Article content continued

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?

Most particularly, does he see the censure as part of that move to a “more balanced policy” on the Middle East, which was a highlight of the Liberals’ election campaign? Does it stand as a needed “corrective” to his predecessor Stephen Harper’s abiding and full-hearted support of Israel? Would Trudeau support this motion to assist his desire to be perceived as a “more honest broker” (than Harper) in the Middle East? Perhaps when the exequies of Carrie Fisher are done, these questions might claim his attention.

All this flows naturally to a second point. Trudeau has indicated he very much wants to see Canada win back a seat on the Security Council. Why he should wish that is a question too frequently unasked. Who will claim today that observational status on the Security Council, or being one of its permanent members for that matter, confers standing of any worth, moral or otherwise? Has Venezuela’s current term, for example, done anything to attenuate its collapse or the miseries of Hugo Chavez’s sick legacy?