By declaring that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, Mark Carney is criminalizing those protesting the Gaza genocide

Canada’s criminalization of anti-Zionism is an act of political obedience to Israel — a nation with a decades-long history of violating international laws and the basic tenets of humanity.
 
By Fareed Khan
A version of this article is available on Substack.

Last week, the Canadian government quietly crossed a political and moral Rubicon. In its latest report on antisemitism, Public Safety Canada explicitly declared that anti‑Zionism is a form of antisemitism. With one sentence, the Mark Carney government told millions of Canadians — Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, human rights advocates, academics, and ordinary citizens — that their opposition to Israel’s three‑year‑long genocide in Gaza is not political speech, but criminalized hate.

This is not simply a dispute about the definition of a word or phrase. It is a state‑engineered distortion with profound consequences that will endanger people. By equating anti‑Zionism with antisemitism, the federal government is doing three things simultaneously:

• Criminalizing legitimate political criticism of a foreign state;
  
• Demonstrating ideological obedience to the Israeli government; and
  
• Making life more dangerous for Jews in Canada by erasing the distinction between a political ideology and Jewish identity.

This is not exaggeration. It is a sober assessment of what will happen as a government transforms legitimate political critique into racial hatred — and does so in the middle of an internationally documented genocide which is now entering its fourth year.

Anti‑Zionism is not hatred of Jews

Zionism is a supremacist political ideology developed in the late 19th century — roughly 125 years old — advocating for the ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine in order to create a Jewish state. Like any political ideology, it is subject to debate, criticism, and rejection. Anti‑Zionism is precisely that — opposition to a political ideology not hostility toward a people.

To oppose Zionism is no different than opposing communism, fascism, white supremacy, or any other ethno‑nationalist ideology. Political ideologies are not sacred, and they are not immune from critique.

Jewish scholars, rabbis, and activists have said this for decades. In the present day groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, Independent Jewish Voices Canada, and countless academics have repeatedly affirmed that anti‑Zionism is not antisemitism, and that conflating the two is both intellectually dishonest and politically dangerous. 

Historically, some of the most influential Jewish thinkers, writers, rabbis, Holocaust survivors, and resistance fighters have opposed Zionism. Their objections were not rooted in self‑hatred or denial of Jewish identity, but in a profound ethical conviction that nationalism built on exclusion, displacement, or religious exceptionalism would endanger both Jews and Palestinians. Sigmund Freud condemned the “baseless fanaticism” driving Zionist claims in Palestine; Albert Einstein rejected the very idea of a Jewish state; Erich Fromm argued that ancient territorial claims could never justify modern political sovereignty; Primo Levi warned that similar to Nazi attitudes towards Jews, Israel was creating its own oppressed class in Palestinians; Marek Edelman, hero of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, wrote directly to Palestinian resistance fighters in solidarity; and political philosopher Hannah Arendt cautioned that Zionism relied on antisemitism as its political engine. These were not marginal voices — they were among the most important Jewish intellectuals of the 20th  century, united in their belief that Zionism was a political ideology, not a religious destiny, and that its implementation would produce endless violence.

Their warnings continued into the modern era. I.F. Stone argued that Israel’s ethnonationalism created “moral schizophrenia” for Jews worldwide; Noam Chomsky described Israel’s occupation as worse than apartheid; Isaac Asimov rejected Zionism as a form of ethnic exceptionalism; and British actress Miriam Margolyes, Israeli activist Uri Avnery, American historian Gabriel Kolko, and Rabbi Michael Lerner all publicly denounced Zionism or Israel’s policies as morally indefensible. These figures demonstrated a simple truth: Zionism has always been outside of Judaism and was a danger to Jewish safety.

Even the Israeli government itself acknowledges that Zionism is a political ideology — not a religious identity — when it describes Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state” founded on Zionist principles. If Zionism is a political ideology, then opposing it is political speech. Full stop.

Canada is doing Israel’s bidding

One thing must be clearly understood. This redefinition did not emerge organically from Canadian civil society. It is the result of years of lobbying by agents of the Israeli government whose efforts have resulted in the Canadian government mirroring Israel’s long‑standing strategy of weaponizing accusations of antisemitism to silence criticism of its policies, especially its brutal decades-long oppression of Palestinians.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism — aggressively promoted by Israel and its lobby organizations in the West — has been widely criticized by scholars, civil liberties groups, and even the definition’s own drafters for chilling free expression and conflating political critique with hate speech.

Public Safety Canada’s adoption of the most extreme interpretation of IHRA is not a neutral act. It is an act of political obedience to a foreign power that has a decades-long history of violating international laws and the basic tenets of humanity. It is the Canadian government aligning itself with the Israeli government’s propaganda framework at the precise moment Israel is committing mass atrocities documented by the United Nations, and confirmed by Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; Israeli human rights group B’Tselem; Physicians for Human Rights Israel; Doctors Without Borders; Oxfam; Save the Children; the International Federation of Human Rights; the International Association of Genocide Scholars; leading Israeli Holocaust scholars Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, Daniel Blatman, Raz Segal, and Shmuel Lederman; as well as the 30 nations supporting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

When a government adopts the ideological framing of a foreign state and uses it to police domestic political dissent, it ceases to be an independent actor. It becomes a vassal — a subordinate power executing the political will of another nation.

That is what the Carney government has done.

Redefinition makes life more dangerous for Jews

Conflating anti‑Zionism with antisemitism does not protect Jewish Canadians. It endangers them.

Real antisemitism — the kind that fuels white supremacist violence, neo‑Nazi organizing, and far‑right extremism — is rising across North America. Jewish communities need clarity, precision, and vigilance to confront this threat. But when the government declares that opposing a political ideology is equivalent to hating Jews, it blurs the line between legitimate political critique and actual antisemitism. This confusion makes it harder to identify real threats, and reinforces the dangerous lie that all Jews are responsible for Israel’s actions — a core antisemitic trope.

Progressive Jewish organizations have warned repeatedly that weaponizing antisemitism for political ends increases hostility toward Jews by making them appear as agents of a foreign government. By adopting Israel’s preferred framing, the Canadian government has made Jewish Canadians less safe, not more.

Criminalizing anti‑Zionism criminalizes criticism of Israel

Israel is a state founded on Zionist ideology, something the it’s government has proclaimed for years. If anti‑Zionism is antisemitism, then criticizing Israel’s policies — its military actions, its occupation, its apartheid system, its brutality towards Palestinians — becomes suspect, and potentially criminal. This is not theoretical. Public Safety Canada’s report is intended to shape policing, surveillance, and security policy. It is a directive to law enforcement.

The Carney government’s approach to antisemitism means that:

• Protesting Israel’s genocide could be treated as hate speech;
• Calling for sanctions on Israel could be labeled antisemitic;
• Advocating for Palestinian human rights could be investigated as extremism;
• Jewish anti‑Zionists could be targeted as dangerous;
• Palestinian Canadians could be criminalized for expressing their own history.

This is the architecture of authoritarianism and fascism — redefine legitimate dissent as a crime, then police it, and prosecute those whose words and actions don’t align with political agendas.

Mark Carney is violating the Charter of Rights

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression, conscience, assembly, and political belief. Equating anti‑Zionism — a political protest movement — with antisemitism violates all of these rights and shows how little Mark Carney’s government cares about defending human rights. Legal scholars have already warned that adopting IHRA’s conflation of anti‑Zionism with hate speech would breach Canadians’ Charter protections, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has called the definition “overbroad, vague, and open to abuse.”

By embracing the most extreme interpretation of IHRA, the Carney government is not merely chilling political speech — it is weaponizing state power to suppress it. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly affirmed that political expression lies at the core of Charter protection, yet Ottawa is now treating dissent as extremism and criticism of a foreign government as hate. This is the kind of state behaviour seen in Russia or China, where governments collapse political disagreement into criminalized disloyalty. The fact that it is happening in Canada signals a dangerous authoritarian drift, one where constitutional rights become expendable whenever they inconvenience those in power. When a government knowingly violates constitutional rights, it is not making a policy error — it is committing an abuse of power.

Carney cares little about Canadians’ rights or Palestinian lives

Mark Carney’s government has demonstrated that it does not give a damn about the fundamental rights of millions of Canadians. It does not care about the Palestinians being slaughtered in Gaza. It does not care about the crimes against humanity being committed by Israel with Canadian complicity — through arms exports, diplomatic cover, and political obedience.

Instead, Canada has chosen to criminalize dissent at home, redefine antisemitism to serve a foreign government’s interests, and endanger both Palestinians and Jews in Canada. This is not leadership. It is capitulation to a foreign power. It is moral cowardice. It is complicity in genocide.

And Canadians must reject it — loudly, unapologetically, and relentlessly.

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

Fighting Zionism and criticizing Israel is not antisemitic

Antisemitism is evil, as is anti-Palestinian racism. But the Holocaust must never be used to silence critics of Zionism or the criminal actions of Israel, and take away the voice of Palestinians or their allies.

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

This must be said again and again until it is heard: opposing Zionism or criticizing Israel—its policies, actions, or ideology—is not antisemitism, which is the hatred of Jews.

In any morally serious discussion of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, clarity of language is not optional. It is essential. Conflating legitimate opposition to a political ideology or state policies with hatred of an entire people or faith is a profound disservice to truth, justice, and the safety of everyone involved. Such deliberate blurring poisons discourse and escalates real dangers on all sides.

Let’s be clear. Antisemitism is a vile, ancient hatred that targets Jews solely for being Jews. It has taken the form of hostility, discrimination, exclusion, and violence against Jewish individuals, communities, synagogues, and the Jewish faith itself. Originating in Europe, its roots run deep from medieval times, through the Renaissance and into the modern era, where entrenched prejudices among Christian and Caucasian populations cast Jews as perpetual outsiders and scapegoats. Jews were not only pushed into an underclass—they were blamed for plagues, famines, and natural disasters, triggering waves of pogroms across the continent. This long history of demonization culminated in the industrialized genocide of the Holocaust, an unparalleled crime against humanity that must never be trivialized or exploited.  

Anti‑Zionism, by contrast, is opposition to Zionism—a supremacist political ideology created roughly 125 years ago that elevates Jewish national claims above those of others and served as the ideological foundation for Israel’s establishment on Palestinian land. Criticizing the policies of the Israeli government—including its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, illegal settlement expansion, its brutal treatment of Palestinians, its actions in Gaza, and the dehumanizing rhetoric of its politicians—is a legitimate exercise in political discourse, no different from critiquing the conduct of the United States, China, its leaders or those of any other nation. Equating criticism of Zionism or Israel with antisemitism distorts reality, shields those responsible for Israel’s crimes from accountability, and undermines genuine efforts to combat actual hate and racism.  

Zionism emerged in the late 19th century amid rising European antisemitism and Jewish aspirations for self‑determination. Theodor Herzl, an Austrian‑Jewish journalist, lawyer and atheist, is widely regarded as its founder. Shocked by events like the Dreyfus Affair—a scandal in France where a Jewish artillery officer was framed for treason—Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The Jew State) in 1896, arguing for a sovereign Jewish homeland as a solution to perpetual persecution. The First Zionist Congress in 1897 formalized the movement’s goal—establishing a home for the Jewish people of Europe secured by public law. Palestine was only one of several locations considered. Others included British colonial Uganda, Argentina, Dutch Guiana, Cyprus, and Sinai, before Britain’s Balfour Declaration offered support for a Jewish “national home” in Palestine without any consultations with the indigenous peoples of that territory.  

While rooted in Jewish historical and religious connections to the land, Zionism was fundamentally a modern ethno‑nationalist political project shaped by European nationalism movements. It is not synonymous with Judaism or Jewish identity, and its earliest proponents, like Herzl, were atheists. Many Jews historically opposed it on religious, cultural, or political grounds, and today Jewish voices span the full spectrum—from ardent Zionists to passionate anti‑Zionists.  

Antisemitism and anti‑Zionism are distinct, and efforts to conflate them amount to propaganda and misinformation. Antisemitism essentializes and demonizes Jews collectively. Anti‑Zionism challenges a specific political ideology—one many consider racist—and its implementation. One can oppose Italian fascism without being anti‑Italian, or criticize Saudi theocracy without hating Muslims. Similarly, legitimate criticism of Israeli policies—such as settlement expansion in the West Bank, the siege of Gaza, or Israel’s repeated violations of humanitarian and human rights law for decades—does not inherently target Jews, especially given that the majority of Zionists worldwide are Christian. And while the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism has been adopted as the official definition of antisemitism by 40 countries, the man who drafted it Kenneth Stern, says it is dangerous because it is being weaponized by Zionists to shut down criticism of Zionism and Israel, and oppose support Palestinians’ struggle for freedom from Israeli oppression.  

Palestinians and their allies who resist Zionism are not inherently antisemitic. For Palestinians, Zionism is not an abstract philosophy but the ideology underpinning their dispossession and decades of brutal occupation. The 1948 Nakba (“catastrophe”) saw over 750,000 Palestinians—roughly 75% of the population—displaced, and tens of thousands killed in a campaign of ethnic cleansing by terrorist Zionist miltias. Subsequent decades of occupation, illegal Jewish‑only settlements, and military rule have entrenched a system that many human rights organizations, including Israel’s B’Tselem, describe as apartheid or as involving severe violations of international law and the UN Charter.  

Branding Palestinian resistance (or the actions of their allies) as antisemitism effectively tells Palestinians they may only narrate their suffering in terms acceptable to their oppressors. It demands they mourn Jewish trauma while muting their own lived experience of displacement, home demolitions, dispossession, torture, and murder by Israeli forces and settlers. No other people have been historically required to sanitize their narrative of subjugation to spare the feelings of those who are subjugating them.  

Human rights advocates face a similar bind. Policies may be critiqued cautiously, but the ideological foundation—Zionism as embodied in the Israeli state—often becomes off‑limits. In Canada, for example, political leaders have sometimes framed robust criticism of Israel as unacceptable, even as the government maintains arms sales and diplomatic support to a genocidal state, raising questions of complicity in alleged violations of international law. This is not democracy but enforced orthodoxy. A genuine commitment to human rights requires scrutinizing all parties without sacred cows.  

A serious conversation must hold multiple truths simultaneously. All life is sacred. Jewish lives matter, and Palestinian lives matter equally. Antisemitism is unequivocally evil, as are apartheid systems and anti‑Palestinian racism. Jewish historical trauma, including the Holocaust, is profound and must never be minimized, yet it does not justify or erase Palestinian dispossession, ethnic cleansing, or what genocide and Holocaust experts—including Israeli Jewish academics—have identified as genocidal acts in Gaza. Organizations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and Israeli Holocaust scholars have documented patterns of domination, collective punishment, and intent to destroy Palestinian life in Gaza and the West Bank in whole or in part, as defined under the Genocide Convention.  

B’Tselem has explicitly described a single regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also labelled it apartheid and, in Gaza, genocide—a systematic crime against humanity defined by domination, oppression, and mass murder in an attempt to wipe out Palestinians as a people and a society. Extensive reports document how Israeli settlement policies fragment Palestinian territory, how separate and unequal legal systems entrench discrimination, and how Israel’s response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack unleashed unprecedented civilian casualties, widespread destruction, and a devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Meanwhile, the Knesset has repeatedly passed motions rejecting any Palestinian state, while Netanyahu’s government prioritizes perpetual control and security dominance over negotiation or any agreement establishing a Palestinian state along the internationally recognized 1967 borders.  

Prominent voices—including Israeli scholars who lost family in the Holocaust—warn that silencing criticism of Israel betrays core Jewish ethical traditions and, in a tragic reversal, echoes the very historical traumas Jews endured. They emphasize that Palestinian freedom does not threaten Jewish security, and that a just political resolution—whether two states, a binational framework, or a confederation—can protect both peoples without one dominating the other. Claims that Palestinian self‑determination inherently endangers Jews often functions as a justification for perpetual occupation, yet no people’s safety can ever rest on another’s subjugation or denial of dignity. History makes this plain: oppression breeds resistance, and unresolved injustice fuels recurring cycles of violence. Today’s leaders would do well to remember President John F. Kennedy’s warning that “those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”  

Conflating anti‑Zionism with antisemitism does not protect Jews. It protects the Israeli government and its political and military leaders from accountability and fuels real antisemitism by reinforcing the false notion that Jewish identity is inseparable from Israel and its actions. This alienates potential allies, stifles honest dialogue, and foments hatred among those who conflate Jewishness with the state of Israel.  

Jews have long debated Zionism and the colonization of Palestine internally, with some of the fiercest anti‑Zionists being Jews themselves, including Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt. Forcing a monolithic equation ignores this diversity and denies Palestinians the right to oppose the ideology that displaced them and has oppressed them since the day Israel was created.  

The path forward demands clarity, not blurred language that turns legitimate political criticism into “hate speech.” It requires speaking truth to power on all sides, rejecting collective punishment and expansionism, and insisting on upholding universal human rights standards. Palestinians have the right under international law to resist occupation, including through armed struggle, and to seek self‑determination without being smeared as racists. Jews have the right to security without using it as license for the indefinite subjugation of the Indigenous people of historic Palestine.  

Ultimately, enforcing orthodoxy around Zionism and criticism of Israel hinders peace. True security for Israelis and justice for Palestinians are intertwined. Recognizing that opposing a 20th‑century political project is not equivalent to hating Jews or Judaism opens space for empathy, historical reckoning, and coexistence. Democracy thrives on debate, not taboos, and suppressing criticism of any ideology or state policy in the name of protecting a people risks moral contradiction and perpetuates tragedy. All parties must be held to the same standards of humanity, law, and ethics. Only then can the sacredness of all lives guide us toward a future beyond endless conflict.  

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

The West is descending into censorship, violence and authoritarianism in defence of Israel’s genocide

Western governments, from Washington to Berlin, have not only bankrolled Israel’s slaughter but have criminalized those daring to protest it, trampling free speech and assembly rights with authoritarian zeal.

By Fareed Khan 

The Western alliance, anchored by the United States and encompassing nations like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada and their allies, has long positioned itself as a beacon of democratic values—free speech, freedom of assembly, and governmental accountability. Yet, a troubling shift has emerged, particularly since the escalation of Israel’s genocide in Gaza since October 8, 2023. 

These nations are increasingly resorting to censorship, violence, and measures more consistent with authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent against Israel’s brutal military assault against Palestinians in the enclave, which numerous human rights organizations, more than 800 genocide, human rights and Holocaust experts, and the United Nations have labeled as genocidal. Such actions not only erode the democratic principles these nations claim to uphold but also point to an alarming degree of Israeli influence over the Middle East policy of Western nations. The evidence lies in the silencing of pro-Palestinian voices, the aggressive (and at times violent) policing of protests, and the conspicuous omission of Israeli foreign interference from critical inquiries, such as Canada’s federal foreign interference inquiry.

The erosion of free speech

Across the Western alliance, the right to free expression, particularly criticism of Israel’s crimes in Gaza, is under unprecedented attack. In the United States, the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 has intensified efforts to stifle dissent. Alarmingly, American citizens and legal residents protesting Israel’s actions have faced violations of their constitutional rights, arrests and excessive use of force.

In April 2024, students at Emory University in Georgia and UCLA were arrested, tear-gassed, and hit with rubber bullets during peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstrations. In Chicago, police detained over 100 protesters in August 2024 outside the Democratic National Committee and the Israeli Consulate. According to Ben Meyer, a member of the Chicago chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a mass arrest was declared around 30 minutes after the protest began, suggesting that it had been planned in advance, a tactic that has been deemed illegal. These incidents reflect a broader pattern of criminalizing dissent when it challenges US support for Israel.

Germany has adopted a draconian approach to Palestine solidarity demonstrations. Since the Gaza conflict escalated, the German government has banned Palestinian symbols like the keffiyeh and the Palestinian flag, as well as protests against Israel’s actions. These measures have been justified as efforts to combat antisemitism, and have disproportionately targeted pro-Palestinian voices. A Jewish Museum of Berlin employee was fired for describing Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as “apartheid,” a term supported by Amnesty International and Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. Furthermore, Germany’s continued arms exports to Israel, valued at over US$576.6 million from October 2023 to May 2025, underscoring its prioritization of geopolitical alliances over human rights.

However, Germans have boldly defied their government, joining thousands in protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza and their own government’s complicity in the crisis. Despite facing aggressive policing, including the use of tear gas and physical abuse during arrests of peaceful demonstrators, the protest, have grown despite the bans. The crackdowns have sparked widespread criticism of the German government, with the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Michael O’Flaherty, warning that Germany’s heavy-handed approach threatens freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. In a June 2025 letter to Germany’s Minister of the Interior, O’Flaherty urged German authorities to align their response to the protests with rights guaranteed under the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, and case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and the Council of Europe standards on freedom of expression.

In the United Kingdom, the suppression of pro-Palestinian activism has reached disturbing lows. Earlier this month Marianne Sorrell, an 80-year-old retired teacher, had her home in Wells, Somerset, raided by police, who confiscated her possessions and detained her for 27 hours. Her offence? Holding a sign at a protest that read, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” This followed Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, criminalizing expressions of support for the group. Over 500 activists, including elderly individuals, NHS workers, and a blind man in a wheelchair, were arrested during a peaceful protest outside Parliament, holding placards with similar messages. Many reported being denied water and exposed to harsh conditions during detention, highlighting the abuse accompanying this censorship. The UK’s actions suggest a willingness to sacrifice free speech to align with Israel’s narrative, undermining its democratic credentials.

In France, the government also adopted a harsh anti-democratic approach by banning pro-Palestinian protests at the onset of the Gaza conflict, with some municipalities prohibiting the display of the Palestinian flag. These measures, enacted despite France’s constitutional commitment to free speech, reveal a selective application of democratic principles when it comes to Israel. The crackdown has included arrests for minor infractions, such as wearing pro-Palestinian symbols, further demonstrating an assault on the basic rights of French citizens.

In Canada, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has documented “systemic suppression” of Palestinian solidarity, including “bubble zone” municipal bylaws restricting protests near Israeli consulates and Jewish institutions. The Canadian government’s decision to blacklist Samidoun, a pro-Palestinian advocacy group, as a terrorist organization has further criminalized support for Palestinian causes. These actions align with a broader effort to silence and persecute voices critical of Israel, often under the guise of national security or preventing “antisemitism”.

Violence and authoritarian tactics

The use of excessive force to suppress pro-Palestinian protests is a hallmark of this authoritarian shift in Western societies. In the US, the deployment of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to New York and other states to quell anti-genocide protests, and singling out visa students and legal residents signals a readiness to use overwhelming federal resources against citizens exercising their constitutional rights. In Austin, Texas, police used pepper spray and tasers on students protesting at the University of Texas in April 2024, with over 50 arrests reported.

In the UK, the mass arrests of peaceful protesters in August 2025, many of whom were elderly or vulnerable, indicate a disregard for basic human rights. Detainees reported being denied basic necessities and held in harsh conditions, a tactic designed to deter future protests. In Germany, police have repeatedly used violence against pro-Palestinian demonstrators, with reports of injuries among peaceful protesters in Berlin. France’s response has been similarly heavy-handed, with police using tear gas and making arrests for minor infractions like displaying Palestinian flags. In Canada, the use of “bubble zone” bylaws has been accompanied by reports of police intimidating protesters, including those holding silent vigils for Gaza victims.

Israeli influence and unchecked interference

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of this suppression of legal protests is the apparent influence of Israel on the Middle East policies of Western governments, coupled with a refusal of these governments to investigate this influence, which can be deemed as foreign interference. In Canada, the federal foreign interference inquiry, launched to examine foreign influence in Canadian politics, conspicuously excluded Israel from its scope. A report by Justice for All Canada documents Israel’s efforts to shape Canadian policy through funding political campaigns, intimidating parliamentarians, and threatening media outlets that are critical of Israel.

In the US, pro-Israel lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars since 2020 to influence congressional elections, ensuring that candidates critical of Israel don’t get elected. In 2023 and 2024 AIPAC’s funding was instrumental in defeating progressive candidates who called for a Gaza ceasefire, such as Representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush.

The UK has seen similar patterns, with groups like the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Conservative Friends of Israel pressuring policymakers to adopt pro-Israel stances regardless of that nation’s violation of international human rights laws. A 2025 report revealed that over 80% of Conservative MPs received funding or trips from pro-Israel groups, raising concerns about Israeli manipulation and undue influence.

In Germany, the close relationship between the government and Israel has led to policies prioritizing Israel’s security narrative over free expression and justice for Palestinians. The German government’s refusal to halt arms exports to Israel, even as the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, underscores this alignment.

In France, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has criticized the lack of condemnation or action of governments surrounding Israel’s actions, calling it a “historic scandal.” In a recent op-ed published in Le Monde, Villepin said, “I am forced to confront a tragic reality: A crime is taking place in Gaza, a crime of genocide. More and more voices, including among historians and Israeli NGOs, have risen to call it such, and I recognize and admire the courage it takes to do so, as seen in the examples of Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights.”

The descent into censorship, violence, and repression in Western countries in defence of Israel’s genocidal actions represents a profound betrayal of democratic values. The silencing of pro-Palestinian voices undermines free speech, while the use of excessive force against protesters erodes their fundamental rights despite protections entrenched in law. Meanwhile the refusal to investigate Israeli foreign interference in Western governments raises serious questions not just about the sovereignty of Western democracies, but also whether a foreign power is in control of policies related to the Middle-East and the diaspora communities living in those Western nations. The actions of Western governments not only harms targeted individuals and communities, but also erodes public trust in institutions meant to protect everyone’s democratic freedoms.

The international community is increasingly acknowledging Israel’s actions as crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, as evidenced by reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in addition to statements by hundreds of genocide and human rights scholars, underscoring the urgency of this issue. The International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israeli leaders further highlight the need for accountability. Yet, Western nations continue to shield Israel, often at the expense of their own citizens’ rights and their standing in the global community. This complicity risks normalizing repressive tactics, as Western governments prioritize their relationship with a genocidal regime over democratic principles, to which they claim they are committed.

Media complicity and public perception

The mainstream media in Western nations has often played a complicit role in this authoritarian drift by framing pro-Palestinian activism as inherently antisemitic or threatening. In the US, major outlets like CNN and The New York Times have been criticized for downplaying Israel’s actions in Gaza while amplifying narratives that justify crackdowns on pro-Palestinian protests. In Canada, the Globe and Mail and the Postmedia chain of newspapers have been shown to be inherently anti-Palestinian. 

 

Coverage of the 2024 student protests on university campuses was heavily critical of the protesters, repeating accusations of antisemitism,  overshadowing the broader demand for a ceasefire and accountability for Israel’s criminal actions. In the UK, tabloids sensationalized pro-Palestinian protests to justify police crackdowns, further eroding public support for free expression. In Canada this media bias distorts public perception and emboldens governments to escalate censorship and repression without fear of widespread backlash.

The chilling effect on civil society

The crackdowns on pro-Palestinian activism have created a chilling effect on civil society, intimidating individuals and organizations to prevent them from speaking out. In Canada, grassroots groups advocating for Palestinian rights have reported increased harassment, including doxxing and threats, often amplified by Zionist and pro-Israel advocacy groups. In Germany, cultural institutions and universities have cancelled events featuring Palestinian speakers, citing concerns about “antisemitism,” effectively silencing critical voices. This climate of repression stifles open debate, a cornerstone of democratic societies, and signals to citizens that dissent on the issue of Israel comes at a high personal cost.

Israel’s influence extends beyond lobbying to economic and diplomatic leverage. In the US, defence contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, which supply weapons to Israel, have significant sway over policy decisions, as their contracts are tied to US military aid to Israel, exceeding US$3.8 billion annually. In Germany, Israel’s role as a key partner in intelligence-sharing and counter-terrorism has solidified its influence, with German officials citing “historical responsibility” to justify unwavering support. In Canada, trade agreements and investments with Israel, particularly in technology and cybersecurity, have created a dependency that discourages scrutiny of Israeli influence.

The Western alliance’s selective outrage over human rights abuses in other nations exposes its hypocrisy. While nations like China and Russia face sanctions for their authoritarian practices, Israel’s actions in Gaza—documented as causing over 70,000 civilian deaths by July 2025—receive minimal criticism from Western leaders. Additionally, the US has consistently vetoed multiple UN Security Council resolutions calling for a Gaza ceasefire, and shielded Israel from accountability. This double standard undermines the West’s moral credibility and fuels global perceptions of complicity in Israel’s actions, further eroding trust.

The path forward

The West’s unwavering support for Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza stands as the moral catastrophe of our era, echoing the shameful lack of action by the US and Europe when Nazi Germany began committing atrocities against Jews and other German minorities in the 1930s. This complicity—marked by billions in arms sales, diplomatic cover, and suppression of dissent—exposes a grotesque betrayal of democratic principles. Western governments, from Washington to Berlin, have not only bankrolled Israel’s slaughter but have criminalized those daring to protest it, trampling free speech and assembly rights with authoritarian zeal.

To halt this descent into tyranny, Western leaders must unequivocally condemn Israel’s war crimes, dismantle draconian bans on pro-Palestinian symbols and protests, and end the brutal policing of demonstrators. They must also investigate Israeli foreign interference, including its documented influence over Western policies, as seen in lobbying scandals reported by Al Jazeera in 2024.

Civil society is rising, with groups like Defend Our Juries in the UK and the BCCLA in Canada spearheading campaigns to overturn unjust laws. Citizens must demand accountability, forcing foreign policy to reflect justice, not geopolitical cowardice. The West’s alignment with Israel’s carnage—over 70,000 Palestinian deaths by mid-2025—has gutted its moral credibility. To redeem itself, the West must confront its complicity, halt arms shipments, and restore the democratic values it hypocritically claims to champion, lest history judge it as it does those who appeased the Nazis in 1930s.

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.