Executive Summary
Canada’s recent abstention from the UN vote calling for Israel to end its illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank reflects a troubling inconsistency in Canada’s approach to international law and human rights. Citing concerns that the resolution was “too one-sided,” Canada’s decision overlooks the central issue – the occupation itself, which has been condemned by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other global bodies as a violation of international law.
This opinion piece critically examines the flaws in Canada’s justification, particularly the selective application of the “right to self-defense” and the misleading conflation of Palestinian resistance with terrorism. The opinion also addresses Canada’s mischaracterization of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, arguing that peaceful resistance should not be equated with delegitimization. In its abstention, Canada has missed a critical opportunity to uphold its commitment to human rights and the international rules-based order, thereby undermining its credibility on the world stage.
Introduction
The recent decision by Canada to abstain from a United Nations vote calling on Israel to end its unlawful occupation of Gaza and the West Bank highlights several concerning aspects of Canadian foreign policy. This vote, prompted by a ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) condemning Israel’s occupation of territories seized in 1967, passed with 124 votes in favour, 14 against, and 43 abstentions. Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations, Bob Rae, justified the abstention by labeling the resolution as “too one-sided,” while also acknowledging that Israel’s presence in these territories is illegal under international law.
However, this reasoning reveals serious flaws and contradictions, reflecting a deeper misalignment with global human rights principles. By examining Canada’s abstention in light of its historical role in international diplomacy, as well as its legal and moral obligations, it becomes clear that this decision is a significant misstep. It must be critically assessed not only regarding international law but also in terms of the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the broader principles of justice and accountability.
- The Issue of International Law and Occupation
The resolution brought forward was based on a July 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which reaffirmed the illegality of Israel’s occupation of territories captured in 1967, including Gaza and the West Bank. The ICJ unequivocally condemned Israel’s actions, declaring the occupation a violation of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention. This ruling is not merely an opinion but an essential component of the international rules-based order, which Canada claims to support.
Rae’s statement that Canada “supports the ICJ’s role in upholding the international rules-based order” is contradicted by the decision to abstain from a resolution that calls for precisely that – an adherence to international law and respecting the ruling of the ICJ.. The principle of territorial integrity, enshrined in numerous international agreements, including UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories, is undermined by Canada’s unwillingness to support this measure. This selective application of international law raises serious questions about Canada’s commitment to its own stated principles.
Furthermore, Article 49 (p.23) of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that “the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Israel’s ongoing settlement activity in the West Bank clearly violates this provision. In its 2024 report, Human Rights Watch reiterated that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories meets the legal definition of apartheid, citing systematic oppression and domination over Palestinians through policies of segregation and displacement. Canada’s abstention, therefore, not only distances itself from a global consensus on Israel’s violations but also implies a tacit acceptance of these illegal practices.
If Canada genuinely supports the ICJ, it should endorse the findings of the court’s July 2024 ruling, which calls for an end to Israel’s unlawful occupation. Instead, Canada’s abstention indicates a reluctance to hold Israel accountable while disproportionately focusing on Palestinian actions. This sends a dangerous message: that international law can be selectively applied depending on political convenience. By failing to support measures that align with international legal standards, Canada risks undermining its own credibility as a proponent of human rights and the rule of law on the global stage.
- The “One-Sided” Argument and Its Flaws
A key justification for Canada’s abstention is that the resolution places disproportionate blame on Israel, suggesting it holds Israel solely responsible for the conflict without acknowledging its security concerns or the actions of Hamas, particularly those on October 7, 2024. However, this reasoning misrepresents the issue. The resolution is not limited to the context of the current conflict; rather, it addresses the root cause and established ongoing violation of international law: the ongoing occupation. By focusing on this core issue, the resolution targets the crux of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a fact recognized by legal bodies such as the ICJ, the United Nations, and various international human rights organizations.
Moreover, Rae’s insistence on including Hamas’ actions in the discussion overlooks an important distinction: Hamas’ activities cannot be equated with the long-term structural violence imposed by an occupying state, which has been ongoing for decades. The ICJ’s ruling, which forms the basis of the resolution, explicitly focuses on the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, which violates numerous international laws, including the Fourth Geneva Convention. Amnesty International’s report from September 2024 emphasized that Israel’s system of repression over Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank constitutes a form of collective punishment – a practice explicitly prohibited under international law.
Canada’s position, which emphasizes Israel’s right to self-defense, fails to recognize that self-defense cannot justify violations of international law. This selective narrative shifts the focus from systemic injustice to isolated acts of violence, obscuring the broader context of occupation. By conflating the issues of Hamas’ actions with the structural violence of occupation, Canada diverts attention from Israel’s ongoing violations and the critical legal framework surrounding them. Many legal scholars and human rights advocates argue that equating resistance to occupation with terrorism ignores the historical context and undermines the moral authority of international law.
By dismissing the core issue of Israel’s ongoing violation of Palestinian rights under international law, Canada compromises its position on human rights and perpetuates a harmful cycle of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. The focus should remain on the legality of the occupation and the urgent need for accountability, and the systemic injustices faced by the Palestinian people for decades.
- The Right to Self-Defense vs. the Right to Occupation
Rae’s defense of Israel’s “right to defend itself” must be critically examined in light of international law and the ongoing situation in Gaza. While self-defense is a right guaranteed to all sovereign states, it cannot justify an indefinite occupation or systemic human rights violations. Article 51 of the UN Charter permits self-defense against armed attacks but does not legitimize the occupation of foreign land under the guise of security. This principle was reinforced by former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine, Michael Lynk, who emphasized that Israel’s claim of self-defense does not extend to the justification of its occupation. In the wake of the October 7th attacks, Canada’s abstention further muddles the definition of legitimate defense, particularly when we consider that the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimates that 90% of Gaza’s 2.1 million residents are trapped in an “open-air prison,” with severely restricted access to essential services, including clean water, electricity, and medical care.
As stated earlier, Amnesty International has asserted that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to collective punishment, which is prohibited under international law. The alarming statistics (to date) – over 41,000 deaths in Gaza, including nearly 16,500 children – underscore the human cost of these policies. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Article 51 does not apply to Israel’s military actions in the occupied territories, clarifying that the law of belligerent occupation governs such situations. This law imposes strict limitations on the use of military force, obligating the occupying power to protect the civilian population and provide essential services. Yet Israel has frequently violated these principles, engaging in actions that amount to collective punishment, including the destruction of civilian infrastructure and homes.
Canada’s acknowledgment of Israel’s security concerns must be balanced with an understanding of the illegal occupation that fuels much of the violence. By failing to adopt a nuanced approach, Canada risks perpetuating a one-dimensional narrative that ignores the suffering of Palestinians and the legal realities of occupation, which grant them the right to resist in pursuit of self-determination. As articulated in various international covenants and UN resolutions, this right is not only legitimate but necessary for the fulfillment of their political, social, and cultural development. Without a balanced view that considers both rights, the conversation remains incomplete and disconnected from the reality faced by those living under occupation.
- The Issue of BDS and Mischaracterization
Ambassador Rae also expressed concerns that the language in the resolution aligns with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which Canada firmly opposes. This argument misrepresents the resolution, as it does not explicitly endorse BDS. However, it raises an important point about Canada’s stance on the Palestinian struggle for rights. By conflating calls for accountability with the BDS movement, a legitimate and non-violent form of protest grounded in international law, Canada effectively delegitimizes peaceful, legal methods of resistance used by Palestinians and their supporters worldwide. Rae’s assertion that the resolution contributes to isolating Israel mischaracterizes its intent; it seeks accountability, not isolation. This conflation undermines Canada’s credibility.
BDS has gained endorsement from numerous human rights organizations, including Jewish Voice for Peace, and has been supported by figures within the Israeli peace movement, illustrating its broad appeal as a tool for non-violent resistance. Its objectives – ending the occupation, dismantling systemic apartheid, and affirming the right of return for Palestinians – align with international calls for justice. By equating BDS with efforts to delegitimize Israel, Canada not only disregards these peaceful avenues but also weakens its own stated commitment to a just and equitable resolution of the conflict. This contradiction raises questions about Canada’s sincerity in supporting Palestinian rights while simultaneously opposing one of the most effective tools available to challenge the ongoing occupation.
Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity for Accountability
In abstaining from this critical vote, Canada has missed a significant opportunity to stand with the international community in condemning illegal occupation and supporting Palestinian human rights. The decision reflects an inconsistent approach to international law, wherein Canada speaks of upholding the rule of law but falters when action is required. If Canada is truly committed to peace, security, and dignity for Palestinians, it must recognize that these values cannot be achieved without addressing the core issue: the illegal occupation of Palestinian land.
By citing concerns about balance and security, Canada has neglected to confront the realities of the Israeli occupation directly. This abstention not only signals a reluctance to hold Israel accountable for its violations but also undermines Canada’s credibility on the international stage. While Canada claims to support the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and international law, its actions suggest a hesitance to take meaningful steps against those who breach these laws.
Moreover, this abstention reinforces a narrative of complicity, as it fails to align Canada’s foreign policy with the urgent calls for accountability echoed by the overwhelming majority of the global community. Instead of hiding behind claims of neutrality, Canada should take a principled stance that reflects a commitment to justice and human rights. Until it does so, its abstentions will continue to be perceived as tacit complicity in prolonging a conflict rooted in decades of occupation and systemic injustice, further prolonging the suffering of Palestinians who continue to live under these conditions.
