O Canada! We Stand On Guard For Thee!

Another penny has dropped. After French President Emmanuel Macron and after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, has just announced that his government will now recognize the “state of Palestine” at the opening of the UN General Assembly in September. And it will do so because he has been assured by Mahmoud Abbas himself that this new state — which will be run by the Palestine Authority, and possibly led by Mahmoud Abbas if he is still alive — will institute all sorts of reforms, the very reforms Abbas never managed to make in the almost two decades of his rule, but he assures the world that he is now prepared to make. He plans to hold elections for the Palestinian National Council in 2026. He opposes any role for Hamas in the elections, which is hardly a concession; Hamas is a mortal enemy of the PA and of Abbas. He also says that the “Palestinian state” will be demilitarized, though how he plans to keep arms from being smuggled into the state for use against the hated Israelis remains unclear.

More on Carney’s announcement can be found here: “Canada to recognize Palestinian state in September, PM Carney says,” by Sarah Moskowitz, Reuters, July 31, 2025:

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced on Wednesday the country’s intentions to recognize Palestinian statehood at the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly in September.

“This intention is predicated by the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to much-needed reforms,” Carney said.

He explained that PA’s President Mahmoud Abbas plans to reform its government, hold general elections in 2026, in which Hamas can play no part, and to demilitarize the Palestinian state.

“Canada will increase its efforts in supporting strong, democratic governance in Palestine and the contributions of its people to a more peaceful and hopeful future.”

Since the entire history of the PA is one of despotism and corruption, how will that “strong, democratic governance in Palestine” be achieved? In fact, none of the 22 Arab countries is a democracy, with the quasi-exception of Lebanon. Shouldn’t that make one skeptical of the chances that this “Palestinian state” will be a democracy?

Carney continued, saying he spoke with Abbas and that “Canada reiterates that Hamas must immediately release all hostages taken in the horrific terror attack of October 7, and that Hamas must disarm.”

How does Prime Minister Carney think Hamas will be made to “disarm”? Will Hamas agree to do so peacefully? There is no chance of that. The only way Hamas will be disarmed is if the IDF continues what it is doing, that is, killing the remaining Hamas combatants and destroying their weapons. But it is this job that Carney has now made harder. His statement about recognizing a “Palestinian state” only raises the morale of Hamas, and encourages it to keep on fighting.

“Canada will always steadfastly support Israel’s existence as an independent state in the Middle East, living in peace and security,” he assured. 

However, Carney added that any path to lasting peace for Israel also requires a viable and stable Palestinian state.

How does Prime Minister Carney know he can trust Mahmoud Abbas to bring Good Government to the Palestinian Authority? Is he aware that Abbas himself has stolen, with his two sons Tareq and Yasser, some $400 million from the aid that was meant for the Palestinian Arabs? Has he taken in the fact that Abbas is now in the 20th year of his four-year term? And what about Abbas’ support terrorism through his “Pay-For-Slay” program, by which generous monthly subsidies are provided to imprisoned terrorists and to the families of terrorists who died while committing their acts of terrorism? Thus the program both rewards past, and incentivizes future, terrorism. Abbas has said he will support the “Pay-For-Slay” program even with his “last penny.” Does Mark Carney know any of that?

Prime Minister Carney says that he wants “security” for Israel. That’s a fine sentiment, but what if Israel’s security will be catastrophically undermined if it is squeezed back within the 1949 armistice lines, which are the boundaries that the Arab states, and several European states, too, have in mind when they talk of a “two-state solution.” Could Israel survive if it were to be stripped of its defenses in the Jordan Valley? How could Israel stop an invader from the east if it were to once again have a nine-mile-wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea? Could Israel put its trust in the assurances of people like Mahmoud Abbas? Do we know who would follow Abbas as the leader of this “Palestinian state,” and whether that successor would continue to keep the state “demilitarized” — if in fact it ever was? Eighty percent of Israeli Jews now oppose a putative “two-state solution.” They have been repeatedly mugged by reality, and the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023 was the last straw. Might it be that they have a point? The Israelis have had to fight four wars for their very survival of their state, in 1948, 1967, 1973, and 2023-present, and innumerable campaigns against terrorist groups, including the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. After all that, haven’t the Israelis, hasn’t tiny Israel, so small that it can hardly be espied on a map of the world, earned the right to refuse to be reduced still further in order that a 23rd Arab state be created?

What does Mark Carney propose should happen to the 700,000 Jews who now live in Judea and Samaria, on state and waste land, as Jews were encouraged to do by Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine, and on land bought, at exorbitant prices, from Palestinian Arabs? Does Carney realize that it was not in Haifa and Tel Aviv, but in Judea and Samaria, that Jewish history was made over the past 3500 years? Does he realize that the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine assigned all the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea to become the Jewish National Home and, in time, the State of Israel?

Finally, is Mark Carney aware that by the laws of war, a state that wins a defensive war can hold onto territory from which the aggressor launched his aggression? This point was forcefully made by Lord Caradon, who was the author of UN Security Council Resolution 242. Lord Caradon said he was familiar with the 1949 armistice line, “and it was a rotten line.” It “merely reflected where the opposing armies were positioned on a certain day when then the fighting stopped.”

Prime Minister Carney claims that “any path to lasting peace for Israel also requires a viable and stable Palestinian state. “ On what basis does he make this claim? Isn’t it more likely that a Palestinian state would, as Gaza did after the Israelis pulled out in 2005, become a place from which terrorist attacks would be launched against the Jewish state? A “lasting peace” between Muslims and Infidels can only be achieved by deterrence, not by treaties. For Muslims, the model of treaty-making with Infidels is that made by Muhammad with the Meccans in 628 A.D. The treaty was to have been a “truce treaty” that was to have lasted for ten years. But after 18 months, sensing that his own forces had grown stronger than the enemy, Muhammad ignored the treaty, and attacked the Meccans. This remains the model for all treaty-making by Muslims with non-Muslims, and for all time.

Instead, if Prime Minister Carney really wants to ensure Israel’s security, he should recognize that just as deterrence worked to keep the peace during the Cold War, deterrence can prevent the Arab states from trying another assault on the Jewish state. If Israel remains obviously much stronger, the Arab states will not attack. It is that formidable strength, and not a treaty, that will keep the peace.

All Mark Carney’s announcement does is further please the Palestinians, including Hamas, and demoralizes the people of Israel who are fighting a seven-front war, and are horrified at the miscomprehension and lack of sympathy demonstrated by so many people whom the Jewish state once thought were its allies.