From the perspective of soothing the conscience, this is a mighty thing – for those in Paris, London and Ottawa. It does not save a single life on the ground in Gaza or the West Bank, provide a single meal for a starving family, or rebuild a single destroyed school. But President Emmanuel Macron, and Prime Ministers Sir Keir Starmer and Mark Carney can all commune as a triumvirate of principled statesmen.

Macron, the first of the three, had been making signals on the issue earlier in the year. The French leader had hoped that a UN conference sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia would be the venue for joint recognition, but it came to naught with the resumption of hostilities in Gaza and Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In turning to the G7 nations, he hoped to amplify the urgency of recognition.

In doing so, the onus was also on the Palestinian Authority to make certain concessions to add momentum. A letter from PA President Mahmoud Abbas sent to Macron duly came, condemning the attacks of October 7, 2023 by Hamas, demanding the immediate release of all hostages and pledged the holding of elections and reforms to governance. Hamas – not that Abbas had any claims on this point – would also “no longer rule Gaza” and would have to surrender “weapons and military capabilities to the Palestinian Security Forces, which will oversee their removal outside the occupied Palestinian territory, with Arab and international support”.

On July 24, Macron confirmed in a letter to Abbas conveyed via France’s Consul General in Jerusalem that recognition of a Palestinian state would follow in September “in light of the historic commitments that were made” and the threatened two-state solution. On July 28, in his opening speech to a plenary session of the High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement on the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, France’s Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Nöel Barrot stated the “prospect of two States, whose rights are recognised and respected, is in mortal danger.” But assurances and momentum had been achieved, with Barrot acknowledging the condemnation by the Arab League of the Hamas attack and the insistence by its members on the release of the remaining hostages, the disarming of the group and conclusion of its rule in the Strip.

Of the G7, Starmer was the next to be swayed, but with a notable proviso: “the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a Two-State Solution.” To this could be added the need for Hamas to release the hostages, accept a ceasefire, disarm and “play no part in the government of Gaza.” In shabby fashion, room is left to withdraw the offer for recognising Palestinian statehood. “We will make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps.”

Carney, the latest addition, claimed on July 30 that the two-state solution growing from a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority had been eroded as a prospect by four factors: the threat of Hamas to Israel; accelerated building across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including numerous instances of Israeli settler violence; the E1 Settlement Plan and the July vote by the Knesset calling for the annexation of the West Bank; and the ongoing failure by the Israeli government to arrest “the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian disaster in Gaza, with impeded access to food and other essential humanitarian supplies.”

The Canadian PM, in reasons almost identical to Macron, had also been swayed by “the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to much-needed reforms” in governance, including the promise to hold elections in 2026 that will exclude Hamas, undertaking anti-corruption measures and the creation of a demilitarised Palestinian state.

A resounding theme comes through in the latest flurry of statements: Palestinians continue to be lectured and harangued under the guise of humanitarian understanding, told who can represent them or not (a reformed Palestinian Authority promisingly good, Hamas decidedly bad), and whether they can have any semblance of a military force. “Recognising a State of Palestine today,” states Barrot, “means standing with the Palestinians who have chosen non-violence, who have renounced terrorism, and are prepared to recognise Israel.” Standing, it would seem, with a certain type of idealised Palestinian.

The Palestinians have become diplomatic merchandise or bits of currency, to be gambled with in the casino of power politics. Starmer is the worst exponent of this, hoping for such returns as Israel’s halt to the slaughter and famine in Gaza and the release of the hostages by Hamas and its disarmament. But the idea of Palestinian recognition remains, at this stage, a moot point.

At the end of any diplomatic tunnel on this lies certain requirements that would have to be met, not least the criteria of the Montevideo Convention from 1933. Despite gathering some dust over time, it outlines the relevant requirements for statehood: any recognised state in international law must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a discernible government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In the UK, some 43 cross-party peers have sent a letter of warning to Starmer arguing against recognising a Palestinian state, citing such familiar, legal grumbles. There was, for instance, “no certainty over the borders of Palestine” nor “a functioning single government, Fatah and Hamas being enemies”. Neither could enter into relations with foreign states, with one entity having not held elections for decades, and the other being a “terrorist organisation”. Despite the UK not signing the Montevideo Convention, recognising Palestine “would be contrary to the principles of governing recognition of states in international law,” the convention having become part of international customary law.

On the bloodied ground, where legal abstractions dissolve into fleshy realities, Israel is doing its level best to make sure that there will be nothing left of a Palestinian state to recognise. For Israel, the case is not one of if or when, but never. The machinery of slaughter, deprivation and dislocation is now so advanced it risks smothering the very idea of a viable Palestinian entity. Israeli policy till October 2023 was engineered to stifle and restrain any credible progress towards a Palestinian state, crowned by feeding the acrimonious divisions between Hamas and Fatah. After October 7 that year, the sharpened focus became one of expulsion, subjugation, or plain elimination of the general populace. Palestinian sovereignty remains, to date, incipient, a bare semblance of a political self. This egregious state of affairs continues to be supported, even by those wishing to recognise Palestine. In some ways, those sorts are arguably the worst.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Yves Engler.

Prime Minister Carney’s statement that the solution to Mideast peace was a “Zionist Gaza” made me ill. It demonstrated his support for Israel’s genocide of Palestinians and showed total contempt for international law.

Canada’s official foreign policy supports international law and Canada
is a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention. The ICJ has repeatedly called Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory illegal and the UN GA even demanded last year that Israel vacate the Palestinian territories by this year. A Zionist Gaza means either the outright Israeli theft of the Palestinian territory or continued illegal occupation: probably the Israeli imposition of the collaborationist Palestinian Authority, which virtually no Palestinian respects.

That our government would support Israel’s control over Gaza as a result of this genocide makes me ashamed of our country.

What value does an independent Canada have if it has no integrity and
displays no respectable sovereignty? We understand that Canada must
tread carefully to avoid giving the US excuses to invade, but we would
like to see some signs of integrity in our government. Something that
makes us care about preserving our independence (such as it is).

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Karin Brothers.

Prime Minister Carney’s statement that the solution to Mideast peace was a “Zionist Gaza” made me ill. It demonstrated his support for Israel’s genocide of Palestinians and showed total contempt for international law.

Canada’s official foreign policy supports international law and Canada
is a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention. The ICJ has repeatedly called Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory illegal and the UN GA even demanded last year that Israel vacate the Palestinian territories by this year. A Zionist Gaza means either the outright Israeli theft of the Palestinian territory or continued illegal occupation: probably the Israeli imposition of the collaborationist Palestinian Authority, which virtually no Palestinian respects.

That our government would support Israel’s control over Gaza as a result of this genocide makes me ashamed of our country.

What value does an independent Canada have if it has no integrity and
displays no respectable sovereignty? We understand that Canada must
tread carefully to avoid giving the US excuses to invade, but we would
like to see some signs of integrity in our government. Something that
makes us care about preserving our independence (such as it is).

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Karin Brothers.

Prime Minister Carney’s statement that the solution to Mideast peace was a “Zionist Gaza” made me ill. It demonstrated his support for Israel’s genocide of Palestinians and showed total contempt for international law.

Canada’s official foreign policy supports international law and Canada
is a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention. The ICJ has repeatedly called Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory illegal and the UN GA even demanded last year that Israel vacate the Palestinian territories by this year. A Zionist Gaza means either the outright Israeli theft of the Palestinian territory or continued illegal occupation: probably the Israeli imposition of the collaborationist Palestinian Authority, which virtually no Palestinian respects.

That our government would support Israel’s control over Gaza as a result of this genocide makes me ashamed of our country.

What value does an independent Canada have if it has no integrity and
displays no respectable sovereignty? We understand that Canada must
tread carefully to avoid giving the US excuses to invade, but we would
like to see some signs of integrity in our government. Something that
makes us care about preserving our independence (such as it is).

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Karin Brothers.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Faramarz Farbod.

No matter what variant the ruling circles give of nation-building, of significance is that nation-building is not possible today without first settling the issue of where sovereignty is vested: in narrow private interests or in the people? And, along with this, who is “the people”? If “the people” is the ruling class, as those with positions of power and privilege claim, then that settles that — we have the status quo which is in crisis.

The goings on of the new government show by whom and how decisions are to be made and the kind of nation-building the ruling circles are promoting. Carney’s meetings with cabinet and the Liberal caucus, his Mandate Letter to his ministers and the Throne Speech all repeat a narrative for what is emerging from the Privy Council, from backroom deals with the Trump administration, from the initial stages of this five-week Parliamentary session, his tedious news conferences and talk show performances, and, most recently, the love-fest between the premiers in Saskatoon.

Carney’s own liberal arrogance gave us a taste of it when, following the meeting with premiers on March 21, he answered reporters with statements such as: “Look, I could explain to you later but trust me, I’m right,” and “We have discussed these matters among ourselves and we are very serious, not like Poilievre” who, he said, reduces everything to “a slogan” and “Things are much more complicated than that.” Apparently so complicated that he cannot lay it out to the polity.

According to Carney, the state determines society, rather than the ensemble of human relations revealing that which exists. Whatever is in his head, whatever the narrative given, is what exists. A good example of this is found in the Mandate Letter he provided his ministers on May 21. Under the subhead General Challenge, the Mandate Letter says: “At home, our longstanding weak productivity is straining government finances, making life less affordable for Canadian families, and threatening to undermine the sustainability of vital social programs on which Canadians rely.”

Sorting out the problem of weak productivity by making Canada’s economy the strongest in the G7 is one of the aims Carney has set for Canada.

Carney ignores the fact that modern production technique has gone beyond the capacity of today’s financiers, managers and owners of capital to handle. Productivity inevitably puts downward pressure on profits as more past work-time in machinery and material is used in relation to present work-time. You cannot squeeze capitalist profit out of a machine when every competitor has the same machine. Profit comes from active workers’ work-time.

Rather than facing up to the objective situation and finding real solutions and a new direction for the modern socialized economy that can use productivity for the benefit of the people and society, today’s financial gurus, managers and owners of capital are stuck in the old ways of doing things. They deny that the current problems with the economy are the consequence of doing just that since the mid-80s when this current neo-liberal anti-social offensive was first launched by the neo-Conservatives Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and, in Canada, Brian Mulroney. What is occurring today is the result of the recurring crises that approach generated, revealing that the necessity for change is even more urgent today than ever before.

Whatever Carney and his cronies do today promises more of the same as has been done in the past. Forty years ago free trade with the United States and then Mexico was presented as the panacea for every economic woe affecting the monopoly capitalist class in power. It led to nation-wrecking including the smashing of unions, increased state attacks on workers fighting for their rights, criminalization of Canadian citizens and residents from all walks of life expressing their right to conscience and of Indigenous Peoples fighting for their right to be and not permitting the Anglo-colonial state to determine who they are, increased war preparations, support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine, genocide against the Palestinians and much more.

As has taken place for the past 40 years, out of frustration, the Carney government and its provincial counterparts have already made it clear that they will step up their demands for concessions from the working class, stealing, gambling, pillaging the public purse, and engaging in predatory wars.

Despite all the talk about national unity and fast-tracking nation-building projects, the ruling class is incapable of nation-building. It is up to the working class to stop the bourgeoisie from squandering the national resources, the independence of the country and its well-being. Under the banner of using the resources of the country to benefit the collective interests of the people, the working class can mobilize and rally the people to oppose what the bourgeoisie is talking about – that everybody should create an environment for the success of businesses in the global market. It also arouses the people to take into their own hands what belongs to them and to create a society which will favour them.

The program the working class takes up must be set by taking up the needs of society at this particular time. The working class rejects narratives in somebody’s head and the ridiculous idea that gods come out of the machinery as in a theatre to rescue the people from the calamities in which their society is mired. Far from needing the likes of gods like Mark Carney, Canadian society needs an aim. The Canadian people need an aim which can be easily understood and appreciated by everyone. This aim can only be the aim of nation-building.

The main content of this project is that the working class must constitute the nation. In other words, the aim of the working class must become the aim of the nation, just as the bourgeoisie in its ascendancy put its aim, the aim of defending individual interest, private property, as the aim of the nation and even subordinated the nation to this aim. This aim is now long-since exhausted. Oligopolies operate as cartels and coalitions on a supranational basis. They have usurped the powers of the nation-states established to end the English Civil War and the foreign wars in which England and France and countries of Old Europe were mired for 100 years. Societies established to defend private property and recognize rights of the propertied classes on that basis cannot live to see another day because the properties classes themselves seize the land, resources and sovereignty of entire countries by unleashing wars of destruction on any country which refuses to submit to their predatory demands. The banks established to store the gold of sovereign nations now steal their gold to further narrow private interests. Where is the rule of law which defends property today? It no longer exists. Just as the narrow private interests have usurped the powers of the state within individual countries, so too, the International Rule of Law established by the United Nations in the name of “We the Peoples” of the United Nations has shown itself incapable of defending any peoples fighting for their right to be.

The time has now come for the working class to constitute the nation, establishing its own aim as the aim of the nation. In other words, the working class itself must take up the question of nation-building. It must lead the broad masses of the people to take up this aim as well. It is not possible for the working class to channel all its resources at this time without taking up the aim of satisfying the collective interests of society. This is what nation-building is all about.

Carney’s nation-building is a fraud. In Canada, nation-building can mean only one thing: that the working class must provide society with a modern constitution, with a modern political mechanism, with a change in the direction of the economy and with independence.

Let the battle for the working class to constitute the nation, in its own image, start in earnest. Without this battle, grave dangers lie ahead.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Pauline Easton.

The killing of Israeli embassy staffers Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky as they were leaving an event at the Capital Jewish Museum located in downtown Washington, D.C. was such a chance. According to Yechiel Leitner, the Israeli ambassador to the US, the couple were to be engaged.

The suspect gunman, Elias Rodriguez, was arrested at the scene and taken away shouting: “Free Palestine!” In court documents submitted by the FBI, the suspect, in handing himself to the officers, stated his rationale for the shootings: “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza, I am unarmed.” He also professed admiration for US Air Force member Aaron Bushnell, who immolated himself outside the Israeli embassy in February 2024 declaring that he would “no longer be complicit in genocide.” Rodriguez has been charged by the US attorney’s office in Washington with two counts of first-degree murder.

A grave, reflective response might have been in order. But the Netanyahu government has always been on the hunt for the political justification, and the political expedient. Given Netanyahu’s own political travails, be they corruption charges and his own unpopularity, this quest has become habitual. So it came to pass that Milgrim and Lischinsky could become a convenient platform to attack countries allied to Israel yet taking issue with the levelling and starving of Gaza.

The mood was set during a press conference given by Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar on May 21. The slaying of Milgrim and Lischinsky was “the direct result of toxic antisemitic incitement against Israel and Jews around the world that has been going on since the October 7 massacre.” Israel’s missions and representatives across the globe had become “targets of antisemitic terrorism that has crossed all red lines.”

In suggesting “a direct line connecting antisemitic and anti-Israeli incitement to this murder”, Sa’ar accused “leaders and officials of many countries and international organizations, especially from Europe”, for being central instigators. They had resorted to “modern blood libels” in accusing Israel of “genocide, crimes against humanity and murdering babies”.

While not expressly mentioning them, the Foreign Minister was clearly referring to France, Britain and Canada and their joint statement of May 19 warning about the murderous implications of Operation Gideon’s Chariots. The statement affirmed the trio’s opposition to “the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza.” Israel’s permission of “a basic quantity of food into Gaza” was condemned as wholly inadequate, while denying essential humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian population in the Strip was “unacceptable and risks breaching International Humanitarian Law.” The three countries further condemned “the abhorrent language used recently by members of the Israeli Government, threatening that, in their despair at the destruction of Gaza, civilians will start to relocate.”

The statement went on to warn that, were Israel not to cease pursuing such “egregious actions”, cease the ongoing military operation, and lift restrictions on humanitarian aid, “we will take further concrete actions in response.”

On May 20, in his address to the House of Commons, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy noted the “abominable” situation of threatened “starvation hanging over hundreds of thousands of civilians.” He grimly noted the words of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who had spoken of “cleansing Gaza” and “destroying what’s left”, with the intention of relocating Palestinians to third countries. Such measures, for Lammy, were “morally unjustifiable, wholly disproportionate and utterly counter-productive.”

In light of such developments, negotiations with Israel over a new free trade agreement were to be suspended. A further three individuals and four entities involved in Israel’s illegal settler program in the West Bank were also to be sanctioned.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry was dismissive of the British position, calling the sanctions “regrettable”. “If, due to anti-Israel obsession and domestic political considerations, the British government is willing to harm the British economy – that is its own prerogative.”

It was Netanyahu, however, who pulled out all the stops. In a video address, he noted the words uttered by Rodriquez as he was taken away: “Free Palestine.” Finding such a statement obscene, he recalled that it was “the same chant we heard on October 7 [2023]”, when “thousands of terrorists stormed into Israel from Gaza”, proceeding to behead men, rape women and burn babies. To take “Free Palestine” as a serious proposition was “today’s version of ‘Heil Hitler.’” It was a “simple truth” that had evaded “the leaders of France, Britain, Canada and others.” In their proposals for establishing a Palestinian state, they were rewarding “these murderers with the ultimate price.”

French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney were roundly condemned for being on “the wrong side of justice”, “humanity” and “history”. They had been praised by “mass murderers, rapists, baby killers and kidnappers”. The PM’s objective was simple: avoiding the establishment of any Palestinian state, as it was bound to be vulnerable to seizure by “radicals”. It was axiomatic that such an entity would wish for the destruction of the Jewish state. The picture becomes complete: Israel’s operations, totally justified on national security grounds; critics, abominated as hateful antisemites; the Palestinians, radicals current or in embryo needing to be rubbed out.

No one doubts that the reserves of antisemitism run deep, clouded by miasmic, millennial hatreds. Few can also doubt that a dislike of policies driven by ethno-religious fanaticism contemptuous of human rights is a valid ground of protest. That this should end up in killings of individuals attending an event about humanitarian aid that would have otherwise appalled Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, et al., is another, disturbing irony. Fanaticism diminishes the horizon, leaving human beings bare, and hollow, and naked. And that baring is currently underway with remorseless intensity in Gaza.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

Western capitals are still coordinating with Israel and the US on their ‘criticisms’ of the genocide – just as they earlier coordinated on their support for the slaughter

After 19 months of being presented with dissembling accounts of Gaza from their governments, western publics are now being served up a different – but equally deceitful – narrative.

With the finishing line in sight for Israel’s programme of genocidal ethnic cleansing, the West’s Gaza script is being hastily rewritten. But make no mistake: it is the same web of self-serving lies.

As if under the direction of a hidden conductor, Britain, France and Canada – key US allies – erupted this week into a chorus of condemnation of Israel.

They called Israel’s plans to level the last fragments of Gaza still standing “disproportionate”, while Israel’s intensification of its months-long starvation of more than two million Palestinian civilians was “intolerable”.

The change of tone was preceded, as I noted in these pages last week, by new, harsher language against Israel from the western press corps.

The establishment media’s narrative had to shift first, so that the sudden outpouring of moral and political concern at Gaza’s suffering from British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney – after more than a year and a half of indifference – did not appear too abrupt, or too strange.

They are acting as if some corner has been turned in Israel’s genocide. But genocides don’t have corners. They just progress relentlessly until stopped.

The media and politicians are carefully managing any cognitive dissonance for their publics.

But the deeper reality is that western capitals are still coordinating with Israel and the US on their “criticisms” of Israel’s genocide in Gaza – just as they earlier coordinated their support for it.

As much was conceded by a senior Israeli official to Israel’s Haaretz newspaper. Referring to the sudden change of tone, he said: “The past 24 hours were all part of a planned ambush we knew about. This was a coordinated sequence of moves ahead of the EU meeting in Brussels, and thanks to joint efforts by our ambassadors and the foreign minister, we managed to moderate the outcome.”

The handwringing is just another bit of stagecraft, little different from the earlier mix of silence and talk about Israel’s “right to defend itself”. And it is to the same purpose: to buy Israel time to “finish the job” – that is, to complete its genocide and ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

The West is still promoting phoney “debates”, entirely confected by Israel, about whether Hamas is stealing aid, what constitutes sufficient aid, and how that aid should be delivered.

It is all meant as noise, to distract us from the only pertinent issue: that Israel is committing genocide by slaughtering and starving Gaza’s population, as the West has aided and abetted that genocide.

PR exercise

With stocks of food completely exhausted by Israel’s blockade, UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher told the BBC on Tuesday that some 14,000 babies could die in Gaza within 48 hours without immediate aid reaching them.

The longer-term prognosis is bleaker still.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to let in a trickle of aid, releasing five trucks, some containing baby formula, from the thousands of vehicles Israel has held up at entry points for nearly three months. That was less than one percent of the number of trucks experts say must enter daily just to keep deadly starvation at bay.

On Tuesday, as the clamour grew, the number of aid trucks allowed to enter Gaza reportedly climbed to nearly 100 – or less than a fifth of the bare minimum. None of the aid was reported to have reached the enclave’s population by the time of writing.

Netanyahu was clear to the Israeli public – most of whom appear enthusiastic for the engineered starvation to continue – that he was not doing this out of any humanitarian impulse.

This was purely a public relations exercise to hold western capitals in check, he said. The goal was to ease the demands on these leaders from their own publics to penalise Israel and stop the continuing slaughter of Gaza’s population.

Or as Netanyahu put it: “Our best friends worldwide, the most pro-Israel senators [in the US] … they tell us they’re providing all the aid, weapons, support and protection in the UN Security Council, but they can’t support images of mass hunger.”

Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, was even clearer: “On our way to destroying Hamas, we are destroying everything that’s left of the [Gaza] Strip.” He also spoke of “cleansing” the enclave.

‘Back to the Stone Age’

Western publics have been watching this destruction unfold for the past 19 months – or at least they’ve seen partial snapshots, when the West’s establishment media has bothered to report on the slaughter.

Israel has systematically eradicated everything necessary for the survival of Gaza’s people: their homes, hospitals, schools, universities, bakeries, water systems and community kitchens.

Israel has finally implemented what it had been threatening for 20 years to do to the Palestinian people if they refused to be ethnically cleansed from their homeland. It has sent them “back to the Stone Age”.

A survey of the world’s leading genocide scholars published last week by the Dutch newspaper NRC found that all conclusively agreed Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Most think the genocide has reached its final stages.

This week, Yair Golan, leader of Israel’s main centrist party and a former deputy head of the Israeli military, expressed the same sentiments in more graphic form. He accused the government of “killing babies as a hobby”. Predictably, Netanyahu accused Golan of “antisemitism”.

The joint statement from Starmer, Macron and Carney was far tamer, of course – and was greeted by Netanyahu with a relatively muted response that the three leaders were giving Hamas a “huge prize”.

Their statement noted: “The level of human suffering in Gaza is intolerable.” Presumably, until now, they have viewed the hellscape endured by Gaza’s Palestinians for a year and a half as “tolerable”.

David Lammy, Britain’s foreign secretary who in the midst of the genocide was happy to be photographed shaking hands with Netanyahu, opined in parliament this week that Gaza was facing a “dark new phase”.

That’s a convenient interpretation for him. In truth, it’s been midnight in Gaza for a very long time.

A senior European diplomatic source involved in the discussions between the three leaders told the BBC that their new tone reflected a “real sense of growing political anger at the humanitarian situation, of a line being crossed, and of this Israeli government appearing to act with impunity”.

This should serve as a reminder that until now, western capitals were fine with all the other lines crossed by Israel, including its destruction of most of Gaza’s homes; its eradication of Gaza’s hospitals and other essential humanitarian infrastructure; its herding of Palestinian civilians into “safe” zones, only to bomb them there; its slaughter and maiming of many tens of thousands of children; and its active starvation of a population of more than two million.

Played for fools

The three western leaders are now threatening to take “further concrete actions” against Israel, including what they term “targeted sanctions”.

If that sounds positive, think again. The European Union and Britain have dithered for decades about whether and how to label goods imported from Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. The existence of these ever-expanding settlements, built on stolen Palestinian territory and blocking the creation of a Palestinian state, is a war crime; no country should be aiding them.

In 2019, the European Court of Justice ruled that it must be made clear to European consumers which products come from Israel and which from the settlements.

In all that time, European officials never considered a ban on products from the settlements, let alone “targeted sanctions” on Israel, even though the illegality of the settlements is unambiguous. In fact, officials have readily smeared those calling for boycotts and sanctions against Israel as “Jew haters” and “antisemites”.

The truth is that western leaders and establishment media are playing us for fools once again, just as they have been for the past 19 months.

“Further concrete actions” suggest that there are already concrete actions imposed on Israel. That’s the same Israel that recently finished second in the Eurovision Song Contest. Protesters who call for Israel to be excluded from the competition – as Russia has been for invading Ukraine – are smeared and denounced.

When western leaders can’t even impose a meaningful symbolic penalty on Israel, why should we believe they are capable of taking substantive action against it?

No will for action

On Tuesday, it became clearer what the UK meant by “concrete actions”. The Israeli ambassador was called in for what we were told was a dressing down. She must be quaking.

And Britain suspended – that is, delayed – negotiations on a new free trade agreement, a proposed expansion of Britain’s already extensive trading ties with Israel. Those talks can doubtless wait a few months.

Meanwhile, 17 European Union members out of 27 voted to review the legal basis of the EU–Israel Association Agreement – providing Israel with special trading status – though a very unlikely consensus would be needed to actually revoke it.

Such a review to see if Israel is showing “respect for human rights and democratic principles” is simple time-wasting. Investigations last year showed it was committing widespread atrocities and crimes against humanity.

Speaking to the British parliament, Lammy said: “The Netanyahu government’s actions have made this necessary.”

There are plenty of far more serious “concrete actions” that Britain and other western capitals could take, and could have taken many months ago.

A flavour was provided by Britain and the EU on Tuesday when they announced sweeping additional sanctions on Russia – not for committing a genocide, but for hesitating over a ceasefire with Ukraine.

Ultimately, the West wants to punish Moscow for refusing to return the territories in Ukraine that it occupies – something western powers have never meaningfully required of Israel, even though Israel has been occupying the Palestinian territories for decades.

The new sanctions on Russia target entities supporting its military efforts and energy exports – on top of existing severe economic sanctions and an oil embargo. Nothing even vaguely comparable is being proposed for Israel.

The UK and Europe could have stopped providing Israel with the weapons to butcher Palestinian children in Gaza. Back in September, Starmer promised to cut arms sales to Israel by around eight percent – but his government actually sent more weapons to arm Israel’s genocide in the three months that followed than the Tories did in the entire period between 2020 and 2023.

Britain could also stop transporting other countries’ weapons and carrying out surveillance flights over Gaza on Israel’s behalf. Flight tracking information showed that on one night this week, the UK sent a military transport plane, which can carry weapons and soldiers, from a Royal Air Force base on Cyprus to Tel Aviv, and then dispatched a spy plane over Gaza to collect intelligence to assist Israel in its slaughter.

Britain could, of course, take the “concrete action” of recognising the state of Palestine, as Ireland and Spain have already done – and it could do so at a moment’s notice.

The UK could impose sanctions on Israeli government ministers. It could declare its readiness to enforce Netanyahu’s arrest for war crimes, in line with the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant, if he visits Britain. And it could deny Israel access to sporting events, turning it into a pariah state, as was done to Russia.

It could announce that any Britons returning from military service in Gaza risk arrest and prosecution for war crimes.

And of course, the UK could impose sweeping economic sanctions on Israel, again as was done to Russia.

All of these “concrete actions”, and more, could be easily implemented. The truth is there is no political will to do it. There is simply a desire for better public relations, for putting a better gloss on Britain’s complicity in a genocide that can no longer be hidden.

Wolf exposed

The problem for the West is that Israel now stands stripped of the lamb’s clothing in which it has been adorned by western capitals for decades.

Israel is all too evidently a predatory wolf. Its brutal, colonial behaviours towards the Palestinian people are fully on show. There is no hiding place.

This is why Netanyahu and western leaders are now engaged in an increasingly difficult tango. The colonial, apartheid, genocidal project of Israel – the West’s militarised client-bully in the oil-rich Middle East – needs to be protected.

Until now, that had involved western leaders like Starmer deflecting criticism of Israel’s crimes, as well as British complicity. It involved endlessly and mindlessly reciting Israel’s “right to defend itself”, and the need to “eliminate Hamas”.

But the endgame of Israel’s genocide involves starving two million people to death – or forcing them out of Gaza, whichever comes first. Neither is compatible with the goals western politicians have been selling us.

So the new narrative must accentuate Netanyahu’s personal responsibility for the carnage – as though the genocide is not the logical endpoint of everything Israel has been doing to the Palestinian people for many decades.

Most Israelis are on board, too, with the genocide. The only meaningful voices of dissent are from the families of the Israeli hostages – and then chiefly because of the danger posed to their loved ones by Israel’s assault.

The aim of Starmer, Macron and Carney is to craft a new narrative, in which they claim to have only belatedly realised that Netanyahu has “gone too far” and that he needs to be reined in. They can then gradually up the noise against the Israeli prime minister, lobby Israel to change tack, and, when it resists or demurs, be seen to press Washington for “concrete action”.

The new narrative, unlike the worn-thin old one, can be spun out for yet more weeks or months – which may be just long enough to get the genocidal ethnic cleansing of Gaza either over the finish line, or near enough as to make no difference.

That is the hope – yes, hope – in western capitals.

Blood on their hands

Starmer, Macron and Carney’s new make-believe narrative has several advantages. It washes Gaza’s blood from their hands. They were deceived. They were too charitable. Vital domestic struggles against antisemitism distracted them.

It lays the blame squarely at the feet of one man: Netanyahu.

Without him, a violent, highly militarised, apartheid state of Israel can continue as before, as though the genocide was an unfortunate misstep in Israel’s otherwise unblemished record.

New supposed “terror” threats – from Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran – can be hyped to draw us back into cheerleading narratives about a plucky western outpost of civilisation defending us from barbarians in the East.

The new narrative does not even require that Netanyahu face justice.

As news emerges of the true extent of the atrocities and death toll, a faux-remorseful Netanyahu can placate the West with revived talk of a two-state solution – a solution whose realisation has been avoided for decades and can continue to be avoided for decades more.

We will be subjected to yet more years of the Israel-Palestine “conflict” finally being about to turn a corner.

Even were a chastened Netanyahu forced to step down, he would pass the baton to one of the other Jewish supremacist, genocidal monsters waiting in the wings.

After Gaza’s destruction, the crushing of Palestinian life in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem will simply have to return to an earlier, slower pace – one that has allowed it to be kept off the western public’s radar for 58 years.

Will it really work out like this? Only in the imaginations of western elites. In truth, burying nearly two years of a genocide all too visible to large swaths of western publics will be a far trickier task.

Too many people in Europe and the US have had their eyes opened over the past 19 months. They cannot unsee what has been live-streamed to them, or ignore what it says about their own political and media classes.

Starmer and co will continue vigorously distancing themselves from the genocide in Gaza, but there will be no escape. Whatever they say or do, the trail of blood leads straight back to their door.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Jonathan Cook.

In Canada, even acknowledging the existence of the 1948 Nakba continues to be rejected. Nakba denial is a form of genocide denial and a mechanism for denying the Palestinian right of return. It is also a key element of anti-Palestinian racism, something that is consistently perpetuated by the Canadian media. In 2023, the Canadian government even boycotted the first ever event held by the United Nations to commemorate the Nakba, sending a message to Palestinians that their ongoing suffering is uniquely undeserving of recognition.

What makes Nakba denial especially absurd in 2025 is that Israel is currently causing a greater scale of dispossession in Gaza than in 1948, with at least 1.9 million Palestinians forcibly displaced from their homes. This cruelty is not an accident, but by design, as one step in a deliberate plan by Israel to permanently expel Palestinians from Gaza.

When Donald Trump announced his plan for the United States to take over Gaza and permanently expel the population, Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu praised it — and told lawmakers that forcing Palestinians out of Gaza was the “inevitable outcome” of his military strategy. They are blocking aid from entering Gaza, deliberately using starvation as a weapon of war — a practice strictly prohibited under international law and codified as a war crime — with the genocidal intent of ensuring that Palestinians die, if not by bomb, then by hunger. This is a way of coercing those who survive to leave Palestine.

In a chilling message to world leaders, UN experts recently warned that we are at a “moral crossroads” in Gaza, and that states “must act now to end the violence or bear witness to the annihilation of the Palestinian population in Gaza.” Similarly, this week the UN Relief Chief challenged states: “what more evidence do you need? Will you act now – decisively – to prevent genocide in Gaza and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law?”

How will Canada respond to this call? Prime Minister Carney has said that “President Trump’s proposed forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza is deeply disturbing,” but he has taken no concrete steps to address it. No sanctions, no pressure, nothing that could ever hope to stop the genocide that is being openly plotted by US and Israeli leaders.

Last year, CJPME submitted policy recommendations outlining how Canada can acknowledge and rectify the historical tragedy of the Nakba. Some of our recommendations included:

1. Canada must officially recognize the Nakba and our role in the partition of the Mandate of Palestine.
2. Canada must recognize Nakba denial as a form of anti-Palestinian racism and as having a direct impact on Canadians’ right to free speech and academic freedom.
3. The Nakba is ongoing and Canada must play a role in halting it and reversing its consequences. To halt it, Canada must pressure Israel to change course by implementing boycotts, divestments, and sanctions.
4. Canada must insist upon the right to return, restitution, and compensation for Palestine refugees, consistent with UNGA Resolution 194 and general principles of international human rights law and refugee law, and acknowledge that these rights are distinct, they are not mutually exclusive and must not be pitted against one another.
5. Canada must play a role in demanding accountability and reparations for the Nakba (past and ongoing) by calling on the international community to set up an International Criminal Tribunal for Palestine, and by providing support to the International Criminal Court’s open investigation into war crimes committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Acknowledging the Nakba is not just about the past, it is about the present and the future — and addressing Canada’s complicity in an ongoing genocide. As Israel advances the Nakba in Gaza while annexing the West Bank, what will Canada’s legacy be?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East.

The election victory of Mark Carney’s Liberal Party on April 28, 2025, provoked fresh strain and already rigid posing of Alberta’s separation question. “For the last 10 years, successive Liberal Governments in Ottawa have unleashed a tidal wave of laws, policies and political attacks aimed directly at Alberta’s free economy – and in effect – against the future and livelihoods of our people,” wrote the province’s Premier Danielle Smith. The implementation of the No new pipelines law Bill C-69 as well as the oil tanker ban, increase of taxes on carbon emissions and imposing restrictions on oil and gas industry are just several examples of the liberal governments’ actions that cost Alberta billions of dollars.

It should be emphasized that the province contributes great sums of money to the federal budget of Canada, some hundreds of billions of dollars more, then other parts of the country. Despite this fact, the money is not allocated between provinces in proportion to their contribution. Thus, the Albertans give several times more, than they get.

It’s no surprise that, according to the data reported for May, 2025, the idea of independent Alberta is supported by approximately 36% of the locals. Their desire to leave Canada is quite reasonable as independence will open up new horizons to the current Canadian province and will help to avoid the limits set by Ottawa. Among other advantages Alberta will gain an opportunity to export its natural resources not only to the USA but also to other countries, all money it earns will stay within Alberta that will substantively increase the living standards of the population.

Premier Danielle Smith says she is ready to hold a referendum on provincial separation already in 2026 if citizens gather the required signatures on a petition. Taking into account that Ottawa demonstrates no intention to change its policy towards Alberta as well as to meet the demands voiced by the province’s Premier, there is no doubt the task will be implemented within a short period of time. By the way, it’s important to stress that the Albertans are not the first who started to talk about separation in Canada. The experience of Quebec, that tried to gain independence twice, should help the Albertans to achieve their goal.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Aaron Denley.

The election victory of Mark Carney’s Liberal Party on April 28, 2025, provoked fresh strain and already rigid posing of Alberta’s separation question. “For the last 10 years, successive Liberal Governments in Ottawa have unleashed a tidal wave of laws, policies and political attacks aimed directly at Alberta’s free economy – and in effect – against the future and livelihoods of our people,” wrote the province’s Premier Danielle Smith. The implementation of the No new pipelines law Bill C-69 as well as the oil tanker ban, increase of taxes on carbon emissions and imposing restrictions on oil and gas industry are just several examples of the liberal governments’ actions that cost Alberta billions of dollars.

It should be emphasized that the province contributes great sums of money to the federal budget of Canada, some hundreds of billions of dollars more, then other parts of the country. Despite this fact, the money is not allocated between provinces in proportion to their contribution. Thus, the Albertans give several times more, than they get.

It’s no surprise that, according to the data reported for May, 2025, the idea of independent Alberta is supported by approximately 36% of the locals. Their desire to leave Canada is quite reasonable as independence will open up new horizons to the current Canadian province and will help to avoid the limits set by Ottawa. Among other advantages Alberta will gain an opportunity to export its natural resources not only to the USA but also to other countries, all money it earns will stay within Alberta that will substantively increase the living standards of the population.

Premier Danielle Smith says she is ready to hold a referendum on provincial separation already in 2026 if citizens gather the required signatures on a petition. Taking into account that Ottawa demonstrates no intention to change its policy towards Alberta as well as to meet the demands voiced by the province’s Premier, there is no doubt the task will be implemented within a short period of time. By the way, it’s important to stress that the Albertans are not the first who started to talk about separation in Canada. The experience of Quebec, that tried to gain independence twice, should help the Albertans to achieve their goal.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Aaron Denley.

Klaus Scwab is gone and so is WEF alumnus Justin Trudeau. But in comes Mark Carney whose curriculum vitae is displayed on the WEF website as a WEF agenda contributor.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Allen Forrest.

Rather than appreciate the fact that there was a journalist there to receive information on military operations that might raise a host of concerns (legitimate targeting and the laws of war come to mind), there was a chill of terror coursing through the commentariat and Congress that military secrets and strategy had been compromised. Goldberg himself initially disbelieved it. “I didn’t think it could be real.” He also professed that some messages would not be made public given the risks they posed, conceding that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s communications to the group “contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the US would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”

This seemingly principled stance ignores the bread-and-butter importance of investigative reporting and activist publishing, which so often relies on classified material received via accident or design. Normally, the one receiving the message is condemned. In this case, Golberg objected to being the recipient, claiming moral high ground in reporting the security lapse. Certain messages of the “Houthi PC small group channel” were only published by The Atlantic to throw cold water on stubborn claims by the White House that classified details had not been shared.

The supposed diligence on Goldberg’s part to fuss about the cavalier attitude to national security shown by the Trump administration reveals the feeble compromise the Fourth Estate has reached with the national security state. Could it be that WikiLeaks was, like the ghost of Banquo, at this Signal’s feast? Last year’s conviction of the organisation’s founding publisher, Julian Assange, on one count of conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information under the Espionage Act of 1917, or section 793(g) (Title 18, USC), might have exerted some force over Goldberg’s considerations. Having been added to the communication chain in error, the defence material could well have imperilled him, with First Amendment considerations on that subject untested.

As for what the messages revealed, along with the importance of their disclosure, things become clear. Waltz reveals that the killing of a Houthi official necessitated the destruction of a civilian building. “The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.” Vance replies: “Excellent.”

As Turse reminds us in The Intercept, this conforms to the practices all too frequently used when bombing the Houthis in Yemen. The United States offered extensive support to the Saudi-led bombing campaign against the Shia group, one that precipitated one of the world’s gravest humanitarian crises. That particular aerial campaign rarely heeded specific targeting, laying waste to vital infrastructure and health facilities. Anthropologist Stephanie Savell, director of the Costs of War project at Brown University, also noted in remarks to The Intercept that fifty-three people have perished in the latest US airstrikes, among them five children. “These are just the latest deaths in a long track record of US killing in Yemen, and the research shows that US airstrikes in many countries have a history of killing and traumatizing innocent civilians and wreaking havoc on people’s lives and livelihoods.”

The appearance of Hillary Clinton in the debate on Signalgate confirmed the importance of such leaks, and why they are treated with pathological loathing. “We’re all shocked – shocked!” she screeched in The New York Times. “What’s worse is that top Trump administration officials put our troops in jeopardy by sharing military plans on a commercial messaging app and unwittingly invited a journalist into the chat. That’s dangerous. And it’s just dumb.” As a person with a hatred of open publishing outlets such as WikiLeaks (her own careless side to security was exposed by the organisation’s publication of emails sent from a private server while she was Secretary of State), the mania is almost understandable.

Other countries, notably members of the Five Eyes alliance system, are also voicing concern that their valuable secrets are at risk if shared with the Trump administration. Again, the focus there is less on the accountability of officials than the cast iron virtues of secrecy. “When mistakes happen, and sensitive intelligence leaks, lessons must be learned to prevent that from recurring,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated gravely in Halifax, Nova Scotia. “It’s a serious, serious issue, and all lessons must be taken.”

Former chief of Canada’s intelligence agency, Richard Fadden, was even more explicit: “Canada needs to think about what this means in practical terms: is the United States prepared to protect our secrets, as we are bound to protect theirs?”

Signalgate jolted the national security state. Rather than being treated as a valuable revelation about the latest US bombing strategy in Yemen, the obsession has been on keeping a lid on such matters. For the sake of accountability and the public interest, let us hope that the lid on this administration’s activities remains insecure.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

On February 25 I asked the NDP leader if he’d reconsider paying tens of billions of dollars to a US arms giant for offensive fighter jets as part of his stated desire to take a hardline in response to Donald Trump’s threats. Singh spent over a minute responding to my question but refused to answer. While seeking to portray himself as the ‘get tough on Trump’ candidate, Singh was unwilling to even say the party could reconsider paying huge sums to Lockheed Martin for 88 F-35s. To make his cautiousness even more absurd, the NDP has effectively opposed the F-35 contract, which is to cost $19 billion upfront and $70 billion over the life cycle.

The answer wasn’t simply off the cuff. I arrived half an hour early and had a conversation with Singh’s assistant in which I told her the two questions I hoped to ask.

Two weeks later I asked Yves Francois Blanchet basically the same question I had asked Singh. Last Tuesday the Bloc Québécois leader said he was open to canceling the F-35 contract in response to Trump’s belligerence. Blanchet expressed concern about a “switch off controlled in the US” for Canada’s expensive fighter jets.

In a sign that the issue was ripe, my Blanchet clip was viewed by over 200,000 times on social media, which is a surprisingly large number for an exchange in French.

To be fair to Singh, days before my question to Blanchet Postmedia reporter David Pugliese published a story discussing the US having an effective “kill switch” over the warplanes. Additionally, Michael Byers published a column in the Globe and Mail detailing some nationalist reasons to oppose the F-35 deal.

Also on Tuesday, thousands began responding to a Canadian Foreign Policy Institute, Just Peace Advocates and World Beyond War email campaign to Mark Carney and the leaders of the other political parties. It called for the F-35 contract to be scrapped and to “Stop Canada’s plan to spend billions on U.S.-made & controlled weapons of war.”

On Thursday former Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy added his voice to a rapidly growing number of Canadians speaking out on the F-35. That day Portugal also announced it was abandoning a plan to purchase the F-35s. The government cited concerns about US reliability and control over the planes’ logistics and parts.

Amidst the mounting pressure, defence minister Bill Blair told CBC on Friday that Carney asked him to reconsider the F-35 deal. The news made international headlines and has hit Lockheed Martin’s stock.

In effect, Canada’s new investment banker prime minister outflanked the leader of a social democratic party polling under 15%. In a widely circulated YouTube interview Saturday morning Brent Patterson and I discussed the NDP brass’ caution amidst a rapidly changing political terrain.

On Sunday the NDP released a sloppily put together statement (they rewrote the headline after publishing) saying the government should cancel the F-35 deal and its contract for 16 Boeing P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission Aircraft. It notes “At a time when Donald Trump has threatened not just workers and jobs, but Canada’s very sovereignty, it’s a matter of national security that our defence technology not be controlled by the United States. That’s why we’ll cancel the F-35 contract, and build the fighter jets Canada needs in Canada, using Canadian workers.”

Simultaneously, NDP defence critic Lindsay Mathyssen released a statement on the F-35. It noted, “We cannot allow President Trump to control the production, maintenance, and software of our military equipment. At a time when the United States is not respecting our territorial sovereignty, we cannot risk him being able to control our military equipment … Cancelling these projects would have an immediate impact on President Trump’s economy and send our clearest message yet that Canada will not stand for his disrespect.”

Mathyssen has largely ignored the issue even though 1,400 emailed her in 2022 calling on the party to question the “Liberal’s fighter jet plans” in a statement headlined “NDP must oppose F-35 purchase”. Previous to that the NDP largely ignored the widely mediatized 2021 No New Fighter Jets for Canada statement signed by Neil Young, Stephen Lewis, Teagan and Sarah, David Suzuki and many other notable Canadian and international figures.

While it’s good the NDP has decided to criticize the F-35, their Sunday statement also calls for Canada to spend 2% of GDP on its military by 2032. That would boost outlays on the war machine by some $20 billion per year (with annual rises matching GDP growth).

This is an odious shift in NDP policy. In July Singh repeated to me that the NDP considered NATO’s 2% of GDP target “arbitrary”. Their shift reflects the party’s subservience to an alliance NDP members previously voted to withdraw from as well as to the president seeking to annex Canada.

The NDP statement even responds to the contradiction, noting that “We don’t do this [call to increase military spending] to placate Donald Trump.” But that is precisely who has spurred the renewed push to boost military spending. Trump’s criticism is what led the Liberal leadership candidates to seek to outdo each other in declaring the speed at which they would hit the 2% of GDP target.

While it may be difficult to have principles in electoral politics, the opportunism shaping NDP military policy is beyond embarrassing.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Yves Engler.