Skip to Content Subscribe My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Amazon Prime Day Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentMatthew Taub: Ottawa threatens sanctions on Israeli settlements without testing them legallyThe sanctions rest on contested interpretations and recommendationsLast updated 35 minutes ago On Friday last week, Global Affairs Canada published an official advisory telling Canadian businesses to stay away from an entire category of lawful commerce. The document warns of “significant legal, financial and reputational risks” tied to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and advises companies against “investments, financial transactions, procurement, purchases and tourism” connected to them. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand framed this warning as an extension of Canada’s “long-standing position” that the settlements are “illegal under international law” and “constitute a serious obstacle to a just and lasting peace.”Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorThis advisory threatens to sanction both Israelis abroad and Canadians.The National Post newsletter that doesn’t hold back, giving readers the unvarnished truth on media, politics and culture.By signing up, you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Right? will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againThis is a serious problem. This decision does not come from a Canadian court or statute. It was not made by members of Parliament. It comes from Ottawa deciding, on its own authority, that the matter is closed. There is an important distinction Ottawa is blurring: Canada’s foreign-policy position is not the same thing as Canadian law. Parliament has debated the issue. NDP MP Heather McPherson introduced Motion M-28 in March calling for, among other things, targeted sanctions connected to settlements. But Parliament has not enacted a general prohibition on Canadians doing business connected to Israeli settlements. This matters.The advisory’s argument appears to rest on a single premise: Israeli settlements are “illegal under international law.” This claim rests on a contested interpretation of Article 49(6) of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which says an occupying power “shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The treaty does not define “transfer” in that provision or expressly say civilians are prohibited from moving voluntarily. The legal dispute is over how broadly “transfer” should be interpreted and what degree of government encouragement, assistance or involvement is sufficient to constitute one. Credentialed international lawyers have disputed these questions for decades.In the advisory, Ottawa points to the United Nations as the source of its reasoning. Fair enough. But let’s be precise about what the UN has actually said and done.UN Security Council Resolution 2334 calls the settlements a violation of international law. But it was passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, not Chapter VII, which authorizes enforcement. Whatever diplomatic and legal significance Resolution 2334 carries internationally, it does not itself make settlement commerce a crime under Canadian statute. A UN Security Council resolution addressed to states does not, by itself, make it illegal under Canadian law for a Canadian to buy a bottle of wine, for instance, produced in a West Bank settlement. Wine is not unique, it is simply a useful example because settlement-produced wine has already been tested in Canadian courts Canada has dealt with precisely such wines before, the resulting Canadian litigation concerned how they could be labelled, not whether Canadians were prohibited from buying them.Ottawa’s strongest argument is the International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion. But an advisory opinion is not legally binding, and several judges issued separate or dissenting opinions. A government may consider it, but it should not relay it to its citizens as Canadian law they break at their peril.Here is the honest truth. There is a strong international consensus against the settlements, but there is also a decades-old legal dispute. Ottawa can acknowledge both. What it cannot do is turn international consensus into settled Canadian law.None of this requires minimizing settler violence. There have been serious and documented attacks by extremist Israeli settlers against Palestinians, and those responsible should be investigated, prosecuted and, where justified, sanctioned. Canada has already sanctioned specific individuals and entities connected to extremist settler violence. That proves the point: target those responsible through defined legal mechanisms. Do not use their crimes to cast suspicion over every Israeli who lives beyond the Green Line, or every Canadian who lawfully does business with one.Ottawa knows the difference. It has not asked Parliament to make settlement commerce illegal. It has not pursued a Canadian court ruling that it is unlawful. Instead, it is using an advisory to discourage conduct Parliament has not prohibited. This advisory casts a cloud of legal risk over a sweeping range of otherwise lawful activity, from investment and purchasing to tourism, without actually prohibiting any of it. It is prohibition by insinuation.Then comes the part written to be skimmed past. Businesses that decline to comply “may result in the withdrawal of Trade Commissioner Service support and potential future support from Export Development Canada and the Canadian Commercial Corporation.”This consequence is real. A Canadian business engaged in commerce that no Canadian law prohibits can risk losing federal support simply because Ottawa considers that commerce connected, even “indirectly,” to a settlement. But what does “indirectly” mean? A supplier? An investment fund with distant exposure? Ottawa does not draw the line. Businesses are left to guess, and the safest choice is obvious: walk away. That is how an advisory becomes a chill on lawful commerce without Parliament ever banning it.You can hold any view you like about the West Bank and still see what this is. This is not about whether settlements are wise, good or just. It is about who gets to decide that something is illegal, by what process and with what accountability. Governments confident in their legal grounds pass laws. Governments that suspect they would lose the vote, or lose in court, issue advisories.Ottawa reached a verdict against a defendant it never charged, in a case no court has heard, and now bills Canadian businesses to enforce it.If this trade is illegal, prove it. Table the legislation. Name the conduct. Define it. Put it to a vote, and defend it before a judge who can strike it down. That is what the rule of law requires.Until then, stop leaning on citizens you are unwilling to legislate against. Withdraw the advisory.National PostMatthew Taub is the founder and executive director of Unapologetically Jewish. A nationally registered non-profit fighting antisemitism. Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.