Reflections on the aftermath of October 7

Canada needs to play a more proactive role towards peace abroad and we all need to collectively address the rise in hate here at home.

There should be no equivocation when it comes to the immorality October 7. Hamas committed a heinous terrorist attack, taking hostages and killing over a thousand innocent Israeli civilians.

With the architect of that attack now eliminated, one would hope there’s a new opening for a path to peace.

Because otherwise, we are so much further from it than we’ve ever been.

Consider that in the aftermath of October 7, Israel responded with indiscriminate and disproportionate force, razing Gaza and killing an unthinkable number of Palestinians. It has also killed aid workers and blocked the flow of humanitarian and medical supplies, causing further untold suffering. It has expanded its territorial violations of international law. It has refused to abide by the ICJ’s interim orders.

There should be no equivocation about the immorality of that response either.

Canada, alongside many other countries, has rightly called for a ceasefire and the release of hostages on countless occasions. 

The world’s pleas have been ignored.

A UN Commission recently reported on Israel’s “concerted policy to destroy Gaza’s healthcare system”, and said that its “relentless and deliberate attacks on medical personnel and facilities” constitutes a war crime. That commission is led by a serious human rights lawyer and former South African and international jurist, and it also found both Hamas and the IDF responsible for torture and sexual violence.

Now, through the expansion of its operations into Lebanon, Israel has even attacked UN peacekeepers.

France, Italy, Spain, and many other countries quickly condemned this, and the EU said “such attacks against UN peacekeepers constitute a grave violation of international law.” The UN Security Council reiterated that UN peacekeepers and premises must never be the target of an attack.”

Israel tells us that it didn’t target the UN peacekeepers. Yet four warnings “to steer clear of the mission’s premises and operations” were issued, the peacekeeping force calls it “direct and apparently deliberate fire”, and at this point we’ve just seen too many cases of kill first, “review” later.”

A separate and long list of UN experts recently condemned both Hezbollah’s “indiscriminate attacks” and Israel’s “indiscriminate warfare.” They concluded that “Israel is operating as though every provision of [the Geneva Conventions] were null and void.” 

A former classmate of my wife lives in Beirut. She texted: “They are bombing everywhere, even in places not related to Hizballah. They even bombed near a building we own, and 2 kids died in it. This will haunt me for life…I lost hope in humanity…They will turn Beirut to Gaza if no one stops them.”

Of course, Gaza is now subject to a further siege. We’ve recently watched displaced civilians burned alive in a hospital tent.

In response, the UN Human Rights Office demanded an immediate end of the siege, noting that despite repeatedly ordering residents to move, Israeli troops reportedly sealed off North Gaza and attacked those trying to flee. 

A year later, and a ceasefire still isn’t in sight. Maybe that changes with the death of Sinwar, but I’m not holding my breath. 

My initial instinct that President Biden could and would act to exert the necessary pressure to reach a ceasefire has been proven wrong.

And if there isn’t any change in course, Canada and our allies should play a much more proactive role towards that peace. 

In light of the international community’s restated commitment to the sanctity of peacekeeping, Canada could lead an effort to establish a UN effort or other multilateral coalition of countries to expand peacekeeping in the region. We have, as we once put it, a responsibility to protect.

Now, while much of the federal government’s attention should be focused on foreign policy, we also can’t ignore the rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia here at home.

While designating terrorist organizations remains a federal responsibility, local enforcement obviously isn’t the purview of the federal government. And there are already clear legal standards of mischief, assault, harassment, intimidation, and hate that should be enforced. 

Political leaders should also condemn awful but lawful statements, even where criminal enforcement isn’t appropriate. It’s wrong, for example, to hold Jewish people accountable for the actions of Israel or to label those protesting for Palestinian human rights as pro-Hamas.

The great challenge in our democracy is that we cannot and should not silence legitimate (and even illegitimate) criticism in order to deliver a rightfully desired sense of security. Free speech is too important.

Bubble zones, for example, however well intended, would prevent protest of a problematic speaker simply if they are platformed at a religious institution.

Free expression rightly demands wide latitude from the law, so long as it doesn’t turn into intimidation, harassment and hate, at which point enforcement steps in.

All of that said, one way we can act at the federal level is to pass an amended and more focused version of the Online Harms Act that the government has already introduced. It would require platforms to identify risks and harms (like an explosion of antisemitism, Islamophobia and hate), to take steps to mitigate those risks/harms, and to subject the companies to independent audits of their assessment and mitigation strategies. Respect freedom of speech, but not necessarily freedom of reach.

Beyond federal action abroad or here at home, we all need to be much better at listening to different viewpoints that are equally motivated by justifiable anger and pain. It’s just unfortunately hard to see us getting there if the war doesn’t end.