It’s time for Canada to opt for Sweden’s Saab Gripen and cancel the F-35 for Canada’s air force

Saab’s industrial package makes the decision to switch to the Gripen more attractive. It proposes assembly of the aircraft in Canada, technology transfer, and a joint venture with Bombardier.

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

In an era of escalating tensions between Canada and the United States—marked by unjustified US tariffs, trade wars, economic coercion, and outright threats to Canadian sovereignty—Ottawa faces a pivotal decision on the replacement of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s CF-18 fighter jet fleet. The longstanding plan to acquire 88 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II jets built in the United States has become untenable.

American diplomatic pressure, exemplified by US Ambassador Pete Hoekstra’s explicit threats about altering arrangements under the North American aerospace defence treaty, and increasing incursions into Canadian airspace by the US Air Force unless Canada fully commits to the F-35, underscores a troubling pattern of coercion. Combined with broader US actions with Canada since Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, including tariffs that have severely impacted major Canadian industries—steel, aluminum, softwood lumber--and inflammatory rhetoric about annexing Canada as the “51st state”, a reliance on the American platform would compromise Canada’s ability to act as a master in its own house. Switching to the Swedish Saab Gripen would offer a compelling alternative with benefits that include: lower purchase and operational costs, genuine sovereignty, industrial benefits including technology transfers, and proven operational effectiveness.

Since the government of Justin Trudeau announced the finalization of the F-35 contract in 2023 the program’s costs have ballooned dramatically. Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has reported that the projected life cycle cost of the F-35 purchase has surged from an original estimate of C$19 billion to C$29 billion, reflecting ongoing delays, upgrades, and sustainment overruns.

Recent incidents also highlight persistent reliability issues. Two brand-new British F-35s were stranded in the Azores for over two months due to mechanical problems during delivery flights, while another RAF F-35B was grounded in India for more than a month after a technical snag. These are not isolated anomalies but symptoms of deeper systemic challenges.

The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports since 2020 paint an even more concerning picture of chronic program failures. In its September 2025 report the GAO documented that all 110 F-35 aircraft delivered by Lockheed Martin in 2024 were late by an average of 238 days—a sharp deterioration from an already poor average of 61 days late in 2023. Supply chain challenges, parts shortages, and issues with critical hardware and software upgrades were primary drivers.

Additionally, the modernization effort known as “Block 4”—software upgrades which are the foundation of the modernization—is ineffective, has seen costs balloon by more than US$6 billion above original estimates, and is now at least five years behind schedule, with full capabilities potentially not available until 2031 or later. Over 180 airframes produced since mid-2023 have been impacted, with the new software delivering effectively zero new combat capability throughout much of 2025 in related assessments.

Sustainment costs represent another major red flag. The GAO has repeatedly highlighted rising operation and support expenses. Projected fleet sustainment costs, for the US and partner nations, now stand at US$1.58 trillion, pushing the total program life cycle cost (acquisition plus lifetime sustainment) well over US$2 trillion. Mission-capable rates for all F-35 variants have consistently fallen short of targets for years, driven by poor reliability, maintainability shortfalls, engine issues, and the very supply chain problems causing delivery delays. These challenges echo long-standing criticisms that the program continues to “over promise and under deliver” nearly two decades into the program. The Pentagon has faced criticism for downplaying the full scale of these troubles, and as a result Canada risks inheriting an aircraft platform plagued by late deliveries, incomplete capabilities, and dependency on unreliable US supply chains for parts and software updates—a vulnerability Washington would likely exploit amid disputes with Canada.

Even the F-35’s much-vaunted stealth advantage is increasingly questioned with the stealth coating peeling off in supersonic flight. Furthermore, Russia and China have developed low-frequency radars and other systems, such as Very High Frequency radar bands, infrared tracking via satellites/drones, and other developments in detection technology, which claim to detect and track F-35s at ranges that make the aircraft vulnerable. While detection does not equal successful engagement, these advances erode the first-look/first-kill advantage promised by Lockheed in contested environments, especially against peer adversaries.

By contrast, the Saab Gripen delivers superior value. Unit costs for the Gripen E version are competitive, often cited in the C$80–C$100 million range depending on configuration, compared to F-35A flyaway prices that frequently exceed C$100 million when factoring in ancillary expenses. The real savings emerge in operations. F-35 flight-hour costs are reported between C$45,500 and C$69,000, while Gripen figures range from approximately C$6,900 to C$12,400, making the Gripen as much as 4–5 times cheaper to operate on a sustained basis. Over a fleet life cycle, this translates to billions in savings for Canadian taxpayers, enabling a higher total of flight hours and better pilot training.

The Gripen’s design also emphasizes independence and practicality. It is able to operate from short, austere strips (including public highways), requires minimal support infrastructure, and can be turned around rapidly by small teams. This dispersed operations capability is ideal for Canada’s vast geography and Arctic needs, unlike the F-35’s more demanding maintenance footprint which requires longer runways, special heated hangars, and a larger support air crew with specialized training.

Additionally, the F-35 demands roughly up to 13 maintenance man-hours per hour of flight—burdened by its complex stealth coatings, specialized systems, and persistent supply chain issues—while the Saab Gripen achieves far greater efficiency with less than 10 man-hours per flight hour and significantly lower effective demands thanks to its rapid turnaround design, austere-field operability, and minimal support requirements. Crucially, sourcing from Sweden insulates Canada from US leverage over parts, software, or upgrades during political disagreements. Canada would retain full sovereignty over its air force rather than operating under implicit American veto power.

Saab’s industrial package also makes the decision to switch from the F-35 even more attractive and logical. The company has proposed assembly of the aircraft in Canada, technology transfer, and a joint venture potentially partnering with Bombardier in Montreal and Toronto. Public reports indicate this could create up to 12,600 high-skilled jobs in manufacturing, R&D, and related aerospace sectors, with significant GDP contributions and offsets meeting Canada’s 100% industrial benefits requirements. Partnerships with Bombardier, CAE (virtual training simulators), and others would build sovereign aerospace capabilities in Canada that would last decades.

Public sentiment in Canada also strongly supports re-evaluation. A number of polls, including EKOS surveys, show a majority of Canadians favouring the Gripen or a mixed fleet over sole reliance on the F-35, particularly tensions with the US. Many view the Gripen as a path to genuine independence from US control over Canada’s defence. And while critics argue a mixed fleet introduces logistical complexity, this overlooks the F-35’s own sustainment woes documented by the GAO and the Gripen’s interoperability advancements.

What hasn’t been widely reported is that Gripen platform has excelled in exercises against American fighter jets, demonstrating it can hold its own in realistic scenarios while offering far higher operational availability. In an era of drone swarms and contested airspace, quantity and affordability can complement quality. Even Elon Musk and Donald Trump have publicly criticized the F-35’s exorbitant costs, validating concerns about over-reliance on this platform.

We also have to consider the broader geopolitical context which cannot be ignored. American tariffs on Canadian goods, threats tied to border security and trade, and Ambassador Hoekstra’s statements about NORAD adjustments and increased US flights over Canada signal that Washington views allied procurement as a loyalty test rather than a sovereign decision. Continuing with the F-35 under these conditions would reward coercion and effectively make Canadian autonomy subservient to US priorities. By pivoting to the Gripen, Canada would assert control over its defence procurement, diversify suppliers, bolster domestic industry, and save substantial funds for other federal priorities.

The original F-35 commitment was made in a completely different political era—before President Trump’s tariffs, annexation rhetoric, and explicit threats against Canadian sovereignty. That era is gone. Today’s stark realities—ballooning costs confirmed by both Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer and the US Government Accountability Office, repeated reliability scandals, chronic delivery delays, endless modernization failures, an eroding stealth advantage, and overt American coercion—cry out for an immediate and decisive reset.

Cancelling the remaining F-35 orders in favour of the Saab Gripen would not be a retreat. It would be a bold, necessary declaration of sovereignty and fiscal responsibility. This strategic pivot would deliver affordability, operational independence, and long-term resilience while restoring Canada’s control over its own air force. It would position Canada as a proud, mature middle power charting its own destiny—capable of fulfilling its NORAD and NATO obligations without kneeling to foreign pressure or compromising its autonomy.

The time for decisive action is now. When it comes to the defence of this nation and the sacred principle of Canadian sovereignty, there can be only one answer—Canada must be the master in its own house.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

A free and independent nation is the destiny of Palestinians, despite Israel’s brutal oppression

History repeatedly demonstrates that no amount of force or brutal oppression by an occupier can extinguish a people’s desire for freedom and self determination.

 

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

 

For nearly eight decades, Palestinians have lived under a system of occupation, displacement, and structural inequality that countless human‑rights organizations have described as apartheid, and since October 2023 a level of brutality in Gaza that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Israeli Holocaust scholars, and the UN have labelled genocide. The world has watched as generations of Palestinians have been born into a reality defined by military checkpoints, land seizures, home demolitions, and the constant threat of violence. Yet despite this relentless pressure, the Palestinian people have not disappeared. They have not surrendered their identity. They have not relinquished their claim to dignity, justice, and nationhood. Instead, the very forces meant to extinguish their aspirations have only strengthened them.

Every life lost—every child, every mother, every family—deepens the collective Palestinian insistence that freedom is not optional but inevitable. When Israeli bullets end young lives or missiles level entire neighbourhoods, the result is not submission. It is resolve. Each tragedy becomes another reminder that a people cannot be erased by force. History shows that oppression does not eliminate national identity—it intensifies it. The Palestinian struggle is no exception.

The last two and a half years in Gaza have been among the darkest chapters in modern history. International bodies, including the United Nations, have warned of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the ongoing military campaign.[ Entire districts have been flattened. Entire family lines have been wiped out. More than 1.9 million people have been displaced multiple times within a strip of land barely 40 kilometers long. The scale of destruction has led numerous legal scholars, human‑rights experts, and even sitting judges at the International Court of Justice to warn of genocide.

And yet, even amid this devastation, the Palestinian national consciousness has not fractured. It has hardened. A society that has endured dispossession and ethnic cleansing since 1948—what Palestinians call the Nakba—has learned that survival itself is an act of resistance. When a people are pushed to the brink for nearly 80 years, their demand for freedom becomes not just political but existential.

Israel’s leaders have long believed that overwhelming military power could force Palestinians into submission. But history repeatedly demonstrates that no amount of force can extinguish a people’s desire for self‑determination. The British Empire learned this in India. The French learned it in Algeria. South Africa learned it when its apartheid system collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. In each case, the oppressed population was portrayed as defeated, fragmented, or incapable of governing themselves—until the moment they proved otherwise.

The same dynamic is unfolding in Palestine.

The more Israel expands settlements in the West Bank—settlements deemed illegal under international law—the more the world recognizes the impossibility of maintaining the status quo. The more Palestinians are displaced from East Jerusalem, the more global civil society acknowledges that the city cannot be claimed exclusively by one state. The more Gaza is devastated, the more undeniable it becomes that millions of people cannot be indefinitely confined, besieged, and bombarded without consequences.

Israel’s policies have not secured its long‑term future. Instead, they have planted the seeds of profound moral, political, and demographic reckoning. A system built on permanent domination cannot endure. It is inherently unstable. It generates resistance by its very nature.

This is not a call for violence but rather an observation about human reality. History has shown that when people are denied basic rights—movement, safety, sovereignty, equality—they do not simply accept their fate. They organize. They resist. They dream of their freedom. And they teach their children to dream. Every attempt to crush those dreams only makes them more determined to throw off the shackles of subjugation.

The international community is beginning to confront this truth, albeit far too slowly. Major human‑rights organizations—including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem—have concluded that the system governing Palestinians constitutes apartheid. Global public opinion, especially among younger generations—even within the Jewish diaspora—has shifted dramatically toward support for Palestinian rights. Even within Israel, a growing number of voices warn that endless occupation is neither moral nor sustainable.

The future of the region will not be defined by military might but by political reality. And the reality is that millions of Palestinians live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They are not leaving. They are not disappearing. They are not surrendering their identity or their claim to the land where their ancestors lived since before the time of Christ.

The question, then, is not whether Palestinians will achieve freedom. It is when, and at what cost.

An independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem is not merely a political aspiration. It is the only viable path to lasting peace. It is the only arrangement consistent with international law, demographic reality, and basic human dignity. And it is the only future in which both Palestinians and Israelis can live without perpetual fear, violence, and instability.

The world is slowly recognizing that the current trajectory is untenable. A system that relies on overwhelming and brutal force to maintain control of a people cannot last indefinitely. The more Israel attempts to suppress Palestinian identity and fundamental rights, the more it reinforces the very independence movement it seeks to eliminate. The more it destroys, the more it reveals the moral bankruptcy of permanent occupation. And the more it denies Palestinians their rights, the more the global community acknowledges that those rights must be granted.

Palestinian freedom is not a slogan. It is a destiny shaped by decades of resilience, sacrifice, and unbroken national consciousness. From the refugee camps of Lebanon to the streets of Ramallah, from the rubble of Gaza to the neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, Palestinians continue to assert their humanity in the face of overwhelming odds and the violence of a brutal oppressor.

Their struggle is not only for land but for recognition—recognition that they are a people deserving of sovereignty, safety, and self‑determination. They seek recognition that their suffering is not collateral damage but a profound injustice, and that recognition that their liberation is essential not only for their own future but for the future of the entire region.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. And justice demands that Palestinians, after nearly 80 years of dispossession and decades of apartheid conditions, finally achieve the freedom that has been denied to them for far too long. The day will come when the world sees a sovereign Palestinian nation—one that stands not as a symbol of conflict but as a testament to the endurance of a proud and resilient people who refuse to be erased.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Canada's complicity in Gaza genocide shows its leaders are morally bankrupt

The current crisis is rooted in decades of a brutal occupation, peace processes repeatedly sabotaged by Israel, and repeated incidents of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

 

Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a strong public condemnation following a social media post by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. The post included footage of activists from the Global Sumud Flotilla—who were attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza—being intercepted by Israeli forces in international waters. The video showed the activists bound and held in stress positions while Ben-Gvir taunted and insulted them. Carney stated: “The abominable treatment of civilians aboard the flotilla, including that which is documented in footage shared by Itamar Ben-Gvir, is unacceptable.”

This selective outrage exposes a glaring moral inconsistency at the heart of Carney’s foreign policy. While his government rightly condemns specific abuses against flotilla participants—including Canadian citizens—it continues to pursue policies that fuel a far broader conflict, enabling civilian suffering on a horrifying scale, including the sale of Canadian weapons to Israel. Critics rightly argue that this reveals a government that is both unacceptable and morally bankrupt—one that maintains normalized relations with a state accused of genocide, while turning a blind eye to Canadian-made weapons and components flowing to Israel as it brutalizes a helpless population.

The Gaza genocide, triggered by Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attacks, has escalated into one of the deadliest episodes of mass violence in the region’s history since the Iraq War and the Syrian civil war. According to data released by Euromed Human Rights Monitor, the only organization providing independent death toll figures, it is estimated that more than 80,000 Palestinians have been killed as of the end of May 2026, with estimates that there may be anywhere from 377,000 to more than 680,000 buried under Gaza’s rubble, most of them women and children. Entire neighbourhoods have been devastated, infrastructure including hospitals, schools, and water systems lies in ruins, and mass displacement has occurred repeatedly creating a refugee population of approximately 1.9 million.

Multiple respected organizations have concluded that Israel’s actions meet the legal threshold for genocide--defined under the 1948 UN Genocide Convention as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These include:

• Amnesty International: Documented “sufficient basis” for genocide, citing killings, serious harm, and conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction.
• Human Rights Watch: Accused Israel of genocidal acts, including deprivation of water and essential resources.
• B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel: Prominent Israeli organizations that examined policies, official statements, and outcomes, concluding coordinated action to destroy Palestinian society in Gaza.
• International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS): Declared Israel’s policies constitute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, citing mass civilian casualties, destruction of life-sustaining systems, and targeting of children.
• United Nations bodies and experts: Various reports and special rapporteurs have highlighted patterns consistent with genocide characteristics, including starvation as a weapon and widespread destruction.

Noted Israeli Holocaust and genocide scholars, have added weight to these assessments by drawing on direct evidence from within Israeli society, including a poll published by Haaretz in May 2025 which reported that 47% of Israel Jews support the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and 82% who support their ethnic cleansing, and 56% support ethnically cleansing all Palestinians from territories controlled by Israel. These are not fringe views but conclusions from rigorous documentation by human rights monitors, legal analysts, and scholars.

Canada’s Role: Arms Exports and Complicity

Despite these findings, Canada under Prime Minister Mark Carney (as well as former PM Justin Trudeau) has maintained elements of military cooperation with Israel. While direct export permits to Israel were paused, loopholes persist which allow components routed through the United States. Reports from civil society and parliamentarians indicate ongoing flows of Canadian-made weapons and technology, contradicting claims of a full embargo.

This is unacceptable. International law, including the Arms Trade Treaty and Canada’s own Export and Import Permits Act, imposes obligations to halt transfers where there is a clear risk of use in serious violations of international humanitarian law or genocide. Continuing such sales—directly or indirectly—implicates Canada in prolonging the suffering. Critics, including NDP voices and groups like Oxfam and Unifor, argue this breaches both domestic commitments and international duties.

Carney’s government singles out figures like Ben-Gvir for sanctions while sustaining the broader military relationship with Israel. Ben-Gvir is an extremist, but focusing solely on him distracts from systemic issues: the 19 year blockade of Gaza (deemed collective punishment by many), illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank (a violation under international law), and the human toll in the Gaza genocide. Official Israeli statements invoking “erasing” threats or total destruction, combined with operational outcomes, fuel the genocide determinations of international voices.

Historical Context and Moral Failure

The current crisis did not emerge in a vacuum. It is rooted in decades of a brutal occupation, peace processes repeatedly sabotaged by Israel which has voted against the creation of a Palestinian state, and repeated incidents of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel’s right to security after October 7, 2023 is clear. However, international humanitarian law requires that any response respect the principles of proportionality, distinction between combatants and civilians, and the prohibition on collective punishment. Critics argue that Israel has disregarded these obligations. The immense scale of destruction in Gaza—death toll estimates of up to 30% of the population, the erasure of entire family lines, and the devastation of cultural and educational infrastructure—has prompted serious questions about whether the campaign goes beyond legitimate self-defence and reflects an intent to inflict indiscriminate harm on an entire society.

A morally coherent policy for Canada would be to impose a comprehensive two-way arms embargo, push for accountability for Israel at the ICC and ICJ, suspend the Canada-Israel free trade agreement, call for an end to the occupation, and support a viable political solution that pursues freedom and justice for Palestinians. Instead, Carney’s selective statements and dangerous comments about a “Zionist Palestinian state”, and continued arms exports project ignorance and hypocrisy. Condemning flotilla abuses while enabling the larger machinery of war undermines Canada’s claimed commitment to human rights and the so-called “rules-based international order.” This is not mere policy disagreement. It is moral bankruptcy. When a government prioritizes alliances and trade over halting contributions to alleged genocide—despite warnings from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Israeli NGOs, the UN, and genocide scholars—Canada forfeits ethical legitimacy. Canadians deserve better--a foreign policy grounded in consistent principles, not selective indignation.

The flotilla incident is abominable but not surprising given Israel’s criminal leadership. Far more so is the tolerance of policies enabling mass death and destruction. Prime Minister Carney must end all Canadian military support and cooperation with Israel, lead in international accountability efforts against a state committing genocide, and align pro-human rights rhetoric with actions that uphold universal human dignity. Anything less remains unacceptable.
  
© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Israeli acts of piracy and torture against Canadian Sumud flotilla activists require a meaningful response by PM Mark Carney

The Canadian government has already condemned Israeli actions. But words without actions that have meaningful consequences risks becoming complicity.

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this can be found on Substack.

The illegal interception of the Global Sumud humanitarian aid flotilla to Gaza by Israeli forces in international waters south of Cyprus in mid-May 2026 is not an isolated “incident.” It is the latest expression of a decades-long pattern in which Israel uses overwhelming military power, systematic and deliberate abuse, and flagrant disregard for international law to punish Palestinians and those who stand with them in their struggle for freedom from Israeli occupation and oppression.  It is an act of piracy and terrorism that requires action by the nations of the people who were abducted and tortured while in Israeli custody.

While the flotilla activists have now been released and are on their way home they are not returning unharmed. After being given medical examinations upon being deported to Turkiye—the starting point of the flotilla—they reported being subjected to severe abuse and torture in Israeli custody, including documented evidence of physical violence—beatings, use of tasers, sexual assault, torture—psychological torment, and degrading treatment that constitute clear violations of international humanitarian law.

This brutality against unarmed humanitarian workers is yet another criminal act in Israel’s decades-long campaign of state terror—alongside its genocide in Gaza, the routine torture of Palestinian and international detainees, and its entrenched system of brutal domination against those who oppose them. Such conduct is more evidence marking Israel as a rogue, criminal state that uses terrorist violence and impunity against civilians and aid workers alike.

In these circumstances, Canada (along with other nations) has both a moral and legal obligation to respond with concrete measures, including broad sanctions, arms restrictions, and accountability mechanisms targeting the Israeli leaders criminally responsible for these actions.

Piracy and terrorism at sea

The Global Sumud flotilla set sail with approximately 50 boats and more than 400 activists from over 40 countries, carrying food, baby formula, and medical supplies to a besieged Gaza Strip facing catastrophic deprivation and famine. The vessels were intercepted hundreds of kilometres from Israel’s coast, in clearly international waters, as multiple reports and UN experts have emphasized.

According to Turkiye’s Anadolu Agency and other news outlets, Israeli forces attacked the flotilla volunteers with rubber bullets and boarded the ships, detaining around 428 activists and transporting them to Israeli ports and prison facilities. Amnesty International described the interception as “shameful and inhumane,” stressing that the flotilla was attempting to break an illegal Israeli blockade and deliver life‑saving aid to a population in Gaza subjected to mass atrocity crimes, apartheid and genocide.

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the forcible seizure of civilian vessels in international waters, absent a lawful basis such as piracy suppression or UN Security Council authorization, is widely viewed by legal experts as a flagrant violation of the freedom of navigation. The UN experts’ statement on the Global Sumud flotilla explicitly called the interception “a blatant violation of international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,” and demanded the immediate release of the activists.

When a state uses armed force on the high seas to abduct civilians engaged in a humanitarian aid mission, many scholars argue that this conduct is the very definition of state piracy and state terrorism.

This is not the first time Israel has done this and it won’t be the last given how Israel’s leaders see their nation as above the law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) case study on the 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla notes that Israeli forces killed nine activists in international waters while enforcing the Gaza blockade, raising serious questions under international humanitarian law and the law of the sea. The Global Sumud operation thus fits a long‑standing pattern. Israel uses its navy to project coercive power and unwarranted aggression far beyond its territorial waters to prevent humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza, and to send a message of deterrence through fear and terrorist violence.

Torture, sexual violence, and humiliation in Israeli custody

The testimonies emerging from the 2026 flotilla participants are harrowing and remarkably consistent. Reports by news media noted that activists were subjected to “humiliation and violence,” including forcing women to remove their hijabs, keeping detainees in painful positions, shooting them with rubber bullets, beatings and other forms of torture. One news report recounts how New Zealand activist Mousa Taher was stripped naked, bound with zip ties so tight he cried out in pain, stomped on, beaten unconscious, and forced to crawl on the ground “to make us feel like we are nothing.” 

Newsweek quotes Australian activist Juliet Lamont describing a boat where 180 people were “systematically bashed and beaten” resulting in 40 with broken bones and ribs, people being “tasered in the face,” and multiple incidents of sexual assault. Al Jazeera, NBC and other major news outlets all report that flotilla organizers documented at least 15 cases of sexual assault, including rape, humiliating strip searches, groping, pulling of genitals, and even “forcible penetration by a handgun” on a converted prison vessel lined with barbed wire and shipping containers.

Associated Press and NBC‑syndicated reports describe activists being punched, kicked, dragged by their hair, held in containers, shackled with iron chains, and surrounded by attack dogs. Canadian activist Ehab Lotayef from Montreal told CBC he was beaten for days, had his ribs injured, glasses broken, and his hand stabbed by a guard while trying to distribute water to other detainees. 

Israel’s prison service has denied all allegations, calling them “false and entirely without factual basis.” Yet the convergence of testimonies—from Canadian, Turkish, Italian, Brazilian, Australian, French, and other activists, documented by rights groups like Israel’s Adalah and scrutinized by prosecutors in Italy and elsewhere—strongly suggests systematic abuse and torture rather than isolated misconduct. UN officials have called these accounts “disturbing” and insisted that those responsible must be held to account. 

These practices mirror long‑documented patterns of torture and ill‑treatment of Palestinian prisoners—stress positions, beatings, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, denial of medical care, and abuse of minors. Human rights organizations have for years concluded that such treatment violates the Convention against Torture and the Geneva Conventions’ protections for detainees. The flotilla activists, in effect, were briefly exposed to the perverse justice regime that Palestinians have endured on a chronic basis for decades. 

Decades of occupation, apartheid, and Gaza’s strangulation 

To understand why many now describe Israel as a rogue state that uses terror as an instrument of policy, the flotilla must be placed in the broader context of Israel’s rule over Palestinians since 1967. 

In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion concluding that Israel’s prolonged occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza was unlawful, and that its Jews only settlements violate Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into occupied territory. The Court emphasized that Israel’s policies breach Palestinians’ right to self‑determination and require third states not to recognize or assist the illegal situation. 

Human Rights Watch’s 2021 report “A Threshold Crossed” found that Israeli authorities are committing crimes against humanity, apartheid and persecution, through systematic discrimination, land confiscation, movement restrictions, and fragmentation of Palestinian territory. Amnesty International has similarly concluded that Israel’s settlement project and legal regime amount to apartheid, and that the settlements themselves are illegal under international law. 

Gaza, under a land, air, and sea blockade since 2007, has been described by the ICRC and UN bodies as being subjected to collective punishment, prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The blockade severely restricts movement of people and goods, crippling the economy and health system (which is now destroyed during the genocide). The UN Fact‑Finding Mission on the 2008–2009 Gaza conflict (the Goldstone Mission) documented attacks on civilians, homes, schools, hospitals, and UN facilities, concluding that serious violations of international humanitarian law and possible war crimes had been committed. Subsequent operations—2012, 2014, 2021, and the post‑October 2023 assault—have repeated the same patterns of disproportionate force and targeting of Palestinian civilians and civilian infrastructure. 

In the current phase, the ICJ, in the case brought by South Africa, has found that there is a plausible risk that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and has ordered provisional measures requiring Israel to prevent genocidal acts and enable humanitarian aid—all of which Israel has ignored. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has warned that Israel’s assault on the foundations of international law “must have consequences,” stressing that starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is unlawful. The International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor has opened a file on the “Situation in Palestine,” investigating alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity by all parties, and has sought arrest warrants for senior Israeli and Palestinian leaders. 

Taken together, Israel’s decades-long list of crimes—unlawful occupation, apartheid, collective punishment, repeated large‑scale attacks on civilians, and now a case of genocide—this record depicts a state whose leaders systematically violate core norms of humanity and the international order and rely on impunity guaranteed by powerful allies like the US. The violent attack on participants in the Global Sumud flotilla is a microcosm of that larger system.

Israel as a rogue state using state terror

“Rogue state” is not a formal legal category, but it captures a political reality—a state that persistently defies international law, disregards UN resolutions and court decisions, and uses violence against civilians to achieve political ends.

When a state:
*  Maintains an unlawful occupation and apartheid regime despite ICJ and UN findings;
*  Enforces an illegal blockade that starves and impoverishes a civilian population;
*  Conducts military campaigns that UN bodies and respected human rights voices say amount to war crimes and genocide;
*  Intercepts humanitarian flotillas in international waters, abducts hundreds of civilians, and subjects them to torture and sexual violence;

it is reasonable for advocates, scholars, and affected communities to argue that such a state is acting as a rogue actor and employing terrorism as a weapon. The purpose of the flotilla abuses was not military necessity, but rather to terrorize activists and deter future attempts to break the blockade. As one activist put it, this felt like a “planned campaign of violence” designed to ensure they never return.

This is why many Palestinians and their allies describe Israel not merely as a state committing isolated violations of international law, but as a rogue, terrorist state whose policies are structurally violent. Whether one adopts that terminology or not, the legal and moral implications for third states like Canada are profound.

Canada’s legal and moral obligations

Canada is not a neutral bystander in all of this. It is a party to the Geneva Conventions, the Genocide Convention, the Rome Statute of the ICC, and UNCLOS. It has domestic legislation—the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act—that incorporates international crimes into Canadian law and allows for prosecution on the basis of universal jurisdiction. 

The Canadian government has already put out statements condemning the flotilla abuses. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand condemned the “appalling abuse” of Canadians and summoned the Israeli ambassador after videos showed Israeli cabinet minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir taunting kneeling, zip‑tied activists. Prime Minister Mark Carney called the treatment “abominable.” But condemnation without actions that have meaningful consequences in response to Israeli crimes risks becoming complicity. 

Given the evidence and the findings of international bodies, a strong case can be made that Canada has at the least the following obligations:

Implement targeted sanctions on Israeli political and military leadership:
Under its Magnitsky sanctions legislation and in light of declarations by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, the United Nations, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and the ICJ’s findings on the illegality of the occupation and the plausible risk of genocide, Canada can and arguably must impose asset freezes and travel bans on all senior Israeli political and military officials responsible for the crimes committed against Palestinians, the Gaza blockade, large‑scale military assaults against civilians, and the flotilla interdictions.

Criminal investigations and universal jurisdiction:
Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act grants it universal jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute individuals present on its soil for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide—regardless of where those acts occurred. Given the scale of alleged violations in Gaza and the flotilla incidents, Canada has both the legal authority and the moral responsibility to open investigations into any Israeli officials or soldiers within its territory when credible evidence links them to such crimes. A bolder step—such as automatically detaining anyone who has served in the Israeli military since 2023, including Canadian citizens—would send a clear signal that Canada is serious about enforcing its own laws and upholding international humanitarian standards.

Closing loopholes for arms and dual‑use exports:
Canada has obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty and customary international law not to transfer weapons where there is a clear risk they will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law. In light of ICJ and UN findings, and declarations respected human rights organizations, continuing any form of arms or dual‑use exports that could support Israeli military operations in Gaza or enforcement of the blockade is increasingly difficult to reconcile with those obligations. Closing loopholes and imposing a full embargo on military exports and technology transfers to Israel would be a concrete step toward compliance.

Diplomatic measures: expulsion and recall of ambassadors:
Expelling the Israeli ambassador and recalling Canada’s ambassador from Tel Aviv would signal that the relationship cannot proceed as normal while Israel defies the ICJ, the ICC, and UN bodies, and while Canadian citizens are tortured and sexually assaulted in Israeli custody. Such measures have precedent in responses to other states accused of atrocity crimes (like Iran). 

Support for international accountability mechanisms:
Canada should fully support the ICC’s Palestine investigation, refrain from political pressure on the Court, and actively cooperate with any arrest warrants issued, including against Israeli officials. It should also back UN mechanisms documenting violations in Gaza and the flotilla incidents, and endorse the ICJ’s advisory opinion and genocide case orders, as well as join South Africa’s genocide case at the ICJ which now has 20 nations supporting it, including NATO members Belgium, Iceland, Netherlands, Spain and Turkiye, as well as trading partners Mexico and Ireland. 

These steps are not radical. They flow from Canada’s own treaty commitments and its self-professed support for a rules‑based international order. To continue business as usual with a state credibly accused of apartheid, war crimes, and genocide, and now documented torture and sexual abuse of Canadian and international activists, would be to erode those very rules.

From outrage to responsibility 

The Global Sumud flotilla was a simple proposition. Civilians from around the world sailing to deliver food and medicine to a population deliberately starved and bombed. Israel’s response—armed interception in international waters, mass abduction, beatings, torture, and sexual violence—lays bare the nature of its regime and the depth of its depravity.

Whether one chooses the language of “rogue terrorist state” or prefers strictly legal terminology, the core reality is the same. Israel has, for decades, violated fundamental norms of international law with near impunity, and the flotilla abuses are part of that pattern. For Canada, the question is no longer what is happening, but what it is prepared to do about it, especially after more than two and a half years of genocide in Gaza where a conservatively estimated 200,000 Palestinians may have been killed by Israel as of April 2026, according to international medical specialists, Israeli academics, and others. 

Silence and symbolic statements will not protect Palestinians, nor will they protect Canadians and others who risk their lives to bring them live saving aid. Sanctions, arms restrictions, criminal investigations, and diplomatic downgrades are the minimum steps consistent with Canada’s legal obligations and moral claims. Anything less is a choice to live with atrocity—and to be remembered as being on the side of those who watched and did nothing to hold Israel accountable for its criminal actions.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.