"[An] attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada." Adding; "There is no military treaty but I think the Prime Minister's…commitment is quite clear: We don't pay lip service to our commitments to friends and allies."

 

Kent's remarkable statement has yet to be refuted or clarified by the Harper government, already known for its fervent support of the middle-eastern state.

The Globe and Mail's Steven Chase writes;

"In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Kent, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Americas, dismissed the idea he was altering Canadian foreign policy, saying his comments paraphrased what Stephen Harper has said before. Mr. Kent declined to say whether this means Canada is ready to join a war against a country that attacked Israel.
"You're putting words in my mouth; we don't have to be this absolute," he said.
At the same time, Mr. Kent sounded a warning note, saying that even though Israel and Canada don't have a military treaty – like the NATO pact – Ottawa is not bluffing.
"There is no military treaty but I think the Prime Minister's … commitment is quite clear: We don't pay lip service to our commitments to friends and allies.""

Lip Service

Besides being a politician, and the fact he was talking to a Jewish issues website, just why Peter Kent would put forward an offer of military assistance to Israel, even as that state is threatening most of its neighbours with war (itself a breach of international law) is passing curious.

Is Mr. Harper's New Government of Canada willing to aid and abet an Israeli attack against Iran, (a much more likely scenario than an Iranian invasion of Israel, as Kent alluded)?

 

Is the Canadian Forces ready to deploy at Israel's behest to Syria. Will Canadian Forces be alongside "ally" Israel if it makes good on its threat to launch another unprovoked invasion of Lebanon?

Most Canadians are unaware of the assistance Canada already renders the Israeli occupation of Palestine, but do Messrs. Harper and Kent really believe Canadians are willing to see the Maple Leaf patrolling Gaza, or the ghettos of the West Bank?

Perhaps Mr. Kent has faith his erstwhile colleagues in Canada's extremely concentrated media, most prominently represented by the Asper family-owned Canwest Global consortium, where late patriarch Izzy Asper once declared Canwest would never publish criticism of Israel, will ably convince Canadians to sacrifice the blood and treasure of the nation in the service of a serial war criminal and international scofflaw?

The pervasiveness of the neo-conservative, pro-Israel influence on Canadian journalism is pointed up in the final sentence of Steven Chase's Wednesday, February 17th report.* In summing up a quote by Khaled Mouammar, the national president of the Canadian Arab Federation, who cited the Goldstone report for the United Nations on the 2008 invasion of Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force, Chase was compelled to include a qualifier for the comment and the Goldstone report, saying;

"The extremely controversial UN report by Mr. Goldstone in fact accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes during the 2008-09 conflict."

Just what is "extremely controversial" about the report remains unsaid, but what is clear is: Since the release of the Goldstone report, Israel has been engaged in a desperate public relations campaign to discredit Richard Goldstone, the author of the U.N. report and has, through its many media contacts, attempted to discredit all human rights organizations expressing sympathy or common cause with Palestine.

 

That campaign has reared its head notably in Canada, where the Harper government has pulled funding to Kairos and Alternatives, two long-time human rights organizations accused of undue solidarity with the friends of Stephen Harper's friend's enemies, Palestine.

*I asked Steven Chase the question of the Goldstone report's "extremely controversial" conclusions and will include his reply as postscript should it arrive.