Canada has a racist and Islamophobic foreign policy where Palestinians are concerned

Mark Carney's government forfeits any claim to moral authority, human rights leadership, or rule of law credibility while enabling Israel's genocide in Gaza.

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

Canada and its leaders have long promoted a self‑image of this nation as a principled defender of human rights, a champion of the “international rule of law,” and a nation whose foreign policy is guided by moral clarity. But as Israel’s genocide in Gaza approaches the end of its third year, that mythology has collapsed.

The Mark Carney government — like that of Justin Trudeau’s government before it — has revealed that Canada’s commitment to the “rule of law” differs depending on the race and faith of the victims.  Under both their government’s Canada’s actions have demonstrated that when the victims are white and Christian, as in the case of Ukrainians, it responds with urgency, clarity, and moral conviction. But when the victims are brown, Muslim, and Palestinian, Canada is willing to discard its professed values, diminish their suffering, and reduce their humanity to a diplomatic afterthought. In Gaza, Canada has shown that it will cushion genocide with soft language, mask injustice with polite indifference, and choose political comfort over the lives of an entire people.

The contrast between Canada’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its response to Israel’s destruction of Gaza is not merely a “double standard.” It is evidence of a foreign policy architecture built on racism, Islamophobia, and a willingness to abandon international law when the perpetrator is a Western ally. It is also evidence that Canada’s leaders —both Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau — have not been neutral observers but active participants in enabling mass atrocity.

This is not hyperbole. It is a conclusion drawn from Canada’s own actions, its own omissions, and its own refusal to apply the same legal, diplomatic, and humanitarian standards to Palestinians that it has applied to Ukrainians.

Moral clarity for Ukraine, evasion for Gaza

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Canada responded with immediate moral certainty, and within two months the House of Commons unanimously declared Russia’s actions genocide — even though international legal scholars and human rights organizations had not reached a conclusion. Canada did not wait for the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), or any global consensus. It acted on principle, or at least on what it claimed was principle.

But when Israel began its systematic destruction of Gaza — a campaign that global human rights organizations, UN experts, the International Federation for Human Rights, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and thousands of jurists ultimately identified as genocide—Canada refused to utter the word. In October 2023 Israeli Holocaust scholar Raz Segal had already labelled Israeli atrocities as genocide. By December 2023 the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention — named for Raphael Lemkin, the Jewish lawyer who coined the term “genocide” — came to the same conclusion, that Israel was committing the crime of crimes. Even then, the Canadian government under Justin Trudeau continued to hide behind neutralized language: “conflict,” “shortages,” “humanitarian crisis,” “tragic loss of life.” By the time Mark Carney became prime minister in March 2025, the global consensus on the Gaza genocide was unequivocal—with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, the United Nations and other prominent legal and human rights voices declaring that Israel was committing genocide. Yet Canada still refused to call the crime by its name or acknowledge that Israel was the perpetrator responsible.

This rhetorical sanitization is not accidental, it is a deliberate political choice. It is crafted to shield Israel from accountability and to shield Canada from the legal consequences that would follow from acknowledging that genocide is taking place. Canada’s refusal to admit that Israel is committing genocide is not merely cowardice—it is a breach of its obligations under the Genocide Convention, which requires states to prevent and punish genocide once they know it is occurring. Canada’s leaders have known this for more than two years. They have simply chosen not to act.

Penalties for Russia, protection for Israel

Canada’s material response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was sweeping: sanctions, asset seizures, diplomatic isolation, trade embargoes, and billions of dollars in military and financial aid to Ukraine. Canada used every available tool to punish the aggressor and support the victim.

In Gaza, Canada has done the opposite. It has imposed no meaningful sanctions on Israel. It has not suspended trade. It has not applied Magnitsky sanctions to Israeli officials responsible for war crimes. It continues to sell Israel Canadian made military goods, despite a House of Commons resolution in March 2024 calling for Canada to halt military exports to Israel. Instead, Canada has offered symbolic gestures: conditional statements about Palestinian statehood, calls for “ceasefire,” and diplomatic language crafted to avoid offending Israel. These gestures are meaningless when Canada continues to arm the perpetrator.

Carney’s government even refused to force down flights carrying Benjamin Netanyahu as he passed through Canadian airspace — despite Carney’s public claim that Canada would enforce ICC arrest warrants. This is not neutrality. It is active protection of an indicted war criminal.

Canada’s actions under Carney demonstrate that its foreign policy is not guided by law but by geopolitical loyalty. Russia is an adversary, Israel is an ally. Ukrainians are white, Palestinians are not. The consequences follow accordingly.

Open doors for Ukrainian refugees, closed gates for Palestinians

Canada’s refugee response exposes the racism at the core of its foreign policy.

For Ukrainians, Canada created an uncapped emergency visa program. By April 2024 almost 300,000 Ukrainian refugees were admitted into the country with minimal restrictions. They received open work permits, study permits, and extended temporary status. Canada treated Ukrainian displacement as a humanitarian emergency requiring immediate, large‑scale action.

For Palestinians, Canada created a program that was initially capped at just 1,000 applicants — later nominally increased to 5,000—but with requirements so onerous that fewer than 1,000 have been approved since early 2024, and only a fraction have actually arrived. Applicants must prove family ties in Canada, navigate impossible security checks, and survive a bureaucratic maze designed to reject them.

This is not humanitarian action. It is discrimination, plain and simple. Canada’s refugee policy operates on a political presumption that Palestinians require extraordinary suspicion, extraordinary scrutiny, and extraordinary barriers before they can be granted even the most basic protection. The result is a system that treats Palestinian applicants as security risks to be filtered out rather than human beings fleeing mass atrocity. In contrast, Ukrainians were met with an open‑door policy that assumed urgency, innocence, and the need for immediate refuge. One group was welcomed with broad, accessible pathways; the other was confronted with narrow caps, impossible documentation requirements, and security checks so onerous they functioned as de facto exclusion. The message embedded in Canada’s policy architecture is unmistakable: some lives merit swift protection, while others are forced to prove their worthiness at every step.

Canada’s responses to the two conflicts reveal that the racism at work is not incidental or rhetorical. It is structural—built into the policies, assumptions, and institutional practices that determine whose lives are protected and whose suffering is politically expendable.

News media’s humanization for Ukraine and dehumanization for Gaza

Canadian news media coverage of Russia’s attack on Ukraine expressed unified moral outrage. They humanized Ukrainian victims, highlighted Russian atrocities, and framed the conflict in clear terms—aggressor and victim, lawbreaker and law‑abiding state.

But when it came to coverage of the Gaza genocide, Canada’s mainstream news media largely adopted narratives that sanitize Israeli violence. Independent outlets such as The Breach and The Maple have published extensive data‑driven analyses and investigative reports showing a consistent pro‑Israel bias and an anti‑Palestinian prejudice across establishment newsrooms. Civilian deaths are routinely framed as “collateral damage.” Starvation is reduced to “food shortages.” Bombed hospitals are recast as “hidden Hamas strongholds.” The pattern is not theoretical—it is documented. One major outlet, CTV News, went so far as to forbid its reporters from using the words “Palestinian” or “genocide,” while whistleblowers at CBC revealed how the public broadcaster tolerated discriminatory editorial practices around Palestinian stories and disciplined staff who challenged them. The cumulative effect is unmistakable—a media ecosystem that constrains truth, narrows public understanding, and reinforces a foreign‑policy that erases Palestinian suffering in real time.

This is not accidental. It reflects a longstanding structural bias within Canada’s mainstream news media establishment, where stories that critically examine Israeli state violence are routinely softened, sidelined, or shelved to avoid provoking politically charged—and often unfounded—accusations of “antisemitism.” The result is a media environment in which the boundaries of acceptable discourse are policed not by journalistic principle but by political fear.

Regardless of the facts on the ground, Canada’s major networks and newspapers consistently elevate narratives that minimize or obscure Israeli violations of international law while marginalizing or reframing pro‑Palestinian perspectives. This pattern has persisted for decades, shaping public understanding of the Palestinian reality and narrowing the space for honest reporting. But in the face of the Gaza genocide, the scale of this distortion has become impossible to ignore. The gap between the truth and mainstream media reporting is now so vast that it exposes the media’s role not as a neutral observer, but as an active participant in sustaining a foreign‑policy status quo that privileges Israel’s political comfort over the survival of the Palestinian people.

Canada is a “rule of law” nation in name only

Canada’s leaders claim to uphold the so called “rule of law.” But the rule of law is not a slogan, it is a practice, and Canada’s application of the rule of law, particularly in its foreign policy, is selective.

A rule‑of‑law nation does not:

• Refuse to name genocide when global human rights and legal bodies have already done so;
• Continue exporting weapons to a state committing mass atrocity;
• Shield war criminals from arrest;
• Impose sanctions on one criminal aggressor while protecting another;
• Welcome refugees from one conflict while excluding refugees from another;
• Apply international law only when the victims are white and Christian.

The fact is that Canada’s foreign policy is not principled. It is racist and Islamophobic. Additionally, as a result Canada’s actions relating to the Gaza genocide, Canada as a state and its leaders are criminally complicit in the genocidal crimes committed by Israel.

Mark Carney’s government cannot claim moral authority while enabling mass atrocity. It cannot claim to defend human rights while refusing to act against a state committing genocide. It cannot claim to uphold international law while violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention.

Canada’s response to Gaza is not a failure. It is a choice made by its leaders—a choice to protect Israel, a choice to abandon Palestinians, a choice to prioritize geopolitics over humanity, a choice to uphold racism over justice.

Unlike its claims otherwise Canada is not a rule‑of‑law nation. It is a nation that applies international law selectively, morality conditionally, and humanity hierarchically. And until it confronts its own hypocrisy and criminality, it will remain complicit in one of the greatest crimes of the 21st century.

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

Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau: The morally bankrupt leaders who ignored the Gaza genocide

Trudeau's and Carney's refusal to acknowledge that genocide is taking place in Gaza is factually indefensible and politically grotesque.  

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

When Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney declared in mid-May that the treatment of civilians aboard the Sumud Flotilla to Gaza—kidnapped in international waters by Israeli forces—was “abominable”, he revealed far more about his government than he intended. His statement was meant to project moral outrage, to signal that Canada still possesses a moral compass. Instead, it exposed a government that has lost its ethical bearings entirely. Because if Carney truly believed that the abuse of civilians was “abominable,” he would have said so long before a video of Itamar Ben‑Gvir taunting bound activists forced his hand.

But Carney did not, and the reason is simple. Carney has no moral compass, especially when it comes to how Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs are treated, whether by a foreign government or by his own administration in Canada.

Mark Carney only entered politics in early 2025, after Justin Trudeau announced his resignation as Liberal leader. Before that, Carney spent decades in elite financial institutions—Goldman Sachs, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England—where he cultivated a reputation for technocratic competence and global statesmanship. Yet in all those years, through Israel’s decades-long brutal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, its repeated assaults on the Gaza Strip, and finally its ongoing genocide, Carney never made a public comment. Not a word about the siege. Not a word about the occupation. Not a word about apartheid. Not a word about the mass killing of Palestinians. And this is for the most part understandable given the trajectory of his career.

However, his silence was not accidental, but it was revealing. It was the silence of a man who had never needed to confront the consequences of Western power, who had never needed to reckon with the violence that Western powers inflicted on the world’s most vulnerable, under the guise of maintaining an “international rules based order.” And so when he entered politics, his silence became a part of Canadian government policy.

Trudeau’s legacy of weakness and denial

However, this wasn’t new policy. Carney inherited this moral vacuum from former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose own record on Israel and Palestine was defined by weakness, evasion, and denial. Trudeau made occasional statements expressing “concern” about Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank, but these were always carefully calibrated to avoid offending Israel or the US.  Ultimately they were meaningless because he condemned very little of Israel’s criminal acts, recognized even less, and took no action to uphold international law or hold Israel accountable.

And at the end of his prime ministership, Trudeau finally said the quiet part out loud—he declared himself to be a Zionist. With that admission, everything became clear. His refusal to condemn Israel’s actions was not diplomatic caution, it was ideological alignment. His refusal to recognize genocide was not uncertainty, it was political loyalty to a foreign state. His government’s unwavering support for Israel, even as the death toll in Gaza climbed into the tens of thousands, was not a lack of courage, it was a deliberate choice and admission that Trudeau was an anti-Palestinian racist.

When Carney became prime minister he simply continued Trudeau’s policy of denial, complicity, and moral collapse.

Choosing not to see genocide in Gaza

Since it started both Trudeau and Carney refused to acknowledge that genocide was taking place in Gaza.  This denial is not only factually indefensible, it is politically grotesque. Because the list of institutions, experts, and humanitarian organizations that have declared Israel’s assault on Gaza’s population as genocidal is unprecedented in modern history.

Among the organizations and individuals recognizing that Israel is committing the crime of genocide as defined under Genocide Convention are:

• the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry;
• the UN Special Committee;
• the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights;
• the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories;
• the former UN Humanitarian Chief;
• Amnesty International;
• Human Rights Watch;
• Israeli human rights group B’Tselem;
• Physicians for Human Rights Israel;
• Doctors Without Borders;
• Oxfam;
• Save the Children;
• Action Aid;
• Action on Armed Violence;
• the International Federation of Human Rights;
• the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS);
• Melanie O’Brien, president of the IAGS;
• Dirk Moses, editor of the Journal of Genocide Research;
• Martin Shaw, author of What Is Genocide?;
• Leading Israeli Holocaust scholars: Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, Daniel Blatman, Raz Segal, Shmuel Lederman;
• the Norwegian Refugee Council;
• the Danish Refugee Council;
• Refugees International;
• the International Rescue Committee;
• Moshe Yaalon, former head of Israel’s military;
• Amiram Levin, former deputy head of Mossad;
• Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister of Israel; and
• the 30 nations supporting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

This list is not merely long—it is overwhelming. It represents the broadest consensus on genocide since Rwanda. Yet Canada, a nation that claims to champion human rights, has rejected all of it.

Canada is violating its international legal obligations

Under the Genocide Convention, Canada is obligated not only to prevent genocide but to punish those who participate in it. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Canada must act to stop grave breaches, including collective punishment, targeting civilians, and starvation as a method of warfare. Under the UN Charter, Canada must uphold international peace and security and oppose violations of international humanitarian law.

Instead, Canada continues to:

• Sell weapons and weapons components to Israel;
• Provide diplomatic cover for Israel;
• Refuse to sanction Israeli officials responsible for mass atrocities;
• Reject international legal findings of genocide; and
• Attack Canadian human rights advocates who speak out.

This is not neutrality. It is complicity.

Carney’s Hypocrisy Is Impossible to Ignore

Carney’s condemnation of Ben‑Gvir was not wrong. Ben‑Gvir is a racist extremist who celebrated his birthday with a cake emblazoned with a noose, who raised a champagne glass when the Knesset advanced a death‑penalty bill that applies only to Palestinians, and who has repeatedly called for the mass expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland. But Carney’s selective outrage is revealing. Ben‑Gvir is not an outlier; he is the distilled expression of a much wider system of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocidal violence in Israeli society — a society where a 2025 poll showed that 47% of Jewish Israelis supported the Gaza genocide. Singling him out for sanctions while continuing to arm the state he serves is not moral leadership. It is political posturing, a gesture designed to look principled while avoiding the far more consequential act of holding Israel itself accountable.

If Carney truly believed Ben‑Gvir’s actions were “unacceptable,” he would sanction the entire Israeli government and military leadership. He would halt all weapons exports immediately. He would prosecute Canadians who have joined the Israeli military and participated in war crimes. He would recognize the genocide that the rest of the world has already named.

He has done none of these things.

Historically, Canada avoided pursuing war criminals

There is a myth in Canada that the country has a proud and robust history of prosecuting war criminals. It is a comforting story, one that allows Canadians to imagine themselves as steadfast defenders of human rights and international justice. But the moment this narrative is examined with even minimal scrutiny, it collapses. In truth, Canada has not made much effort to hunt down war criminals since World War Two, and its record is defined far more by avoidance, delay, and half‑measures than by genuine accountability.

For decades, Canada preferred to look away rather than confront perpetrators of atrocity, just as it is doing with Israel. Instead of launching serious investigations, pursuing criminal trials, or building the legal capacity to prosecute genocidal criminals, Canada has relied on bureaucratic tools—denaturalization and deportation—that allow the government to quietly remove individuals without ever proving guilt in court. These measures create the appearance of action while avoiding actual prosecution. Far from being a global leader in accountability, Canada’s war‑crimes record is a story of institutional reluctance, political timidity, and systemic inertia. It is a record that reveals a country far more committed to protecting its own political convenience than to upholding the principles of international law it claims to champion.

Following the Second World War Canada prosecuted a small number of Nazi war criminals immediately afterwards—almost all of them POWs already in Canadian custody. After 1948, however, Canada entered a 30‑year period of complete inactivity. During the 1950s through the 1980s, hundreds of suspected Nazi collaborators entered Canada, yet the government made no serious attempt to locate, investigate, or criminally prosecute them.

The 1985 Deschênes Commission confirmed what survivors and human‑rights advocates had long known: Canada had never meaningfully prosecuted Nazi war criminals domestically, despite ample evidence and decades of opportunity. The few criminal trials attempted in the 1990s—including the high‑profile case of Imre Finta—ended in acquittals, after which Canada effectively abandoned domestic prosecution altogether.

The rare exception of Rwandan génocidaires

Canada’s record of domestic war‑crimes prosecution is remarkably thin, and its only true success stands out precisely because it is so rare. The single case in which Canada managed to secure a conviction under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act was the prosecution of Désiré Munyaneza, a Rwandan génocidaire found guilty in 2009. His conviction was historic: the first time Canada used the principle of universal jurisdiction to try an individual for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed abroad. Munyaneza’s trial demonstrated that Canada could hold perpetrators of mass atrocity accountable when it chose to invest the political will, legal expertise, and prosecutorial resources required.

But Munyaneza’s case was the exception, not the beginning of a sustained effort. The only other attempt at a domestic war‑crimes trial under the same legislation—Jacques Mungwarere—ended in acquittal in 2013. After that, Canada effectively retreated from the field. No further domestic prosecutions followed, and no institutional momentum emerged to build on the precedent set. Instead of developing a robust system capable of confronting atrocity, Canada returned to its longstanding reliance on administrative measures.  The result is a war‑crimes record defined not by a legacy of accountability, but by one conviction surrounded by decades of institutional reluctance.

Canada’s support for Israel is built on lies

For decades, Canadian governments have insisted that Canada is a defender of human rights, a champion of international law, and a guardian of the rules‑based order. But these claims collapse under the weight of scrutiny, and certainly as we witness Canada’s lack of action around the Gaza genocide.

Canada cannot claim to defend human rights while arming a genocidal state. Canada cannot claim to uphold international law while ignoring the world’s legal findings. Canada cannot claim to support peace while enabling mass slaughter.

The Carney government’s position is not simply hypocritical—it is morally bankrupt, as was that of Justin Trudeau’s government

What is truly “unacceptable”

When he saw the video of Israeli minister Ben-Gvir taunting the imprisoned activists from the Sumud Flotilla he used the word “unacceptable” in reaction to what he saw. But what is truly unacceptable is Canada’s complicity. What is unacceptable is the refusal to name genocide. What is unacceptable is the sale of Canadian weapons to a state committing mass atrocities. What is unacceptable is the betrayal of international law. What is unacceptable is the dehumanization of Palestinians through complicity.

Carney’s government has failed the most basic test of moral leadership—the ability to recognize human suffering and act to stop it. Instead, Canada has become a bystander to genocide, and worse, an enabler of the crime of crimes.

History will not forget this moment. And it will not forgive those who chose silence, denial, and complicity over justice.

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

Trump’s deranged imperialist ambitions are a threat to world peace

The ramifications of Trump's sociopathic inclinations . . . hint at a greater mental imbalance that could result in armed conflict.  His authoritarian style, dictatorial leanings, and empathy deficit reveal a man consumed by self-interest rather than concern for the collective well being of either the American people or the global community.  

 

By Fareed Khan

 

The relationship the United States has with the world has always been complex, but no recent American leader has muddled this relationship more than Donald Trump.  Amidst his myriad of controversial statements and actions since being re-elected, Trump's repeated musings about annexing Canada, taking ownership of Greenland, and the US retaking control of the Panama Canal reveal a fundamental disconnect with reality and a disturbing inclination toward autocracy.  As the world watches, it becomes increasingly clear that Trump's behaviour is not just a product of bombastic rhetoric.  Furthermore, it aligns with the insights of clinicians and first-hand accounts from those who worked closely with him that paint a portrait of a deranged sociopath posing a serious threat to peace and stability in the western hemisphere and around the world.

 

At the heart of Trump's approach to geopolitics lies an alarming disregard for the sovereignty of nations and a seeming reckless ambition for territorial expansion regardless of the consequences. His statements about annexing Canada sound bizarre, almost comical, and yet they reveal a mindset that views neighbouring countries not as independent sovereign entities, allies or friends, but as territories ripe for acquisition and exploitation.  

Trump’s remarks, peppered throughout his first presidency and since he was re-elected, evoke images of an imperialistic era reminiscent of tyrants rather than democratically elected leaders.  Claims that the US should own Greenland or that it would retake control of the Panama Canal serve to further illustrate this disturbing trend.  Such sentiments, particularly from the president of a global superpower, have a ripple effect, undermining international relationships and the principles of international law and diplomacy.  Such statements by the world’s most powerful nation also give ideas to adversarial nations like China and Russia that might makes right, and that more powerful nations can use force to take over less powerful nations.

In the 2017 book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” 27 psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals described the “clear and present danger” that Trump's mental health posed to the “nation and individual well being”.  These contributors articulated concerns that his apparent narcissism and sociopathic traits could lead to dangerously unpredictable behaviour.  Their analysis suggested that when someone in power exhibits a blend of grandiosity, lack of empathy, and disregard for the consequences of their actions the potential for catastrophic decisions rises exponentially.  Trump’s cavalier discussions about territorial acquisition exemplify this mindset — where diplomacy is replaced by fantasies of control and conquest.

Moreover, the assessments of former senior officials from the first Trump administration provide a chilling look into his character.  In interviews with The New York Times and The Atlantic in October, John Kelly, Trump’s longest serving chief of staff, warned that the man met the definition of a fascist, and that during his first presidency, he suggested that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler “did some good things.”  Such assertions — from insiders who once aligned with him — indicate a disturbing mindset.  Rather than being a mere aberration of presidential behavior, these claims reflect a coherent psychological profile stretching beyond just personal traits to encompass ideological beliefs that could have long-term ramifications for global peace.  His admiration for Hitler and other authoritarian leaders — projected through flippant comments and praise — highlights an affinity for power structures reminiscent of fascism.

The testimony received during both impeachment hearings and those related to the January 6 insurrection further solidifies this understanding of Trump's psyche.  Witnesses described a man willing to stoke violence and division for personal gain, a behavior that could have devastating consequences not just domestically but also on the international stage.  Such an approach to governing results in the trampling of democratic principles in favor of self-serving narratives which in turn leads to a breakdown of trust — both within the US and with nations that are friends and allies.

 

 

 https://www.axios.com/2019/10/28/donald-trump-world-peace-threat-kim-putin-xi-maduro

Former White House officials consistently pointed to Trump's unpredictable nature as a catalyst for destabilization in international relations.  His tendency to make unilateral decisions or uninformed and unhinged proclamations, usually without evidence or expert consultation fostered chaos, not just for domestic policy but also in America's global standing.  Consequently, statements suggesting that US should have authority over territories outside its jurisdiction not only unsettles nations it also compromise the very foundation of the international legal order which has prevented another world war for 80 years.

Consider the implications of a world where the leader of the US (or any powerful nation) has the right to dictate the fate of other nations based on personal whims.  In an era where global cooperation is more crucial than ever in confronting issues like climate change or pandemics, Trump's insistence on making irrational claims on the territory of other nations showcases a profound disconnect with the realities of international relations and governance, suggesting an imminent threat to peaceful relations with neighbours and allies.

The ramifications of Trump's sociopathic inclinations extend beyond mere bluster.  They hint at a greater mental imbalance that could result in armed conflict.  His authoritarian style, dictatorial leanings, and empathy deficit reveal a man consumed by self-interest rather than concern for the collective wellbeing of either the American people or the global community.  As the world continues to try to grapple with issues like human rights, trade, and security, leaders unable to acknowledge the fundamentals of cooperation and respect — such as Trump — pose a direct threat to world peace.

As we watch Trump begin to undo American laws and institutions that protect the underprivileged, the marginalized and the persecuted, and as he issues ultimatums and threats to the world, it is time for world leaders, particularly those from the democratic West, to see the danger he poses to peace and stability.  His repeated statements about territorial expansion are not just idle threats, they are indicative of a psychological profile that endorses aggression in place of genuine diplomacy.  

When insults become ambitions and fantasies threaten state sovereignty global peace hangs in a delicate balance.  In such circumstances it is imperative that the lessons learned from 20th Century history and the Trump political era guide world leaders to take the actions necessary to defend peace and stability and keep the world free from the inane political vision of a deranged sociopath. 

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

Canada and its political leaders will be held accountable for complicity in the genocide of Palestinians by Israel

It is time to hold all Canadian leaders accountable – political, corporate, academic or otherwise – who have tried to silence and erase Palestinian voices, before another year passes and thousands more innocents are murdered in a genocide that is the most transparent in history.

By Fareed Khan

As the year 2025 begins, the phrase “Happy New Year” rings hollow for millions around the world, especially for the Palestinian people enduring the horrors of genocide in Gaza.  The scale of the atrocities committed by Israel against Palestinians — recognized as genocide by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the University Network for Human Rights (a global consortium of university human rights centres) and the UN Special Committee to investigate Israel’s war in Gaza (among others) — is horrific.

Over 54,000 Palestinians have been reported killed since the genocide began in October 2023 according to Geneva-based Euromed Human Rights Monitor.  Among the dead are 17,627 children and 10,892 women.  In addition, 113,220 have been injured, well over 90% of the population has been displaced, more than 90% of the hospitals and health care facilities have been destroyed, over 77% all the buildings in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged, and the enclave has been transformed into a post-apocalyptic hellscape.  However, a report released by the British medical journal Lancet in June 2024 estimates the actual Palestinian death toll could be as high as 186,000 or even higher — that’s roughly 8% of Gaza’s population.

Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that has been revealed to the world of Israel’s crimes Canada continues to stand with the US and other Western nations in support of the terrorist state, and has turned a blind eye to the immense suffering that has been inflicted on an innocent people without an army, navy or air force to defend themselves against one of the most powerful military forces in the world.

The complicity of Canada in the ongoing genocide is not merely a matter of indifference, it is an active endorsement through Canada’s continued military support and trade relations with Israel.  When Russia invaded Ukraine Canada took quick and decisive action against the Russian government and key officials by suspending trade and imposing sanctions.  No such action has been taken against Israel despite the fact that the evidence of Israeli crimes is far greater than the evidence that had been presented against Russia during the early stages of the invasion of Ukraine.

Canadian-made weapons have contributed directly to the violence inflicted upon Palestinian civilians — violence that has been institutionalized and perpetuated at an astonishing rate.  What more must transpire for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre and other Canadian politicians to recognize that Canada is not a neutral observer of Israeli crimes but rather an enabler of the genocide of Palestinians?

The Nuremberg Trials after World War 2 defined the crimes that the Nazis had committed as the ultimate crime against humanity.  So, for Canada and its leaders to support a nation that commits such acts, whether through words or actions, makes them just as culpable in the crimes committed.  

Leaders like Trudeau and Poilievre exemplify a political establishment at every level in Canada steeped in this complicity.  Despite the outcry from hundreds of thousands of Canadian via emails and weekly pro-Palestinian demonstrations in different locations across the country, and public sentiment that increasingly opposes Canada’s support for Israel, both leaders and their parties continue to voice support for the racist Apartheid state and its so-called right to defend itself, perpetuating a narrative that denies recognition of the lived experiences and suffering of Palestinians.

The polls also tell a disturbing story with a majority of Canadians opposing the government’s tacit and explicit support for Israel, expressing a collective awareness of the genocide being perpetrated.  There is a growing recognition among Canadians that we are faced with a moral crisis at the highest levels of politics in this country which requires us as ordinary citizens to respond and stand up for the humanity and dignity of a brutally oppressed people when our leaders choose to sideline humanity for political expediency.  While the voices of justice for the Palestinian cause find amplification on social media platforms, a question persists – if we do not demand that our government cease its complicity in genocide now, what will we say when history asks us what we did while a modern genocide unfolded every day before our eyes?

It is crucial to understand that the political complicity of Trudeau, Poilievre, their parties, and others transcends mere rhetoric. These leaders have made conscious choices to sustain policies and relationships that embolden the oppressive, racist regime in Israel, benefiting from a geopolitical stance that echoes colonial values while providing Israel with the means to continue its catastrophic assault on Palestinians.  The failure to act against such policies is a fundamental betrayal of the humanitarian principles that Canada professes to uphold.

Any reasonable person must question the moral fabric that underpins a government’s decision to foster international relationships with states that engage in actions that fit the legal definition of “genocide.”  The course that the Canadian government has taken reflects an insensitive and heatless approach that can only stem from deeply entrenched and systemic anti-Palestinian racism and a disregard for the value of Palestinian lives.  The pervasive anti-Palestinian sentiment that permeates Canada’s political ecosystem indicates a willingness to be silent and do nothing when deadly violence is committed against defenceless people, when it aligns with domestic political concerns, which in this case means maintaining support among certain segments of Jewish Canadian voters who support Israel’s racist, Zionist ideology and its goals of erasing Palestinians from the lands controlled by Israel.

Moreover, the absence of accountability for these actions is deeply disturbing.  Trudeau’s and Poilievre’s insistence on narratives that disproportionately favor Israel stands as a testament to Canada’s political double standards when you compare this country’s response to crimes committed by Russia against Ukraine and Israeli crimes against Palestinians.  How can we reconcile this difference in response to Israel in the face of irrefutable evidence of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, compared to Canada’s actions against Russia?  How can we overlook the responsibility that leaders hold when their words and actions enable the perpetuation of brutal and sustained violence?  The case for charging politicians like Trudeau and Poilievre with complicity in these crimes is not without precedent.  It is a demand for accountability rooted in the law and a commitment to justice. 

As evidence mounts and global condemnation rises, Canadians must no longer accept the perpetuation of complicity in genocide through their political leadership. It is a moral imperative to demand immediate policy changes, renouncing military support for Israel and advocating for Palestinian rights unequivocally.  Silence, in this case, only furthers complicity, becoming an extension of the violence that is inflicted upon countless individuals in Gaza, as well as against Palestinian voices in Canada fighting for justice and freedom for their people.

To quote Ha’aretz columnist B. Michael from a column he wrote in May of this year, “What did we learn from the Holocaust?  Nothing.”  By supporting Israel as it commits genocide, selling it weapons used to commit genocidal crimes, and refusing to condemn its criminal acts, Canada’s leaders are not only flouting the international laws, conventions and treaties this nation claims to uphold, they are also demonstrating that all the lessons of the Holocaust have been forgotten or (more likely) are being wilfully ignored for the sake of domestic political considerations, thereby enabling horrific crimes.

Everyday that passes where innocent lives continue to be extinguished is a painful reminder of our governments’ failures.  The discourse must shift from complicity to accountability.  Canadians must mobilize more than they already have — raising voices, lobbying for change, and striving to elect and support leaders who value humanity over politics.  The human suffering and misery that has unfolded in Gaza since October 2023 requires nothing less than a resolute demand for justice and political reprisals against those did nothing to help stop the carnage, or worse yet supported the criminal regime committing the crimes.

As 2025 begins, we cannot let it simply be the start of another year of indifference.  Instead, let it be the beginning of a year when Canadians compel their leaders to find their humanity, when we stand in solidarity with the oppressed and brutalized, and when we demand that our leaders be charged and tried for their criminal complicity in the genocide Israel is committing against the Palestinian people.  The call for justice is loud and long overdue.  Let it echo through the halls of power and pierce the complacency, indifference and prejudice that enables Israel’s atrocities in Gaza.  It is time to hold all Canadian leaders accountable – political, corporate, academic or otherwise – who have tried to silence and erase Palestinian voices, before another year passes and thousands more innocents are murdered in a genocide that is the most transparent in history.

 

© 2024 The View From Here.  © 2024 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

Donald Trump’s second presidency is a looming threat to Canada and the western hemisphere

If Trump believes that it is America’s right to exert control over Greenland for strategic reasons then there’s also little standing in the way of his administration taking a similar approach to Canada, Mexico or other nations in the hemisphere where the national security, economic or strategic interests of the US are prioritized above all else.  

By Fareed Khan

 

As the world stands on the precipice of a new administration in the United States, the election of Donald Trump to his second term as president raises urgent questions regarding peace and stability in the Western Hemisphere, in the context of increasing American nationalism.  Since his election in November his unpredictable musings have not been limited to very damaging economic policy proposals, but have also extended into the realm of possible violations of the territory and sovereignty of other nations, and could involve potential military aggression against friends and allies.  Under such a scenario it is imperative for Canada and its neighbouring nations to prepare for the potential fallout of Trump’s erratic behaviour, and ambitions which echo a distinctly fascistic ideology that could threaten North American unity and the sovereignty of nations surrounding the US.

Rhetoric of aggression

The threatening comments emanating from Trump and his camp are alarming.  At a dinner with Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and some of his senior officials at his Mar-a-Lago estate in November Trump floated the ludicrous idea of making Canada the 51st state when responding to Trudeau’s comment about the devastating impact of Trump’s suggested 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, nations with which the US renegotiated a free trade agreement in 2020.  While some within the United States may laugh off these comments as a bad joke or mere politics, they breed a toxic environment of hostility that undermine long-standing cordial and stable relationship that Canada has had with the US.

A recent Leger poll released in early December in Canada, 13% of Canadians expressed support for Canada joining the US, demonstrating a disturbing inclination within a segment of the Canadian population towards Trump’s imperialistic vision.  It suggests that some Canadians are willing to sacrifice Canada’s autonomy and the freedom of their fellow Canadians for perceived benefits like lower taxes and the right to own firearms that come with American citizenship.  This mindset reflects a vulnerability within Canada’s population that can be exploited by those within the Trump movement ho wish to see Canada absorbed into the US, stripping it of its identity, culture, and independence.

Threats to sovereignty

Canada and the US have been friends and allies for well over a century, and have enjoyed a relatively peaceful and cordial relationship characterized by mutual respect.  But Trump’s blatant disregard for this history and the norms of diplomacy and international relations threatens to destabilize what has been a long-standing and mutually beneficial alliance and economic partnership.  Furthermore, the repercussions of his approach to relations between the US and other friends and allies in the hemisphere could lead to a realignment of treaties and agreements that have safeguarded the boundaries and relationships of sovereign states in North America.

Consider Trump’s ominous musings regarding the potential for American military intervention in Mexico to combat drug cartels.  Reports suggest that there are plans being contemplated within his inner circle that would disregard Mexican sovereignty and undermine international law to go after narcotics kingpins.  Such discussions raise profound concerns about American military imperialism, evoking historical memories of US interventions in Latin America that often sought to establish control rather than collaborate with neighbouring countries for mutual benefit.

The Greenland Calculus

In addition, Trump’s past fixation with controlling Greenland as an “absolute necessity for purposes of national security,” is not an isolated incident.  And given his history as a businessman it but shows a pattern of behaviour that indicates a willingness to disregard laws and legal niceties, and even the territorial integrity of other nations, if it helps him achieve his objectives.  In response to Trump’s most recent social media post about buying the territory Greenland’s prime minister made it unequivocally clear that the territory is “not for sale.”  Additionally, Denmark’s reaction, to Trump’s comments was to announce that it would significantly boost defence spending for the territory, and indicates the seriousness with which the Danish government take Trump’s rhetoric.  When Trump made a similar comment about buying Greenland in 2019 the foreign affairs spokesman for the Danish People’s Party said, “If he is truly contemplating this, then this is final proof, that he has gone mad.”

Given the proximity of Canada’s eastern Arctic territory to Greenland such posturing by Trump brings this country squarely into the frame as a player in a geopolitical game where the end result would be very bad news for all the parties involved if he decided on a military option to make his vision a reality.  And given his comments during his first term about his admiration for Hitler and other authoritarian figures, and his proclivity to do anything to get what he wants, it would be within the realm of possibility that he would violate the territorial integrity of other nations to achieve his foreign policy goals.

If Trump believes that it is America’s right to exert control over Greenland for strategic reasons then there’s also little standing in the way of his administration taking a similar approach to Canada, Mexico or other nations in the hemisphere where the national security, economic or strategic interests of the US are prioritized above all else.  Such actions could potentially lead to military mobilization that could have dire repercussions not just for North America but also for the NATO trans-Atlantic relationship, which has been the foundation that has underpinned peace and stability in Europe since after World War 2.

The threat to take back the Panama Canal

Trump’s latest target for his imperialist ambitions is Panama.  In a speech in Phoenix on December 22nd he threatened to take back the Panama Canal if that nation’s government didn’t reduce shipping fees.  This is another example of Trump’s restorationist rhetoric — an attempt to re-establish US dominance based on its imperialist past regardless of contemporary realities.  This call has reverberated poorly across Central America where it is seen as inflammatory, and risks reigniting tensions between the US and many Latin American countries, after those nations have worked hard to move past fears about the US violating their sovereignty

The Panamanian president’s emphatic response asserting that “every square meter” of the canal belongs to Panama highlights the potential for tensions to escalate into diplomatic crises across the hemisphere.  Such rhetoric destabilizes regional relationships, undermines diplomacy and political stability honed over decades, and erodes trust between the US and its neighbours.

As Canada tries to develop a strategy in response to Trump’s approach to global territorial disputes, leaders in this country must recognize that his public comments are indicative of a mindset where US foreign policy could be formulated based on his ignorance about and disregard for the norms of international relations and international law.  This is a man who seemingly cares little about diplomacy and cordial relations, and is willing to bully and threaten friends and allies to achieve his foreign policy goals regardless of the long term damage it might do.

Need for Preparedness and Solidarity

As members of the international community scan the horizon for the implications of a new Trump presidency, vigilance must become paramount for Canada and its neighbours.  The rhetoric of military intervention, annexation, and hegemonic ambition should be a warning sign to prepare for the real possibility of aggressive policies that threaten the sovereignty of Canada and other nations in the hemisphere.

The Canadian government must engage in proactive diplomacy to fortify alliances in the Latin American region and in Europe.  By fostering relationships built on mutual respect, collaboration and historic ties Canada can position itself as a regional leader committed to preserving sovereignty and peace.  There must be a concerted effort to deter the idea that America’s policy goals can be achieved through bullying, intimidation, territorial expansion or military aggression, aiming to unify voices against the fascistic impulses emanating from the US that threaten peace and stability in the Americas.

Addressing the threat of fascism

The threat that Trump’s presidency poses to the US and its neighbouring nations is symptomatic of a broader internal threat to democratic principles and the rule of law in that nation.  The suggestion that territories can be commandeered or absorbed based solely on American priorities stems from rising fascist sentiments over the last decade that have garnered traction within US politics within a the segment of society that are hard core supporters of Trump.

In “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump”, a compilation of psychiatric insights put together during his first term, professionals delineate how Trump’s character poses a risk to national and individual well-being.  The inadequacies he displays in addressing complex geopolitical issues reveal a troubling trend toward authoritarianism, where personal whims bypass logic, justice and international norms.

As such the incoming Trump administration poses a “clear and present danger” not only to the principles of democracy but also to the very sovereignty that defines Canada and its neighbours.  His upcoming presidency challenges how nations collaborate, engage, and exist alongside one another, and poses a danger to the nations which stand in the way of his imperialist policies.
 
Shaping a Path Forward

As Canada and the other nations of the Western Hemisphere stand on a precipice of uncertainty, America’s neighboring nations must come together to defend the principles of sovereignty and the shared ideals of democracy.  Canadian leaders cannot afford to be naive and hope that traditional diplomatic tactics will save Canada from an incoming US president who has been described as a “sociopath”.  Its leaders must act decisively in forming coalitions and alliances that prioritize collective security over subjugation to a superpower led by a man with the impulse control of a child and the mental acuity of someone who shuns facts and valuable intelligence.
 
The rising tide of fascism in the US, which began in his first administration, calls for strategic responses that not only prioritize peace, cooperation, and respect for national boundaries, but also demonstrate national resolve to a bully who feels he can do what he wants without consequence.  If Canada and its allies fail to sufficiently prepare for the incoming Trump presidency the consequences could extend far beyond policy disagreements, and could threaten peace and stability throughout the hemisphere.

Only through united action, strong diplomatic ties, defence alliances, and a clear stand against imperialist ambitions can Canada and its allies hope to fend off the looming perils of a second Trump administration. In the dance for power, Canadian leaders need to make sure that our borders aren’t just lines on a map but expressions of sovereignty, identity, and mutual respect for the independence of all nations.

Fareed Khan is the founder of Canadians United Against Hate, a human rights activist, and has spoken and written extensively on public policy issues affecting the lives and the rights of Canadians.

© 2024 The View From Here.  © 2024 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.