Canada's Prime Minister Harper passes Israel's loyalty test

The Canadian Prime Minister’s visit to Israel affirmed his political and diplomatic support for the Zionist state. In an atmosphere of mutual adulation, Stephen Harper and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasised the imperialist concept of democracy, ignoring the subjugation of the Palestinians which Israel and its allies persist in enforcing. Netanyahu praised Harper’s “moral leadership”, stating that under his rule Canada “stood unflinchingly on the right side of history”. This was a reference to Israel’s mantra about alleged anti-Semitism and the hypothetical nuclear threat posed by Iran, which Harper justifies as legitimate concerns. If nothing else he is consistent in his support for the settler-colonial state; Harper has endorsed all of Israel’s military assaults since 2006 and opposed Palestine’s elevated status as a UN non-member state. Together with other countries, Canada lobbied for Israel’s inclusion in the Western European and Others Group (WEOG), a move intended, it was claimed, to counter Israel’s increasing international isolation, rather than illustrating imperialist complicity in Israel’s colonisation of Palestine. Harper also visited the West Bank, pledging $66 million in economic aid over a three year period to Palestinians; it is claimed that this will promote “peace and stability”. Declaring that his government’s position is endorsed by the majority of Canadians, Harper offered contradictory rhetoric regarding hopes for “a bright future for all Palestinians, one in which security and prosperity are enjoyed in a viable and democratic Palestinian state”; he refrained from any discussion about the sustainability of a Palestinian state by refusing to answer questions posed by journalists regarding Israel’s settlement expansion. “You won’t be surprised by my answer,” he said, “which is to be very clear to you, that any attempt to have me, while present in the Middle East, single out the state of Israel for criticism, I will not do.” The West Bank diversion took place prior to his address to the Knesset, which prompted Arab MKs to walk out in protest, as Harper rejected descriptions of Israel as an apartheid state and refused to acknowledge its oppressive policies against the indigenous population. An analysis of Harper’s address to the Knesset reveals his loyalty towards Israel’s fabricated collective memory and its use in furthering colonial expansion. Equating support for Israel with a Canadian tradition “to stand for what is principled and just, regardless of whether it is convenient or popular”, Harper expounded upon justifications for supporting the self-declared “Jewish state”. Creating a narrative consisting of the history fabricated by Zionists, wherein Israel’s security is of strategic importance to imperial interests, Harper proceeded to obliterate Palestinian memory by contextualising the existence of the settler-colonial state within the history of the Holocaust. By affirming that Israel’s right to exist is “absolute and non-negotiable”, Harper stuck to the imperialist definition of genocide, which has retained the right to distinguish between massacres in order to enforce oblivion for the millions of indigenous people annihilated for the sole purpose of colonial expansion in countries such as Canada. The Canadian prime minister identified three non-negotiable issues with regard to his country’s support for Israel. According to Harper, criticism of Israel’s self-defined legitimacy, restrictions upon Israel’s participation in international affairs and the practice of allegedly singling out the settler-colonial state for criticism should become obsolete. While earning Zionist applause, Harper’s comments highlighted the suffocation of Palestinian collective memory at the expense of conforming to a selective Western interpretation of genocide which legitimises international recognition of the Zionist state. He certainly did pass Israel’s loyalty test. If I was a Canadian voter, I’d be extremely concerned.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.