I‘ve voted for the Green Party of Canada in the last two federal elections, even as I realized that its chances of forming a government were realistically nil. I cast my ballot for the Greens because, as a tree hugger, I liked its sincere and earnest approach to politics and its fresh and progressive ideas on the environment.
But come the next election, I will not vote for the Green Party. I’ll tell you why. I do not appreciate its weak and irresponsible approach to the war in the Gaza Strip. Call me provincial, if you wish, but Israel means a lot to me. And so does morality.
While I laud the party’s support for Israel’s right to exist within secure boundaries and its endorsement of a two-state solution, I’ve been sorely disappointed by its lame performance of late.
I was not impressed by the “position of engaged neutrality” it adopted on Gaza at its convention in late July. Elizabeth May, the party leader, said, “I condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization for sending missiles into Israel, but the Israeli retaliation and the invasion of Gaza violates international law and humanitarian norms.”
As May must surely know, this war was forced upon Israel by Hamas — which categorically rejects Israel’s existence, a two-state solution and peace talks, glorifies violence and terrorism in the name of national liberation, denounces agreements the Palestinian Authority has signed with Israel, and upholds an antisemitic charter which unabashedly refers to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in positive terms.
Israel, acting in self-defence, had no alternative but to strike back after Hamas fired hundreds of rockets at Israeli towns and cities. If not for the Iron Dome anti-missile system, many of these deadly projectiles would have crashed directly into residential neighborhoods, killing scores of civilians and damaging or destroying numerous apartment buildings.
By attempting to neutralize Hamas’ rocket threat, Israel was definitely not in violation of international law and humanitarian norms, as I understand them. Countries have a solemn duty and a sacred obligation to defend their homeland and their citizens, and this is what Israel did in responding to blatant Hamas aggression.
I presume that May would not disagree with the essence of this hypothesis.
Nor was Israel’s invasion of Gaza a breach of such international laws and norms, as May argued. Israel sent in the troops only after it was determined that the air force could not destroy a network of attack tunnels that posed an imminent strategic threat to its national security and well-being.
Should Israel have turned the other cheek? Should Israel have allowed Hamas to get away with murder? Should Israel have mortgaged its existence to the good will of friendly nations? Should Israel have exposed itself to more aggression?
The answer is a resounding no!
Under these circumstances, the party’s decision to adopt a “position of engaged neutrality” was craven, pathetic and disgusting. Hamas was the aggressor. Israel was the aggrieved party. The Green Party, like the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP, should have lined up unequivocably behind Israel — one of the only democratic states in the region — instead of engaging in futile semantics.
May, too, failed another important test.
She cowardly distanced herself from a blog the party’s president, Paul Estrin, had posted on its official website.
In an impassioned 2,200-word essay, Estrin condemned the cynical but effective “human shield” strategy Hamas has cleverly devised to demonize Israel in the eyes of global public opinion. Hamas has deeply embedded itself in private homes, mosques and schools in the hope that Israeli retaliatory strikes in densely-populated urban areas will elicit world-wide condemnation and ostracization.
As Estrin put it, “Gazan officials tell their people to be killed while they hide in bomb shelters. This is worse than cowardice. It is vile and ugly and they should be put to shame. Instead, it is Israel who is put to shame.”
The Israeli historian Asher Susser has elaborated on this important point: “Israel cannot exercise its inalienable and internationally recognized right to self-defence without causing extensive damage and destruction to the people of Gaza, because of the manner in which Hamas has chosen to wage this war.”
Susser adds, “Palestinian (civilian) losses are a huge strategic liability for Israel. Hamas is acutely aware of this Achilles heel and exploits it to the full, even if it means more Palestinian deaths.”
In posting his comments on the party’s official website, Estrin should have informed members that he was expressing a personal view. No argument there. Having realized his mistake, Estrin apologized for not having included a disclaimer in his post.
Nonetheless, May should have supported Estrin’s crie de couer. Instead, she backed away, isolating Estrin and forcing him to resign.
May also errs when it comes to Israel’s seven-year naval blockade of Gaza. In a piece in the National Post, she wrote, “It is simply not credible to take the stance of all three other leaders — Messrs. Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau — that (Israeli) Prime Minister Netanyahu’s siege of Gaza is legal and meets humanitarian standards. It does not.”
For May’s information, Israel imposed the blockade after Hamas staged a bloody coup in Gaza and assumed full control there. Having seized Gaza, Hamas proceeded to build a garrison rather than a state. Israel’s blockade is expressly designed to prevent Hamas from importing weapons and munitions with impunity. Imagine how much militarily stronger Hamas might have been in the absence of a blockade.
I’m personally certain that the Israeli government would lift the siege if Hamas recognizes Israel, accepts a two-state solution and renounces terrorism. But as its dead-end leaders have repeatedly declared, they are not prepared to relinquish their dream of replacing Israel with an Islamic fundamentalist state in historic Palestine.
I can only assume that May is aware of these salient facts, and if she is, she would not have taken a wishy-washy position on the war in Gaza — one of the great moral issues of our time. But because she has chosen not to speak out and because she has decided to hide behind useless slogans of benefit to no one, she has forfeited my support for the Green Party.