SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Christine Normandin

  • Member of Parliament
  • Deputy House leader of the Bloc Québécois
  • Bloc Québécois
  • Saint-Jean
  • Quebec
  • Voting Attendance: 64%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $109,900.56

  • Government Page
  • Oct/16/23 11:28:25 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. From the outside, the two-state solution is the one I see as the best, but, once again, this is with all the nuance and reserve one must have when perceiving the conflict from the outside. As has been said several times this evening, the two-state solution is not possible as long as Hamas still exists, hence the importance of eliminating Hamas. To build on a point from the previous question, one of the fears associated with an immediate ceasefire, for example, is that the problem will simply be put off until later. If steps are not taken to eliminate Hamas and ensure that there is fertile ground for political negotiations, which cannot happen with Hamas, human lives may be saved in the short term, but the body count could be even higher in the long term. This is a perfect example of a catch-22. There is no ideal solution to the current conflict. If there were one that would eliminate Hamas while preserving all human lives, it would already have been implemented. I feel a bit pessimistic with that answer, but at the same time I am perhaps somewhat realistic as well. Unfortunately, realism cannot go by the wayside when we are looking at situations such as this one here tonight.
221 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/16/23 11:24:32 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her question and for her always rousing pleas on behalf of civilians and all those who are in difficult situations, who are experiencing war. I know she cares a lot about that, and I thank her for her work in that regard. I do not claim to have an answer for her, unfortunately, and I think that it would be wrong for anyone, particularly any outsider, to claim that they have an answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which did not start just a few days ago but has been going on for a long time now. In this context, I cannot imagine, as an outsider myself, coming in and imposing a solution. That is why I was careful not to do so in my speech. I was careful not to impose a solution but to instead suggest limits for a government. I want to make the distinction here between the Government of Israel and the people of Israel because, right now, as we know, the government is more right-wing than it has ever been. We can hope that, in the near future, both Hamas and the Government of Israel will have to make changes. In that context, I was careful not to suggest a solution. I think it would be presumptuous on my part to do so. Instead, I chose to make suggestions that would set limits on the actions taken by Israel. What we are asking Israel to do is to minimize as much as possible anything that could lead to the loss of civilian life. If that involves a ceasefire, then all the better. I hope that the analysis will be done because I would like to believe that Israel, unlike Hamas, takes absolutely no pleasure in killing innocent civilians. That is why I am not responding directly to my colleague's question. I am sad to do so because, personally, I was hoping for a ceasefire. However, I am not in a position to impose a solution to a very complex conflict.
347 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border