sense, taking
refuge and seeking validation from the false security of a
growing consensus, and this is highly problematic. Canada has now
taken size, and it has moved from a position of
supporting Israel, not just as a nation state with a
(19:32):
right to self defense, but even on this question without
stating it explicitly, of Israel's legitimacy, because the occupation now
creates problems for its legitimacy. And when I talk about
the occupation, I'm talking about its control of the West
Bank and of Gaza, and we can have a discussion
(19:54):
about whether it is truly an occupation power. One thing
I think we can probably all agree on is that
the activity of the so called settlers in the West
Bank is not only problematic but illegal to the extent
that Israel supports it and backs that officially. But that
(20:18):
doesn't dispose of the question ultimately of Israel's legitimacy as
a state, or of, for example, the place of Jerusalem
in a future Palestinian state and a future Israel. So
Canada has kind of moved now. It's changed its position,
(20:39):
and it has gone with the emerging consensus that Israel
is the problem. And this is a very different proposition
than saying that the consensus is that the Palestinians should
have statehood in a particular place. There are very legitimate
(21:00):
and important discussions to be had about whether a two
state solution is not only possible, but is, if possible,
the best the best option. But of course, in keeping
with respect for the right to self determination, that would
be and should be it matter of decision by the
(21:23):
peoples in question and negotiation between the peoples in question,
which is the Israeli people in the Israeli State and
the Palestinians. It's something that cannot be imposed externally by declaration.
The only effect of this declaration that Canada and the
Europeans European countries will have is to actually deepen the polarization,
(21:50):
to deepen the antagonistic discourse, and to deepen the insecurity
of the Jewish people outside of the State of Israel,
where support for a Palestinian state translates into wrongly of course,
(22:10):
contempt for the Jewish people, because it's always been a
fundamental tenet of the Jewish people that Israel is the
homeland and is the place where the Jews will ultimately
not only reside but govern themselves. It goes back to
(22:31):
Biblical times and this issue, for example, of characterizing the
Israelis as settler colonizers. And when I say settlers, I'm
not talking about the settlers in the West, benk I'm
talking about the Israeli people as a whole with the
sinister reference. Sometimes it's a subtext, sometimes it's quite explicit.
(22:55):
Is that the Jews who fled Europe during the Second
World War, during and after the Holocaust are themselves colonizers
of a land which in fact is indigenous to the
Jewish people as it is to the Arab population. So
what's happened here is that Canada has shifted in its
(23:18):
understanding of history and in its implied judgment or assessment
of Israel's very legitimacy.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
Professor Cunham, I wonder if you could respond. You know,
the people that I speak with, and maybe we're all
naive and Peter's right, but just let me give you
a different point of view and ask you to respond.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Is that I think that the vast majority of people I.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
Speak with don't agree with Peter. They don't think that
there's anti Semitism in Canada. They don't think that there's
any issue about any original sin.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Like Peter discussed, I think that the vast majority of.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
People I speak with think that, you know, Israel is
a fantastic country, has a right to exist uh and
supported the creation of the Israel state. But they are
disgusted by the scenes they see on the national the
nightly news of of the the the tragedy in Gaza,
the utter destruction of buildings, homes, residences, the lives of
(24:19):
of the the Palestinians and Gaza, and they and there,
and they're desperate to to somehow you know, see peace
and and and stop it. And they they take a
look at at you and and wonder about the way
that he's uh, he's conducted the war, and question it
(24:40):
and probably do think, maybe naively, that a two state
solution is potentially the only solution uh to to peace
and sets that both the not just Jews, but israelis
uh and and and Palestinians Arabs can live to together
(25:00):
in the Middle East.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
So tell me is that just naive?
Speaker 4 (25:05):
Well, a two state solution does have for it to work,
there are preconditions that have to be present. In the
last interview, he gave before his death. Henry Kissinger, who
is the American Secretary of State, had helped negotiate the
winding down of the Jung Kapur War in nineteen seventy
(25:27):
three and the subsequent normalization of relations between Israel and Egypt.
He said, the two state solution is not viable at
the present time. The preconditions don't exist, and one of
the preconditions is a Palestinian political leadership is that it
will actually accept coexistence with Israel and not seek its destruction.
(25:52):
And the advocates of recognition and a two state solution
talk about the need to give hope to the Palestinians, Well,
we need to unpack that. Hamas actually saw its support
spike significantly after October seventh, and even among those who
(26:13):
do not support Hamas per se, approval of its actions
was pretty high. Recognition would give a specific kind of
hope the Palestinians hope that what thereafter can be achieved
through violence, so it would encourage them to continue down
(26:34):
that path. Frankly, I think the Palestinians have to be
completely deprived of hope that they can achieve statehood through violence,
and and as a result turned to recognition of the
need for a peaceful negotiation leading to coexistence the the
(26:56):
The problem the problem Israel faces is that it has
made its own case very very badly. And among mister Nettna,
who's many mistakes he has, he has badly mishandled relations
with the United States. He has pigged quarrels with successive
administrations when Israel's interests would have been better served by
(27:20):
discreetly trying to work out what difference has existed. He
has not provided sufficiently coherent explanations of his strategy for
the war. Because he has alienated so many in the
mainstream right of Israeli politics and forced himself into successive
(27:41):
coalitions with far right parties, he's unable to rebuke them
when they when they say inflammatory and dangerous things, and
as a result, people think that when settler politicians in
the Knesset time about retaking Gaza, expelling all the Palestinians,
(28:04):
they think that that's what Israel's after, that that's what
Israel is moving towards now. In fact, there's relatively limited
support for a full reoccupation of Gaza among the Israeli population,
except among some diehard settler extremists religious extremists, but Israel
(28:26):
has not been Its government has not been in a
position to make a sufficiently compelling case for what it's doing.
Part of it also is that there has been a
long term shift in worldwide opinion, particularly among left leaning
(28:46):
academics and intellectuals, towards Israel. A few years ago, a
fellow historian of mine, Jeffrey Hurf, wrote a book called
Israel's Moment, and one of his main points was that
Israel's formation was actually supported by left leaning advocates of decolonization,
(29:06):
by anti colonials in the United States, in Canada, in
in Western Europe. I think the shift in opinion really
set in after the Six Day War. People who were
happy with with an Israel that was relatively weak and
in and U and peaceful, it seemed, were traumatized by
(29:33):
an Israel that now looked like a military a military force.
They equated military prowess with with sin and began to
turn against it UH. This has also been exacerbated by
the entry into the un of a great many former
colonies UH, where anti Semitism is deeply rooted, and in
(29:57):
recent decades Peter referred to the term settler colonial The
ideology that puts setlar colonialism at the heart of history
has gained a lot of traction, first in academ but
more generally in central aft circles, including in politics. Does
(30:17):
Adam Kirsch pointed out in his recent book on this topic,
the settler colonialists aren't going to undo Panada's original sin,
what they claim to be the dispossession of the indigenous peoples.
The United States isn't going to do that. But Israel
is the one so called CELA colonial state that can
(30:39):
be undone that's existence is provisional. It's the only state
on the planet whose existence is still considered up for
debate in ostensibly respectable circles. That's part of the shift
of opinion, and it's taken. It's it's it can hold
(31:00):
among policymakers in Canada. I think it's popular among many
of the left leaning activists who are part of the
Liberal Party's coalition. In terms of Canadian domestic politics, both
the Conservatives and the NDP are relatively homogeneous, the Conservatives
(31:24):
comparatively stalwart and support of Israel, the NDP in recent
decades fairly consistently weary, if not hostile. The Liberal party
is sort of split down the middle. You've got people
like Irwin Cotler and Anthony house Father who are strongly supportive,
but you've also got to people who are very much
(31:46):
imbued with the settler colonialist view of Israel's history, Israel's creation,
despite all the archaeological evidence of the contrary. And as
a result, we saw Justin try Rudo try and without
success to please please all sides to the conflict. He
ended up pleasing none. Mister Carne, I think is perhaps
(32:11):
trying to do the same thing by talking about the
need for a Zionist Palestinian government and then proceeding with
this not particularly well thought out initiative of recognition.
Speaker 3 (32:25):
Peter, Professor Kenny Have a couple of minutes ago said
that you needed to have political leadership in Palestine that
would recognize the right to exist for Israel. You've been
critical on my show before of the leadership in Israel.
Do you think that there is political leadership currently in
(32:49):
government in Israel today that recognizes the right to existence
of Palestinians.
Speaker 5 (32:57):
Not in net Nyahu's government, certainly not in the controlling
forces inside Netanyahu's government. But I think, as Jack said,
the positions taken right now by Netanyahu, not just in
his dealings with Ameri successive American administrations, but of course
(33:18):
inside cabinet, in that the inside that sort of group
of that unholy alliance with the right wing parties, both
the religious and non religious right wing factions that you know,
controlled by people like Smotrich and Ben Geverer, who who
you know, are making the sorts of statements that are
(33:39):
giving sucker to those people who allege that not only
is Israel's conduct of the war catastrophic, which I think
it is, but that it also reflects genocidal purposes, right
that is not reflective of mainstream is rare society at.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
All, genicidal purposes.
Speaker 5 (34:03):
Really well, Israel is in the doc right now, all right,
the International Court of Justice, thanks to South Africa and
to other countries supporting a Brazil most recently alleging that
it is committing genocide. And we don't have time in
this program to discuss genocide in any detail. But you know,
(34:24):
part of the exercise, particularly led by the International Human
rights sort of establishment, is to demonstrate or to make
the argument that according to the nineteen forty eight Genocide Convention,
technically speaking, the terms are the threshold is met, and
one of them has to do with intent or intention. Right, So,
(34:48):
there is a lot of discussion about the statements made
by certain elements inside the net Nyahu government. Some of
them are not only inflammatory, they're just beyond outrageous and indefensible.
And they, you know, as I said, they give some
support to that position, but that is not reflective, as
(35:11):
Jack said, of what Israeli society stands for or is
all about. And so you know that was not a
one time event October seventh. Each and every day, and
we've forgotten this, the hostages are still in captivity. Each
and every day is a day on which they could
(35:31):
have been released and ought to have been released, and
each failure to do that is a new commission of
an act of pogrom, a pug grong that was never
and has never to this day been acknowledged as such
by international human rights experts and advocates. It's important to recognize.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
That, Peter, I agree and understand it. I think that
you know, the vast majority of.
Speaker 3 (35:58):
People worldwide we're shocked by the atrocities October seventh. However,
you have to recognize, and I know you do that
what we are subjected to every night on the news
and in social media are pictures of the destruction of
Gaza and of babes in arms that are dead in coffins,
(36:18):
et cetera. And so I want to take a break
and come back, and I'm going to ask the professor
about this humanitarian crisis and does this recognition of Palestine
do anything to solve that humanitarian crisis? And if it.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
Doesn't, what does he think we need to do? Stay
with us, everyone back in two days.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
No Radio, No problem stream is live on SAGA ninety
sixty am dot c A.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
Wellcome back everyone to the Bran Krumby Radio.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
I've got a really interesting conversation with two excellent guests.
I've got to Peter Burrow with me and Jack Cunningham,
Professor Cunningham, Trinity College International Relations Program. You've written about this,
You've spoken about this, you teach about it.
Speaker 5 (37:13):
I presume we've.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
Got an incredible disaster right.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
Now in Gaza, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of
people dead, starvation, displaced people, et cetera. I think that's
what this recognition of Palestine is all about. Do you
think that does anything to alleviate the humanitarian crisis.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
I think you obviously don't. And if so, why not,
And if so, what's the solution.
Speaker 4 (37:50):
Oh, there's no doubt that these UH, these images on
the nightly news from from Gaza are helping to fuel
support for measures however well thought out to UH to
alleviate Palestinian suffering. The problem with food insecurity, though, is
a lot more complicated than we tend to think. Earlier
(38:16):
this year, the early months of this year, a fair
amount of food aid was in fact flowing in. It
just wasn't reaching most of the civilian population. One of
the UH. One of one of the features of this
conflict that's not particularly well understood is it control of UH,
(38:36):
of the food supply. The ability to direct humanitarian aid
is one area where Hamas retains a fair amount of power.
It has been militarily weakened, but it has UH. It
has used a control of food to UH reward its
own supporters, to darve others. And it's perfectly happy to
(38:58):
generate these images of some fring the the the.
Speaker 3 (39:03):
Hold hold it, hold on hold on a second, perfectly
happy to generate these nightly pictures of suffering.
Speaker 4 (39:10):
Absolutely absolutely from Hamas's point of view, the more starving Palestinians,
the more dead Palestinians, UH, the better because every casualty
can be weaponized against Israel.
Speaker 3 (39:26):
You think that Hamas is purposely starving its own population
or allowing its own population to starve.
Speaker 4 (39:33):
Well, I do know that food prices in Gaza have
in fact skyrocketed. They skyrocketed before Israel began restricting the
flow of food eight because Hamas was was seizing and
start piling food supplies. The UH, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
(39:54):
which UH, which has turned out to be a somewhat
problematic initiative, was designed to provide a way of getting
food ad to Palestinians that would circumvent HUMAS, that would
that would get it directly to the civilian population. And
one of the features of the recent letter from the
(40:15):
retired diplomats is very problematic is its rejection of aid
delivered through those channels, its insistence that it be through
the UN. The UN agencies and the other humanitarian organizations
in the region have all been have all been approached
by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and said well, look, we
(40:36):
are perfectly happy to help you deliver aid. To provide
military security for delivery of aid, to identify locations at
which it can be it can be delivered, and they
fairly consistently said no. Just last week I was listening
to an interview on CBC with a representative of one
(40:56):
of these organizations who said, well, eight can eight shouldn't
be delivered at the barrel of a gun. It can't
be militarized, it can't be politicized. Well, if you don't
have aid delivered with somebody there to provide military security,
Hamas will sees it will start. Pilot will feed only
its own loyalists, will be perfectly happy to see those
(41:19):
who do not support it suffer and starve and indeed die.
And I think that when the employees of these organizations
and agencies talk about food insecurity and the humanitarian catastrophe,
they ought to look in the mirror a bit because
(41:40):
their insistence on what they conceive Vava's neutrality in the
apolitical delivery of aid is simply a non starter in
the conditions that now prevail in Gaza, either aid is
going to be delivered with the IDF AURA or an
organization working with it providing security ensuring delivery is relatively
(42:02):
orderly and peaceful, or an attempt in the absence of
such protection will end up with much of the aid
being hijacked by Hamas, stolen by Hamas. There is still
an awful lot of food, an awful lot of medicine
in Gaza. It's just not reaching the people it should.
(42:22):
That is a tragedy Israel's. Israel's turning off the taps
on AID earlier this year was I think a mistake.
It rested on the false assumption that doing that would
would force Hamas to make more concessions. But it underestimates
the fact that that for Hamas, the worse the better there.
(42:45):
The more Gossins are visibly suffering on our television screens,
the more pressure can be brought to bear on Israel
to make concessions.
Speaker 5 (42:56):
Peter, I'll ask you, sir, can I just do you
mind if I just jump in there just just to
add to this, and I agree one hundred percent with
what Jack just said. Let's just reframe it, just just
to just to underscore what he said. The question might
be put as follows, who benefits from this war? And I,
(43:17):
you know, in a slightly oversimpl simplistic way, answer as
follows net Nyahu personally benefits because the minute this thing
is over, accountability for him begins at home political accountability
and legal accountability. So he personally has no interest in
ending this thing anytime soon.
Speaker 3 (43:39):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (43:40):
And there's no two ways about that. But who else
benefits from this?
Speaker 4 (43:45):
Come?
Speaker 5 (43:45):
Us benefits from this? And to underscore Jack's point about
how us wanting dead and suffering and starving Palestinians, Let's
just remember that this was premeditated, not just October seventh,
but the higher conflict and the devastation inside Gaza was premeditated,
(44:08):
and it began the moment that Ramas put pen to
paper on the drafting table to begin the planning and
the building of the tunnels. There are hundreds of miles
at tunnels. I don't think anyone knows exactly how many
miles of tunnels underneath the civilian infrastructure. That was a
(44:30):
plan to make human targets of its civilian population, with
the intention not of of fending off attacks, but with
the intention of inviting attacks. And the devastation that ensued,
(44:50):
there is no there are no two ways about that. Furthermore,
after October seventh, there are statements. These are documented by
the late great ishue Hania, the Hamas's political leader now dead,
deceased political leader, celebrating the deaths and saying that more
(45:12):
deaths were necessary. The plan was for the deaths of
tens of thousands of Palestinians martyrs. Remember this is a
jihadist movement as well. That is absolutely part of the plan.
So the idea that the West wants to bring an
end to all of this, of course, that's correct. Everybody
(45:32):
wants an end to it. Everybody believes in human rights
as far as I'm concerned, and everyone respects the right
of self determination and the hope that it will resolve
in a political solution that brings security and dignity both
to the Israelis and to the Palestinian people. But the
strategy is all wrong, partly because the understanding of how
(45:54):
we get here is either intellectually sort of dishonest or
just simply miss taken. Who benefits, Who's who is the cause?
What is the cause of this devastation. Of course Israel
played its part, it took the bait, and it was
quite convenient fort Nyahoo that it do so, all right,
(46:16):
But this was Hamas's plan and comaus is benefiting from
all of this, That's what I wanted to say.
Speaker 2 (46:24):
I appreciate that.
Speaker 3 (46:26):
I want to end though, if I could Peter with
a question to you and Professor Cunningham with how does
this impact you personally? Because I think all of us
listening to the show tonight in the Greater Toronto wearing
across Canada, you know that aren't Jewish, have Jewish friends,
work with Jewish people, have Jewish neighbors, and I think,
(46:47):
and again maybe on naive, that most people don't agree
with you, that this is is anti semitic, this sense
of this Canadian recognition of Palestinian state, or the attitude
that backs it, and or anything against anything about an
original sin. It is disagreement with the conduct of the
(47:11):
war by the current Israeli government. And so therefore you
have interpreted this Canadian move as wrong number one, and
the professor has described exactly why he believes it's wrong.
But you've interpreted it as a very antisemitic move and
worried that there's anti Semitism growing in Canada today.
Speaker 2 (47:34):
How has this impacted you personally?
Speaker 5 (47:37):
Let me just correct something. I didn't say it's antisemitic,
and I don't believe that this recognition is anti semitic
at all. I didn't say that. I said that it
is part of an emerging consensus, all right that has
had an impact on anti semitism and the level of antisemitism.
(48:03):
I didn't say that the recognition of a Palestinian state
is antisemitic, and I don't believe that it is. But
it's part and parcel of let's call it the body language,
all right, of the global powers in the West and
now of Canada that has an adverse impact on the
status on domestic culture, all right. It's created polarization, it
(48:28):
has made Jews more insecure, and it has increased contempt
for the Jewish people, is what I said. But I
did not say it's anti semitic, and I don't believe
that it is. Nor do I believe that criticism of
Israel is antisemitic. But let's so, I just want to
be that absolutely clear about that. In terms of how
(48:50):
it's impacted me, it's been devastating, first of all. Not
first of all, as a citizen of the world as
I believe, as a civil libertarian, a believer in human rights,
a defender and champion of human rights. It's terribly painful
to see the international human rights establishment kind of get
(49:11):
all of this wrong, all right. Secondly, as a Jew,
I'm terribly troubled because I am a critic of the
government of Israel and a lover of the state of
Israel and of the idea of Israel. And it's become
(49:32):
next to impossible to be able to hold those two
positions in public without being subjected to all kinds of
misunderstandings at best and contempt at worst. Let me just
stop with that so that Jack has an opportunity to
respond to your question.
Speaker 4 (49:55):
Well, I for one, have always had what I think
of as a lo vers quarrel with with Israel, and
that you know, the the quarrel uh certainly arises quite
frequently with with the current government. Mhm. It is certainly
(50:15):
the case that much of the the support for recognition
for doing more to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians
is rooted in humanitarianism, is rooted in a genuine compassion.
But those qualities are not enough. They need to be
augmented by an understanding of the relevant history, the relevant geopolitics,
(50:40):
the relevant domestic politics of of the various actors. I
would though that while antisemitism is emphatically not part of
what's going on in in Canadian or British or French
proposals for recognition, the broader shift towards seeing Israel as
(51:05):
set or colonialist, seeing Zionism as a fundamentally illegitimate project
does essentially deny to the Jews what it grants everyone
else self determination. Now you can argue that that's not
consciously anti semitic, fair enough, but anti Semitism doesn't have
(51:28):
to be conscious to be real, and told to hold Jews,
to hold Israel to a higher standard than others, is
objectively anti semitic, however benign the intentions may be. Personally,
I share Peter's sadness when I look at what's happening
(51:51):
in Gaza, in when I look at what's happening in
the region as a whole. But good intentions aren't enough,
and if they are, if they are allowed to run
rampant without without sufficient, sufficient understanding of the realities on
the ground, they can be terribly self destructive. And I
(52:14):
fear that this uh, this initiative of unilateral recognition, will
not will not produce what's intended. It will not leave
Israel more secure. It will not make the Palestinians free
or happier. They will if if they are, if they
are governed by either Hamas or Fatah Uh, they will
(52:35):
continue to suffer. They will be under the thumb of
reprehensible regimes. And as long as conflict between Israel and
the Palestinians UH persists, which it will, under this scenario,
they will be no more safe. No their their their
own losses of life will not will not diminish and UH.
(52:57):
And that's why I think humanitarianism properly understood, properly applied
in this case points against unilateral recognition rather than towards it.
I agree with Kissinger that the preconditions for a two
state solution aren't here yet, but there are there are
(53:17):
other things that can be done. I, for one, would
like to see a greater degree of Palestine and autonomy
in both Gaza and the West Bank, probably in confederations
with Egypt and Jordan. You you know, shrink the the
Israeli footprint in in in certain areas, some settlements will
(53:38):
have to be dismantled, The sectors have to be curbed.
There's there's no doubt about that. Their influence on Israeli
politics is increasingly malign, but this is a gradual process.
When when Kissinger was reflecting on the gradual normalization of
(53:59):
relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors following the Ukupoor War,
he noted that success stemmed from incremental steps, gradually gradual,
gradual steps to understand the other's position. Confidence building measures
inevitably a very slow process in which an increasing number
(54:23):
of participants would come to recognize their not just the
need for coexistence, but the means by which it, by
which it could occur. A rush to unilateral recognition holds
holds out very little promise and launch threat.
Speaker 3 (54:41):
Professor Jack Kennahan, Peter Burrow, thank you so much for
joining me. I think this has been an incredibly interesting conversation. I,
for one, really think that it's difficult, very difficult, in
today's world to have two points of view that are
true at the same time.
Speaker 2 (54:57):
As Peter has mentioned, and as.
Speaker 3 (54:59):
As Professor you talk about this love hate relationship, but
I think we need to I personally am very supportive
of Israel, but I'm disgusted with what's.
Speaker 2 (55:08):
Going on every night in Ghaza.
Speaker 3 (55:11):
And I think both things are true, and I think
that we need to realize that the world isn't perfect,
and it's not simplistic answers all the time, and sometimes
we have these difficult situations. Anyway, gentlemen, thank you so
much for joining, and remind you everybody on every Monday
through Friday at six o'clock thanks for joining.
Speaker 2 (55:28):
Good Night
Speaker 1 (55:33):
Stream US Live at SAGA nine six am dot CA.
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
SAGA nine sixty am or its management.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Brian Crimeby Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
I've got two gentlemen with us tonight to talk about
the Canadian government, or at least the Prime Minister's announcement
that Canada is going to recognize the Palestinian state. And
this is obviously a very important and interesting development in
what's going on in Canada from a foreign avers standpoint,
and obviously in the Middle East.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I'm joined by Jack Cunningham.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
He is a fellow and assistant professor at Trinity College
at the University of Toronto.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
He teaches international relations. He's also the.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Program coordinator at the Bill Graham Center for Contemporary International
History and a former editor of the International Journal, Cana's
leading journal and international affairs. In addition to academic he
is a frequent commentator in the media on world events,
including several opinion pieces on the war in Gazat and
Canadian policy in the Middle East. Sir, thank you very
(01:10):
much for joining us.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
How are you.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
Today, I'm just fine, Brian. Good to be with you.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
I appreciate it, and I've also got Peter Bireau with
us today. Peter is a lawyer, he's an NGO leader,
and he's the founder and president of a democracy think
tank called Section One. He is a senior fellow at
a Center for Human Rights at Massey College, and he's
Chameritus of the Jane Goodall Institute. He is adjunct professor
in the Faculty of a Law University of Toronto, where
(01:37):
he teaches constitution law. He served as the governor of
the University of Haifa and has written commented on Arab
Israeli conflicts and on developments after the October seventh, twenty
twenty three attack on Israel and the ensuring war in Gaza. Gentlemen,
was the Prime Minister right in saying that we should
Canada should recognize Palestine as a independent state?
Speaker 5 (02:04):
Jack, you can, you can kick it off, Okay, thank
you well.
Speaker 4 (02:07):
The the advocates of recognition seem to think that this
is a a propitious time to to initiate unilateral recognition,
which is a break from Canada's long standing policy that
doing so would would help bring about the so called
two state solution. That Canadian policy has long called for that. Uh,
(02:33):
there is a possibility of an acceptable government being brought
into a future Palestinian state, and that U and that
it is Israel's actions, including the conduct of the war
on Gaza right now, that are the main obstacle to
a two state solution. So bringing pressure to bear on
(02:55):
Israel is part of what's going on. My own view
is at the annals of the situation is fundamentally flawed
and these recommendations are very unlikely to bring about the
desired result.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
Peter, Yeah, I agree one percent with what Jack said.
Canada's decision rewards terrorism reduces the chances of a negotiated
settlement and recognizes the state that doesn't exist at the
present time. But that's really just the beginning of it.
(03:31):
It is morally flawed, it is practically irrational and incoherent.
It's let's not sort of lose sight of the larger context.
Canada is joining now a group of countries that is
piling on Israel. And just to go back to Kere
(03:53):
Starmer's approach to this, which he's now kind of modified
or walked back to some extent, he said, Israel either
stops this war. There's either a ceasefire on Israel's part,
or the UK will recognize the Palestinian state. Think about
(04:14):
the logic of that, and that really is the logic
that underpins all of this. This is operating not as
support for the human rights of the Palestinian people, which
I think Jack and I both also support. This is
not really about Palestinian statehood. This is about reinforcing Israel's
(04:37):
status as a global pariah, and it's operating more as rebuke. Now,
think about recognition of political statehood all right, as being
used as a sword, as a threat, as a rebuke
to Israel for how it has conducted the war. So
(04:59):
it's operating as a means of punishing Israel. But it's
more than that. The logic is breathtaking, lee flawed and disingenious.
Remember that Prime Minister Karney said that this declaration of
statehood will be predicated. Predicated, he said, not condition on
(05:23):
a series of undertakings being performed and commitments given or
promises made by mahmur abas none of which he has
any intention of delivering on. But even if he did,
none of which he would be capable of delivering. But
(05:47):
one of those has to do with recognizing that Hamas
will play no part in any future talks or in
any future statehood in any future political entity called called Palestine.
And yet the only way that Kamas disappears is if
it is destroyed completely. Now we can disagree, as certainly
(06:11):
I do, with the Israeli approach to the war in Gaza,
because it's been clear for some time, more or less
from the date that they finally got rid of Sinowa
until the present, that there were no further achievable strategic objectives.
The hostages dead and alive, are still detained, have not
(06:37):
been returned. Israel is no more secure than it was before. However,
Hamas is still a presence, and it will continue to
be a presence. And if you're making a declaration of
statehood conditional on the idea that Kamas disappears from the
political equation, now I'll shut yourself in the foot, because
(07:03):
Hamas will treat this as a victory and Tamaus will
continue to operate to have influence, and in fact, it
is seriously emboldened by this. They are a whole host
of other reasons that go to domestic issues, the domestic
political culture in Canada that I hope will get into
pertaining to anti Semitism and the insecurity now of the
(07:27):
Jewish people in Canada, which is seriously enhanced by virtue
of this statement. But I'll stop there, Jack.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Maybe I could turn to you, sir.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
You message me and commented about recent a little by
former diplomats that are advocating recognition with various other proposals.
Peter's spoken about the British and the French response, and
I think there has been, and maybe not a global
but but but but a profound response worldwide to the
(08:10):
number of casualties, the number of deaths in in Gaza.
If you had an opportunity to sit down with our
new prime minister, what would you tell.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Him to do right now?
Speaker 4 (08:21):
Well, I would tell him, first of all that it's
absolutely undeniable that there's been horrendous suffering in in gazahuh.
But it a war waged against an enemy that uses
its entire civilian population, its entire civilian infrastructure as shields,
(08:42):
simply cannot be defeated, cannot even be significantly damaged without
large scale civilian casualties. But if we if we actually
look at what's going on, Israel is doing better than
Almale any other belligerent has has fared in any comparable undertaking.
(09:05):
John Spencer of the Urban War Institute at at West
Point has Uh has has Has has said that if
you actually look at what numbers we have that are reliable,
and those are pretty few. Uh, the the the civilian
casualties are lower than in most comparable conflicts.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
Now.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
Now, to be sure, the numbers are unreliable because they
they tend they tend to come from the Gaza Health Ministry,
which is a Hamas h Hamas operation, from journalists who
are either sympathetic to Hamas or are if if they're
operating on the ground, are intimidated by it and fear
(09:50):
for their lives if they don't parrot the required orthodoxy.
But I would point out that uh, recognition has to
has to be looked at within a broader context. What
are the incentives that this gesture creates. I agree with
Peter's criticism of Starmer's version of the initiative. I mean,
(10:10):
this is terribly misguided. If you essentially say to Hamas uh, well,
it essentially says to Hamas, hang on, uh, We're we're
asking Israel to make these concessions, and you get recognition
as a state. At the end of the day. If
that doesn't happen, well, Hamas is left with absolutely no
(10:32):
incentive to make any concessions whatsoever. You en, you end
up with Hamas digging in its heels yet further UH
and and a stable piece remains further away. It's it's
absolutely true that the only way to bring peace to
Gaza is to destroy Hamas militarily, to remove it as
(10:57):
a political force. And of course the war could end
tomorrow with Hamas would disarm, surrender and evacuate Gaza. That's
that's not that's not going to happen. The UH. The
Israeli effort to defeat Hamas has i I I agree
with Peter not not been well handled in every particular,
(11:21):
and the civilians suffering in Gaza, most notably the the
ongoing controversy about food insecurity and humanitarian aid has very
much played into Hamas's hands. But we perhaps we can
get into that as a separate matter. I don't think
that situation is is well understood. But this UH, this
(11:44):
ganging up on israel Is is not going to make
a stable peace. More likely, the UH, the Palestinian authority
is not an acceptable alternative to Hamas, even could Hamas
be brought out of the picture. Mah Mudabas himself is
an unregenerate anti Semite. He wrote a doctoral dissertation for
(12:07):
a Soviet Bloc university blaming the Holocaust and Jews, as
well as minimizing the numbers the numbers the numbers killed.
Fatah has on occasion cooperated very closely with Hamas. They
formed a unity government at one point. Mister Abbas was
only belatedly and reluctantly brought around, even condemning October seventh,
(12:33):
when the odious mister Sinoir was killed, Fatah celebrated him
as a martyr, as a hero. My acquaintances in Israel
referred to Fatah as Hamas in suits. The only difference
is that where Hamas is openly genocidal, Fatah tells gullible
(12:55):
Westerners they're committed to a two state solution to peaceful coexist,
but they tell their own people Palestinian statehood would be
just the first step in incrementally removing Israel from the
Middle East, wiping it off the map. In order to
believe that they're an acceptable alternative, you have to believe
(13:17):
that they're being honest when they talk to us and
lying when they talk to their own constituents. Oarkham's razor here.
I think it's more likely to be the other way around.
We do know that recognition of a Palestinian state would
not bring peace, no, even if it were under Fatah's auspices.
(13:39):
This issue has been debated before. In twenty twelve, there
was a debate in the UN over a full recognition
of a Palestinian state. Now it failed largely because of
a US veto in the Security Council, but Mahmad O
Bas had an op ed in the New York Times.
It's readily available online, and he made it quite clear
(14:03):
that what he wanted was recognition of a Palestinian state,
and that once that status was secured, he would weaponize it.
He would use it to pursue further claims against Israel
through the International Court of Justice, through the UN, through
multilateral bodies, and it would create a situation where should
(14:26):
should the Palestinian state be construed to include the West
Bank and Gaza Israeli military operations There would not be
military operations in disputed territories. They would be incursions into
the territory of a recognized state. So all of this
would simply increase the pressure on Israel, strengthen the hands
(14:49):
of those who want to destroy Israel, and again a stable,
secure piece would be further away.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
Is it going to be a fascinating conversation and an
important one today? Everyone stay with us. We'll give me
back in two minutes. I want to ask Peter Bureau
when we get back. So, if what the two of
you are saying is so obvious and so true, why
is this happening? Why is Canada recognizing? Why is Britain?
Why is France suggesting? Why are there so many calls
(15:21):
for recognition? Is this domestic politics?
Speaker 2 (15:24):
What's going on here?
Speaker 5 (15:25):
Stay with us?
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Everyone back in two minutes.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
Stream us Live at SAGA nine sixty am dot CA.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
A welcome back everyone to the brand crime area. We're
talking about the Prime Minister of Canada. The new Prime
Minister of Canada last week suggesting that Canada will recognize
(15:55):
Palestine as an independent state. I've got with us, Jack Cunningham.
He's a professor at Trinity College and Peter Burrow of
an NGO. He's an adjunct professor and a frequent contributor
to my show, a really great articulate speaker, Peter. I
want to turn to you, if I could, and ask
(16:15):
you what's going on, what's happening?
Speaker 2 (16:19):
If what you and Jack say is the truth? Why
is Britain, Why is France? Why is Canada?
Speaker 3 (16:25):
Why are so many calls worldwide for recognition of Palestine
right now?
Speaker 5 (16:31):
Well, as with many things, it's complicated, Brian, But let's
put this in a broad context so that we can
really at least begin to try to understand this. The
Israel vilification has now for many years, long before October seventh,
(16:52):
effectively become the language and the currency can temporary human
rights discourse, and the world is kind of catching up. Two.
Let's call it the activism and the advocacy of that
community that is the international contemporary human rights community for
(17:18):
some time. And by the way, while I'm critical of
that community, I'll remind you I am a senior fellow
of the Raoul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights Huniman rights
is very much a part of what I do, what
I believe in it, and I think that's the case
for Jack as well. So this is not an argument
against human rights discourse, but rather the way in which
(17:38):
it's been carried out by the current establishment. What is
that vilification of Israel really predicated on. Well, we see
in the post October seventh period what it's really about,
and what it's really about is not so much about
Palestinian human rights, which isn't to diminish the critical importance
(17:59):
of umhuman rights for Palestinians and indeed a right to
self determination, which by the way, doesn't necessarily translate immediately
into statehood, but that's for another discussion. What it's really
about is getting at Israel's original sin, if you will,
and what was that sin. It's very founding, and this
(18:20):
is what contemporary human rights discourse has had a problem
with from the beginning. That is the very legitimacy of
the state of Israel. Now in recent years, the occupation,
particularly particularly in the net Yahoo period, throughout his entire tenure,
and it now gets accentuated and amplified with the current
(18:44):
series of coalitions that he has had. The question of
whether a two state solution is even a possibility, given
the increased polarization that exists not just in Israeli society
but between Arabs and Israelis, is a serious issue but
(19:11):
Canada steps in to the peace in a sense, taking
refuge and seeking validation from the false security of a
growing consensus, and this is highly problematic. Canada has now
taken size, and it has moved from a position of
supporting Israel, not just as a nation state with a
(19:32):
right to self defense, but even on this question without
stating it explicitly, of Israel's legitimacy, because the occupation now
creates problems for its legitimacy. And when I talk about
the occupation, I'm talking about its control of the West
Bank and of Gaza, and we can have a discussion
(19:54):
about whether it is truly an occupation power. One thing
I think we can probably all agree on is that
the activity of the so called settlers in the West
Bank is not only problematic but illegal to the extent
that Israel supports it and backs that officially. But that
(20:18):
doesn't dispose of the question ultimately of Israel's legitimacy as
a state, or of, for example, the place of Jerusalem
in a future Palestinian state and a future Israel. So
Canada has kind of moved now. It's changed its position,
(20:39):
and it has gone with the emerging consensus that Israel
is the problem. And this is a very different proposition
than saying that the consensus is that the Palestinians should
have statehood in a particular place. There are very legitimate
(21:00):
and important discussions to be had about whether a two
state solution is not only possible, but is, if possible,
the best the best option. But of course, in keeping
with respect for the right to self determination, that would
be and should be it matter of decision by the
(21:23):
peoples in question and negotiation between the peoples in question,
which is the Israeli people in the Israeli State and
the Palestinians. It's something that cannot be imposed externally by declaration.
The only effect of this declaration that Canada and the
Europeans European countries will have is to actually deepen the polarization,
(21:50):
to deepen the antagonistic discourse, and to deepen the insecurity
of the Jewish people outside of the State of Israel,
where support for a Palestinian state translates into wrongly of course,
(22:10):
contempt for the Jewish people, because it's always been a
fundamental tenet of the Jewish people that Israel is the
homeland and is the place where the Jews will ultimately
not only reside but govern themselves. It goes back to
(22:31):
Biblical times and this issue, for example, of characterizing the
Israelis as settler colonizers. And when I say settlers, I'm
not talking about the settlers in the West, benk I'm
talking about the Israeli people as a whole with the
sinister reference. Sometimes it's a subtext, sometimes it's quite explicit.
(22:55):
Is that the Jews who fled Europe during the Second
World War, during and after the Holocaust are themselves colonizers
of a land which in fact is indigenous to the
Jewish people as it is to the Arab population. So
what's happened here is that Canada has shifted in its
(23:18):
understanding of history and in its implied judgment or assessment
of Israel's very legitimacy.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
Professor Cunham, I wonder if you could respond. You know,
the people that I speak with, and maybe we're all
naive and Peter's right, but just let me give you
a different point of view and ask you to respond.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Is that I think that the vast majority of people I.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
Speak with don't agree with Peter. They don't think that
there's anti Semitism in Canada. They don't think that there's
any issue about any original sin.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Like Peter discussed, I think that the vast majority of.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
People I speak with think that, you know, Israel is
a fantastic country, has a right to exist uh and
supported the creation of the Israel state. But they are
disgusted by the scenes they see on the national the
nightly news of of the the the tragedy in Gaza,
the utter destruction of buildings, homes, residences, the lives of
(24:19):
of the the Palestinians and Gaza, and they and there,
and they're desperate to to somehow you know, see peace
and and and stop it. And they they take a
look at at you and and wonder about the way
that he's uh, he's conducted the war, and question it
(24:40):
and probably do think, maybe naively, that a two state
solution is potentially the only solution uh to to peace
and sets that both the not just Jews, but israelis
uh and and and Palestinians Arabs can live to together
(25:00):
in the Middle East.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
So tell me is that just naive?
Speaker 4 (25:05):
Well, a two state solution does have for it to work,
there are preconditions that have to be present. In the
last interview, he gave before his death. Henry Kissinger, who
is the American Secretary of State, had helped negotiate the
winding down of the Jung Kapur War in nineteen seventy
(25:27):
three and the subsequent normalization of relations between Israel and Egypt.
He said, the two state solution is not viable at
the present time. The preconditions don't exist, and one of
the preconditions is a Palestinian political leadership is that it
will actually accept coexistence with Israel and not seek its destruction.
(25:52):
And the advocates of recognition and a two state solution
talk about the need to give hope to the Palestinians, Well,
we need to unpack that. Hamas actually saw its support
spike significantly after October seventh, and even among those who
(26:13):
do not support Hamas per se, approval of its actions
was pretty high. Recognition would give a specific kind of
hope the Palestinians hope that what thereafter can be achieved
through violence, so it would encourage them to continue down
(26:34):
that path. Frankly, I think the Palestinians have to be
completely deprived of hope that they can achieve statehood through violence,
and and as a result turned to recognition of the
need for a peaceful negotiation leading to coexistence the the
(26:56):
The problem the problem Israel faces is that it has
made its own case very very badly. And among mister Nettna,
who's many mistakes he has, he has badly mishandled relations
with the United States. He has pigged quarrels with successive
administrations when Israel's interests would have been better served by
(27:20):
discreetly trying to work out what difference has existed. He
has not provided sufficiently coherent explanations of his strategy for
the war. Because he has alienated so many in the
mainstream right of Israeli politics and forced himself into successive
(27:41):
coalitions with far right parties, he's unable to rebuke them
when they when they say inflammatory and dangerous things, and
as a result, people think that when settler politicians in
the Knesset time about retaking Gaza, expelling all the Palestinians,
(28:04):
they think that that's what Israel's after, that that's what
Israel is moving towards now. In fact, there's relatively limited
support for a full reoccupation of Gaza among the Israeli population,
except among some diehard settler extremists religious extremists, but Israel
(28:26):
has not been Its government has not been in a
position to make a sufficiently compelling case for what it's doing.
Part of it also is that there has been a
long term shift in worldwide opinion, particularly among left leaning
(28:46):
academics and intellectuals, towards Israel. A few years ago, a
fellow historian of mine, Jeffrey Hurf, wrote a book called
Israel's Moment, and one of his main points was that
Israel's formation was actually supported by left leaning advocates of decolonization,
(29:06):
by anti colonials in the United States, in Canada, in
in Western Europe. I think the shift in opinion really
set in after the Six Day War. People who were
happy with with an Israel that was relatively weak and
in and U and peaceful, it seemed, were traumatized by
(29:33):
an Israel that now looked like a military a military force.
They equated military prowess with with sin and began to
turn against it UH. This has also been exacerbated by
the entry into the un of a great many former
colonies UH, where anti Semitism is deeply rooted, and in
(29:57):
recent decades Peter referred to the term settler colonial The
ideology that puts setlar colonialism at the heart of history
has gained a lot of traction, first in academ but
more generally in central aft circles, including in politics. Does
(30:17):
Adam Kirsch pointed out in his recent book on this topic,
the settler colonialists aren't going to undo Panada's original sin,
what they claim to be the dispossession of the indigenous peoples.
The United States isn't going to do that. But Israel
is the one so called CELA colonial state that can
(30:39):
be undone that's existence is provisional. It's the only state
on the planet whose existence is still considered up for
debate in ostensibly respectable circles. That's part of the shift
of opinion, and it's taken. It's it's it can hold
(31:00):
among policymakers in Canada. I think it's popular among many
of the left leaning activists who are part of the
Liberal Party's coalition. In terms of Canadian domestic politics, both
the Conservatives and the NDP are relatively homogeneous, the Conservatives
(31:24):
comparatively stalwart and support of Israel, the NDP in recent
decades fairly consistently weary, if not hostile. The Liberal party
is sort of split down the middle. You've got people
like Irwin Cotler and Anthony house Father who are strongly supportive,
but you've also got to people who are very much
(31:46):
imbued with the settler colonialist view of Israel's history, Israel's creation,
despite all the archaeological evidence of the contrary. And as
a result, we saw Justin try Rudo try and without
success to please please all sides to the conflict. He
ended up pleasing none. Mister Carne, I think is perhaps
(32:11):
trying to do the same thing by talking about the
need for a Zionist Palestinian government and then proceeding with
this not particularly well thought out initiative of recognition.
Speaker 3 (32:25):
Peter, Professor Kenny Have a couple of minutes ago said
that you needed to have political leadership in Palestine that
would recognize the right to exist for Israel. You've been
critical on my show before of the leadership in Israel.
Do you think that there is political leadership currently in
(32:49):
government in Israel today that recognizes the right to existence
of Palestinians.
Speaker 5 (32:57):
Not in net Nyahu's government, certainly not in the controlling
forces inside Netanyahu's government. But I think, as Jack said,
the positions taken right now by Netanyahu, not just in
his dealings with Ameri successive American administrations, but of course
(33:18):
inside cabinet, in that the inside that sort of group
of that unholy alliance with the right wing parties, both
the religious and non religious right wing factions that you know,
controlled by people like Smotrich and Ben Geverer, who who
you know, are making the sorts of statements that are
(33:39):
giving sucker to those people who allege that not only
is Israel's conduct of the war catastrophic, which I think
it is, but that it also reflects genocidal purposes, right
that is not reflective of mainstream is rare society at.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
All, genicidal purposes.
Speaker 5 (34:03):
Really well, Israel is in the doc right now, all right,
the International Court of Justice, thanks to South Africa and
to other countries supporting a Brazil most recently alleging that
it is committing genocide. And we don't have time in
this program to discuss genocide in any detail. But you know,
(34:24):
part of the exercise, particularly led by the International Human
rights sort of establishment, is to demonstrate or to make
the argument that according to the nineteen forty eight Genocide Convention,
technically speaking, the terms are the threshold is met, and
one of them has to do with intent or intention. Right, So,
(34:48):
there is a lot of discussion about the statements made
by certain elements inside the net Nyahu government. Some of
them are not only inflammatory, they're just beyond outrageous and indefensible.
And they, you know, as I said, they give some
support to that position, but that is not reflective, as
(35:11):
Jack said, of what Israeli society stands for or is
all about. And so you know that was not a
one time event October seventh. Each and every day, and
we've forgotten this, the hostages are still in captivity. Each
and every day is a day on which they could
(35:31):
have been released and ought to have been released, and
each failure to do that is a new commission of
an act of pogrom, a pug grong that was never
and has never to this day been acknowledged as such
by international human rights experts and advocates. It's important to recognize.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
That, Peter, I agree and understand it. I think that
you know, the vast majority of.
Speaker 3 (35:58):
People worldwide we're shocked by the atrocities October seventh. However,
you have to recognize, and I know you do that
what we are subjected to every night on the news
and in social media are pictures of the destruction of
Gaza and of babes in arms that are dead in coffins,
(36:18):
et cetera. And so I want to take a break
and come back, and I'm going to ask the professor
about this humanitarian crisis and does this recognition of Palestine
do anything to solve that humanitarian crisis? And if it.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
Doesn't, what does he think we need to do? Stay
with us, everyone back in two days.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
No Radio, No problem stream is live on SAGA ninety
sixty am dot c A.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
Wellcome back everyone to the Bran Krumby Radio.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
I've got a really interesting conversation with two excellent guests.
I've got to Peter Burrow with me and Jack Cunningham,
Professor Cunningham, Trinity College International Relations Program. You've written about this,
You've spoken about this, you teach about it.
Speaker 5 (37:13):
I presume we've.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
Got an incredible disaster right.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
Now in Gaza, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of
people dead, starvation, displaced people, et cetera. I think that's
what this recognition of Palestine is all about. Do you
think that does anything to alleviate the humanitarian crisis.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
I think you obviously don't. And if so, why not,
And if so, what's the solution.
Speaker 4 (37:50):
Oh, there's no doubt that these UH, these images on
the nightly news from from Gaza are helping to fuel
support for measures however well thought out to UH to
alleviate Palestinian suffering. The problem with food insecurity, though, is
a lot more complicated than we tend to think. Earlier
(38:16):
this year, the early months of this year, a fair
amount of food aid was in fact flowing in. It
just wasn't reaching most of the civilian population. One of
the UH. One of one of the features of this
conflict that's not particularly well understood is it control of UH,
(38:36):
of the food supply. The ability to direct humanitarian aid
is one area where Hamas retains a fair amount of power.
It has been militarily weakened, but it has UH. It
has used a control of food to UH reward its
own supporters, to darve others. And it's perfectly happy to
(38:58):
generate these images of some fring the the the.
Speaker 3 (39:03):
Hold hold it, hold on hold on a second, perfectly
happy to generate these nightly pictures of suffering.
Speaker 4 (39:10):
Absolutely absolutely from Hamas's point of view, the more starving Palestinians,
the more dead Palestinians, UH, the better because every casualty
can be weaponized against Israel.
Speaker 3 (39:26):
You think that Hamas is purposely starving its own population
or allowing its own population to starve.
Speaker 4 (39:33):
Well, I do know that food prices in Gaza have
in fact skyrocketed. They skyrocketed before Israel began restricting the
flow of food eight because Hamas was was seizing and
start piling food supplies. The UH, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
(39:54):
which UH, which has turned out to be a somewhat
problematic initiative, was designed to provide a way of getting
food ad to Palestinians that would circumvent HUMAS, that would
that would get it directly to the civilian population. And
one of the features of the recent letter from the
(40:15):
retired diplomats is very problematic is its rejection of aid
delivered through those channels, its insistence that it be through
the UN. The UN agencies and the other humanitarian organizations
in the region have all been have all been approached
by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and said well, look, we
(40:36):
are perfectly happy to help you deliver aid. To provide
military security for delivery of aid, to identify locations at
which it can be it can be delivered, and they
fairly consistently said no. Just last week I was listening
to an interview on CBC with a representative of one
(40:56):
of these organizations who said, well, eight can eight shouldn't
be delivered at the barrel of a gun. It can't
be militarized, it can't be politicized. Well, if you don't
have aid delivered with somebody there to provide military security,
Hamas will sees it will start. Pilot will feed only
its own loyalists, will be perfectly happy to see those
(41:19):
who do not support it suffer and starve and indeed die.
And I think that when the employees of these organizations
and agencies talk about food insecurity and the humanitarian catastrophe,
they ought to look in the mirror a bit because
(41:40):
their insistence on what they conceive Vava's neutrality in the
apolitical delivery of aid is simply a non starter in
the conditions that now prevail in Gaza, either aid is
going to be delivered with the IDF AURA or an
organization working with it providing security ensuring delivery is relatively
(42:02):
orderly and peaceful, or an attempt in the absence of
such protection will end up with much of the aid
being hijacked by Hamas, stolen by Hamas. There is still
an awful lot of food, an awful lot of medicine
in Gaza. It's just not reaching the people it should.
(42:22):
That is a tragedy Israel's. Israel's turning off the taps
on AID earlier this year was I think a mistake.
It rested on the false assumption that doing that would
would force Hamas to make more concessions. But it underestimates
the fact that that for Hamas, the worse the better there.
(42:45):
The more Gossins are visibly suffering on our television screens,
the more pressure can be brought to bear on Israel
to make concessions.
Speaker 5 (42:56):
Peter, I'll ask you, sir, can I just do you
mind if I just jump in there just just to
add to this, and I agree one hundred percent with
what Jack just said. Let's just reframe it, just just
to just to underscore what he said. The question might
be put as follows, who benefits from this war? And I,
(43:17):
you know, in a slightly oversimpl simplistic way, answer as
follows net Nyahu personally benefits because the minute this thing
is over, accountability for him begins at home political accountability
and legal accountability. So he personally has no interest in
ending this thing anytime soon.
Speaker 3 (43:39):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (43:40):
And there's no two ways about that. But who else
benefits from this?
Speaker 4 (43:45):
Come?
Speaker 5 (43:45):
Us benefits from this? And to underscore Jack's point about
how us wanting dead and suffering and starving Palestinians, Let's
just remember that this was premeditated, not just October seventh,
but the higher conflict and the devastation inside Gaza was premeditated,
(44:08):
and it began the moment that Ramas put pen to
paper on the drafting table to begin the planning and
the building of the tunnels. There are hundreds of miles
at tunnels. I don't think anyone knows exactly how many
miles of tunnels underneath the civilian infrastructure. That was a
(44:30):
plan to make human targets of its civilian population, with
the intention not of of fending off attacks, but with
the intention of inviting attacks. And the devastation that ensued,
(44:50):
there is no there are no two ways about that. Furthermore,
after October seventh, there are statements. These are documented by
the late great ishue Hania, the Hamas's political leader now dead,
deceased political leader, celebrating the deaths and saying that more
(45:12):
deaths were necessary. The plan was for the deaths of
tens of thousands of Palestinians martyrs. Remember this is a
jihadist movement as well. That is absolutely part of the plan.
So the idea that the West wants to bring an
end to all of this, of course, that's correct. Everybody
(45:32):
wants an end to it. Everybody believes in human rights
as far as I'm concerned, and everyone respects the right
of self determination and the hope that it will resolve
in a political solution that brings security and dignity both
to the Israelis and to the Palestinian people. But the
strategy is all wrong, partly because the understanding of how
(45:54):
we get here is either intellectually sort of dishonest or
just simply miss taken. Who benefits, Who's who is the cause?
What is the cause of this devastation. Of course Israel
played its part, it took the bait, and it was
quite convenient fort Nyahoo that it do so, all right,
(46:16):
But this was Hamas's plan and comaus is benefiting from
all of this, That's what I wanted to say.
Speaker 2 (46:24):
I appreciate that.
Speaker 3 (46:26):
I want to end though, if I could Peter with
a question to you and Professor Cunningham with how does
this impact you personally? Because I think all of us
listening to the show tonight in the Greater Toronto wearing
across Canada, you know that aren't Jewish, have Jewish friends,
work with Jewish people, have Jewish neighbors, and I think,
(46:47):
and again maybe on naive, that most people don't agree
with you, that this is is anti semitic, this sense
of this Canadian recognition of Palestinian state, or the attitude
that backs it, and or anything against anything about an
original sin. It is disagreement with the conduct of the
(47:11):
war by the current Israeli government. And so therefore you
have interpreted this Canadian move as wrong number one, and
the professor has described exactly why he believes it's wrong.
But you've interpreted it as a very antisemitic move and
worried that there's anti Semitism growing in Canada today.
Speaker 2 (47:34):
How has this impacted you personally?
Speaker 5 (47:37):
Let me just correct something. I didn't say it's antisemitic,
and I don't believe that this recognition is anti semitic
at all. I didn't say that. I said that it
is part of an emerging consensus, all right that has
had an impact on anti semitism and the level of antisemitism.
(48:03):
I didn't say that the recognition of a Palestinian state
is antisemitic, and I don't believe that it is. But
it's part and parcel of let's call it the body language,
all right, of the global powers in the West and
now of Canada that has an adverse impact on the
status on domestic culture, all right. It's created polarization, it
(48:28):
has made Jews more insecure, and it has increased contempt
for the Jewish people, is what I said. But I
did not say it's anti semitic, and I don't believe
that it is. Nor do I believe that criticism of
Israel is antisemitic. But let's so, I just want to
be that absolutely clear about that. In terms of how
(48:50):
it's impacted me, it's been devastating, first of all. Not
first of all, as a citizen of the world as
I believe, as a civil libertarian, a believer in human rights,
a defender and champion of human rights. It's terribly painful
to see the international human rights establishment kind of get
(49:11):
all of this wrong, all right. Secondly, as a Jew,
I'm terribly troubled because I am a critic of the
government of Israel and a lover of the state of
Israel and of the idea of Israel. And it's become
(49:32):
next to impossible to be able to hold those two
positions in public without being subjected to all kinds of
misunderstandings at best and contempt at worst. Let me just
stop with that so that Jack has an opportunity to
respond to your question.
Speaker 4 (49:55):
Well, I for one, have always had what I think
of as a lo vers quarrel with with Israel, and
that you know, the the quarrel uh certainly arises quite
frequently with with the current government. Mhm. It is certainly
(50:15):
the case that much of the the support for recognition
for doing more to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians
is rooted in humanitarianism, is rooted in a genuine compassion.
But those qualities are not enough. They need to be
augmented by an understanding of the relevant history, the relevant geopolitics,
(50:40):
the relevant domestic politics of of the various actors. I
would though that while antisemitism is emphatically not part of
what's going on in in Canadian or British or French
proposals for recognition, the broader shift towards seeing Israel as
(51:05):
set or colonialist, seeing Zionism as a fundamentally illegitimate project
does essentially deny to the Jews what it grants everyone
else self determination. Now you can argue that that's not
consciously anti semitic, fair enough, but anti Semitism doesn't have
(51:28):
to be conscious to be real, and told to hold Jews,
to hold Israel to a higher standard than others, is
objectively anti semitic, however benign the intentions may be. Personally,
I share Peter's sadness when I look at what's happening
(51:51):
in Gaza, in when I look at what's happening in
the region as a whole. But good intentions aren't enough,
and if they are, if they are allowed to run
rampant without without sufficient, sufficient understanding of the realities on
the ground, they can be terribly self destructive. And I
(52:14):
fear that this uh, this initiative of unilateral recognition, will
not will not produce what's intended. It will not leave
Israel more secure. It will not make the Palestinians free
or happier. They will if if they are, if they
are governed by either Hamas or Fatah Uh, they will
(52:35):
continue to suffer. They will be under the thumb of
reprehensible regimes. And as long as conflict between Israel and
the Palestinians UH persists, which it will, under this scenario,
they will be no more safe. No their their their
own losses of life will not will not diminish and UH.
(52:57):
And that's why I think humanitarianism properly understood, properly applied
in this case points against unilateral recognition rather than towards it.
I agree with Kissinger that the preconditions for a two
state solution aren't here yet, but there are there are
(53:17):
other things that can be done. I, for one, would
like to see a greater degree of Palestine and autonomy
in both Gaza and the West Bank, probably in confederations
with Egypt and Jordan. You you know, shrink the the
Israeli footprint in in in certain areas, some settlements will
(53:38):
have to be dismantled, The sectors have to be curbed.
There's there's no doubt about that. Their influence on Israeli
politics is increasingly malign, but this is a gradual process.
When when Kissinger was reflecting on the gradual normalization of
(53:59):
relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors following the Ukupoor War,
he noted that success stemmed from incremental steps, gradually gradual,
gradual steps to understand the other's position. Confidence building measures
inevitably a very slow process in which an increasing number
(54:23):
of participants would come to recognize their not just the
need for coexistence, but the means by which it, by
which it could occur. A rush to unilateral recognition holds
holds out very little promise and launch threat.
Speaker 3 (54:41):
Professor Jack Kennahan, Peter Burrow, thank you so much for
joining me. I think this has been an incredibly interesting conversation. I,
for one, really think that it's difficult, very difficult, in
today's world to have two points of view that are
true at the same time.
Speaker 2 (54:57):
As Peter has mentioned, and as.
Speaker 3 (54:59):
As Professor you talk about this love hate relationship, but
I think we need to I personally am very supportive
of Israel, but I'm disgusted with what's.
Speaker 2 (55:08):
Going on every night in Ghaza.
Speaker 3 (55:11):
And I think both things are true, and I think
that we need to realize that the world isn't perfect,
and it's not simplistic answers all the time, and sometimes
we have these difficult situations. Anyway, gentlemen, thank you so
much for joining, and remind you everybody on every Monday
through Friday at six o'clock thanks for joining.
Speaker 2 (55:28):
Good Night
Speaker 1 (55:33):
Stream US Live at SAGA nine six am dot CA.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!