A Reflection of Worldview Ambivalence and Ideological Confusion
By Richard Martin, President, Alcera Consulting Inc.
The Trudeau government has earned international praise for its unwavering support of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. Standing firmly alongside other Western allies, Canada has provided financial, military, and moral support to Ukraine, framing the conflict as a clear case of a sovereign nation defending itself against an imperialist aggressor. Yet, when it comes to Israel’s struggle against Hamas and broader Palestinian militant groups, the Canadian government’s position is marked by ambivalence and contradictory calls for restraint, ceasefires, and sympathy for the Palestinian cause. This inconsistency exposes deeper ideological conflicts within Canada’s foreign policy and highlights a growing tension between post-imperial guilt, electoral politics, and the liberal democratic values Canada claims to uphold.
Ukraine: The Archetype of the Righteous Defender
Canada’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been consistent and clear. The narrative is simple and powerful: Ukraine is a sovereign nation defending itself against a larger, authoritarian aggressor seeking to impose its will through violence and coercion. Trudeau’s government has framed this conflict as a battle for democracy, freedom, and self-determination—values that resonate deeply with the Western liberal democratic worldview.
Ukraine is portrayed as the righteous defender, standing up to the imperial ambitions of Russia, which is cast as the archetypal aggressor. The Trudeau government’s position fits neatly into the traditional Western narrative of sovereignty, human rights, and the defense of democratic values. Here, there is no ambiguity: Russia is the villain, and Ukraine is the courageous underdog.
Israel: The Ambivalence of a Post-Imperial Mindset
Contrast this clarity with Canada’s stance on Israel’s conflict with Hamas and broader Palestinian militancy. When Israel is attacked and retaliates, Trudeau’s government often responds with calls for Israeli restraint and an immediate ceasefire. There is a palpable hesitation to fully support Israel in the same way it supports Ukraine, despite Israel being a fellow democracy defending itself against groups that openly seek its destruction.
This ambivalence can be traced to a post-imperial mindset that permeates much of the Western political landscape, including Canada. In this worldview, Israel is not simply a sovereign nation defending itself, but a symbol of colonialism and oppression. The decolonization narrative, which dominates progressive discourse, casts Israel as a settler-colonial state oppressing an indigenous Palestinian population. This framing ignores the complex history of Jewish self-determination and survival in the face of existential threats, focusing instead on the power dynamics of the present.
The Trudeau government’s calls for restraint and ceasefire reflect a desire to align with this post-colonial narrative, even though it creates a stark contradiction with Canada’s stance on Ukraine. Whereas Ukraine is seen as a victim of imperialism, Israel is often perceived—incorrectly—as a perpetuator of it, despite the clear threats to its survival from militant groups. This narrative feeds into a broader discomfort with Israel’s military actions and its role in the region, where the lines between oppressor and oppressed are often blurred in Western discourse.
The Role of Electoral Politics and Antisemitism
Canada’s ambivalence toward Israel cannot be divorced from domestic electoral considerations. The Arab and Muslim population in Canada has grown significantly, now far outnumbering the Jewish population. This demographic reality influences the political calculus of the Trudeau government, which relies on support from progressive and minority voter blocs. Adopting a stance that appears more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, calling for ceasefires and restraint, can be seen to appeal to these communities without taking a decisive stance that might alienate other parts of the electorate.
At the same time, there is an undercurrent of antisemitism that often manifests in anti-Israel sentiment. The portrayal of Israel as a colonial oppressor echoes longstanding antisemitic tropes that cast Jews as manipulators of power. While antisemitism may not be the primary driver of Canada’s policies, it is difficult to ignore how anti-Zionist rhetoric often overlaps with and fuels latent antisemitic sentiments, especially in progressive political circles. The decolonization narrative, which positions Israel as the villain, provides a convenient cover for these sentiments to emerge under the guise of anti-imperialism.
A Pollyannaish Approach to Complex Conflicts
What emerges from the Trudeau government’s position on Israel is not just inconsistency, but a pollyannish approach to conflict resolution. The repeated calls for Israel to exercise restraint, or for an immediate ceasefire, reflect an overly simplistic view of the conflict, one that assumes both sides are equally culpable, and that peace can be achieved through moral pressure alone. This stance ignores the reality of asymmetric warfare, where Israel faces militant groups that do not seek negotiation or coexistence, but its outright destruction. The government’s reluctance to fully endorse Israel’s right to defend itself against such existential threats seems naive, especially when viewed in the context of its robust support for Ukraine’s self-defence.
The same government that vocally supports Ukraine’s fight for survival against Russia fails to recognize that Israel, too, faces an existential threat. Hamas and other militant groups are not interested in a two-state solution or peaceful coexistence; they seek the eradication of Israel. Yet, in the Canadian government’s worldview, Israel is expected to exercise restraint in a way that no one demands of Ukraine.
Epistemological Conflict and Ideological Contradictions
Through the lens of epistemological conflict, the Trudeau government’s position reveals a deeper contradiction. On one hand, it defends the principles of sovereignty, self-defence, and human rights in Ukraine. On the other, it applies a different standard to Israel, where calls for restraint and ceasefires undermine the very same principles. This inconsistency stems from the conflicting worldviews that dominate Western political discourse: the liberal democratic values that uphold sovereignty and self-determination clash with the decolonization narrative that sees Israel as a remnant of Western colonialism.
This creates a profound tension in Canada’s foreign policy. By adopting a fragmented stance, the Trudeau government risks eroding the moral clarity that should guide its decisions. In supporting Ukraine, Canada stands for the defense of liberal democracy against authoritarianism. Yet, in its ambivalence toward Israel, it weakens that same defense by indulging in post-colonial guilt and electoral expediency.
Conclusion: The Consequences of Incoherence
The Trudeau government’s contradictory positions on Ukraine and Israel reflect a broader crisis in Western foreign policy. The inability to maintain a consistent stance on the right to self-defence, rooted in ideological confusion and political pragmatism, weakens Canada’s credibility on the world stage. More importantly, it exposes the dangers of allowing post-imperial guilt and simplistic decolonization narratives to dictate foreign policy.
As Canada continues to support Ukraine’s fight for freedom, it must reconcile this with its treatment of Israel. Both nations face existential threats, and both deserve the same moral and political support in defending their right to exist. The Trudeau government’s pollyannish calls for restraint and ceasefire in Israel’s case reveal a dangerous naivete, one that undermines the very principles Canada claims to champion in Ukraine.
If Canada is to maintain its place as a defender of liberal democratic values, it must apply those values consistently, not selectively. In doing so, it can avoid the pitfalls of ideological incoherence and stand firm in the face of epistemological conflict, both at home and abroad.
About the Author
Richard Martin is the President of Alcera Consulting Inc., a strategic advisory firm specializing in navigating complex challenges. He is the author of Brilliant Manoeuvres: How to Use Military Wisdom to Win Business Battles and the creator of the blog ExploitingChange.com. Richard is also the developer of Strategic Epistemology, a groundbreaking theory that focuses on winning the battle for minds in a world of conflict by dismantling opposing worldviews and ideologies through strategic narrative and archetypal awareness.
© 2024 Richard Martin