ABSTRACT

Since 1979, Canada has had two distinct foreign policy approaches toward the Palestinians and Israeli-Palestinian Peacebuilding. This article labels those “Pearsonian” and “Harperian”. To understand both approaches, it starts with the Jerusalem Embassy crisis in 1979 and moves on through the Middle East Peace Process, assessing Canada’s policy up to 2019. In response to international fallout from the 1979 Clark Progressive Conservative government pledge to relocate Canada’s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a 1980 Stanfield Report helped orient Canadian regional Middle East policy toward a more Pearsonian approach committed to multilateralism and sensitivity for Arab viewpoints. Successive Canadian governments heeded its advice in an attempt to build peace and regional relationships, while remaining Israel’s close friend. By contrast, starting with the Harper Conservative government in 2006, Canada adopted an approach that clearly favours Israel over and at the expense of the Palestinians. It is a foreign policy approach centred on bilateral relationships with what Canadian political leaders consider countries that are like-minded democracies with shared values. This approach mostly describes Canada’s regional approach from the mid-2000s to 2019.

摘要

自1979年以来，加拿大对巴勒斯坦人和以巴建立和平采取了两种截然不同的外交政策方针。本文将那些标签称为“皮尔逊式”和“哈珀式”。为了理解这两种方法，它始于1979年的耶路撒冷大使馆危机，然后继续进行中东和平进程，评估加拿大直至2019年的政策。为响应1979年克拉克进步保守党政府承诺将加拿大驻以色列大使馆迁至国际的影响。 1980年，《斯坦菲尔德报告》（Stanfield Report）对耶路撒冷提出了建议，将加拿大的中东地区政策导向更加皮尔逊式的方法，致力于多边主义和对阿拉伯观点的敏感性。历届加拿大政府都听取了它的建议，试图建立和平与地区关系，同时又保持以色列的密友。相比之下，从2006年的哈珀保守党政府开始，加拿大采取了一种明显地偏Israel以色列而不是牺牲巴勒斯坦人的方法。这是一种以双边关系为中心的外交政策方法，加拿大政治领导人认为这些国家是志同道合的民主国家，具有共同的价值观。该方法主要描述了2000年代中期至2019年加拿大的区域方法。