The first (foreign policy) question Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should be asked in this New Year is whether he approves of the Obama administration organized, New Zealand-Venezuela mediated, UN resolution against Israel? Does he approve of the UN Security Council’s vote of censure against Israel? That’s a question on the substance of the resolution.
There is also one on how the resolution came to pass. He should be asked whether he agrees with the Obama administration’s cute game of “abstaining” on that resolution. The abstention was the key to having it pass. In the past the U.S. has been a reliable shield against the shower of anti-Israel resolutions that are a constant in UN deliberations. Knocking Israel almost passes as a raison d’etre for some of the members of the UN. This latest one, condemning the “settlements” as the barrier to peace in the Middle East, and declaring in most incendiary fashion that the Western Wall is in “occupied Palestinian (territory)” saw its passage enabled by the guile of a U.S. abstention on the motion.
News reports make it clear that “the White House … has acknowledged President Obama made the decision for U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power to abstain.” Many observers, on both sides of the U.S. congress, take the view that Obama, in the concluding weeks and days of his administration, wished to take one last diplomatic shot at Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, and that the vote of censure at the UN was it. It was also, for Obama, something of a separate arrow to shoot at Donald Trump.
The questions for our Prime Minister are where he stands on both the motion itself, and the motives behind it. Does he agree that among all the nations within the UN it is Israel that most deserves this censure from the Security Council? Does he think Israel deserves the animus and antagonism of a departing U.S. president? Is this resolution in accord with Trudeau’s own views on the Middle East?
The crux of the matter is whether the CPC Leadership candidates are paying attention to the Trudeau misfires and deciding what they stand for as a political party. Because, come May, 2017, what we don’t need is another politically correct party and Liberal Lite Leader. There is a reason Kellie Leitch is ahead at the moment. She gets it. She is willing to name the reality facing us in 2017 — Islamic terrorism.