March 22, 2024

Hikma Analysis: Breakdown of The NDP Motion on Palestine

On March 18, 2024, a motion on Palestine was passed in Parliament in a historic manner. The
non-binding motion, however, was weakened and stripped of many of its principled asks through
amendments introduced by the Government extremely late in the debate in the House of Commons.

Hikma Public Affairs Council notes with extreme gratitude the principled positions of the NDP, the Bloc
Québécois, the Green Party, and several members of the Liberal party who were not only clear on where
they stand during this critical moment in our collective history but were also extremely vocal in their
support of justice and peace.

While we are disappointed that the original motion, as tabled by the NDP, was diluted in such a manner,
we are nonetheless pleased that the Government of Canada has taken a step in the right direction, albeit a
small step. Through this amended motion, the Government of Canada agreed to halt authorization and
transfer of arms exports to Israel and to sanction extremist settlers.

The Government, through this amended motion, has also reaffirmed, inter-alia, the following:

- Canada’s commitment to continue the funding to UNRWA;

- The illegal nature of the ever-expanding Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank; and
- The concerns surrounding the increased settler violence and forced displacement of Palestinians
in the West Bank.

However, while these paragraphs are extremely important and we are pleased to know where the
Government stands on these issues, we are concerned that these amendments diluted the true operative
language of the NDP’s original motion to one that is most akin to preambular language – meaning that the
amendments simply reiterated previous weak and ambiguous statements by the Government with little to
no commitment to action to change how weak and fragile Canada’s position has been in the international
arena.

As such, Hikma Public Affairs Council wishes to address the main issues that were raised during the
debate on March 18, 2024, and provide our analysis of the positives and shortfalls of this motion:

The Positives:

The motion that was adopted is an extremely important step to further solidify statements and positions
articulated by the Government since October 2023. These statements included what otherwise was
ambiguous support for the work of the ICC and ICJ, condemnation of settler expansions and continued
settler violence, and support of UNRWA.

More importantly, the amended motion used clear language regarding the previously announced measures
to sanction extremist settlers and reaffirmed Canada’s position on arms exports to a government that is
currently on trial for genocide. We see these commitments by the Government to be positive and
encouraging. Though, we later learned from Global Affairs Canada that previous arms trade permits are
not being revoked or suspended.

communications@hikma.ca
The Shortfalls:

We believe that the most crucial aspects of the original motion were removed through the amendments,
mainly, the operative paragraphs on the banning of extremist Israeli officials and the recognition of
Palestinian statehood. Hikma views the removal of these elements resulted in the motion losing its moral
value, and we view that the amendments forced by the Government gave our elected officials another
excuse to dodge being clear to Canadians on where our officials stand on issues of injustice.

The language that sought to impose bans on extremist Israeli officials and settlers was changed to
“sanction extremist settlers”. Such amendments, while positive, fail to consider that many extremist
Israeli officials are themselves settlers, they live in illegal settlements. Ministers such as Ben Gvir and
Smotritch are extremist officials and settlers. The Government’s decision to remove the distinction
affords immunity to extremist settlers who openly called for genocide, ethnic cleansing, and
extrajudicial killings.

Moreover, the decision to change operative paragraph (i) from “officially recognize the State of Palestine
and maintain Canada’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist and to live in peace with its neighbours” to
“work with international partners to actively pursue the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in
the Middle East, including towards the establishment of the State of Palestine as part of a negotiated
two-state solution” was extremely problematic. Canadians are not asking for our government to only work
with partners towards the establishment of a free Palestinian state – the Government was asked to
recognize a Palestinian state. This is the first precondition to a two-State solution. We, as a country,
must recognize the legitimacy of both states before we recognize two states.

Additionally, we are concerned that the decision to remove the clear and principled language and replace
it with empty language was a move to absolve politicians from their responsibility to address the concerns
of their constituents in a clear and coherent manner. This was truly a moral litmus test for our elected
officials. Through the amendments, the Liberal Party provided to its caucus the continued ability to
have different positions on this issue in different ridings, in a tactic of “say everything and please
everyone”.

The Voting Behaviour of London’s MPs:

Hikma Public Affairs Council notes, with deep appreciation, the voting decisions made by all four
London MPs. We are particularly appreciative of the work done by MP Mathyssen (NDP) to push for
the original motion and for her powerful speech in Parliament. We are also extremely appreciative of the
decision made by MP Vecchio (Conservative) to abstain from voting, respecting the overall wishes
from her constituents and knowing the harm that is done to the entire community with negative votes.

While we also appreciate the positive votes by MP Kayabaga and MP Fragiskatos, we are disappointed
that their caucus forced amendments that took away our ability to determine exactly where the two MPs
stand on the question of officially recognizing the State of Palestine and on the sanctions of extremist
Israeli officials.

However, we credit these extremely encouraging votes to the heavy advocacy that was done leading up to
the debate. We continue to engage with officials to ensure that the voice of the London Muslim
community is heard and represented appropriately.

The Debate on the Recognition of the State of Palestine:

communications@hikma.ca
Several Conservative and Liberal MPs rejected operative paragraph (i) in the original motion, which
called for the Government of Canada to officially recognize the State of Palestine, on the basis that:

- It is not in line with Canadian foreign policy and Canada’s longstanding position of supporting
the two-State solution;
- It rewards the actions of October 7, 2023; and
- It is not based on any clear definitions of borders and is unilateral.

Hikma believes that these cynical statements only seek to perpetuate the occupation of the Palestinian
territory and give legitimacy to an extremist far-right Israeli government that has, for decades, made its
position clear that its illegal occupation of the Palestinian lands can be justified through any and all means
necessary.

The reality is that calls for recognition of Palestinian statehood predate 2023. Calls for recognition have
been made ever since June 6, 1967 – when Israel occupied what remained of pre-1948 Palestine,
including East Jerusalem. Such calls were made by like-minded countries, countless UN resolutions,
Israeli civil society, and experts around the world.

More importantly, Canada’s foreign policy explicitly endorses calls for the implementation of the
two-State solution. Recognizing the statehood of Palestine, is a clear requirement for the implementation
of a two-State solution – one state is already recognized, albeit currently on trial for genocide, but another
state remains without Canada’s recognition. How then is it reasonable and possible to push for a
two-State solution when one half of the equation is not recognized?

Moreover, the borders of a Palestinian state are internationally recognized as the pre-June 6, 1967,
borders, including East Jerusalem, in line with the Quartet Roadmap, the Madrid Conference, the Arab
Peace Initiative, relevant UN Security Council resolutions, and all future agreed land swaps.

Recognizing a Palestinian state does not mean that it is done at the expense of the continued existence of
an Israeli state within legal and internationally recognized borders. The original text of the motion called
for the recognition of a Palestinian state, nothing more, nothing less. A Palestinian state based on
internationally recognized borders can exist in peace next to an Israeli one – it is not a mutually exclusive
relationship. This rejection of the recognition of a Palestine state is harmful to all peace efforts,
including the two-State solution, and harms everyone and benefits only the extremist far-right Israeli
government, which is currently on trial for genocide, and whose officials continue to decline any
efforts to negotiate a final deal.

We also regret that this was labeled as a unilateral measure. This is an internationally recognized
initiative, done so by more than 139 countries and is being considered by our strongest allies. The only
unilateral aspect to the Question of Palestine is the decades-long and illegal Israeli occupation of the
Palestinian territory, including of East Jerusalem, which has dismissed international law at every
juncture and carried on with the expansions of illegal settlements in the West Bank and the siege of Gaza.

The continued existence of a Palestinian state was stipulated in UN Security Council Resolution 181 (II),
which partitioned the historical Palestinian state to create an Israeli state, with operative paragraphs that
clearly stipulated that the two states must exist in order for the Resolution to be fully actioned.
Seventy-six years later, one half of the Resolution remains unfulfilled, and our Canadian
government continues to evade its responsibility towards the Palestinian people.

The Debate on UNRWA:

communications@hikma.ca
Conservative MPs also continued to reiterate dangerous statements about UNRWA, often referring to the
claims of the Israeli government that UNRWA is a terror organization. Such dangerous language puts at
risk the stability and security of the entire region, especially when US intelligence experts published a
report outlining that the terrorism claims against UNRWA are unsubstantiated and acting on what they
labeled as “Israeli propaganda” can risk the stability of the Middle East.

UNRWA remains as the sole provider of services and basic needs for over 5.6 million Palestine refugees
in the Near-East (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza). Its quasi-state structure allows it to
fill an important power vacuum left by the host nations and the international community. We reject all
maligned claims that paint the Agency in a negative light only to further the Israeli government’s political
aspirations.

The international community resumed its funding of UNRWA as a result of the realization that it is an
absurd decision to send the region into further instability and collectively punish 5.6 million refugees
based on the actions of 12 individuals who were fired from the Agency instantly. The actions of 12
employees out of 30,000 cannot be reasonable grounds to advocate for collective punishment against a
civilian population that is facing the worst humanitarian crisis in the history of modern wars. UNRWA
was, and continues to be, a humanitarian agency focused on preserving the rights of the Palestine
refugees as a result of the continued lack of political will of the international community to present them
with a just and lasting solution to their plight.

The Debate on the number of casualties:

During the debate, dehumanizing language was used to cast doubt on the number of casualties (upwards
of 30,000, including more than 70% of which are women and children) in Gaza. A Liberal MP intervened
to claim that they “do not know how accurate [the figure] is” as a result of the source of these figures.
This has been a racist trope used since the onslaught began. Hikma Public Affairs Council fully rejects the
racist and bigoted notions that the killings and suffering of the Palestinian people are not trustworthy. This
dehumanizing and flawed argument has been refuted by all international organizations and human rights
groups operating on the ground in Gaza. In fact, the United Nations estimates that the figures are severely
understated and do not include those who died indirectly from the current onslaught and starvation. Such
language only serves one purpose: to absolve Israel of its responsibility through the dehumanization
of all Palestinians.

Next Steps:

Despite our disappointment that the original motion was diluted and significantly weakened, we are
hopeful that the amended motion was the first step in the measures of Canada to correct its course and
regain the legitimacy it once had at the international stage. However, the amended motion, despite its
weaknesses, still provides the Government with clear directions on the next steps. We are pleased that
Minister Joly confirmed on March 19, 2024, that authorization and transfer of arms export to Israel were
halted following this motion. It is our hope that sanctions on settlers will be made public shortly, as well.

We will continue to advocate, along with our national partners, to ensure that the concerns of our
Muslim community are addressed, including, ultimately, the official recognition of the State of
Palestine.

Thank you,

Hikma Public Affairs Council

communications@hikma.ca