Mark Carney is being too vague about Palestine.

I want clarity, but I'm not getting it.

Mark Carney is standing in front of you. You ask Mark Carney a question, but you do not know which Mark Carney will answer. | Copyright © Liberal Party of Canada, licensed under fair dealing.

While Palestine certainly isn’t the major issue that Canadian voters are focused on, it is certainly a salient topic in key battleground ridings.

In some ridings, it’s almost impossible to win without ardent and unabashed support for every single action Israel takes. At the same time, in a bordering riding, a similarly anti-Palestine stance could sink a candidate like a rock.

I’ve previously decried Mark Carney’s political instincts as “impaired”, and he certainly does have a much more blunt manner about himself. In some cases, he lacks necessary interpersonal tact to manage other human beings.

But credit where credit’s due, from a strategic standpoint, he’s being vague on Palestine because he’s in the lead. And by being vague and teasing breadcrumbs that appeal to multiple factions, he can let people of all stripes project their views onto him, without actually committing to anything.

Let’s give a quick time-lapse of the Carney Liberal zigzag on Palestine, since Mr. Carney was sworn in as Prime Minister and then proceeded to call an election.

Firstly, Marco Mendicino, one of the most steadfast backers of Israel in the Liberal Party, resigned his seat as MP for Eglinton—Lawrence in order to become Mark Carney’s Chief of Staff.

This was met with immediate criticism by Jagmeet Singh and the National Council of Canadian Muslims, and leaks from two anonymous Liberal MPs claimed that Mendicino’s role is only “temporary.”

However, skipping ahead into the campaign period proper, Mark Carney raised eyebrows during the Cinq chefs one-on-one interviews on April 3^rd, with each party leader being asked in-depth questions by Radio-Canada in French.

Condemning Netanyahu’s stated goal to fully annex Gaza, Carney stated there was a “common theme” between Canada, Ukraine and Gaza, that the territorial integrity of all three is “untouchable.”

On March 31^st, I wrote for Haaretz about the potential damage that Israel could do to relations with Canada by aligning with Trump and Putin. But I did not expect that within a few days, Mark Carney himself would compare the American threat to Canada to the Russian and Israeli threats towards Ukraine and Palestine. It was a notable paradigm shift.

It then became a further leap, however, to then see Carney make similar overtures in English. For non-Canadians reading this piece, it’s not that uncommon to see Canadian politicians change what they say in French versus English to target different audiences. This is partly why both the French and English debates typically have interpreters, so that both can be seen by the entire country.

On Tuesday, April 8^th, a heckler at Mark Carney’s rally in Calgary shouted “There is a genocide happening in Palestine!” In response, Carney replied “I’m aware, which is why we have an arms embargo.”

At first glance, this appeared to be Carney confirming that he believes Israel is perpetuating a genocide. But the next day, he tried to walk it back, claiming he didn’t clearly hear the protestor, which admittedly doesn’t make much sense considering the structure of the heckler’s sentence and his response. He got the gist of the heckler’s complaint, enough to respond in a logically coherent fashion.

Finally, on Thursday, April 10^th, Carney said he would leave the determination to international courts, walking back his walk-back to walk…somewhere in-between? And for clarity, Canada doesn’t have a full arms embargo; activists have provided proof that supplies for offensive weapons are still being provided to Israel from Canada through intermediaries.

At this point, Benjamin Netanyahu himself stepped onto Twitter to lambaste Carney, for no longer “[siding] with civilization” in the “just war with just means against the barbarians”, which Goebbels could not have written better himself.

Finally, Mark Carney said that while he “supports” a two-state solution, he will not join France in recognizing the State of Palestine…which means that he does not support a two-state solution.

I feel like I’m bouncing on the end of a yo-yo here. On the one hand, fourteen Liberal candidates have endorsed the Vote Palestine platform as of this time, including cabinet minister Nate Erskine-Smith and Palestinian-Canadian Fares Abu Al Soud. The iron grip that groups like CIJA have on defining the discourse is slipping away.

But on the other hand…Anthony Housefather. His promotion by Justin Trudeau, after months of ripping the party apart to settle his personal score over Israel, ruffled many Liberal MPs and staffers the wrong way. And his presence is continued, and it is loud, and many things he says are simply unacceptable.

Much of the above is self-contradictory. Frequently, the supposed “truth” of the Liberal stance changes from day to day, based on which journalist is asking the question. Mark Carney’s vagueness, again, is intentional.

The Liberal goal is that you latch on to the things above that you like, and engage in cognitive dissonance for the things you don’t like. For a candidate in a leadership position, I must once again give credit: this strategy works.

Mind you, while I’m giving credit for this being good electoral strategy, I’m also here to decry this as morally contemptible. Both the State of Israel and senior members of the Israeli government, including Benjamin Netanyahu himself, are facing legal proceedings at the ICJ and ICC respectively after allegations of serious war crimes.

Israeli journalists from Haaretz have reported that they have seen no evidence of IDF soldiers being punished for war crimes. Israeli soldiers have confessed to Israeli media that a slave army of Palestinians are used by the IDF as human shields.

That is not my editorialization, that is the soldier’s own words. For the love of God, as Passover begins tonight, how could I as a Jew ignore the practice of literal slavery?

I have very little patience here for the typical “both sides” nonsense. Jews do not believe in neutrality, because neutrality only aids the oppressor, and I see the oppression with unclouded eyes. There can be no neutrality in the face of the occupation, or the face of genocide.

Mark Carney has a moral responsibility to state things plainly, and to stop beating around the bush. He will not do so, because he and his advisors will consider it an unnecessary risk, poor electoral strategy.

But there are things more important than that. When is the time to burn political capital and to take risks, if not now? If a leader is not willing to lead in the face of these atrocities, are they a leader at all?

I don’t expect Mark Carney to make himself clearer at the debates…but at the same time, I do. I understand the self-interest by which political organizers adopt strategy; I myself used to organize political campaigns.

But my cynical expectations of expedience are an ideological poison, and my moral expectations are something I need to listen to.

I’ve already voted Liberal, because I am satisfied that my local MP will fight for Palestine in the way he can. But if the Liberal in your riding can’t be trusted to do that?

Don’t vote for them. Vote for good people, who will stand up for what is right. And know that you spend this Passover acting in service of liberation.