At the end of June, I sent a letter to Vince Gasparro, a newly elected MP in Ottawa, calling on him to end Canada’s direct complicity in one of the most extreme moral crises of our time.
As constituents, we entrusted him with the responsibility to represent our values, uphold international law, and take decisive action to meet the urgency of the moment.
It was a call to him to do everything within his power to compel the Canadian government to impose a full and immediate two-way arms embargo on Israel, promoted by Arms Embargo Now.
An initiative initiated by organizations like World Beyond War, Independent Jewish Voices Canada, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, Palestine Solidarity Network, and others.
This is a Summary of the Response that I Received
“The Government of Canada has reiterated its opposition to Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, with Prime Minister Carney recently affirming that such actions violate international law and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. Since January 8, 2024, Canada claims to have halted all arms export permits to Israel. Sanctions have been imposed on extremist settlers and Israeli officials, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Canada also condemned 22 new settlements announced in May and signalled a willingness to apply further sanctions.Additionally, Canada supports diplomatic efforts by the U.S., Qatar, and Egypt to reach a ceasefire in Gaza and has expressed conditional support for recognizing a Palestinian state, excluding Hamas.“
This is Choreografy. Why?
While the Government of Canada claims to oppose settlement expansion and halt arms exports to Israel, its actions fall short of its rhetoric. Canadian arms continue to reach Israel through loopholes—particularly via transfers through the United States—undermining its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty and international humanitarian law.
Sanctions on individual Israeli officials and extremist settlers, though symbolically significant, are insufficient without meaningful accountability for state-level policies of occupation and apartheid. Canada’s conditional recognition of a Palestinian state—only one that excludes Hamas—imposes external political criteria on Palestinian self-determination, violating international legal norms.
Moreover, the reliance on U.S.-led diplomacy, while avoiding alignment with international mechanisms like the ICC or UNHRC, reveals a troubling double standard.
Canada applies strict legal principles when confronting adversaries like Russia, but defaults to vague diplomacy and delayed action when dealing with Israel.
As former Canadian diplomat Daniel Turp said, “You can’t have a rules-based international order if you only apply the rules when it suits your friends.” Canada cannot claim to support a “rules-based international order” while selectively applying international law. Genuine leadership requires not just statements, but consistent enforcement of legal and moral standards—without exception.
This is My Replay Today
Thank you for your response and engagement. I appreciate your effort to address my concerns.
I’d like to begin with a few fact-based clarifications:
Arms Exports and Loopholes
While Canada officially suspended arms export permits to Israel on January 8, 2024, Canadian-made weapons and components continue to reach the Israeli military through loopholes, particularly via the U.S. This includes:
- A Canadian government-approved contract to supply artillery propellants via the U.S.
- Approximately $120.9 million CAD in F-35 components used by the Israeli military.
These transfers violate both the Arms Trade Treaty and Canada’s stated export controls, as they are neither transparent nor subjected to human rights risk assessments. (Ploughshares)
Postponed Peace Conference
The June 17–20 UN Conference on Palestinian statehood—previously cited as a diplomatic avenue—was postponed without a new date. (Global Affairs Canada Statement)
Meanwhile, the U.S. reportedly pressured allies not to participate or recognize a Palestinian state unilaterally.
Did such pressure play a role in Canada’s silence at the UN Human Rights Council, where over 50 states defended the ICC’s independence in the face of threats related to its case against Israel?
Canada helped establish the ICC. The first president was Canadian. The absence of Canada’s signature on this declaration is not only disheartening—it weakens Canada’s international legal credibility.
International Law & Genocide
On January 26, 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled that South Africa’s charge of genocide against Israel is plausible and should proceed to full litigation. On July 19, the ICJ ruled that Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal and a continuing international wrongful act, violating Palestinians’ right to self-determination.
Canada is legally obligated to:
- Prevent and punish genocide (under the Genocide Convention)
- Prosecute such crimes (under the Criminal Code and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000)
- Refrain from assisting in or recognizing illegal occupations (as per the ICJ advisory opinion)
Yet Canada continues indirect military cooperation, refrains from endorsing the ICC’s arrest warrants, and avoids arresting and sanctioning key Israeli officials implicated in war crimes.
The Mask is Out
And now let me consider the political position of Canada, which is ethically and legally incoherent.
“We can’t have peace unless we move toward… a Palestinian state that recognizes the right of Israel to exist. Not just to exist, but to prosper… a Zionist, if you will, Palestinian State.”
This was stated in his recent CNN interview during the NATO summit. This statement is deeply troubling, both for its political implications and historical insensitivity. It ties the possibility of peace not just to Palestinian recognition of Israel, but to the embrace of Zionism itself—an ideology inseparable from their ongoing dispossession and suffering.
Zionism as a Framework for Coexistence
This phrasing suggests that Palestinians must internalize and endorse Zionism as the framework for coexistence. That demand is not only intellectually dishonest but also ethically offensive.
It asks a stateless and colonized people to validate the very structure of domination that expelled them in 1948, that continues to militarily occupy their land, and that denies their legal and moral right to return.
Canada aligns with a Coercive Colonial Tradition
Zionism is not a neutral term. It is a political movement born from European settler-colonial logic, historically backed by imperial powers, and realized through the violent displacement of an Indigenous population. For Palestinians, Zionism represents the machinery of the Nakba—their catastrophe—not a basis for mutual peace.
To demand that Palestinians build a “Zionist Palestinian state” is to insist on ideological surrender as a condition for basic rights. It reframes peace as an extension of colonial ideology rather than a process of justice and restoration.
Such framing does the following:
- Erases the Palestinian historical narrative and collective memory;
- Undermines the principle of self-determination, which guarantees all peoples the right to define their own political future;
- And aligns Canada with a coercive colonial tradition, where peace is offered only if the colonized accept the identity and terms of the colonizer.
Let us be clear: Palestinian resistance, whether diplomatic, legal, or popular, is not a rejection of peace—it is a demand for dignity, return, and justice.
Real peace cannot be built upon ideological domination or historical amnesia. It requires truth, equality, and mutual recognition of rights—not the silencing of one people’s story to ease the moral discomfort of another!
A Mirror to Canada’s Colonial Reckoning
Canada’s invocation of “Zionist statehood” as a peace precondition is not just inconsistent with international law—it is deeply hypocritical when measured against Canada’s own record of settler-colonialism.
In Canada, Truth and Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples remains unfinished. Despite the powerful language of acknowledgment, the reality is that:
- Land theft and resource exploitation continue on unceded Indigenous territory.
- Indigenous communities still face systemic discrimination, underfunded healthcare and education, and contaminated water.
- The doctrine of discovery—rooted in colonial supremacy—has never been formally revoked.
- Canada has yet to fully implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), particularly the right to free, prior, and informed consent.
So, how can Canada, still unwilling to return land or dismantle its own colonial power structures, insist that Palestinians must embrace the colonial framework that subjugates them?
To demand that Palestinians build their state within the ideological boundaries of Zionism is akin to demanding that Indigenous nations in Canada adopt the logic of British imperialism as a prerequisite for recognition. It is not peace—it is paternalism. It is not justice—it is gaslighting.
As long as Canada continues to preach reconciliation at home while practicing colonial accommodation abroad, its credibility on human rights and international law remains severely compromised.
We need True Leaders, not “Quaquaraqua.”
All this talk brings to mind Fontamara, where the Italian writer Ignazio Silone coins the term “quaquaraquà”—a word that mimics the senseless quacking of ducks to describe those who speak loudly and often, but say absolutely nothing of substance.
Today, we’re surrounded by a chorus of political quaquaraquà: officials parroting party lines with the obedience of interns, mouthing platitudes about peace and democracy while obediently dancing to the rhythm of lobbyists’ chequebooks.
They stand below the flag of a state credibly accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide—as if draping oneself in fabric absolves one of complicity.
Silone’s satire, tragically, now reads like a documentary. At a moment when we desperately need statespeople with moral imagination, intellectual integrity, and the courage to act—not tweet—we are offered recycled soundbites and hollow gestures.
Instead of principled leadership, we get political theatre, scripted by pollsters and approved by donors. Quaquaquà, indeed.
Dear Vince, can you do better?
I ask this not to provoke, but to invite you—to rise above the predictable chorus of political platitudes and demonstrate the kind of moral clarity this moment demands.
Because right now, we don’t need another quaquaraquà—as Ignazio Silone called those who fill the air with sound but say nothing of meaning.
We need thoughtful leadership, capable of facing uncomfortable truths and acting with courage.
Let me offer a little historical and legal context that might sharpen the lens:
Zionism, as it materialized in the 20th century, was not a benign dream of refuge—it was a settler-colonial project, endorsed by imperial powers (notably Britain), to establish a Jewish state in Palestine despite the presence of an Indigenous, non-Jewish majority.
- Theodor Herzl, Zionism’s founder, understood that establishing such a state would require displacing the native inhabitants.
- In 1917, Edwin Montagu, a British Jewish Cabinet Minister, called Zionism “a mischievous political creed” and warned it would lead to religious exclusivity and ethnic domination.
- David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, spoke openly of the need to “transfer” Palestinians—a euphemism for ethnic cleansing.
- The Balfour Declaration, a cornerstone of Zionist diplomacy, made no mention of the Palestinian people’s national rights.
Fast forward to today, and the trajectory hasn’t changed. The Israeli regime—now led by far-right, ethno-nationalist figures—continues to expand illegal settlements, demolish homes, detain children, and impose a total siege on Gaza.
This is not an aberration—it is a continuation.
To ask Palestinians to accept this as a starting point for peace is not neutral diplomacy. It is moral complicity.
Imagine telling Black South Africans, during apartheid, that they could only have peace if they accepted a “White South African state”—that is, if they embraced the very system that oppressed them.
Imagine asking them to accept apartheid’s logic as a condition for reconciliation.
That is precisely what Palestinians are being told when we insist that peace is only possible through the lens of Zionist statehood, while making no reciprocal demands of Israel to recognize the Nakba, end its occupation, or affirm Palestinians’ full human rights.
Peace cannot be built on ideological coercion, nor on demands that Palestinians erase their identity and trauma to soothe the conscience of Western governments.
As historian Ilan Pappé reminds us, Zionism—as practiced by the Israeli state—is not merely national identity. It is a political structure of domination, rooted in racialized privilege and enforced by military power.
And as Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro has made clear: “Zionism is not Judaism. The State of Israel does not represent the Jewish people.”
It is entirely possible—indeed essential—to oppose Zionism while defending the safety and dignity of Jewish people everywhere.
But there is a profound moral and political failure in demanding that Palestinians must accept their own erasure as the price of “peace.”
Vince, you have a Choice!
You can echo the safe, scripted lines and carry on as one more quaquaraquà in a political landscape already too full of them.
Or—you can listen, learn, and lead. You can choose justice over convenience. Law over lobby. Conscience over choreography.
Canada must act in line with its laws and values.To fulfill its legal and moral responsibilities, it must:
- End all arms transfers—direct and indirect—to Israel
- Recognize the State of Palestine
- Publicly support the ICC and enforce international law
- Pursue reparations for Palestinian victims
- Sanction individuals and entities complicit in apartheid, genocide, and occupation
- Hold corporations accountable for profiting from an economy of genocide, as outlined in UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese’s report
This is not just about Palestine. This is about the credibility of our democracy, our legal system, and our ethical compass.
I hope you will.
Sincerely,
Nancy Perin
Please Join the Call for Arms Embargo Now!
Communities across the country are stepping up to deliver a clear call to action to our MPs.We are delivering a Mandate Letter to our representatives – to explain the current status of the Canada-Israel Arms Trade, and to push them towards the steps needed for our government to enact a true arms embargo.
Read the "Threads of Justice"
“Threads of Justice” is my pathway of 7 articles to explore how justice and peace are not single, fixed ideas but rather a tapestry woven from countless interconnected strands—history, culture, power dynamics, human experience, and values.
In this series, each thread represented a perspective, a voice, or a force that shapes the broader story of justice and the pursuit of peace in our world. Together, these threads reveal the intricate connections that bind us and guide us toward understanding. We’re called to zoom out—to see how historical power dynamics and the flow of information influence our understanding of justice, solidarity, and the interconnectedness of all societies. These threads invite you to think critically about what drives conflict and, more importantly, how we might create space for peace. I hope it might help you shape your perspective in this moment of history. My hope is for a world where peace, not war, defines our relationships.
Part 1: A Tapestry of Interconnected Strands
Part 2: The Colonial Project: How History Shaped the Genocide in Gaza
Part 3: Global Justice at Risk: Gaza, the ICC, and Power’s Grip
Part 4: Gaza: The Cyber Nexus of Modern War Crimes
Part 5: Behind Democracy’s Veil: Forces Driving Peace and War
Part 6: Propaganda in Modern Warfare
Part 7: Beyond Fear and War: A Future of Justice for Humanity
