Alan Kessel: Canada’s recognition of Palestine is a strategic blunder—and Carney owns it

Carney’s soft rhetoric—careful to avoid calling Hamas what it is: a terrorist organization—only reinforces that perception. A prime minister unwilling to name the perpetrators of October 7 cannot credibly claim that Canada’s move is grounded in moral clarity. No credible path to peace can be built on a refusal to confront this fundamental truth. The decision also makes a mockery of international law. The Montevideo Convention requires a state to have a defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity for foreign relations. “Palestine” currently has none of these. Gaza is run by Hamas; the West Bank by a divided, corrupt Palestinian Authority. Neither accepts a genuine two-state solution; their vision remains a one-state solution without Jews. Even Canada’s own recognition plan betrays the fiction: UNRWA will continue to manage Palestinian refugees, proof that this will be statehood in name only. A “country” that depends on a UN refugee agency for basic governance is not a sovereign state—it is a political gesture meant to appease the global gallery. Recognition now would reward terror and undermine the very two-state solution Canada claims to support. And it raises a profound question: if this is Carney’s logic, would Canada also recognize Luhansk and Donetsk in the name of ending the Russia-Ukraine war? If rewarding violent territorial seizure and political extremism is now our foreign policy, where does it stop? The suffering in Gaza is undeniable, and the images of babies and children caught in war are gut-wrenching. Canada should respond with empathy, but empathy without moral clarity is reckless. Any sustainable peace begins with disempowering those who openly seek Israel’s destruction. Recognition at this stage does the opposite: it emboldens Hamas, undermines moderate Palestinians, and alienates Israel, making negotiations harder, not easier. Meanwhile, practical humanitarian solutions exist. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has delivered over 91 million meals to civilians while preventing Hamas from hijacking or commodifying aid. Symbolic recognition and UN theatre will not feed a single child; they will strengthen the very group stealing the food. Carney’s shift is also steeped in double standards. Canada is preparing to sanction and isolate Israel while: Saying little about Sudan’s ongoing genocidal campaign; Ignoring the new Syrian government’s massacre of Druze civilians; Excusing Egypt for keeping the Rafah crossing largely closed to aid and refugees. By holding Israel to a unique standard, Carney reveals that his foreign policy is performative, not principled. In the end, this decision helps no one. Hamas will celebrate. Palestinians will remain trapped in a terror-dominated pseudo-state. Israel will feel betrayed and less likely to compromise. And Canada will look naïve, inconsistent, and disposable on the world stage. Carney’s gamble is a symbolic indulgence that won’t shorten the war, feed the hungry, or bring peace any closer. The only saving grace is that Canada’s voice in global affairs has become almost irrelevant. Our “principled stand” will be quickly forgotten abroad—though the damage to our credibility will linger. Carney wanted a statesmanlike moment. Instead, he delivered a gesture of weakness and confusion, signaling that Canada now rewards terror with diplomacy. It is a blunder that history will remember—if it bothers to notice us at all.