The MERIA (Midle East Review of International Affairs) Journal recently published “Perceptions of the Middle East and the Gaza War: Views from Key Countries.” The Canadian section, by the CIC’s Paul Michaels, Director of Communications, and Noah Shack, Government Relations Research Associate, follows:
Summary
Initial reactions to Operation Cast Lead among the three largest federal parties – the Conservative Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, and the Bloc Québécois (BQ) – were positive, while the left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) had a more critical stance. As the conflict continued, both the Conservative government and Liberal opposition maintained their support for Israel’s actions, while the BQ shifted its stance toward favoring an immediate ceasefire. In the final days of the operation, the NDP released a second statement more supportive of Israel’s strategy.
Compared to the 2006 Lebanon War, the political response in Canada was far more decisively supportive of Israel across party lines, notwithstanding the shift in policy from the BQ and the initial statement by the NDP.
Â
Conservative Party
Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon issued a preliminary statement that was supportive of Israel followed by a second statement more pointed in its identification of Hamas as the principal antagonist. These sentiments were bolstered by Minister of State Peter Kent, who apportioned blame squarely on the shoulders of Hamas for the dire circumstances facing Gaza’s civilians. On balance – and certainly relative to statements issued by other countries -Canada’s position was exceptionally strong. The government’s position was sustained for the duration of the conflict, despite mounting international pressure on Israel to end its operation, and indicated a profound understanding of the contours of the conflict.
Liberal Party
Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Official Opposition, delivered a generally strong and supportive formal statement on the conflict. The strength of the statement was diluted somewhat by poor choice of language, but featured an unequivocal condemnation of Hamas and affirmation of Israel’s right to defend against attacks aimed at its civilian population. Ignatieff’s statement was fortified by comments he delivered to the reporters, in which he decisively condemned Hamas for sowing conflict and willfully endangering civilians, and gave full support to Israel’s continuing response. In rejecting the prospect of negotiating with Hamas, Ignatieff stated that he “wouldn’t touch Hamas with a ten-foot pole,” and criticized them for manipulating the media. This represents the clearest and most positive statement on the part of the Liberal Party in recent years. Ignatieff also signaled to those in his caucus less supportive of Israel that his position and that of the Liberal party would not change.
Bloc Quebecois
The initial statement issued by the Bloc Quebecois explicitly affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself, and the absolute unacceptability of Hamas’ actions over a protracted period and its rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Other elements of the statement addressing the distribution of humanitarian aid reflected a more critical understanding of the situation, but were of secondary importance. Of greatest significance was the absence of moral equivalence or a mischaracterization of Israel’s response (i.e., disproportionate response). Following the UNSC resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, the BQ issued a second statement calling on Israel to comply.
New Democratic Party
The initial statement issued by the NDP applied moral equivalence and failed to mention Hamas, let alone hold it accountable for the deterioration of the situation, including its cancellation of the ceasefire and previous attacks on the Israeli civilian population. This stance was articulated without caucus consultation and, following the engagement of pro-Israel MPs and party officials, a second release was issued in the final days of the conflict, laying out a more balanced position.
Canadian Media Reaction
 The Canadian media is not monolithic, yet two general points can be made of the Gaza war coverage: it was massive and, overall, it was fair.
 Journalists and editors commented that in the period leading up to, and including, the first stage of the Gaza campaign, Israeli officials did an excellent job in getting its message out: that Israel had exercised restraint through years of rocket and mortar firing onto its southern communities; that Israel wanted to extend the truce, which expired in December 2008, while Hamas refused; and that Israel was justified in acting in self-defense due to the intensification of rocket fire from Gaza.
A minority of reporters focused on the ‘carnage’ of Israel’s bombing and downplayed the rocket fire into Israel. However, once the ground assault began, charges of ‘disproportionate’ Israeli attacks gathered steam. Attention turned from Hamas’ provocations toward the wide disparity between the civilian toll on both sides and the growing destruction in Gaza. To a degree, this shift in attention can be attributed to the greater drama and sensationalism of the images coming from Gaza, and also to the frustration of many correspondents banned from entering Gaza by Israel.
Nonetheless, Israel still found widespread support in Canadian newspaper editorials and opinion pieces, and on radio interview shows. Some editorials even tried to defend Israel against the accusations of disproportionate response. For example, the January 6, 2009 Globe and Mail lead editorial, ‘Measured Action on the Ground,’ noted the predicament facing Israel: ‘It is true that many more Palestinian than Israeli civilians have been killed in the current conflict. But the government of Israel, like that of any other nation-state, is answerable above all for the safety of its own people; it cannot acquiesce in violent deaths by rocket attack. By such an invasion, the [Israeli Defense Forces] can greatly diminish the number of such killings, but cannot prevent them all.’
The January 10, 2009 National Post editorial ‘Moral Clarity on the Middle East’ commended Liberal party leader Michael Ignatieff and Minister of State Peter Kent for acknowledging that ‘Israel is justified in its campaign to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks.’
In Quebec, some of the electronic media provided more balanced coverage than has been the case in the past. The French-language news networks Radio-Canada and LCN gave considerable air time to reputable analysts, Israeli officials, and eyewitness testimonies by Israeli citizens. While there is still much room for improvement, the networks’ reporting on Operation Cast Lead was much improved from the one-sided coverage of the 2006 conflict in Lebanon.
In Quebec, the print media’s record was more ambiguous. The news pages tended to be sensational, focusing on Palestinian civilian losses with little to no background information on the realities on the ground, notably Hamas’ use of human shields. However, the editorial pages showed unprecedented support for Israel’s right to protect its citizens from Hamas’ rockets, and understanding that Hamas was squarely to blame for the conflict. This was notably the case of La Presse‘s Editor-in-Chief André Pratte and the Gazette‘s editors.
Canadian Public Opinion
 Two major Canadian polls were conducted during the conflict:
On January 9, 2009, Ipsos released its survey of Canadian attitudes on the conflict. It showed that among those who followed events, 36 percent sided with Israel, 13 percent with Palestinians and Hamas, while half (51 percent) favored neither side.
 On January 22, 2009, Angus Reid, released its survey that found:
- 21 percent sympathize with Israel; 15 percent with Palestinians; 32 percent have no sympathy for either side.
- 41 percent say Israeli actions in Gaza were unjustified; 36 percent say they were justified
- 45 percent say Israel did not try to limit civilian casualties in Gaza
- 43 percent say Israel did not exhaust all diplomatic alternatives before launching Operation Cast Lead.
Despite the evident criticism for Israel’s operation, the majority of Canadians (57 percent) agree with a statement by Foreign Minister Peter Kent, who said that “Hamas bears a terrible responsibility for [Israel's attack] and for the wider deepening humanitarian tragedy. The burden of responsibility is on Hamas to stop its terrorist rocketing of Israel.”
/cijainfo
@CIJAinfo