There is hardly a more controversial subject in Canada than the conflict in the Middle East. It is understandable why. Lives are at stake and frustrations have been building for decades. Given Canada’s diversity, we feel the pain amongst us here as the conflict over there seems endless and hopeless.

Canada, a country with a history of international humility and consensus building, had in the past tried to approach this file with sensitivity and maturity. Canada had maintained that peaceful resolution can be achieved through negotiations, application of international law and protection of civilian lives. Canada’s role may not have appeared to have immediate success but at least it earned domestic and international respect and helped prepare the ground for reconciliation.

The Stephen Harper government has deliberately thrown all of that away. The CBC’s Wendy Mesley did an excellent piece that outlined Mr. Harper’s blatant shift. This piece enumerated a list of steps taken by Stephen Harper illustrating a dramatic shift in traditional Canadian policy. Another example was in the summer of 2009 when the Harper government threatened an academic conference held at York University discussing the situation in that region. Also the Embassy Magazine revealed this summer a simmering tension between public servants and the Harper government over changing in language traditionally used by Foreign Affairs.

I have often spoken/written about the need for leaders to offer thoughtful ideas instead of playing the easy but damaging politics of division. The Middle East file particularly needs courageous leaders who can set parameters for a debate that no matter how passionate it gets there are common principles that can help us navigate through it. Here’s my attempt at identifying some of those principles:

• Canada has a moral and legal responsibility to promote peace and reconciliation not inflame tension and division
• Every human life is precious and must be protected
• We must never be afraid of engaging each other and others around the world in vigorous debates about this matter (or others). I am more afraid of the alternative to debate and dialogue
• Expressing disagreement with Israeli government conduct is not anti-Israeli just like disagreeing with the Harper government conduct is not anti-Canadian, or disagreeing with the Palestinian Authority conduct is not anti-Palestinian
• History must’ve taught us by now that military options offer no solutions and unless disagreements are confronted politically, logjams will persist
• This cannot be seen as a zero sum situation. Bob Rae always says “We can be pro-Israel, pro-Palestine and pro-peace at the same time”
• Canada cannot impose a solution but can offer our own talent and capacity to facilitate a fair solution
• As imperfect as it is, international law is a good reference for complicated matters
• Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace and dignity like any human being

(These principles are applicable to other international conflicts)

Silencing debate or dissent is very harmful. The same would apply had we had a prime minister who attempts to silence criticism against the Palestinian Authority or any other government.

Stephen Harper has the right to change Canada’s policies as a prime minister and Canadians have the right to judge him for it. What is indefensible is Mr. Harper’s vicious attack on independent voices that also have a legitimate right to engage in such public policy debates.

Such intimidation techniques offer bad examples to Canadians and very little help to the desperate situation in Israel/Palestine and are also betrayals of Canadian values and norms.