It Took More Than 236,505 Casualties and a Completely Devastated Gaza for Canada To Awaken from Its Slumber. But Is It Truly Awake? 

Many of us would ask the same question: What took Canada so long? Was the reality of the brutal oppression of Palestinians unclear, or were our government’s perceptions clouded by factors that we might be too polite to articulate here but are now widely acknowledged from Toronto to Timbuktu?

Perhaps it took the devastation in Gaza, where over 80,000 residents lost their lives to 10,000-pound U.S.-made bombs, for the willfully blind Western leaders to recognize the reality, a reality that their paid legacy media could no longer control (thanks to social media). 

Something had to be done, they felt, possibly more for their own legacies and how history would remember them than for the Palestinian people.

On September 8, 2026, Mark Carney, along with UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham and French President Emmanuel Macron, motivated by the blatant public killings by Israel and a dramatic shift in global opinion, finally found the courage to announce a trade ban on goods from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

In a joint statement, Canada and 11 European countries expressed “concern“—although words like “shock” and “disgust” would have been more appropriate—over what they described as unprecedented levels of settler violence and ongoing settlement expansion, including Israel’s decision to advance the controversial E1 settlement project east of Jerusalem.

Canada, France, and the United Kingdom stated that they would implement national measures to ban trade in goods from these settlements, while several other countries indicated their intent to introduce either similar restrictions or supportive measures at the European level. Although the Canadian government has announced this measure, it has not yet taken effect, and Ottawa has not provided specific details or an implementation timeline.

In a social media post, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Anita Anand, stated that in the coming months, Canada will “introduce restrictions on trade in goods with settlements in the West Bank that are illegal under international law.”

The world is waiting with bated breath, Ms. Anand. Let’s see what you’ve got.

However, we should exercise caution before becoming overly optimistic about our politicians. 

The proposed restrictions will apply solely to goods associated with Israeli settlements in territories occupied since 1967 and do not constitute a general ban on trade with Israel.

Why not hold Israel accountable for the genocide? What genocide? While you, I, and the entire world have witnessed one unfold in Gaza every single day for the past three years, Canada is still blissfully unaware of any such tragedy.

Returning to the story:

To justify its position, the Canadian government claimed that Israeli settlement expansion undermines the prospects for a two-state solution. They called on Israel to halt further expansion, address violence by settlers, and refrain from actions that could lead to annexation or the forcible displacement of Palestinians.

Shocked by this unexpected display of whatever limited courage our government could muster, Israel reacted with its typical impunity and arrogance. Its Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa’ar, characterized the initiative as foreign interference and announced retaliatory measures against Britain, including closing the British consulate in East Jerusalem. One can only imagine just how shocking this must have been for the collective soul of Britain, the country that established the illegitimate state of Israel in Palestine to begin with.

So far, Canada has not been mentioned. Perhaps Israel still hopes that Canadians can be “reasoned with” through its typical methods of propaganda, incentives, and, if necessary, threats and more…

It is crucial to remember that the United Nations and most countries around the world consider these settlements illegal under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning military occupations. Israel, unsurprisingly, disputes this, viewing the territory as disputed rather than occupied.