Site icon Empire and Economics

Confronting a Canadian Politician on the Genocide in Gaza – A Correspondence

Andrew Gavin Marshall

By: Andrew Gavin Marshall

If you haven’t read my first letter to my Member of Parliament, Rob Oliphant, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, see my original letter here.

If you haven’t read Mr. Oliphant’s response to my letter, view it here.

The following is my essay-length reply to his letter, which I concluded with a list of ACTIONS that Canada could take (apart from simply reciting statements or announcing symbolic gestures). Additionally, I not only requested that he reply to my letter, but I extended an invitation to him to engage in a face-to-face conversation (in person or online) and to be a guest on my podcast, In This Mad World, in order to have an honest and direct discussion on the subject.

Dear Rob Oliphant,

Thank you for replying to my previous email. However, your response, to say the least, was immensely disappointing (at best), and in truth, was just a repackaging of various talking points that I quite emphatically requested to be left out of the discussion. In addition to this email response, I also request a face-to-face meeting with you, in person or online. You selectively answered about 2 or 3 of the roughly 13-15 questions I put to you. I gave you my background so that you would know that superficial answers to serious questions will not be sufficient. So, let’s try this again, shall we?

You stated that you have been “resolute in [your] calls for a complete ceasefire, for increased access to humanitarian aid.” That’s all very well and good, and easy, as it requires saying a few words, akin to offering “thoughts and prayers” after a tragedy. But I’m not interested in thoughts and prayers, nor in empty calls for a “ceasefire” after 22 months of genocidal warfare. It’s simply not good enough, by any stretch of the imagination.

Your deflection, so common among your colleagues in Canada and in other G7 nations, to answer every question related to Israeli criminality with yet another recitation of “on October 7,” as if this conflict began on that date, or began with Hamas, when I stated quite clearly to you my background in history, and thus, that my memory and knowledge goes back beyond 22 months. You began your response noting that this issue is one you have “taken extremely seriously” even before entering Parliament, so I must assume that you, too, know better than to recite these mantras that make it seem as if this all began with Hamas or in October of 2023. In particular, I found your statement that, “Hamas has been holding Gazans hostage for decades,” to be a particularly egregious propaganda talking point, equating power and responsibility on equal weight between Israel and Hamas, an absurd notion.

This is a good opportunity for a little history.

We know that 80% of Gaza’s pre-October 7 population were refugees or descendants of refugees from the 1948 Nakba. Gaza City existed long prior to the establishment of Israel, but the ‘Strip’ as an entity was invented by Israel in order to enclose the refugee population within, then under Egyptian territorial control (as the West Bank was under Jordanian authority). Then, of course, there was Israel’s 1956 invasion and occupation of Gaza and the Sinai in Egypt, alongside the British and French colonial powers, which were all subsequently forced to withdraw under US and Soviet pressure. (If only we had such courage in the world today!)

Following the 1967 war and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the start of the religious extremist settlement enterprise and establishment of military occupation (legally deemed “temporary” but now in its 58th year), Gaza was further enclosed, and its inhabitants held captive by Israel. This, incidentally, was 20 years before the founding of Hamas, as I’m sure you are aware.

In 1987, after 20 years of military occupation and settlement expansion and colonialism, along with the criminalization of secular Palestinian resistance groups under the umbrella of the PLO, most especially Fatah under Yasser Arafat, and in the midst of the 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon (1982-2000), Israel itself helped to found Hamas – a religious movement turned political resistance force – as a counterweight to the secular resistance of Fatah. Eventually, it backfired on Israel (clearly), in a similar fashion as to how the US support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan backfired on the US with the establishment of al-Qaeda. Again, I am sure you are aware of this, which makes it doubly incredible that you make and endorse statements that appear to be ahistorical.

The year 1987 was also the start of the First Intifada, sparked in Gaza itself. The 1980s was thus a period of time in which more of the world began to see Israel for its actions in Lebanon and in the illegally occupied territories of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. The IDF response to what were largely peaceful protests was one of absolute brutality. The Prime Minister was Yitzhak Shamir, a former Lehi (Stern Group) terrorist leader of a pre-1948 Zionist militia embracing pseudo-fascist ideology, and his Defense Minister was none other than Yitzhak Rabin, a longtime general who became infamous for his “broken bones” policy of instructing the IDF to crush the protests “with force, power and blows,” and told his commanders to, “Go in and break their bones… If they will be beaten, it will hurt them, and the demonstrations will stop.”

Rabin, of course, would go on to become the great “peacemaker” prime minister who signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, which betrayed the Palestinian people who were subjected to continued and enhanced military occupation, rapid colonization through expanded settlements, but now had the new invention of the Palestinian Authority, largely reviled by the Palestinian people for its function as a subcontractor of the Israeli occupation. As settlement expansion served as the primary impediment to peace and reaching a final deal on potentially establishing a two-state solution, the so-called ‘peace talks’ fell apart. (Of course, this was blamed on the Palestinians)

Then, Israel helped to ignite the Second Intifada, first with the trip by Ariel Sharon to al-Aqsa, sparking protests that were met with immense force, which then exploded across the occupied territories. We know from the Israeli press reporting on the findings of Military Intelligence officials at the time, that the claims that there was no “partner for peace” among the Palestinians was a lie, but was rather a slogan made up by the Israeli political leadership that was repeated ad nauseam to the point of becoming “common knowledge” in Israel, and generally accepted and repeated by Israel’s western allies, including Canada.

Following roughly five years of the Second Intifada, during which time roughly 1,000 Israelis and 4,000 Palestinians were killed, Sharon pursued his so-called Gaza “disengagement” plan. To this day, it is often repeated that this was a gift or gesture for peace from Israel, framed as an “end” to the occupation of Gaza. We know this is false.

The withdrawal of the military and 21 settlements in Gaza in 2005 was not an end to the occupation, it was a repositioning of occupation forces to the external borders of Gaza, to effectively surround and contain Gaza. As the top aid to PM Sharon, and one of the key architects of the disengagement plan, Dov Weisglass, openly admitted even before it went into effect, “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process.” The unilateral decision to remove Israeli forces and settlements from within Gaza and reposition around it was ultimately about ending the growing global criticism of Israel’s conduct during the Second Intifada and its refusal to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians. Additionally, it created a further division between the West Bank and Gaza, treating them as two separate units instead of one single political territory to be a future Palestinian state. As Weisglass elaborated: “And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”

Additionally, following the disengagement in 2005, the fiction that Israel had ended the occupation of Gaza was consistently and emphatically denied by the UN and various human rights organizations. As even the US establishment think tank, the Atlantic Council, acknowledged in 2023: “many prominent international institutions, organizations and bodies—including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN General Assembly (UNGA), European Union (EU), African Union, International Criminal Court (ICC) (both Pre-Trial Chamber I and the Office of the Prosecutor), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch—as well as international legal experts and other organizations, argue that Israel has occupied Palestinian territories including Gaza since 1967.”

Seeing as how you, in your response to my first letter, stated that Canada belongs “to an international order of nations, institutions, and organizations” and that, “Canada stands up for international law and abides by all the regulations and rulings of the international courts,” you can recognize that the 2005 disengagement was not an end to the occupation. Further, as per your stated respect and adherence to the decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), we must also acknowledge the July 2024 decision of the ICJ to rule that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories was “illegal” under international law, and even noted that following the 2005 disengagement, Israel legally remained the occupying power of Gaza. As the ICJ summary position noted, “for the purpose of determining whether a territory remains occupied under international law, the decisive criterion is not whether the occupying Power retains its physical military presence in the territory at all times but rather whether its authority has been established and can be exercised.” As such, the ICJ ruled that, “the Court considers that Israel remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip, including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone, despite the withdrawal of its military presence in 2005.” I would add to this list, control over the currency used in Gaza, which is the Israeli shekel, and without Palestinian representation in the governance of the Central Bank of Israel.

So, since we both acknowledge and have respect for international law, we must recognize that Israel never ended its occupation, but simply reorganized and repositioned occupation forces and structure.

But of course, the story and evidence is not yet complete without a discussion of the Palestinian elections and subsequent Palestinian civil war, coup, and Israeli blockade.

Following many attempts by the Palestinian Authority President Abbas to postpone elections, due to PA and Israeli fears of a Hamas victory, the elections were ultimately slated to take place in early 2006. The Bush administration ultimately pressured Israel and the PA to allow the elections to take place.

Hamas even amended its charter in January 2006 to drop its call for the destruction of Israel (though this has never stopped being used as a talking point to silence critics of Israel). Instead, Hamas de facto recognized Israel and accepted the objective of moving towards a two-state solution, both of which were preconditions for its participation in Palestinian legislative elections, which were held across occupied Palestinian territories, not simply in Gaza.

Growing support for Hamas was not driven by an ideological affinity for the group, but by a widespread hatred and distrust of Fatah and the PA, which in its then-12 years of administration of Palestinian occupied territories, was seen as ineffective, corrupt, and beholden to Israel.

In late January 2006, Hamas scored a political victory in legislative elections by winning 76 out of 132 seats, deposing Fatah, which won only 43 seats. Then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert immediately declared that, “The state of Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian administration if even part of it is an armed terrorist organization calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.”

Of course, not only Israel, but the US, UK, and other western allies who had pushed for free elections immediately dismissed the results and refused to engage with any Palestinian government that included Hamas because it had an armed wing. (Negating the unfathomable level of hypocrisy of engaging with Israel, despite the IDF existing, with the Israelis never even discussing the concept of refusing their apparent right to use force, a demand that is only ever imposed upon colonized peoples, and not the colonizers).

Behind the scenes, the US and Israel immediately began to strategize how they could destabilize the Palestinian government and remove Hamas from power, which of course reflects a lack of respect for the democratic will of the Palestinian people (unless they vote the way we want them to, which in this case, was to vote for the corrupt Fatah party, beholden to Israel and the US). The US and other allies withheld aid to the Palestinian government and were attempting to convince US-backed Arab dictatorships to support their efforts to undermine and remove the Hamas-led government.

Israel proposed a plan in February of 2006 “to restrict the movement of money, people and goods into and out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank,” reported the NYT. Dov Wesiglass, then an adviser to PM Olmert, explained in a meeting with top Israeli officials that, “We need to make the Palestinians lose weight, but not to starve to death.”

Since Hamas had won approximately 45% of the legislative votes, and Fatah with 41%, Hamas had the ability to form a government under its authority (though Abbas of Fatah would remain as President, following the 2005 presidential elections). Nevertheless, Hamas opted to pursue talks with the other Palestinian parties and factions, including its main rival, Fatah, to work together to try to form a unity government.

By late March, Gaza was having to ration food and other supplies that Israel had cut off from entering the Strip. This predictably resulted in some Palestinian militant factions firing homemade rockets toward Israel. The response from Israel was typically beyond any degree of proportionality, firing 300 shells into Gaza daily by April 2006. Despite these actions, Hamas had maintained its then-16 month ceasefire with Israel. In late May, Israeli forces even invaded Gaza in targeted operations against various Palestinian militant groups.

In early June, Israel bombed and killed seven civilians on a Gaza beach, all members of the same family, including killing a mother, a teenager, and two young children, aged 6 months and 18 months. Another Israeli airstrike killed a senior commander in the Hamas government, yet another continued violation of the ceasefire. At this point, Hamas officially announced an end to the ceasefire that they had adhered to for the previous 16 months, stating that, “we the Palestinians, including Hamas, have the right to respond and defend ourselves.”

Since you declared in your letter to me that Israel deserves to live “free from terror and the threat of terror,” surely, so too should the same hold for Palestinians, to be free from Israeli terror and threat of terror. Between late-March and mid-June, the Israelis had launched 5,700 shells at Gaza, killing 47 Palestinians, including 11 children and five women, compared to just over 50 imprecise, homemade rockets fired at Israel.

This of course resulted in an escalation on both sides, and eventually with the kidnapping of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in late June, following two weeks of Israeli attacks that killed 14 Palestinian civilians. In response, Israel threatened to undertake massive retaliation against Hamas and Gaza, with Israeli tanks even moving inside Gaza’s territory.

While Hamas held captive one 19-year-old IDF soldier, at the same time, Israel held captive 95 Palestinian women and 313 Palestinian children in Israeli prisons, out of a total Palestinian prison population of 9,000. More than 1,000 of those prisoners were held captive by Israel without charge.

Israel bombed Gaza’s only power plant, knocking out electricity supply to roughly half the population of Gaza, which also resulted in water shortages and sewage flooding.

Behind the scenes, there was a plot being hatched and carried out by the Americans and Israelis, with the collusion of certain Arab dictatorships. Following the January 2006 elections, and the attempt to strangulate the Hamas-run government through economic sanctions and blockade, the Bush administration pursued a covert operation to remove Hamas from power. This was extensively detailed in a 2008 Vanity Fair expose, based upon confidential documents obtained by the magazine, corroborated by sources in the U.S. and occupied Palestine.

The Bush administration opposed efforts by the various Palestinian factions to form a unity government with Hamas. The US even made aid to the Palestinian Authority dependent upon PA President Abbas, long considered a close ally of the Americans, dissolving the government and calling for new elections. But he refused to do so. Still, the Americans were working closely with the security forces of the Fatah faction under Abbas’ apparent authority. The US emphasized that they would support Fatah and Abbas politically and militarily in a confrontation with Hamas. Though Hamas had won the election, Fatah maintained control over the 16 branches of security forces under the command of the Palestinian Authority, and the US was working to build them up for a conflict with Hamas, which was itself attempting to build up its own security forces, knowing it couldn’t rely upon the Fatah-led forces. By the fall of 2006, it was apparent that the US strategy was to foment a civil war between Palestinian factions.

Violent confrontations between Hamas and Fatah were erupting in the streets, particularly in Gaza. By late December, PA President Abbas bowed to US pressure and attempted to dissolve the Hamas-led government and call for new elections, a move that was decried by Hamas as “a real coup.” The result was a predictable flare-up of violence. The violence continued into January of 2007.

At the same time, Hamas’ political leader in exile, Khaled Meshal, issued a draft outline of a proposal that would have Hamas officially recognize Israel in return for recognition of a Palestinian state. Yet, the US-backed and covertly supported forces of Fatah were escalating their violence against Hamas, notably inside Gaza.

Nevertheless, negotiations between the factions resulted in an agreement in early February 2007, brokered by Saudi Arabia, to finally form a unity government between Hamas and Fatah, despite the outbreaks of violence. The Americans were not pleased. But the US insisted on continuing with Plan B, to again force a confrontation between the factions and remove Hamas from power, even in a unity government.

Israel, for its part, was increasing attacks on Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza. Fighting between Palestinian factions continued and escalated, despite the unity agreement. By late April, the US plan to foment a Fatah-led coup against Hamas had been leaked to the Jordanian press. By mid-May, the Saudi negotiated truce between factions had completely fallen apart and extreme violence had erupted in the streets. Fatah was backed by the US, Israel and Egypt in its civil war against Hamas.

Fighting between the factions escalated, especially in Gaza. But in mid-June 2007, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas finally did what the Americans had demanded of him and issued a decree disbanding the coalition government and declared a state of emergency, attempting to orchestrate a coup against Hamas, with Hamas militants on the verge of taking control of the Gaza Strip.

The following day, however, on June 15, Hamas fighters officially took complete control in the Gaza Strip, effectively leaving Fatah in charge of the West Bank only, and splitting the political control between the two territories.

As Wikileaks cables later revealed, the head of Israel’s military intelligence at the time, Amos Yadlin, told American officials on June 12, 2007, just three days before the Hamas takeover of Gaza, that “Israel would be ‘happy’ if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state.” This, he claimed, was preferable “to deal[ing] with Hamas as a non-state actor.” Another cable revealed that Fatah had actually asked the Israelis to attack Hamas in Gaza in June of 2007.

It was this final act by Hamas to effectively pre-empt the US and Israeli-backed Fatah coup with a coup of its own that is commonly referred to in present day as the “Hamas takeover of Gaza,” as if it occurred in a vacuum and was singularly responsible for the circumstances that led to it.

Following the Hamas takeover, Israel sealed its border with Gaza and imposed a brutal blockade that allowed “only the minimum amount of goods required to avert a hunger or health crisis among its 1.5 million people, and prohibiting most exports.” Egypt, for its part, worked with Israel in imposing a similar blockade on Gaza’s southern border.

Indeed, in September of 2007, Israel officially declared that the Gaza Strip was a “hostile entity,” threatening further cuts to fuel and electricity supplies.

In early 2008, again according to leaked Wikileaks cables, Israeli officials told American diplomats that they were aiming to keep Gaza’s economy “on the brink of collapse” just short of creating a major humanitarian disaster. As an American diplomat summarized his meetings with Israeli officials, he wrote that, “As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to (U.S. embassy economic officers) on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge.” The cable, from November 2008, reported that Israel wanted Gaza’s economy “functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis.”

It was later revealed that Israel even calculated the minimum number of calories per person in Gaza required to keep the Palestinian population just short of malnutrition. The Israeli document, which was made public after three years of a legal battle through the courts, revealed that the Israeli government assessed that Palestinians of Gaza should be subjected to no less than 2,279 calories per day, requiring a minimum of 170 truckloads of food per day, five days a week.

Then, of course, we had the horrific 2008/09 Israeli military assault on Gaza known as Operation Cast Lead. This 22-day war resulted in the Israeli murder of 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza, including 300 children and hundreds of other innocent civilians.

For details on Israel’s criminality during this operation, see the reports on the war compiled by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and even the UN’s own fact-finding mission.

Then, of course, there was the 2012 Israeli military onslaught on Gaza, named Operation Pillar of Defense, an eight-day war that also resulted in numerous war crimes committed by Israel. The operation resulted in war crimes and the killing of approximately 167 Palestinians.

In 2014 there was the 50-day Israeli war on Gaza known as Operation Protective Edge, killing about 2200 Palestinians, including more than 500 children (this was considered to be a substantial figure prior to 2023, after which Israel has murdered more than 18,000 children in Gaza).

Then there was the 2018-19 Gaza ‘March of Return’ protests in which Palestinians caged inside Gaza by Israel staged mass, non-violent protests simply by congregating and walking toward the fence surrounding the Strip, which Israel responded to, typically, with overwhelming force. IDF forces responded with live fire, killing 223 Palestinians, including 46 children, and injuring more than 8,000. Even a UN inquiry into the events found that Israel had committed grave violations of international and humanitarian law, including by the deliberate targeting of children and journalists.

In May of 2021, yet another Israeli assault on Gaza took place, lasting just over two weeks, during which time Israel carried out numerous war crimes, killing 250 Palestinians, including 66 children.

When you compile these stats of casualties from Israeli military operations, war crimes and killings in Gaza between December 2008 and May 2021 (and leaving aside Israeli killings of Palestinians in the West Bank), we get a figure of 4,240 Palestinians killed by Israel in Gaza, including 912 children (which is higher than the total number of Israeli civilians killed on October 7, 2023). Across the same duration of time and conflicts (2008-2021), also confined to the Gaza wars and crises listed above, there were approximately 106 Israeli deaths.

I provided this documented history to address your statement in your email response to me that, “Hamas has been holding Gazans hostage for decades.” Your statement is no more true than claiming that the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority has been holding Palestinians in the West Bank hostage for decades. They may both be corrupt, violent enforcers of internal administration, but we can only make such spurious claims by ignoring the larger power dynamics at play; namely, that Israel is the only nation-state and major military power maintaining effective occupation over both territories (as well as East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights in Syria).

To claim that “Hamas had been holding Gazans hostage for decades,” while ignoring the very real fact of Israeli occupation, enclosure, blockade, and repeated bombing and mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza, is, quite honestly, insulting and absurd. It has been Israel that has been holding the Palestinians of Gaza hostage. Israel’s ongoing blockade and occupation of Gaza was made obvious by the fact that, following October 7, they were able and willing to cut off supplies of food, fuel, electricity, and water, as was announced by then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, when he added that, “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

Now to your point about Canada apparently “stand[ing] up for international law” and abiding by “all the regulations and rulings of the international courts.” Rhetoric aside, our actions are more important in determining if we actually, as you claim, stand up for international law and respect the rulings of the international courts. Indeed, our actions indicate quite the contrary.  

As I mentioned before, the July 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which you claim to support and uphold, ruled emphatically and without doubt, that “Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal because its policies and practices violate the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and impede the right to self-determination.” As such, Israel was legally obligated “to bring to an end its continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory ‘as rapidly as possible’,” which clearly it has not done and has no intention of doing.

In fact, in addition to the Israeli government’s August 2025 announcement that it would formally take over and occupy Gaza City, in May 2025 it approved the establishment of 22 new settlements in the occupied West Bank, further expanding and entrenching the illegal occupation, with the Knesset in July 2025 passing a non-binding resolution calling for Israel to officially annex the West Bank.

In other words, Israel is doing everything it can to not only ignore the orders of the ICJ, but to actively undermine them.

Further, the Court found that Israel’s illegal occupation and “discriminatory laws” were “tantamount to the crime of apartheid.”

Of course, this is nothing new, as Palestinian rights groups had been accusing Israel of apartheid for years and decades. However, in January of 2021, Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, issued a report confirming that Israel has imposed “a regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea” which amounts to “apartheid.”

Human Rights Watch issued a report in April of 2021 concluding that, also between the river and the sea, an area in which roughly 6.8 million Jewish Israelis and 6.8 million Palestinians live, that, “Throughout most of this area, Israel is the sole governing power; in the remainder, it exercises primary authority alongside limited Palestinian self-rule,” in which “Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians.” This system, the report noted, has resulted in “deprivations” that “are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”

And in February of 2022, Amnesty International issued a report concluding that Israel was guilty of the crime of apartheid, noting that, “Israel imposes a system of oppression and domination against Palestinians across all areas under its control: in Israel and the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories], and against Palestinian refugees, in order to benefit Jewish Israelis. This amounts to apartheid as prohibited in international law.” As Amnesty noted: “Apartheid is a violation of public international law, a grave violation of internationally protected human rights, and a crime against humanity under international criminal law.”

Of course, all three of these human rights groups (and others) have since issued reports accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, facts and evidence I put to you to address in my previous email, which you did not address and instead simply replied, “I await their [ICJ] ruling.” Yet, your record the relevant 2024 ICJ ruling does not create cause for hope, as far as the Canadian government or yourself are concerned, in respecting international law and the rulings of the top legal court in the world, despite your claims to the contrary.

Finally, with the July 2024 ICJ ruling that Israel was guilty of apartheid, and the occupation itself was “illegal,” you now have the opportunity to back up your claims to support the Court and its rulings.

So, Mr. Oliphant:

Since you claim to support the Court and its decisions, I must assume that you accept these facts (unless of course you suspend your basic principles, positions, and your own statements when it comes to the subject of Israel). However, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you adhere to your own words and accept the Court’s conclusions:

However, if you invent some sort of qualifier to justify ignoring the Court’s decisions [when it comes to Israel] and backtrack on your stated support for the Court and its rulings, please provide an explanation for why you refuse to respect and uphold international law, specifically with respect to the July 2024 ICJ ruling.

After all, you represent Canada, particularly on the subject of foreign affairs. And yet, despite your claims to respect the Court, in September of 2024, when the United Nations General Assembly voted on a resolution on the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ to hold Israel accountable for the Court’s decision, Canada abstained from voting. Pathetically, Canada merely called for Israel to “respond” to the Court’s decision.

Of the UN General Assembly, 124 nations voted in support of the resolution that called for Israel to adhere to the Court’s decision and end its occupation of Palestinian territory within a year, a clear majority of the world’s nations voting to uphold and enforce international law. There were 14 countries that voted against, obviously the US and Israel among them. And then there were 43 cowardly abstentions, Canada among them.

The full extent of Canada’s response to the Court’s ruling, was to call on Israel to “respond” to the decision, and signing a joint statement with Australia and New Zealand, politely asking Israel to “ensure accountability for ongoing acts of violence against Palestinians by extremist settlers, reverse the record expansion of settlements in the West Bank which are illegal under international law, and work towards a two-state solution.” This was of course little more than a political deflection to appear to say something while ignoring our own refusal to comply with the Court’s decision and uphold international law, and instead to selectively choose which illegal violations we would publicly push back on. Of note is the fact that the joint statement did not demand an end to the full occupation, which the ICJ ruling demanded, nor to demand an end to the system of apartheid that Israel has constructed over decades, also demanded by the Court.

But seeing as how Israel responds to any and all criticism with the same hysterical apoplectic indignation, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu responded saying, “The Jewish people are not conquerors in their own land — not in our eternal capital Jerusalem and not in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria.” Ignoring international law and instead invoking Biblical sentiments, which do not have any standing in international law, Netanyahu went on to fully dismiss the world’s top Court, saying, “No false decision in The Hague will distort this historical truth and likewise the legality of Israeli settlement in all the territories of our homeland cannot be contested.”

I know that you, Mr. Oliphant, are a former United Church minister, but surely you must accept that international relations cannot be conducted along the lines of “my Bible says,” and instead must adhere to international law. Having said that:

Given Canada’s official stance on this (which could be codified as non-compliance to uphold international law), and your statements to me that you believe that “Canada stands up for international law and abides by all the regulations and rulings of the international courts”:

Along those lines, your response to the question of genocide was clearly inadequate. As in this present email, I provided extensive citations and supporting evidence for my claims. The question of Israel committing genocide in Gaza has essentially been settled, and the Court’s decision may simply be a retrospective one, in several years’ time. But, given you and your government’s response – or silence – in relation to the previous ICJ ruling on Israel’s illegal occupation, it’s challenging to assume that an even more damning ICJ decision on Israel’s genocide in Gaza would be met with anything but more deflections, evasions, abstentions, if not outright silence or rejection.

I am particularly shocked at your answer, considering that you had said directly to a constituent in February of 2024, “Do I believe there’s genocidal activity on the part of Israel?… Probably yes, from what I have seen.”

So, how is it possible that in February of 2024, just four months into the war, you acknowledged to a constituent that you considered Israel to “probably” be engaging in “genocidal activity,” and yet, more than a year and a half later, 22 months into the war and genocide, with numerous international and Israeli rights groups and experts classifying it as genocide, you now backtrack to saying anything remotely concrete about it, apart from, “I await their ruling.”

And now moving on to your claim about Prime Minister Carney’s announcement about Canada’s supposedly impending (conditional) recognition of the State of Palestine. As you wrote: “Statements, like Prime Minister Carney’s announcement regarding Canada’s intention to recognize Palestine, and Canada’s joint statement on July 21st regarding Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, are not mere rhetoric.”

Presumably, the reference to the July 21, 2025, statement is to the joint letter signed by 28 nations, saying, “the war in Gaza must end now,” and acknowledged “the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.” The statement said Israel’s “denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable,” and called on Israel to “comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law.”

That letter did reflect a change in rhetoric and tone from many western states, I will concede that point. But as to your claim that this joint statement, alongside Canada’s highly conditional recognition of the State of Palestine, were “not mere rhetoric,” because they, as you wrote, “create a uniform position on the ongoing conflict” and “have the power to change the way governments around the world think and act,” is kind of like saying that, it’s not just rhetoric because it might inspire someone (else) to act, eventually, maybe. This is not really an adequate or moral position to take in the midst of such extreme circumstances. Put simply, it’s not even remotely good enough.

Again, let’s address the evidence, and some of the questions I put to you in my previous email which you failed to address or respond to. The statement was signed by 28 countries, though lacking the signatures of the two largest arms dealers to Israel, the US and Germany (providing 66% and 30% of Israel’s arms imports, respectively), but included the other G7 nations of the UK, France, Italy, Japan, and Canada. So, one would think that if this wasn’t “mere rhetoric,” and the combined “uniform position” had, as you claimed, “the power to change the way governments around the world think and act,” then we might assume there would have been some positive developments.

Well, how did Israel officially respond to this joint statement?

The Israeli foreign ministry said the statement was “disconnected from reality and sends the wrong message to Hamas.” Incidentally, the statement was issued as Israeli forces were entering Deri al-Balah, which had previously not been invaded by IDF ground forces, therefore expanding the war without consequence. Not only did the Israelis reject the statement with their words, but actively defied it with their actions.

As the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted in their official response to the joint letter, “Israel rejects the joint statement,” and suggested that the only statements that should be made should be directed toward Hamas, as if western nations have any influence on the organization (let alone any influence comparable to that which we have on Israel). The Israeli statement claimed that “Hamas is the sole party responsible for the continuation of the war and the suffering on both sides.”

In other words, Israel claims that it is never responsible for its own actions or their consequences, despite the immense power disparity between the parties to the conflict. Such a statement should be treated with little more than absolute disdain and incredulity, akin to how we view statements of innocence and evasion of responsibility on the part of the Russian government and armed forces for their actions in Ukraine. The key difference being that Gaza is not a free and independent nation like Ukraine, surrounded and supported by powerful allies, but is an imprisoned, enclosed, besieged and occupied territory of 2.2 million stateless people who are surrounded by their powerful oppressor, which is in turn backed up and supported and armed by the world’s most powerful military and financial powers.

So, I suppose my question is this:

Again, I push back on your claim that the joint statement of Carney’s conditional recognition of the State of Palestine as “not mere rhetoric.” Clearly, we see the joint statement had zero impact. It was reported in the media, and discussed in the public sphere for a few days, but the atrocities continued, and now, Israel of course has recently announced its intention to completely occupy Gaza City.

I don’t particularly want to repeat myself, but seeing as how you didn’t address the numerous issues and questions I previously raised regarding recognition of Palestine, particularly the conditions imposed upon the Palestinians, which were completely detachment from reality (such as demanding Palestinian elections in 2026), I must again repeat certain points.

You claimed that Carney’s statement has “the power to change the way governments around the world think and act.” However, before the British/French/Canadian positions changed on recognizing Palestine, there had already been 146 countries in the world that recognized the State of Palestine, a qualified majority. In other words, Canada – along with France and the UK – are followers, not leaders (despite our self-congratulatory rhetoric), and yet we only do so as a form of rhetorical and symbolic pressure on Israel in the midst of it committing a genocide. Clearly, an inadequate response given the gravity of the situation. Additionally, we bizarrely add conditions on the Palestinians for recognition, which include the demand to hold elections in 2026, as if this would be possible in the midst of war and genocide, or even a post-war occupation and mass destruction, and of course, ignoring the fact that Israel would absolutely not allow any elections to take place. Israel is emphatically and categorically opposed to the recognition, let alone creation, of a Palestinian state.

In fact, in July of 2024, the day before the ICJ issued its ruling on the Israeli occupation being illegal and ordering it to end the occupation and its stifling, denial and rejection of Palestinian self-determination, the Israeli Knesset voted overwhelmingly in support of a resolution rejecting Palestinian statehood outright. The resolution was co-sponsored not only by Netanyahu’s Likud and other extremist right-wing parties, but even by the so-called centrist party of former IDF chief of staff, Benny Gantz. The so-called liberal-leaning parties of Yesh Atid and Labor simply left the Knesset to avoid having to vote (something which I suppose Canada should relate to in terms of our cowardly and inexcusable September 2024 UN General Assembly abstention). The only parties that opposed the measure were the few Arab-Israeli parties. But the entire spectrum of Zionist Israeli political parties either voted in support or abstained from the resolution. The vote was 68 to 9 in rejection of a Palestinian state, even one that came about from a negotiated settlement with Israel.

The resolution itself read that, “the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel would constitute an existential threat to the State of Israel and its citizens, perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and destabilize the region.” Then-Likud Party chairman, and now Israeli Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa’ar, said that, “the resolution decision is intended to express the blanket opposition that exists among the [Israeli] people to the establishment of a Palestinian state, which would endanger Israel’s security and future. [The resolution] signals to the international community that pressure to impose a Palestinian state on Israel is futile.”

There you have it. Israel’s entire Zionist political establishment declared their “blanket opposition” to a Palestinian state, and any attempt to pressure them to accept one is “futile.” And that was more than a year ago. Let it never be said or taken seriously that the Palestinians have been the impediment to peace when we all know the truth: it is and has always been Israel that is the greatest, most consistent impediment to peace. The real question has never been whether the Palestinians “recognize Israel’s right to exist,” as Israel exists as a fact, but rather, the question has always been whether or not the Israelis – and their Western backers – accept the right of the Palestinian state to exist, which they not only do not accept as a right, but actively work against. As Prime Minister Netanyahu himself boasted in February of 2024, “everyone knows that I am the one who for decades blocked the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger our existence.”

Of course, the only “existence” truly being threatened, is that of the Palestinians’ state, society, and population. As is typical, Israel inverts reality to construct its absurd talking points. And western politicians may have gotten away with reciting them like prayers over the past several decades, but these words now ring empty and obscene and will never be an acceptable or respectable part of the discourse again.

So, we return to your claims about Canada’s conditional recognition of a Palestinian state not being “mere rhetoric” and that it could, maybe, someday, possibly, inspire someone (else) to act, or as you put it, it could have “the power to change the way governments around the world think and act.” Clearly, Israel itself has no intention of bending to the polite or even stern finger-waving of western states. It is a state and government that only responds to power. And it is long past time that Canada uses what little power it has.

The fact is, we are 22 months into a brutal war and genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza, expanding to the West Bank, committed by a country that is a nuclear power and a major military threat to its neighbours, having undertaken numerous airstrikes against Iran, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, the latter two of which it has also expanded illegal occupations within. We are long past the time where joint statements and conditional symbolic gestures can be seen as anything beyond a desperate attempt to placate domestic public opinion, which, as I also noted in my prior letter to you (also unacknowledged), half the country believe Israel is committing a genocide (including a majority who identify with your Liberal Party), and are strongly opposed to Israel’s actions. This, clearly, puts you both in the minority of the country, of your own party members, and of your constituents.

This government’s and your own statements seem to be a response to a crisis of legitimacy and an attempt to appear to be doing something, without actually threatening our economic and security (imperial) relationships with Israel or the United States. But much like how Israel responds to even the smallest of slights as if we have threatened invasion, so too does Trump respond to any deviation from total subservience to his ego with the aplomb of a petulant child throwing a tantrum in desperate need of a long time-out. Indeed, after Canada said it would (conditionally) recognize a Palestinian state, Trump issued a raving response announcing that such recognition “will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them [Canada].” Parroting Israel’s own statement, Trump claimed such recognition would be akin to “rewarding terrorists.”

So again, much like with Israel, if we are going to be faced with irrational hysterics and outright threats to our economy as a result of mere rhetoric, why not take action that could have an actual impact, and do more than appear to be doing something, and then take the hit on the chin anyway? In short, if we are going to be denounced and punished for merely saying something, we may as well DO something.

In fact, once again reflecting your government’s distance from Canadian public opinion, which it is supposed to represent as a democracy, according to an Angus Reid poll published on August 1, Canadians supported taking a hard stance toward the US in trade talks, with a strong majority of 69%. Additionally, in the same survey, Canadians addressed Trump’s trade threat over our possible recognition of Palestine, with 63% of Canadians saying that Canada should recognize a Palestinian state even if Trump opposed it, with only 20% suggesting that we should reverse course if Trump demanded.

It becomes quite hard to believe that Canada’s stated positions are little more than an attempt at placating Canadians while attempting to avoid as much friction as possible with Israel and the United States, both of whom are doing little else than creating as much friction (or fracturing) in their relationships with as many countries as possible. I wonder when Canada will seemingly get the memo and start acting accordingly.

The idea that we are still only operating in the area of rhetoric and symbolic gestures, now 22 months into a genocide, is wholly inadequate and, quite frankly, disgraceful.

I will briefly address your comments to me regarding your own role in and Canada’s aid support to Gaza and the Palestinians.

You claimed that Canada was in a leadership role on “delivering humanitarian aid to Gazans and the eventual rebuilding of Gaza,” along with our continued support of UNRWA, the Palestinian refugee agency. Regarding your trip to Egypt in December 2024, where many world leaders discussed increasing aid to Gaza, you wrote, “At the conference, I was proud to announce $50 million in funding for humanitarian assistance addressing the acute needs of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank,” and added that Canada had “committed” (as opposed to actually delivering) over $355 million on international assistance for Palestinians, along with $10 million for the PA’s “role in stabilizing and governing the West Bank.”

I won’t belabour these points, but will make some observations:

Finally, I would like to address your evasion of the evidence I cited and linked to you in my previous email, regarding Canada’s ongoing delivery of weapons parts, ammunition, and other potentially lethal materials to Israel while it commits a genocide. You claimed that, “Canada is strict, purposeful, and rigorous in our efforts to prevent items from being sent to Israel that could be used in the conflict.” You noted that since January of 2024, “Canada has refused any export permits for materials that could be used in the war in Gaza,” and that Canada also “suspended all existing export permits for items that could be incorporated into that conflict.” This strikes me as disingenuous, and you failed to address the ongoing shipments of weapons to Israel, though I suppose your refusal to acknowledge should be taken as a denial(?).

As I had previously noted and referenced, four NGOs compiled research derived from entries in the database of the Israel Tax Authority which revealed that Canadian goods described by the Israeli government as weapons parts and ammunition were consistently sent to Israel, right up until present. The NGOs also compiled data from publicly available shipping documents, including tax records, which documented military equipment being sent to Israel from Canada. An examination of the data by CBC news found confirmation of “imports of Canadian ‘bullets’ and other military hardware of a kind that Ottawa has said are not being, and cannot be, shipped to Israel.” Additionally, “shipping data gives detailed tracking of military equipment that traces back to the door of one of Canada’s biggest arms companies, as recently as [late July 2025].”

CBC quoted a Global Affairs Canada spokesperson who said, much like your own denial/deflection to me, that “Canada has not approved any new permits for items to Israel that could be used in the current conflict in Gaza” since January 2024, and added that, “approximately 30 export permits for items destined to Israel that could have conceivably later been incorporated into items that could be used in that conflict.” However, the CBC noted, “most other permits were allowed to stand, including a number of large dollar-value approvals granted in the three months following Oct 7, 2023.” Thus, while the GAC issued only two permits to Israel in 2024, “Canadian government figures show that Israel was Canada’s fourth-most frequent customer for military equipment that year [2024], with 164 permits used.” This is presumably because previously issued permits are valid for up to three to four years, and the government has effectively lacked any transparency about which permits are still active, while claiming that no new ones have been issued.

In April of 2025 alone, both Canadian and Israeli tax data noted, Canada exported 175,000 units of “bullets” or other “arms and ammunition” to Israel. In June of 2025, Canada exported 15,000 units of “parts and accessories of military weapons” to Israel. As CBC noted, and you demonstrated in your response to me, “There is as yet no explanation from the government of Canada for the discrepancy between data showing arms transfers [that] occurred and continue to occur, and the government’s denials that it is happening.” In fact, in September of 2024, then-Foreign Minister Melanie Joly stated, “We will not have any form of arms or parts of arms be sent to Gaza, period,” exactly one week before a shipment of arms were sent to Israel from Canada.

Clearly, you need to address and answer this evidence and information with more than a cookie-cutter press release statement that simply reiterates the government’s now disproven position. Ignoring the evidence raised and reiterating previous statements of innocence or denial is not good enough. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, both under Minister Joly, when she blatantly misled the public, and under the current Minister Anand, who has also misled the public on this issue [link below], it is your responsibility to be held to account for these damning revelations, and your answer was, to put it lightly, wholly inadequate, if not outright evasive and untrustworthy. I hope for and anticipate a more honest and direct response this time around, as I laid out only some of the available evidence.

As the Globe and Mail reminded readers, in March of 2024, the Parliament voted in support of a non-binding motion to halt new arms permits for Israel, and to review existing permits. The NGOs that released the reports noted that Canada should impose a two-way arms embargo, neither purchasing nor selling weapons or weapons parts and ammunition to and from Israel, instead of continuing “to arm Israel and mislead the public with vague statements about permit regulations.”

When the ICJ almost certainly rules that Israel committed a genocide in Gaza (assuming it won’t by then be ongoing or have expanded beyond Gaza), Canada’s supply of weapons, weapons parts, ammunition, or other equipment that supports the genocidal apartheid state of Israel in its genocide, war, repression and occupation (the latter which is declared internationally illegal already by the Court you claim to support), will make us criminally liable for supporting such a state while it was in the midst of its most violent, brutal, and illegal activities.

At the very least, Canada will suffer reputational damage from this travesty of our rhetorical or symbolic support of the Palestinians while actively supporting Israel, if not simply maintaining economic, political and security ties with the country while it commits a genocide, in addition to the numerous other illegal wars and occupations it has recently engaged in (in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iran). This reputational damage will be extended not simply to the state and government of Canada, but to you as well, Mr. Oliphant. In fact, it clearly already has. Just the other day, I saw a video on social media of you attending a public event where you were consistently confronted by activists, angry constituents, and citizens who were challenging you on Canada’s failure to respect international law and the ICJ, the failure to acknowledge and name the genocide taking place, and failure to be honest about ongoing weapons and weapons parts shipments to Israel. I believe the video ended with you being escorted away into your vehicle by your security detail. I think it is safe to assume that, given your past and present stance, and from what I read in your response to me, you can likely expect more of this to continue.

This is not an issue that is losing relevance with Canadians, it is increasing in importance. And that is because it is a defining moral question upon which history will be a very harsh judge: where did you stand, and what did you do?

This is a time for political courage, not party loyalty.

You concluded your written response to me with some nice-sounding words: “As someone who has been engaged in this work for many years, I will keep advocating for human rights, peaceful coexistence and positive change that brings people together and stops conflict.”

I say to you: PROVE IT. Do it.

Don’t just congratulate yourself for having said and announced nice-sounding things to date, start actually doing things to change the situation, by which I mean, beyond mere rhetoric, or conditional symbolic gestures. (Let alone deceiving the public about ongoing arms shipments).

Instead of concluding, as I did in my previous email to you, with numerous specific questions that went unanswered, I will instead reframe those questions and add in some new ones, putting to you a list of options that exist, beyond mere rhetoric or symbolic gestures, of tangible actions that Canada can and should take in order to force Israel to allow in aid, end the war, stop its genocidal activities, respect international law, and remedy the seemingly endless list of internationally criminal activity in which Israel is heavily and daily engaged.

To put it simply: you must disrupt, abandon and suspend the bilateral relationship between Israel and Canada, and accept the economic and political consequences of this decision. It is not simply a moral imperative, but a legal one.

Finally, in addition to the above measures that Canada can and should take, preferably in conjunction with other nations who have a desire to adhere to and respect international law, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the ICJ rulings, Canada should also begin discussions with other nations, including NATO members and regional partners in the Middle East, on the possibility of undertaking a humanitarian intervention to meet our obligations under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a political commitment endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit, specifically designed to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, all of which Israel is presently committing against the Palestinians (and not simply in Gaza).

In fact, Canada played a significant role in pushing for the Responsibility to Protect to be adopted by the United Nations, even if just in a non-binding resolution. It would be commendable if we adhered to resolutions and humanitarian concepts that we helped to craft. If Canada could manage to create an R2P coalition of the UK, France, Spain, Turkey (all NATO members), along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, it could establish a military force that could be capable of protecting the coastal and land borders of Gaza and the West Bank, and establish no-fly zones for Israeli aircraft over both territories, maintaining a protective military force until such time as Israel ends its genocide and war, complies with international law, ends its numerous occupations in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the expanded Golan Heights occupation in Syria and southern Lebanon, withdraws all settlements from the occupied territories, and ends its illegal system of apartheid over the Palestinian people between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Either we as a nation stand up for and support international law, or we help destroy it, and our reputation in the process. We in the West must apply our declared principles consistently instead of “cherry-picking international law,” as Norway’s foreign minister recently warned in an interview with the Financial Times.

I conclude by asking you to respond to the questions I posed directly to you throughout this letter, and not to cherry-pick which ones are convenient to respond to.

Additionally, and perhaps even in lieu of an official written response to this letter, I would like to invite you to a face-to-face discussion, either in person or online via webcam, and to invite you onto my podcast (In This Mad World), to discuss or debate this topic. Given your recent public appearances being disrupted by protesters, I am offering you a chance to have a calm, direct, one-on-one discussion with a constituent (who, in fact, voted for you). Ultimately, I hope for both a written response and an agreement to discuss face-to-face, as that would be the best way of continuing this discussion, and ensuring that questions asked are, in fact, answered.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, Mr. Oliphant, and I await your response.

Sincerely,

Andrew Gavin Marshall

Exit mobile version