Canada-Israel Committee Calls Bush"Idiot," Baker "Pompous Jackass"

By John Dirlik

Disregarding the most elementary of diplomatic civilities, the principal pro-Israel lobbying group in Canada called US President George Bush a "country club idiot" and Secretary of State James Baker a "pompous jackass" for their roles in pressuring Israel to attend the Middle East peace conference at Madrid.

In a speech to a group of Jewish students at McGill University in Montreal, a Canada-Israel Committee spokesman accused the US of "committing a crime" by building up expectations that may never be fulfilled. Canada-Israel Committee Associate Director Simon Kahn expressed pessimism over the outcome of the conference because of what he characterized as Arab intransigence. "The Palestinians have absolutely nothing to do with this conflict," said Kahn. "The key is Syria and Syria doesn't want peace."

Kahn lashed out at the Bush administration for "publicly humiliating an ally" by its decision to delay $10 billion in loan guarantees. He suggested, however, that hostility toward the Jewish state should come as no surprise.

Kahn's lecture was part of a seminar on how to combat anti-Israel sentiment on university campuses. "We happen to be right," he told his audience of young activists. "No matter how many times they tell you you're wrong, the fact is that we're right."

Ottawa Panel Has Mixed Reaction To Madrid Conference

While the Canadian media hailed the peace conference at Madrid as an historic breakthrough, four participants in a panel discussion in Ottawa offered widely contrasting views, ranging from starkly cynical to guardedly optimistic.

At the pessimistic end of the spectrum was Brooklyn College Professor Norman Finkelstein's grim assessment that the conference was a step on a road that would "erase Palestine from the map. " He argued that the "territorial compromise" espoused by President Bush at Madrid is the position of the Israeli Labor party which, "at best, " envisages the return of only a small part of the West Bank to Jordanian jurisdiction. [Editor s note: At Madrid both Bush and Baker clearly endorsed "land for peace" but took no position on future borders. President Nixon's first secretary of state, William Rogers, stated in 1970, however, that in negotiating Israeli withdrawal from "territories seized" in 1967, as specified in UN Security Council Resolution 242, any deviations from the pre-1967 borders should be "inconsequential." No subsequent US administration has rescinded this statement of US policy, despite repeated attempts by Israel's US lobby to pressure succeeding administrations to do so.]

"This position does not mean a Palestinan state nor even meaningful autonomy. It means continued Israeli military presence, " said Finkelstein, who added that the terms "land-for-peace" and "territorial compromise" were "fraudulent phrases used to disguise reality."

Finkelstein called the conference "catastrophic" because it not only excluded the principle of Palestinian statehood, but reopened debates where there was already agreement in the world community. "For the past 20 years the US has blocked the international consensus behind a two-state solution, " said Finkelstein. "Following the Gulf war, the US believes it can now go one step further by embodying all the rejectionist assumptions of the Israeli government."

The Brooklyn College professor maintained that Israel's claim to all of Jerusalem as well as its unique interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 (which it says it already has fulfilled by returning the Sinai to Egypt) "have now become legitimate negotiating positions in the course of the conference." Finkelstein scoffed at the optimism of some analysts, warning that "it is not useful to sell illusions."

Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky shared Finkelstein's pessimism about Israel, but acknowledged that a halt in US aid to Israel could change the situation. "To those who are optimistic, allow me to laugh," said the author of the best-selling By Way of Deception, who now lives in Ottawa. "This is because with regard to the Middle East, you have to be realistic, not optimistic."

Ostrovsky insisted that optimistic analyses of Israeli politics are usually flawed because they do not take into account the pervasive influence of Israel's secret service. "To analyze Soviet politics 10 years ago without considering the power of the KGB would be making a great mistake, " he said. "Trying to analyze Israel today without considering the Mossad would be making the same mistake, except that the KGB had less power."

Ostrovsky stressed that Israel will never relinquish occupied territories unless the US stops its massive economic aid. "When the average Israeli person is hurt in his pocket, that's when things will change," he said.

Injecting a dose of cautious optimism was Canadian surgeon Chris Giannou, who last year was awarded the prestigious Order of Canada for his work among war casualities in the Palestinian refugee camps during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. "The conference is a success simply because it took place," he said. "It is part of a process which will continue."

Although Giannou said "nobody knows" where this process will lead, he saw changing US priorities as positive signs for peace. "It used to be in America's interest that there be instability in the region to justify the image of a Soviet bogeyman, " he said. "But with the absence of a Soviet superpower, American interests now demand stability. This is why the (peace) process will continue. It is in America's imperial agenda. "

Despite his cynical assessment of US motivations, Giannou predicted that a Palestinian state was almost inevitable. He did not rule out either an Israeli or a Palestinian civil war, however, before that dream materialized. "Don't be surprised if some day you hear about a unilateral declaration of independence for Judea end Samaria, with Jewish settlers shooting Israeli soldiers, or a declaration of the establishment of the Islamic republic of Gaza," the Canadian surgeon warned.

Another panelist, Professor Joahn Sigler of Carleton University in Ottawa, offered a more hopeful view of the participants in the peace process and its likely results. "There are very significant changes in the nature of the US-Israel relationship," said Sigler. "For the first time since Eisenhower, there's a president in the White House who has more independence than ever. " Sigler pointed to the decision to postpone consideration of the loan guarantees as evidence of Washington's resolve to get control of its Middle East policy "so that it is no longer dictated by the prime minister of Israel."

John Dirlik, a free-lance writer from Montreal, Quebec, writes on Canadian and Middle East affairs.