Last week on these very pages, I wrote that Canadian media — with the notable exception of the National Post — either refuses to report the truth or deliberately distorts facts about Gaza and the Middle East. I warned that this climate of misinformation, coupled with our government’s tolerance of radical Islamist narratives, would lead to violence. Tragically, I was right.

Just days later, a pro-Hamas terrorist in Boulder, Colorado launched a flamethrower attack on peaceful demonstrators calling for the release of Israeli hostages. Eight people were injured. The attacker

reportedly

yelled “Free Palestine” as he assaulted them. This wasn’t an isolated incident — this was incitement made real.

And where was the media?

They were busy fueling the fire.

Major outlets reported that the Israel Defense Forces had killed civilians lining up for food aid in Gaza. These claims remain in contention and are being directly challenged by Israel. There were no verified sources or credible eyewitnesses — only Hamas’s word. And yet, media outlets rushed to publish.

Drone footage and firsthand accounts raised serious doubts. Even the BBC walked back its headlines, later

admitting

the video they cited was unrelated to any aid distribution site. Meanwhile, the Washington Post retracted its own early reporting,

stating

: “The early versions fell short of Washington Post standards of fairness and should not have been published in that form.”

To their credit, some media outlets have maintained journalistic integrity. The Telegraph, for example,

reported

clearly that “Hamas is using the efforts to bring humanitarian aid to Palestinians to further its media campaign against Israel.” In a media landscape clouded by propaganda, that kind of clarity is essential.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee condemned this wave of reckless reporting,

saying

: “Without verification of any source other than Hamas and its collaborators, the New York Times, CNN, and Associated Press reported that a number of people seeking to receive humanitarian food boxes from the Gaza Humanitarian Fund were shot or killed by the Israeli Defense Forces.  These reports were FALSE.”

Huckabee is right when he calls this “Reckless and irresponsible reporting by major U.S. news outlets is contributing to the antisemitic climate that has resulted in the murder of two young people at an Israeli Embassy event in Washington and the terror attack on a group of pro-Israel demonstrators in Colorado.” His warning couldn’t be more urgent.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt

echoed

his concern: “We don’t take the word of Hamas with total truth… unlike the BBC,” she said. “I suggest that journalists who actually care about the truth do the same.”

Meanwhile, a coordinated effort has been underway to discredit the newly formed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation — designed to provide food aid without Hamas’s interference. Hamas and its apologists have tried to paint this effort as chaotic or violent. Let me be clear: the only reason the United Nations is no longer operating in Gaza is because of its complicity. It failed to condemn the October 7th massacre. And for nearly two decades, UNRWA turned a blind eye as Hamas built terror tunnels beneath its buildings and stashed rockets in its schools.

British columnist Melanie Phillips

calls

this media onslaught a “verbal pogrom against Israel and the Jews.” She’s right. “We’ve never seen anything like this before,” she wrote. “Its unique construction from falsehoods… tells us something pathological is going on here.” In America, Jews are being assaulted and even murdered for supporting Israel. As I discussed last week, in Canada, mobs surround synagogues, block cultural events, and intimidate Jewish families. This isn’t protest — it’s persecution.

My heart breaks for the innocent lives lost. But the responsibility lies squarely with Hamas. It started this war on October 7th. And it continues to prolong the suffering by refusing to release hostages, disarm, or accept peace. Civilian suffering in Gaza is the direct consequence of Hamas’s war strategy — not Israel’s.

From day one, Hamas has waged a dual campaign of terror and disinformation. Incredibly, the Western press continues to cite Hamas-run ministries and outlets like Al Jazeera as if they were impartial. Responsible journalists in any other conflict would verify sources and question motives. Why is Hamas treated differently?

Even our own leaders haven’t escaped the fog of propaganda. Early in the war, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

wrongly blamed

Israel for a hospital explosion. The reality? It was caused by a misfired Palestinian rocket. He took Hamas at its word — and the media echoed it.

I’ve experienced this bias firsthand. When antisemitic mobs surround peaceful Jewish events in Toronto, Canadian media is largely silent. Apparently, defending Israel isn’t fashionable, and G-d forbid one of our city’s esteemed radio stations interview a Jew like me about what is happening around us.

But this isn’t just bias anymore. It’s complicity. It’s libel dressed as journalism. And in this climate of fear and rising antisemitism, it’s dangerous.

I won’t be silent. I won’t let terrorism, misinformation, and antisemitism go unchallenged. The media has a duty to report the truth — not act as a megaphone for Hamas.

We are long past the point of error. We are now in an era of willful distortion. And it must stop.

National Post

Avi Abraham Benlolo is the founder and CEO of the Abraham Global Peace Initiative – a prominent Canadian think-tank.

• Mike Fegelman: Mark Carney is committed to rewarding Hamas terrorism with statehood
• When extremism comes from the far left, or Islam, there is uncomfortable silence

Elon Musk and Donald Trump had been inseparable for some time now.

Musk publicly endorsed Trump’s presidency in a tweet less than an hour after the failed assassination attempt on the president’s life. Their relationship began with mutual respect and compliments. Musk

praised

Trump’s “instinctual courage” in jumping up quickly after being grazed by a bullet and yelling “fight, fight,” and Trump told rally attendees in Grand Rapids, Michigan: “We have to make life good for our smart people and (Elon’s) as smart as you get.” Musk engineered America PAC, a $1 million dollar daily giveaway aimed at getting voters in swing states to support Trump. In all, Musk donated around US$ 280 million to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. After the election, Musk was put in charge of managing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk visited the White House, often with his children. There were even sleepovers!

Alas, it now appears the honeymoon is over. And it just might be the most public break-up in history.

The trouble appears to have began when Musk criticized Trump’s massive tax cut and spending legislation, known as the “

One Big Beautiful Bill

” on Tuesday, posting on X, “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.” The legislation is expected to add as much as $2.7 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

A pointed critique like that, coming from Musk, who had just finished his term last week as position as Special Government Employee leading DOGE in an effort to reduce government spending and increase efficiency, would’ve burned any president.

But Trump isn’t just any president. Predictably, he took the comments very personally.

When asked about Elon’s critique during a news conference at the White House Thursday, he

made his hurt feelings known

: “Well, look, you know, I’ve always liked Elon and I was very surprised, you saw the words he had for me, the words… and he hasn’t said anything about me that’s bad, I’d rather have him criticize me than the bill.”

“Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore.”

Trump then went into full attack mode, telling reporters that, “Elon knew the inner workings of this bill, better than almost anybody sitting here,” and suggested that Musk, who is CEO of electric vehicle maker Tesla,  only had a problem with the bill when he found out that Trump would be cutting EV tax credits.

“I’m very disappointed in Elon. I’ve helped Elon a lot,” he told them.

He then went on to suggest that Musk missed being in the White House, causing him to have “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

The feud then spilled out of the news conference onto their own respective social media platforms — Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) and Trump’s Truth Social resulting in a cross-platform flamewar.

It began with a quick succession of tweets from Musk on X.

Musk

responded

to Trump: “Whatever. Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill. In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful. Everyone knows this! Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill. Slim and beautiful is the way.”

Backing off a bit, Musk posted another

tweet

defending himself, “I have been very consistent. Just stating facts,” sharing a video of himself back in 2021 saying, “You can’t just spend $3 trillion more than you earn every year and don’t expect something bad to happen. Something’s got to give.”

Musk kept belting out

attacks

. “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude,” he posted in response to an account that suggested the same.

When one account posted on X, “President vs Elon. Who wins? My money’s on Elon. Trump should be impeached and JD Vance should replace him.” Musk retweeted the comment with the word, “Yes.”

Expressing his distaste for Trump’s tariffs, Musk

tweeted

that they would “cause a recession in the second half of this year.”

Up until this point, maybe they could have put this all behind them. At this point, someone should have probably took Musk’s phone away.

Instead Musk scorched whatever Earth was left between them, dropping the equivalent of a relationship Hiroshima, attempting to tie Trump to sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein: “Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!”

And to let everyone know there’d be more, he followed up with: “Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.”

The sleeping giant Donald Trump,

who has previously denied connection to Epstein,

then woke from his Truth Social slumber to fight back: “Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!”

Trump followed up by threatening to cancel contracts for Musk’s companies: “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”

After that, Tesla’s share price dropped by

14 per cent.

All that money, and all those wives and children, and yet, no friends to protect either of these two from saying things at news conferences or on social media platforms they’d likely regret later.

In response to Trump, Musk escalated

again

: “This just gets better and better. Go ahead, make my day.”

Their relationship began to deteriorate as early as April. Insiders

told Politico

that, while Musk serves a valuable role as a “lightning rod for Trump’s critics,” he was also seen as “a

n unpredictable, unmanageable force” and a “political liability.”

A longtime top Trump advisor told Politico: “They think (Musk’s) a genius, but he’s a one-man wrecking ball.”

Perhaps Trump and the White House should not have been surprised that a man who described himself as a free-speech absolutist, buying Twitter so he could reduce speech moderation, would have a hard time not saying what’s on his mind.

Interestingly, it’s this inability to not say what one thinks which enamoured voters to Trump as well. Is it possible the two are simply too much alike?

On May 28, when Musk announced that he’d be stepping down from his special government role at DOGE, things still appeared friendly between the two. Musk tweeted out: “As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending. The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

Musk’s X feed was still full of praise for the President, with Musk retweeting his posts with, “

Wise words

,” “

I couldn’t agree more

,” and “

sensible move

,” and “

a slim beautiful bill for the win

,” above retweets prior to Trump’s remarks in Thursday’s news conference.

But clearly, there had been some disagreement about Trump’s budget bill. Otherwise, why the disgruntled “Whatever,” from Musk about removing EV incentives? Musk had been complaining over the last few days that the bill would get rid of subsidies.

Musk ended with a tweet poll that suggested he might make a play for office himself, or at least try to upend the political status quo.

Musk, asking his audience to respond “yes” or “no” posted: “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” He followed up with, “Oh and some food for thought… Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years…”

But is the bromance truly over? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

tnewman@postmedia.com

X

@TLNewmanMTL 

• Terry Newman: Sorry, Imane Khelif. You won’t be punching any more women in the face
• When extremism comes from the far left, or Islam, there is uncomfortable silence

Sex confirmation testing results for Olympic gold medalist Imane Khelif, an Algerian who has racked up numerous medals defeating women in boxing, were leaked Sunday. The

results

proved what many around the world already suspected — that Khelif is a biological male who had no business being in a boxing ring with women, and a letter on a passport won’t change that.

American sports journalist Alan Abrahamson posted on his website, 3 Wire Sports, an image of Khelif’s 2023 sex confirmation results which were performed in New Delhi by

Dr Lal Pathlabs

prior to the 2023 International Boxing Association (IBA) Women’s World Boxing Championships. The result reads: “chromosomal analysis reveals male karyotype,” meaning Khelif is a biological male with XY chromosomes. The report was also uploaded in full by

science writer

Colin Wright.

And as far as female sex confirmation tests go, this isn’t the first Khelif has failed. In addition to the test taken in New Delhi, Khelif failed the same test administered by IBA in Istanbul in 2022.

The leaked test results followed a

statement

Friday from the World Boxing Association, which announced it would be following the IBA, introducing its own mandatory sex testing for all boxers to ensure participant safety and a competitive level playing field for both men and women. The association made it clear that Khelif “will not be allowed to participate in the female category at the Eindhoven Box Cup or any World Boxing event until Imane Khelif undergoes sex testing.”

With two major boxing associations now backing sex-based eligibility, there’s hope that biological females will no longer have to square off against biological males, as China’s Yang Liu had to against Khelif, who defeated her for the gold medal in women’s welterweight boxing at the 2024 Paris Summer Olympic Games.

Five days into those Olympic Games, before their match, IBA released a

statement

expressing concern about the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) “inconsistent application of eligibility criteria.” The IBA raised competitive fairness and safety concerns about IOC’s “differing regulations on these matters.”

IBA warned that Khelif and another boxer failed eligibility criteria for participating in the women’s competition after taking a “recognized test” which they claimed “conclusively indicated that both athletes did not meet the required necessary eligibility criteria and were found to have competitive advantages over other female competitors.” IBA noted that the decision to disqualify both athletes was made after a “meticulous review,” explaining that it is “extremely important and necessary to uphold the level of fairness and utmost integrity of the competition.”

For reasons of confidentiality, the statement did not reveal medical specifics about the athletes, or the test they took, which we now know from the leak was chromosomal.

How did the IOC determine that Khelif was eligible to compete against women in the Paris Summer Olympic Games?

They rejected the IBA’s disqualification, telling

reporters

“everyone competing in the women’s category is complying with the competition eligibility rules. They are women in their passports and it is stated that is the case.” In other words, no testing was performed.

This eligibility procedure is confirmed by an Aug. 1

statement

released eight days before Khelif would compete for the gold medal which began: “Every person has the right to practise sport without discrimination.” The IOC then suggested that Khelif and the other IBA-disqualified athlete were “victims of a sudden and arbitrary decision by the IBA,” which they referred to as an “aggression.”

The day before that statement, IOC spokesman Mark Adams

said

that the IOC’s position was for sports to try to balance fairness in female sport with inclusivity. “Federations need to make the rules to make sure that there is fairness, but at the same time with the ability for everyone to take part who wants to,” he said. “That’s a difficult balance. In the end it’s up to the experts for each discipline. They know very well where there is an advantage, and if that is a big advantage then that is clearly not acceptable. But that decision needs to be made at that level. “

The IOC doesn’t do any testing of its own, basing an athlete’s eligibility to compete on the gender of their passport, as indicated by its statement about Khelif. The IOC also defended Khelif’s participation by saying it followed the

2020 Tokyo boxing

rules, which has zero guidelines on either sex confirmation or the use of passports.

Strange. The Olympics are considered the pinnacle of success for many athletes. One would think it would have the strictest of rules for competition to uphold the prestige of the sport.

Turns out that boxing eligibility requirements are something the IOC only recently started managing for itself. The IBA has been the international governing body for amateur boxing since 1946, which has also included organizing boxing events at the Olympic Games. Traditionally, the IOC recognized the IBA’s management of the sport. This was apparently the case up until 2019 when the IOC initially suspended IBA, due to concerns about governance and financial transparency, and officially derecognized the IBA in 2023.

This led to the IOC taking it upon themselves to determine the eligibility of Khelif, who, by the way, did not even bother to follow through on an appeal to IBA’s disqualification to the

Court of Arbitration for Sport,

an independent tribunal that is recognized by the IOC and other sports federations.

Khelif took advantage of IOC’s nonsensical eligibility rules. Whether the IOC would have honoured Khelif’s disqualification prior to 2019 is unknown. Perhaps not, since, like too many sports institutions today, the IOC appears to privilege “inclusivity” over common sense.

As a result, Khelif was able to go on to compete against women in the Paris Summer Olympics, winning the

gold medal

on Aug. 9, shortly after both the IBA’s and IOC’s statements.

While Khelif didn’t appeal the scientific results of IBA’s sex confirmation tests, the boxer did show off the newly-won gold medal in mid August after what the Daily Mail called a “

stunning makeover,”

which involved donning pink makeup and a floral robe.

Boxer Imane Khelif shows off new ‘makeover’ after Olympic gender row https://t.co/oCMXCbUlmM pic.twitter.com/nk4l6RNvtS

— The Independent (@Independent) August 19, 2024

Apparently, this is what makes one a woman these days. This, and XY chromosomes.

Khelif told reporters after the gold medal win: “I am fully qualified to take part in this competition. I am a woman like any other woman. ‘I was born a woman. I have lived as a woman. I competed as a woman — there is no doubt about that.”

Now there is no doubt Khelif is not, biologically.

While Khelif,

according

to the IOC’s Mark Adams, was given a female birth certificate, and later, a passport with the same female distinction, and “lived her entire life as a woman,” this doesn’t change the Algerian athlete’s biological reality.

As Wright, an Evolutionary Biologist and Manhattan Institute Fellow,

points out

on his Substack, “If someone is born with XY chromosomes and internal testes due to a DSD like 5-ARD then the sex recorded on their birth certificate is a clerical error — not a truth that must shape our sporting policies.”

And even the potential explanation of Khelif having DSD (developmental sex differences), which, in males, might result in a micropenis or testes that have failed to descend, was only ever speculative. The truth is, we have no idea what’s going on beneath Khelif’s trunks.

Yet, those of us women who knew better at the time were told to stop being so hateful. We were supposed to shut up and enjoy watching a biological male punch the living daylights out of women, stealing medals they trained their whole lives to win.

Not only that. We were supposed to applaud this great achievement. This was progress, we were assured.

tnewman@postmedia.com

X:

@TLNewmanMTL

National Post

• Michael Higgins: Garneau’s moral compass always pointed true north
• Michael Taube: Early signs Liberal government may be short-lived

It is a measure of the man that in a world where values, virtue, and self-sacrifice seem anachronistic, Marc Garneau embodied them.

Following his death on Wednesday at age 76 after a brief illness, there was lavish praise and kind words for Garneau whose life was devoted to serving his country.

As an astronaut, Garneau reached the stars, as a politician he served honourably and faithfully, despite his tawdry treatment at the hands of Justin Trudeau.

In a

statement

, Prime Minister Mark Carney said, “To those who worked alongside him, Marc was a trusted colleague and friend. To Canadians, he was a symbol of national pride and possibility.”

Mary Simon, the Governor General,

said

he left behind a legacy of integrity and professionalism.

Erin O’Toole, the former Conservative leader who also served as a captain in the air force,

said

of Garneau, who had been a commander and captain in the navy, that he represented the very best of Canada and had inspired countless people “including me.”

Garneau began his service to Canada by serving in the navy before joining the Canadian Astronaut Program. In 1984, he made history when he became the first Canadian in space as a payload specialist on the Space Shuttle Challenger. He went on to make two other space missions aboard the Endeavour.

“I have been around planet earth…about 450 times,” Garneau

recounted

at a Ted Talk in 2013.

He was president of the Canadian Space Agency from 2001 to 2005 and in 2008 was elected as a Liberal MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Westmount (formerly Westmount–Ville-Marie).

In 2013, he ran for the Liberal leadership against Trudeau, and in a debate that year, pointedly

asked

the future prime minister, “So please tell us what in your resume qualifies you to be the leader of the country.”

“I was never sure after that whether he held that against me,” Garneau

told

the CBC’s Rosemary Barton last year. “But on balance, I think he didn’t because he appointed me transport minister when we were finally elected.”

Garneau became transport minister in 2015 with one of his first acts being to introduce a passenger bill of rights for fliers. From January to October of 2021, he was foreign minister until suddenly being dropped without explanation by Trudeau and replaced by the more sycophantic Mélanie Joly.

“I don’t know why I was removed from cabinet,” Garneau told Barton.

But he appeared to show no animosity toward the prime minister.

“The prime minister is free to choose his cabinet and he can dismiss his cabinet,” he said. “But I never really got a satisfactory explanation as to why I was removed.”

However, it obviously hurt.

“I just had to suck it up. It was a punch in the gut. I was very disappointed.”

Trudeau’s treatment of Garneau was shabby and cavalier. It is often true that the public and press do not give the people in public service the credit they are due, but it is reprehensible when it is the prime minister of the day.

Later, in his autobiography, A Most Extraordinary Ride: Space, Politics and the Pursuit of a Canadian Dream, Garneau was

critical

of Trudeau accusing him of being ill-prepared and prioritizing politics and big pronouncements without any follow up.

He also wrote of his inability to have a meeting with Trudeau, instead having to go through the Prime Minister’s Office.

“The prime minister’s aloofness led me to conclude that he did not consider my advice useful enough to want to hear from me directly, relying instead on his staff,” Garneau wrote.

A clue to Garneau’s ostracism may be that, although he was a loyal servant to Canada, he was not in Trudeau’s closest circle.

“I think he was close to certain ministers, in some cases childhood friends, people that could knock on his door anytime. But I was not one of those people,” Garneau told Barton.

If Garneau was not a friend of Trudeau’s, he was certainly a hero to many and an exemplar to Canadians.

In a world which increasingly feels like it is dominated by narcissists and egotists, where virtue is an outdated concept, and values are whatever you want them to be, we are desperately in need of more Garneaus. Men, and women, who are willing to sacrifice self and devote themselves to looking after the welfare of others.

In his farewell

speech

in the House of Commons in 2023, Garneau said, “Nothing is perfect in this world, but I would like to think that I always did my best to try to make it better.”

Reading the tributes to Garneau they refer to his integrity, courage, humility, patriotism, kindness and intelligence and sense of duty, and it becomes clear that what he possessed was a moral compass.

John Locke, the 17th century English philosopher, described virtue as “the knowledge of a man’s duty.”

Garneau was a husband, father, naval officer, astronaut and politician who understood duty and did it.

Canada is poorer for his loss.

National Post

• Mike Fegelman: Mark Carney is committed to rewarding Hamas terrorism with statehood
• When extremism comes from the far left, or Islam, there is uncomfortable silence

The 45th Canadian Parliament officially began on May 26. There are already some early signs that it may not last very long.

Prime Minister Mark Carney and the Liberals suffered an

embarrassing defeat

in a June 2 vote in the House of Commons. Conservative interim leader Andrew Scheer’s sub-amendment to the throne speech, which called for a “firm commitment” to present a spring economic statement or budget “that incorporates measures aimed at unleashing Canada’s economic potential,” passed by a vote of 166-164.

This surprising result was aided by the fact that four Liberal MPs didn’t vote due to the long-standing procedural measure of

paired abstentions

. This is when the parties represented in the House agree to have an MP sit out a vote and be paired with an MP of a different party who can’t attend for a particular reason.

In fairness, this was a non-binding vote. Confidence in the Liberal government wasn’t being put to the test that day. At the same time, in spite of chief government whip Mark Gerretsen suggesting “we knew the outcome of what that vote was going to be,” it’s still a humiliating moment. While there have been a tiny number of instances of a federal government losing a non-binding vote, resolution or motion, it’s highly unusual to have it happen this early in a parliament’s life — and to have it linked to the Throne Speech.

As it happens, Carney and the Liberals survived a second crisis with the Throne Speech the following day when it was adopted by the House of Commons in a peculiar fashion.

Political commentators and columnists were briefly caught off-guard on June 4 when the NDP announced they would vote

against

the Throne Speech. The Conservatives seemed like a good bet to join them. Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-François Blanchet even

told

the media that “we have no news about how the caucus is going to vote.”

This had suddenly become an interesting situation. The minority Liberal government has 169 MPs. One of them, Francis Scarpaleggia, is the Speaker of the House. Only Green Party leader Elizabeth May appeared to be onside with the Liberals. If the Conservatives, NDP and BQ all voted against the Throne Speech, this would have been regarded as a vote of no confidence in Carney’s Liberal government. This would have likely led to the dissolution of Parliament and a new federal election.

The whole scenario seemed rather far-fetched. Going back to the polls so early wouldn’t be desirable for most Canadians. The voters would blame one or more of the parties for causing this situation. Meanwhile, Elections Canada revealed that the

estimated cost

for running this year’s federal election was $570 million. It would be difficult to convince the Canadian taxpayers, who foot this lofty bill, that they would need to spend this amount (or more) once again in 2025 — with no guarantee that it would lead to a different result.

I felt the BQ would “ultimately side with the Liberals,” as I

wrote

on X. That being said, I acknowledged “there’s a real possibility that they’ll vote them down.” It was difficult to figure out what was exactly going on at that point and time.

No-one would have ever guessed how this political crisis (of sorts) would end, however.

The Throne Speech was ultimately

adopted

“on division.” What does this mean? In a nutshell, some MPs wanted their displeasure or opposition to be

put on the record

in Hansard, but they didn’t want to go through the process of a recorded vote. While this is an acceptable procedural manoeuvre, it left a bad taste in people’s mouths. There’s also been no indication which opposition parties or politicians supported the government’s reply to the Throne Speech. It may take us a while to figure out their identities, or we may never find out at all.

Meanwhile, some political observers were surprised the Liberals found themselves in this situation to begin with. They shouldn’t be.

In spite of the fact that Carney’s minority government is substantially larger than the two previous minority governments of his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, he’s actually in a more precarious position. Why? There’s only a 25-seat difference between the Liberals and Conservatives, which could potentially decrease with by-elections and floor crossers. The NDP has seven seats, no official party status and barely a political pulse. The BQ slipped down to 22 seats and doesn’t have the trust of a federalist party like the Liberals. The sole Green representative is May, which isn’t enough for Carney to ensure his legislation will get passed — and avoid future votes of no confidence.

Long story short, a larger minority government doesn’t necessarily ensure or guarantee political stability on Parliament Hill. Carney’s early political hurdles suggest he’s likely going to face some real difficulties in the fall session in gaining support and unity with important pieces of legislation. This can only continue for so long before the opposition parties get fed up with the Liberals and bring them down. We could potentially be looking at a short-lived minority government that’s defeated much earlier than most originally expected.

National Post

• Liberals downplay narrowly lost vote demanding spring budget
• Liberal government’s throne speech passes in House of Commons without a vote

It is taken as a central tenet in responsible governance that terrorism is not an acceptable method of statecraft. Deliberately murdering innocent people for political ends is to be condemned and not rewarded.

But not anymore.

On May, 19, the Carney government released a

joint statement

with the leaders of the United Kingdom and France saying that he is “committed to recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to achieving a two-state solution and are prepared to work with others to this end.” This begs the question: after decades of not doing so, what materially has changed?

Over the last 20 months, following the Hamas terror invasion of southern Israel and subsequent mass murder, rape, torture and kidnapping of Israeli and other civilians, much has changed. Hamas surely knew that its attacks on October 7, 2023 would not destroy Israel (and could very well lead to its overthrow by the Jewish state, the destruction of Gaza and deaths of countless innocent Palestinians), yet it pursued this invasion, knowing that there was a potential for tangible benefit.

Hamas knew exactly what it was doing. After all, Hamas is not just a genocidal terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction, but a savvy media operator, disseminating manipulated casualty figures that have been widely and uncritically embraced around the world, leading to international condemnation of Israel and for the world to refocus its attention to the plight of the Palestinians, a cause that at the time was receding from the headlines.

Hamas knew that condemnations of its attack would be short-lived, and that Israel would almost instantly be seen as the villain, which was part of its goal while also seeking to obstruct Saudi Arabia’s making peace and normalizing relations with Israel by joining the Abraham Accords.

There is a direct line between Hamas’ October 7 massacres and the proposed recognition of a Palestinian state by the Carney government. If there had been no invasion 20 months ago, there likely would not be any such recognition. Those attacks may not have guaranteed such a recognition, but a recognition would not have taken place without them.

What, exactly, would Canada be recognizing? Gaza has been under the despotic rule of Hamas for nearly 20 years; is that the regime which Ottawa would be granting with formal recognition, even though Hamas remains a banned

terrorist organization

in Canada? If not Hamas, then whom, since there is no other Palestinian governance in place in that territory.

Hamas is a terrorist organization that murders its political opponents, while the Palestinian Authority is a corrupt kleptocracy that continues to funnel money to the families of dead terrorists through its

pay-to-slay program

. Its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is a dictator who this past January started his

twenty-first year of his first four-year term

.

The Palestinian Authority doesn’t exercise effective control over defined borders and the Palestinian territories lack the essential institutions of a functioning state, including an

independent judiciary

,

transparent financial oversight

, and stable governance structures. The Palestinian Authority governs parts of Judea & Samaria or in media parlance, the “West Bank”, but its control is partial, its institutions are riddled with corruption, ineptitude and inefficiency, and elections have not been held in nearly two decades. The split between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority has resulted in two rival governments with no unified leadership, making effective governance and national cohesion impossible.

Moreover, both regimes suppress fundamental rights. In Gaza, LGBTQ+ individuals face brutal persecution, Christians have fled in large numbers, and women’s rights are severely restricted.

Free expression is suppressed in both areas, with journalists and political dissidents frequently harassed, jailed or executed. The judicial systems are not independent, and

opposition voices are silenced

through threats or imprisonment. Hamas maintains an armed militia and refuses to disarm or recognize Israel, while the Palestinian Authority continues to glorify terrorists and to promote incitement through media and education. Until the Palestinian leadership can ensure unified, transparent, and rights-respecting governance — and commit to peace by renouncing terrorism, pursuing demilitarization and recognizing Israel as a Jewish state — statehood remains both practically and morally untenable.

Consequently, recognizing a Palestinian state under these conditions would not just be a reward for Palestinian terrorism, but a recipe for disaster for the very people it purports to help.

Instead, observers have long maintained that the only legitimate path to Palestinian statehood is through a negotiated solution directly with Israel. Jerusalem has offered many such proposals in the past, including

offering the Palestinians all of Gaza

, 95 per cent of the West Bank, and more, only to be rejected in favour of violence.

In 2005,

Israel forcibly withdrew

all its citizens from Gaza unilaterally. Gaza was turned into a launching pad for terrorism against Israel.

The Palestinian leadership, whether Hamas or the supposedly ‘moderate’ Palestinian Authority (PA), have made clear that they have no interest in accepting the existence of a Jewish state next door. While the PA at least plays moderate to Western audiences, Hamas continues to make clear that it will never stop fighting for the violent destruction of Israel, and has stated they will

continue to carry out

as many October 7-style massacres as necessary.

That is the state the Carney government will reportedly be rewarding with statehood and Canada would be wise to heed the words of John Kelley, Acting USUN Alternate Representative at the UN Security Council, who on May 28

proclaimed

that: “The United States stands with Israel in unequivocally rejecting any effort to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state or impose conditions on Israel — which would be an unconscionable reward for the heinous Hamas attack on Israel that massacred and brutally kidnapped Israelis and Americans.”

By recognizing a Palestinian state, part of which is currently governed by a banned terrorist organization, Ottawa would be rewarding terrorism in the truest sense: showing Hamas that thanks to its mass murder of Israeli civilians nearly 20 months ago, it would help bring about a Palestinian state.

There is no precedent in modern history where a group has achieved statehood through terrorism, nor should there be. Rewarding violence against civilians with political recognition sends a dangerous message: that terrorism is an effective path to legitimacy. Such a move would undermine the principles of international law, peace and diplomacy, and encourage other extremist groups to adopt similar strategies.

Appeasing violence by granting statehood not only legitimizes terrorism but also weakens the moral authority of the Western world. It tells the world that attacking civilians and rejecting peaceful solutions can lead to political rewards, a message that would have far-reaching and destabilizing consequences domestically and worldwide.

It turns out that terrorism really does pay. And if that’s the case, it means the world can expect to see a lot more of it. After all, why negotiate when you can just murder your way to statehood?

Mike Fegelman is the Executive Director of HonestReporting Canada, a non-profit organization ensuring fair and accurate Canadian media coverage of Israel. www.HonestReporting.ca.

National Post