It’s been one year since Canada recognized the State of Palestine. Last week, in coordination with the UK and France, Canada announced what they characterize as their “next step” along this path by taking:
“steps to ban the importation of goods from [Israeli] settlements and enforce targeted measures against settlements and those who facilitate them or profit from them.”
It’ll be worthwhile to take a quick look back at last year’s initiative. According to the official statement from Prime Minister Mark Carney’s office, Canada’s recognition was conditional on:
Commitments by Palestinian Authority President Abbas to fundamentally reform its governance
General elections in 2026 in which Hamas can play no part
Demilitarization of the Palestinian state
Hamas’ immediate release of all hostages taken in the terrorist attack of October 7
The disarming of Hamas
Hamas playing no role in the future governance of Palestine
Of course, none of those were actual conditions. We know that because, a full year later - besides the final hostage release orchestrated by the Trump administration - not one of those conditions has been met.
Just how little has changed?
To the surprise of exactly no one, Fatah secretary-general Jibril Rajoub just announced that the Palestinian elections scheduled for November 2026 will be delayed indefinitely
The Palestinian Authority’s financial support for convicted (and dead) terrorists - known popularly as pay-to-slay - continues as before under different names (to confuse incurious EU auditors)
Hamas has been forcibly suppressed but clearly not disarmed
Hamas is still the dominant governing force in the parts of Gaza not under IDF control
Has any of that inspired second thoughts at Global Affairs Canada or the Prime Minister’s Office? There’s no indication that they’ve even noticed, much less cared.
The latest announcement was described as an effort “to protect the two-state solution”. So it would also be worthwhile digging a bit deeper into that.
The issues aren’t quite black and white. There’s definitely much more the Israeli government should be doing to curb rogue settler violence. Although by the same token, there’s much more the U.K., French, and Canadian governments should be doing to curb violent and deadly antisemitic attacks within their own borders.1
The primary grievance driving the new boycott, however, was continued housing and road construction in the E1 area. The claim is that such construction will preempt Palestinian territorial demands.
The strength of that particular argument could perhaps be measured against federal home construction initiatives on contested land much closer to home.
Keep reading:
Can We Finally Talk About United Nations Funding?
No area touched by government policy should be off-limits for open discussion. It’s our money, after all, and we have the right to wonder how it’s being spent. Nevertheless, there’s no shortage of topics that, well, aren’t appreciated in more polite company. Until quite recently, I somehow assumed that Canada’s commitments to the United Nations and its …
Tracking Federal Funding Through Layers (and Layers) of Non-Profits
This won’t be the first time I’ve written about how complicated things can get when you try to follow government funding through nested layers of NGOs, charities, and other governments. But every attempt to pull back the curtain helps add a bit more clarity.
Antisemitism: Confused Responses to a Misunderstood Problem
Two recent antisemitism-related events were reported on the same day last week, and they’re connected.
Not to mention the 24 confirmed church arsons across Canada since May, 2021 - for which there have so far been only two(!) convictions.
The political theatre is so performative and to be frank nauseating. It’s clear that a mix of Carney wanting to be in on an announcement with the cool kids from Europe and to satisfy the demands of his progressive caucus prompted the announcement a year ago. Much to the glee of Hamas and Hezbollah which makes it that much more disgusting.
The only moral foreign policy for those that have any reverence for individual sovereignty over that of the state is isolationism and free trade. Individuals with free will and incentivized to critical thinking rather than the outsourcing of all adult responsibilities to the state, are capable of deciding which foreign entanglements, causes, products, services, and friendships to support, if any. This would necessitate no membership in such bodies as the UN, NATO, EU, including the plethora of MOUs, Treaties-adopting neutrality but like Switzerland, maintaining a real defense deterrent, and ending state support for any and all NGOs.
As Randolph Bourne stated, "War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society these irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense.” Reread this while thinking about Trump's incoherent antics which inspired Carney's decision to engage in a "trade war" in which Canadians will be the biggest losers.