Canada’s Jagmeet Singh Uses the Word ‘Genocide’ Incorrectly

Canada’s candidates for prime minister debated on Israel and Gaza: “Poilievre vows UNRWA funding cut over Hamas ties, Carney wants to maintain it,” by Michael Starr, Jerusalem Post, April 17, 2025:

Singh also attacked Carney, demanding that he recognize the Israeli military operations in Gaza as a genocide.

“Mr. Carney, why don’t you call things the way they are, this is a genocide,” said Singh. ‘People in Israel do deserve peace and security, but people in Palestine do as well.”

Singh uses the word “genocide” incorrectly. “Genocide” requires intent. There is no intent by the IDF to kill all, or most, or even a lot, of Gazans. In fact, there is no desire to kill any civilians in Gaza. Nonetheless, when your enemy deliberately embeds its men and weapons among civilians, and in civilian structures such as apartments, schools, mosques, and offices, there are bound to be civilian casualties. Singh makes no mention of Hamas ’modus operandi, nor of all the ways that the IDF tries to protect civilians, by warning them in advance of IDF attacks.

Singh should be reminded that of the roughly 50,000 Gazans who have died, at least 22,000 were Hamas members. Of the remaining 28,000, we know that about 800 Gazans die each month from diseases and accidents, so that in the 18 months of war, 14,800 Gazans died from non-combat-relate causes. Of course, there are also deaths caused by rockets launched by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad at Israel, but that fell short, landing in Gaza — as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that landed in the parking lot next to the Al Ahli Hospital — and killing an indeterminate number of Gazans.

If we do the math, we find that 50,000 minus 22,000 equals 28,000; 28,000 minus 14,200 equals 13,800. We won’t deduct for Gazans killed by Hamas rockets that have fallen short. Out of a total Gazan population of 2.2 million, about 13,800 civilians were killed, not deliberately but unavoidably, by the IDF. Does that meet anyone’s definition of “genocide”? And consider, too, another key metric: the civilian-to-combatant deaths. According to the UN, in all the wars fought since 1945, that ratio has been 9-to-1. In Afghanistan, the Americans managed to bring down that ratio to 5-to-1, and in Iraq, to 4-to-1. But the IDF in Gaza has managed to attain an unheard-of ratio of 13,800:22,000, or 138:220, close to 2:3. No military in history has managed to achieve such a civilian-to-combatant ratio, or even come close.

Carney agreed that the situation in Gaza was terrible but explained that he would never use the word “Genocide” in a way that would “politicize the situation.”

No, Mr. Carney. The reason for not using the word “genocide” in discussing Israel’s war against Hamas is that the word simply does not apply. Carney should have said this: “I won’t use the word ‘genocide’ because that word does not fit the situation.”

Singh’s pressing of Carney on the terminology used to describe the situation in Gaza came after a April 8 press briefing controversy in which the prime minister was interrupted by a pro-Palestinian protester shouting, “there’s a genocide happening in Gaza.”

Carney responded “I’m aware, that’s why we have an arms embargo.”

The Liberal leader backtracked his statement last Wednesday, explaining that he didn’t hear the heckler say “genocide” and had meant to convey that he was aware of the situation in Gaza….

Perhaps Carney really didn’t hear the word “genocide.” But if not, then what did he think he heard, apparently something unacceptable on Israel’s part, which explains “why we have an arms embargo.”

I suspect he did hear the word “genocide,” found it easier to agree, rather than to take issue, with the use of that word, and only later, when criticized for his seeming agreement with the heckler’s grotesque charge, backtracked and claimed he hadn’t heard that word. What word, then, did he hear?

“Before Hamas attacked Israel without provocation, with the objective of killing the maximum number of civilians, Israel had already ceded Gaza,” Poilievre explained. “We will stay faithful to our allies who combat terrorism.”

Israel had ceded Gaza, in fact, twenty years ago, in 2005, when every last Israeli was pulled out of the Strip.

Mark Carney can be trusted to continue the policies of his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, who subjected Israel to an arms embargo. He will continue to fund UNRWA despite that organization’s proven ties to Hamas. He may even begin to talk about French President Macron’s proposed “recognition of a state of Palestine” that no Israeli government, whatever its political orientation, could possibly accept. Nor will Carney crack down on, much less call a halt to, the mass Muslim immigration that is causing havoc all over the Western world. Let’s hope another 5% of the electorate will swing their support from Carney to Poilievre by April 28. Canada can’t take another few years of warmed-over Trudeau.