BEIRUT — The Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire is becoming increasingly fragile as casualties mount and the Lebanese government struggles to deliver on its pledge to disarm Hezbollah. What was presented as a critical step toward restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty now risks becoming little more than a mirage.

I sat by the plane’s window as Beirut’s Mediterranean coastline came into view. As we landed, the cabin erupted in applause — a familiar Lebanese tradition celebrating a safe arrival. I joined in, but I wasn’t clapping for the pilot. I was applauding the resilience of passengers returning home despite the constant news of war, destruction and the rising death toll in southern Lebanon.

My first question to the cab driver, as he sped toward my hotel along the virtually empty corniche on a weekend afternoon, with the Mediterranean stretching out beside us, was simple: “How is tourism these days?”

“The corniche is usually bumper-to-bumper on a Saturday. Look at it now — it’s almost empty,” he said. “Westerners are afraid to come, and Gulf countries have warned their citizens against travelling here. We rely heavily on Lebanese living abroad for summer visits and the dollars they bring. It’s all because of the war — it could resume at any moment.”

While more than 800,000 displaced Lebanese people have returned to their homes in the south since the June ceasefire, my driver and his family remain among the hundreds of thousands still internally displaced. They are living in temporary housing, collective shelters or with host families, unable to return to their villages. Tensions there peaked in March after Hezbollah fired missiles at Israel, days after the United States and Israel began attacking Iran.

“Do you think the Lebanese army will be able to disarm Hezbollah, as agreed under the U.S.-brokered deal between Israel and the Lebanese government?” I asked.

“It will never happen. The military does not recruit members based on political affiliation, but more than half of the army is Shiite Muslim. Many of sons serving in the army remain loyal to or sympathize with Hezbollah,” he said.

“The Israelis are demanding what they call verified disarmament of Hezbollah before they withdraw from my village in the south. I’m telling you now — it will never happen. I am a Shiite Muslim myself, and in our religion, we don’t forget blood. We must avenge the deaths of our people in the south, our martyrs will not be forgotten. It stops there.”

Hezbollah was founded in 1982 by Lebanese Shiite clerics, including Hassan Nasrallah, who led the group until his death in an Israeli airstrike in September 2024. His successor, Naim Qassem, has rejected the U.S.-mediated framework, calling it “humiliating.”

Under the terms of the June ceasefire, Hezbollah operatives were required to withdraw entirely from the buffer zone between the Israeli border and the Litani River, while Lebanese security forces were to assume control of designated “pilot zones” in the south that were previously occupied by Israeli forces.

In the southern village of Zawtar al-Gharbiya , where three-quarters of the buildings have been destroyed and there is still no running water or electricity, Lebanese army units have been clearing unexploded ordnance and rubble, working with residents to recover bodies and ensuring that no Hezbollah military presence remains in the area.

The U.S. State Department has maintained that the pilot-zone model is the only viable path toward lasting security for Lebanon, Israel and the wider region. Yet on the ground, skepticism among the locals remains high.

On paper, the agreement signed in Washington by Israel and Lebanon on June 26 marked a historic shift — the first direct agreement between the two countries since 1983. A road map rather than a peace treaty, it recognizes Israel’s sovereignty and the two countries’ right to live in peace. Yet Hezbollah, the central actor in the conflict, was not a signatory, underscoring the gap between the agreement’s diplomatic ambitions and the reality on the ground.

I worked in Lebanon for a year with the International Committee of the Red Cross, visiting refugee camps, conflict zones and prisons. I came to see a troubling pattern: Hezbollah-affiliated suspects rarely faced prolonged detention through Lebanon’s formal justice system. The few Hezbollah prisoners I interviewed were often quickly released on bail or discharged.

Hezbollah is a Shiite Islamist political and paramilitary organization designated as a terrorist group by the United States, Canada and others. Over decades, it has become a state within the state, challenging Lebanon’s sovereignty and its institutions.

Sitting in my hotel room on Aug. 5, I watched news coverage of the three-day peace talks between Lebanese and Israeli diplomats in Rome, where they were negotiating the broader terms of the U.S.-brokered agreement. Then, suddenly, a breaking-news banner flashed across the screen: two Israeli soldiers had been killed and four wounded by an explosive device in southern Lebanon. The Israeli military described the incident as a “blatant violation” by Hezbollah. Israeli airstrikes followed, along with evacuation warnings for villages across southern Lebanon — a stark reminder of just how fragile the ceasefire remained.

On Aug. 15, weeks before the next round of peace talks, Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon killed 11 people and wounded 19, marking one of the deadliest escalations since the fragile truce took hold. In a statement posted on X, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hezbollah of violating the ceasefire by attacking Israeli soldiers.

Having a morning coffee with friends on a high-rise terrace overlooking northern Beirut, I could see at a distance the new U.S. Embassy — the second-largest U.S. embassy compound in the world. Spanning 17 hectares, nearly two-and-a-half times the size of the White House grounds, its sheer scale and fortifications are striking.

The reason is rooted in Lebanon’s history. In 1983, a Hezbollah-linked suicide bomber attacked the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American service members. The imposing embassy is, in part, a reminder of a lesson Washington learned the hard way: Hezbollah cannot be taken lightly.

Around noon, I heard the unmistakable buzz of a drone overhead. My friends barely flinched. After years of war, the sound had become almost routine to them. What unsettled us was that they had not heard it over the city in weeks — a chilling reminder of how quickly the sounds of war can return.

Walking through Beirut’s backstreets, one encounters chic restaurants and crowded bars blasting techno, house and hip-hop music, just meters from buildings scarred by past wars. It is a striking contrast — a city determined to move forward while, just an hour south, communities remain caught between daily life and the threat of renewed violence.

Since taking office in 2025, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, a former army commander, has been caught between two camps: those who see a settlement with Israel as a betrayal, and those, exhausted by decades of war and economic collapse, who see peace as Lebanon’s only way forward.

A phrase I repeatedly heard from Lebanese people who favour peace with Israel was, “Let’s have a beer in Tel Aviv.” It comes from a viral clip of Lebanese activist Majd Harb, who, when asked if he would drink a beer in Tel Aviv, simply replied, “Why not?” The comment sparked a polarized debate across Lebanese and regional media.

Many were open to the idea — but not one elegantly dressed woman who captured the political reality in a single sentence: “As long as Hezbollah exists, no one will be able to have a beer in Tel Aviv.”

For many Lebanese, peace has become less a lasting reality than a temporary pause between conflicts.

National Post

Mohamed Fahmy is an award-winning journalist who has covered the Middle East for numerous outlets, including CNN, Al-Jazeera, the Los Angeles Times and Foreign Policy.

• Beryl P. Wajsman: Carney’s stance on Lebanon shows he doesn’t understand international law
• Avi Benlolo: Lebanon shouldn’t require Israel to do its dirty work

Another horrific report was released this week about institutionalized antisemitism at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU).

Its primary author, retired judge Mary Lou Benotto, is no wallflower, and she did not mince words in her assessment: “The review finds that the events of Oct. 7, 2023, in Israel fundamentally altered the experience of campus life for many members of the university community. Jewish students, faculty and staff described hostility toward Jewish identity and Zionism that crossed into intimidation, dehumanization and antisemitism.”

The review found “symptoms of a deteriorating campus climate that, absent decisive institutional action, are likely to recur.” But this is nothing new. In 2016, I met with TMU’s president, Mohamed Lachemi, to warn him about reports I was receiving from Jewish students over rising antisemitism. At the time, Lachemi seemed receptive to fixing the growing problem of antisemitism on his campus.

But the Canadian method is to “kick the can down the road” with yet another study rather than implement necessary measures to fix the antisemitism problem. During his now infamous antisemitism speech in June at Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a new ministerial advisory council that would “reassess” and “measure” antisemitism from “four different directions.” The council has done zilch to date.

At this point, Canadians have seen a plethora of studies on the subject, but very little action. Last year, the government released the “Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.” It noted that, “Over 150 individuals were consulted, including Jewish community leaders, the Canadian delegation to the IHRA, rabbis, academics and teachers, lawyers, civil servants and political staff, and law enforcement personnel.”

Yet handbooks and reports are only as good as their implementation. In April 2026, the standing Senate committee on human rights released its own report titled “Standing United Against Antisemitism,” which provided 22 recommendations. Like numerous other reports now collecting dust, it stated the obvious: a surge in hate crimes, an erosion of safety and an increase in Holocaust denial, among other critical issues.

When will these reports end and action commence? Just last week, another government report found that 95.7 per cent of 900 Jewish students interviewed experienced some form of antisemitism over the past year, while 84 per cent considered antisemitism a serious problem at universities. Taking this to account, my column last week focused on how students and their parents should adapt to campus life this fall.

In her report, Benotto recommended eight easily achievable recommendations that TMU can immediately implement. Among them is the common-sense prohibition of intimidation, harassment and discrimination as part of free speech. She also called for new mechanisms around protests and, most significantly, the enforcement of TMU’s student code of conduct.

Instead of quickly moving to adopt these recommendations, the university called for another study to study the findings. In a statement , Lachemi announced a new “task force” and appointed Bob Rae to “carefully consider and respond to every recommendation” by March 2027.

So the university first hired a former judge to provide a report on antisemitism. Then it hired a former ambassador to take seven months to provide an “implementation blueprint.” Will it then follow the Carney playbook and appoint an advisory council to figure out how to implement the task force’s recommendations on the first recommendations?

National Post

Avi Benlolo is the chairman and CEO of the Abraham Global Peace Initiative, a Canadian think-tank promoting freedom and democracy.

• Avi Benlolo: Jewish students need to come prepared for antisemitism on campuses this fall
• Howard Levitt: Diversity statement can’t solve Toronto Metropolitan University’s discrimination problem

On Wednesday, the Parti Québécois unveiled its slogan for the upcoming provincial election: “Le choix de la confiance,” meaning “the choice of trust” or “confidence” in government. “We will not campaign on the pessimistic themes of uncertainty and fear, but based on policy proposals and a solid team,” leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon told reporters with a straight face.

Leave aside for the moment that the PQ’s concept of Quebec nationalism is inherently pessimistic, marinated in mistrust and grievance. The PQ’s 524-page doorstopper of a manifesto points to the following themes in its table of contents: “the cement of difference: language”; “the French language has no future in Canada”; “the Anselem affair: religion placed on a pedestal of individual rights” (this refers to a landmark Supreme Court case involving Orthodox Jewish Montrealers).

That’s just in chapter one!

The timing of the slogan unveiling was particularly amusing, coming as it did mere hours after St-Pierre Plamondon made official something he has mused about publicly for months: While remaining committed to holding a third sovereignty referendum in the PQ’s first mandate, he announced the campaign would not commence with Donald Trump still occupying the White House.

“Until then, our priority remains clear: Govern Quebec with consistency and restore the confidence of Quebecers,” he said.

In a not universally well-receivedopen letter to Quebec anglophones , published recently in National Post, St-Pierre Plamondon ventured the following: “The real ballot question this upcoming October is who can form a good government for Quebec: a competent government, an honest government, a government prepared to tell the truth about the challenges we face and then hit the ground running to solve them.”

Oh? Because these are the first words in the party manifesto, attributed to St-Pierre Plamondon specifically: “Quebecers have been questioning their political and constitutional future for decades. Feeling constrained within a Canadian federation that offers them neither linguistic nor cultural autonomy, they are searching for a solution that will truly allow them to ensure the preservation of their unique identity in America.”

The contradictions pile up like rush hour traffic on the Champlain Bridge. Quebec must be independent to protect its interests of all kinds … except if a malign influence occupies the White House? At the risk of wanton speculation, I suspect the United States is going to be a quite important market for an independent Quebec. Trump is a uniquely chaotic president — I suspect historians in 1,000 years will still say he was uniquely chaotic — but he didn’t invent protectionism or tariffs. Quebecers only drink so much bourbon. In 2024, according to the provincial liquor concern’s annual report , just 6.8 per cent of the wine sold on its shelves was American, with the vast majority from France, Italy and Spain. They export a lot of electricity to New York and New England … but they also import quite a bit. It’s an interconnected system.

Perhaps anticipating such criticisms, on Thursday St-Pierre Plamondon decided to stress that in his view, an independent Quebec “would be in a position to negotiate (with Washington) by ourselves and hence have our interests put forward and not … sacrificed over other interests.

“Not deciding by yourself when it matters is as dangerous as letting your neighbour decide for you what your budget will be and what cereals, whether it’s cornflakes or corn puffs, you will be eating in the morning. It’s not normal,” St-Pierre Plamondon said, employing a rare breakfast-cereal political analogy. To him, the benefits of sovereignty in this regard are “obvious,” he said.

And yet faced with the greatest menace from the White House Canada and its provinces have seen in anyone’s lifetime, now’s the time to stand down? It raises the question of trust and confidence, surely: Can a party leader who would postpone a referendum pledge because of Donald Trump be trusted to hold that referendum later? Trump leaves office in January 2029. The next Quebec election would be 18 months away.

And Premier St-Pierre Plamondon is going to roll the dice, no matter what the polls say, just because he promised? Even if he can see he is sure to lose? If you assume correlation equals causation, Trump only knocked a few points off support for sovereignty from a Biden-era peak in the high 30s. Thirty-eight per cent is not “winning conditions.”

Most nationalist pundits seem to see “no referendums under Trump” as wise strategy, given the polls — though, speaking of trust, not all of them are happy about Quebecers’ timorousness. “If our ancestors had been so ‘cautious’ (not to say “so fearful”), they would never have crossed the Atlantic,” Richard Martineau fumed in Le Journal de Montréal.

In the unlikely event St-Pierre Plamondon ever pulls the trigger, that’s the sort of remark the No side will want to have clipped and saved. They will have many cautious minds to change, and the PQ’s mixed messages inspire neither trust in the party, nor the party’s trust in Quebecers

National Post
cselley@postmedia.com

One of the world’s loudest and most successful cheerleaders for gender ideology has been forced into a tactical retreat in an ongoing U.S. court case.

Anyone mildly familiar with the controversy over “gender affirming” care will be aware that proponents for this medical scandal have insisted that there is to be no debate on trans health care — and that debate is not only tantamount to heresy, but could end the lives or very existence of transgender identified persons. Critics are often met with the refrain, “the science is settled,” when they ask questions about the wisdom or safety of transitioning gender-confused minors.

Well, that’s over now.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), in an application to dismiss a lawsuit, has finally admitted that the debate over gender ideology is very real — and that their guidelines are not so sacred, after all.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), along with the states of Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas, filed a lawsuit against WPATH in June. In a news release announcing the lawsuit, the FTC alleged that WPATH “has provided the means for medical providers to make false and unsubstantiated claims to parents in order to sell pediatric medical transition services.”

“In 2022, WPATH omitted all mention of age limitations for breast amputation or penis removal from the ‘Standards of Care’ document providing the organization’s official recommendations for treating sex-trait-related dissatisfaction or distress in children,” continued the FTC’s statement. “As alleged in the complaint, WPATH did not base this decision on medical evidence.”

WPATH has for years been treated as the global authority on transgender care, including in Canada. In fact, WPATH names Canada in its court filings as an example of a country that agrees with its “Standards of Care.” These care guidelines contain no lower age limits for surgical treatment and include an entire chapter on the “eunuch” gender identity.

Over the years, WPATH attracted criticism that threw its expertise into question. In March 2024, for example, a non-profit group named Environmental Progress released the “ WPATH Files ,” which were a series of documents that exposed WPATH members’ uncertainty over informed consent and treatment risks for minors, and the incidence of untreated mental health conditions among patients seeking trans health care. In light of the findings within the WPATH Files, Environmental Progress made a similar argument to the FTC: that WPATH “does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine, and members frequently discuss improvising treatments as they go along.” It also argued that “WPATH-affiliated doctors are knowingly violating bedrock principles of medical ethics and informed consent.”

It wasn’t until the FTC lawsuit, however, that WPATH had to go on record and admit that it is not the one true arbiter of science.

Sprinkled throughout WPATH’s motion to dismiss the FTC’s suit are references to its activities as “policy and opinion work,” and written “opinions about subjects on which there is ‘medical and scientific uncertainty.’” The submissions concede, at long last, the existence of “intense medical debate” about pediatric gender care. Put differently, WPATH is now admitting that the framing of critics as anti-trans bigots is false. There is a legitimate discussion to be had over science and evidence.

In its application to dismiss, WPATH claims to defer to U.S. federalism, that is, each individual state’s authority to create health-care legislation. After admitting that “variation exists among views on transgender health-care for youth,” WPATH states that “such policy disagreements are federalism in action.” It goes on to argue that the FTC lawsuit is a violation of state legislative power.

This is contradicted by several public statements WPATH has issued over the years, including in 2023, when WPATH said that it and its U.S. branch “vehemently oppose the broad and sweeping legislation being introduced and ratified in states across the country to ban access to gender-affirming health care to transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people” and “condemn any legislative actions to restrict or prohibit access to gender-affirming health care.”

Of course, the motion to dismiss makes no mention of the inconsistency between WPATH’s conflicting legal and public positions on the right of states to legislate transgender health care.

Admittedly, WPATH appears to have a good chance of getting the lawsuit quashed based on its legal argument that the FTC is attempting to infringe upon the non-profit’s First Amendment right to free speech. Americans have excellent speech protections, and it will come as no surprise if WPATH wins on this basis alone (the organization makes several other, less persuasive, arguments as to why the FTC’s lawsuit should be dismissed).

No matter, though. WPATH has been forced to back away from its “no debate” mantra, revealing the organization as a crumbling edifice of gender ideology.

“WPATH is contributing to the public medical debate regarding transgender healthcare. If Plaintiffs disagree with WPATH, the ‘remedy to be applied is more speech,’ not enforced silence,” reads the motion to dismiss, quoting another court decision.

It’s difficult to feel sympathy for WPATH, which, along with other gender activists, has dominated the culture war by silencing dissent for years. Now, the organization invokes the old plea of its ideological enemies: to be heard, and to be countered with opposing speech, rather than censorship. The temptation to gloat — at length — is strong.

The FTC lawsuit shone a light on WPATH, and, no matter the legal outcome, WPATH was caught with its pants around its ankles. Every physician who follows its guidelines should immediately step back and reconsider the evidence. This is a major win for vulnerable youth who are at risk of being caught up in this medical scandal.

National Post

One of the world’s loudest and most successful cheerleaders for gender ideology has been forced into a tactical retreat in an ongoing U.S. court case.

Anyone mildly familiar with the controversy over “gender affirming” care will be aware that proponents for this medical scandal have insisted that there is to be no debate on trans health care — and that debate is not only tantamount to heresy, but could end the lives or very existence of transgender identified persons. Critics are often met with the refrain, “the science is settled,” when they ask questions about the wisdom or safety of transitioning gender-confused minors.

Well, that’s over now.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), in an application to dismiss a lawsuit, has finally admitted that the debate over gender ideology is very real — and that their guidelines are not so sacred, after all.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), along with the states of Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas, filed a lawsuit against WPATH in June. In a news release announcing the lawsuit, the FTC alleged that WPATH “has provided the means for medical providers to make false and unsubstantiated claims to parents in order to sell pediatric medical transition services.”

“In 2022, WPATH omitted all mention of age limitations for breast amputation or penis removal from the ‘Standards of Care’ document providing the organization’s official recommendations for treating sex-trait-related dissatisfaction or distress in children,” continued the FTC’s statement. “As alleged in the complaint, WPATH did not base this decision on medical evidence.”

WPATH has for years been treated as the global authority on transgender care, including in Canada. In fact, WPATH names Canada in its court filings as an example of a country that agrees with its “Standards of Care.” These care guidelines contain no lower age limits for surgical treatment and include an entire chapter on the “eunuch” gender identity.

Over the years, WPATH attracted criticism that threw its expertise into question. In March 2024, for example, a non-profit group named Environmental Progress released the “ WPATH Files ,” which were a series of documents that exposed WPATH members’ uncertainty over informed consent and treatment risks for minors, and the incidence of untreated mental health conditions among patients seeking trans health care. In light of the findings within the WPATH Files, Environmental Progress made a similar argument to the FTC: that WPATH “does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine, and members frequently discuss improvising treatments as they go along.” It also argued that “WPATH-affiliated doctors are knowingly violating bedrock principles of medical ethics and informed consent.”

It wasn’t until the FTC lawsuit, however, that WPATH had to go on record and admit that it is not the one true arbiter of science.

Sprinkled throughout WPATH’s motion to dismiss the FTC’s suit are references to its activities as “policy and opinion work,” and written “opinions about subjects on which there is ‘medical and scientific uncertainty.’” The submissions concede, at long last, the existence of “intense medical debate” about pediatric gender care. Put differently, WPATH is now admitting that the framing of critics as anti-trans bigots is false. There is a legitimate discussion to be had over science and evidence.

In its application to dismiss, WPATH claims to defer to U.S. federalism, that is, each individual state’s authority to create health-care legislation. After admitting that “variation exists among views on transgender health-care for youth,” WPATH states that “such policy disagreements are federalism in action.” It goes on to argue that the FTC lawsuit is a violation of state legislative power.

This is contradicted by several public statements WPATH has issued over the years, including in 2023, when WPATH said that it and its U.S. branch “vehemently oppose the broad and sweeping legislation being introduced and ratified in states across the country to ban access to gender-affirming health care to transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people” and “condemn any legislative actions to restrict or prohibit access to gender-affirming health care.”

Of course, the motion to dismiss makes no mention of the inconsistency between WPATH’s conflicting legal and public positions on the right of states to legislate transgender health care.

Admittedly, WPATH appears to have a good chance of getting the lawsuit quashed based on its legal argument that the FTC is attempting to infringe upon the non-profit’s First Amendment right to free speech. Americans have excellent speech protections, and it will come as no surprise if WPATH wins on this basis alone (the organization makes several other, less persuasive, arguments as to why the FTC’s lawsuit should be dismissed).

No matter, though. WPATH has been forced to back away from its “no debate” mantra, revealing the organization as a crumbling edifice of gender ideology.

“WPATH is contributing to the public medical debate regarding transgender healthcare. If Plaintiffs disagree with WPATH, the ‘remedy to be applied is more speech,’ not enforced silence,” reads the motion to dismiss, quoting another court decision.

It’s difficult to feel sympathy for WPATH, which, along with other gender activists, has dominated the culture war by silencing dissent for years. Now, the organization invokes the old plea of its ideological enemies: to be heard, and to be countered with opposing speech, rather than censorship. The temptation to gloat — at length — is strong.

The FTC lawsuit shone a light on WPATH, and, no matter the legal outcome, WPATH was caught with its pants around its ankles. Every physician who follows its guidelines should immediately step back and reconsider the evidence. This is a major win for vulnerable youth who are at risk of being caught up in this medical scandal.

National Post