What do these demands for apologies actually mean?

Apology rhetoric, this time from Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird and Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Sa’eb Erekat, has shed light upon the ongoing efforts to undermine the Palestinian narrative. Baird’s five day visit to Palestine and Israel occurred within the same timeframe that the settler-colonial state embarked upon its lobbying against possible International Criminal Court (ICC) investigations. Baird affirmed Canada’s staunch support for Israel, providing an embodiment of the typical Western attitude towards Palestine in the process.

“They know our position,” he insisted. “We don’t say one thing to their face and another thing when we go back home. We strongly support a Palestinian state.” Baird’s comment, as quoted in the Times of Israel, reflects the rhetoric upon which recent symbolic gestures recognising a state of Palestine were based upon, namely Palestinian compliance with further and incessant negotiations. Palestine’s recognition by the international community is characterised by symbolism; we have seen spurious affirmations which reiterate the importance of the two-state compromise followed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s repeated draft resolution submissions to the UN Security Council.

Palestinians protested in Ramallah against Baird’s visit, to which was added Erekat’s insistence that the foreign minister apologise to the Palestinian people for his country’s tenacious support for Israel. “The Palestinian people,” raged Erekat, “as well as the rest of the Arab and Muslim countries deserve an apology from the Canadian government for years of systematic attempts at blocking the right of the Palestinian people to a state of their own.”

Thus was Zionist colonisation and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine condensed by Erekat into simple opposition to Palestinian statehood, as opposed to deliberate support for Israel’s expansion across occupied territory. Historical neglect is affirmed in Erekat’s statement, whereby an apology is deemed to be sufficient for the Palestinian people whose resistance against colonisation has been jeopardised by international leaders prioritising diplomatic drawbacks over liberation.

For his part, Baird is now demanding an apology from Erekat for comparing Israel to ISIS vis-à-vis their mutual use of violence to expand the territory under their control. According to Baird’s spokesperson Rick Roth, Erekat’s comments detract from the fight against ISIS, a fight waged by Western imperialism following the 2003 invasion and military occupation of Iraq which provided the conditions for intercommunal violence to mutate and grow. However, the narrative adopted by Canada reflects the generalised hyperbole that seeks to justify further Western hegemony in the Middle East.

While Baird’s demand for an apology is typical of the arrogance of Israel and its allies, Erekat’s demand that the Canadian foreign minister apologise for supporting Israel once again entrenches Palestinians into acquiescence. When Baird said explicitly that the way to achieve a Palestinian state is dialogue with Israel and not unilateral action, his emphasis upon negotiations was a direct reference to Canada’s support for colonial expansion. The comment is also in line with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s claim that in Canada, “we also have no history of colonisation”. This is simply not true, of course. In 1920, the Head of the Department of Indian Affairs, Duncan Campbell Scott, declared, “Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question.” Canada, it must be remembered, like its neighbour the United States, is a prime example of a colonial state.

This blatant attempt to try to negate Israel’s colonial nature is typical of its belligerence when confronted with the repercussions of territorial expansion and demographic discrepancies. Instead of challenging the framework, Erekat has managed to subject Palestinians to yet another sliver of complacency by adhering to the Western concept of a Palestinian state instead of asserting the necessity of de-colonisation.

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