Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

Carney’s Canada has recognized a psycho “state” that doesn’t exist

Published

2 months ago

10 minute read

The Rewrite 

By Peter Stockland

Senseless gesture quickly followed by reports of “another blood drenched summary execution ordered by the devotees of the death cult that mindlessly and pointlessly slaughtered 1,200 Israelis”

Well, that latest Canadian adventure in diplomatic Boy Scoutism certainly went sideways, quickly, didn’t it?

Within hours of Prime Minister Carney joining France, the U.K. Australia and others in formally “recognizing” a Palestinian state that has neither territory nor working government nor respect for the existence of its neighbouring state’s borders, The Telegraph reported Hamas had carried out public executions of accused Israeli “collaborators.”

Almost every Canadian news platform is now dependent on government subsidies.

To help us keep them honest please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The executed were all Palestinians. They will now never enjoy the utopia dreamed (fantasized?) of by Canada recognizing, in Carney’s words, “the State of Palestine and offer(ing) our partnership in building the promise of a peaceful future for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel.”

Here’s the reality of that “peaceful future,” according to the Telegraph report.

“Footage posted (by) Hamas…showed armed and masked members of the group lining up three blindfolded Palestinians in a public square in Gaza. Chants of ‘Allahu Akbar’ were heard among the crowd as they gathered to watch and film the public execution. The three men were ordered to kneel before three executioners shot them in their heads and upper bodies….”

Here, from a day earlier, is the Canadian Prime Minister’s text blaming Israel for “working methodically to prevent the prospect of a Palestinian state from ever being established… (and carrying out a) sustained assault in Gaza (that) has killed tens of thousands of civilians (and) displaced well over one million people.”

Compare that caustic criticism with the words of a Hamas official at the execution, as reported by the Telegraph.

“Pursuant to the content of Palestinian revolutionary law and based on the Palestinian revolutionary court, a death sentence was decided against those who betrayed the homeland….”

Wait? Revolutionary court?? Does anyone have a street address for the Palestinian Revolutionary Courthouse? I wouldn’t mind going on Google Earth to admire its early medieval architecture and look for the signs of its substrate tunnelling.

I know. I know. There’s no such thing. This was yet another blood drenched summary execution ordered by the devotees of the death cult that mindlessly and pointlessly slaughtered 1,200 Israelis almost exactly two years ago. Hamas then subsequently turned the deaths of those “tens of thousands of (Palestinian) civilians” into the most vile, immoral global propaganda campaign in recent memory.

Just how politically and morally repulsive is Hamas? Even Prime Minister Carney, in a truly pathetic gesture of pseudo even-handedness before launching into his excoriation of Israel, had to come clean. He acknowledged it has “terrorized the people of Israel and oppressed the people of Gaza, wreaking horrific suffering. It is imperative that Hamas release all hostages, fully disarm, and play no role in the future governance of Palestine.”

Yes, well, good luck with that, unless the Israelis succeed in their admittedly excruciating mission of rooting out Hamas from Gaza and defeating it beyond the possibility of resurrection. It’s a point made repeatedly by the Netanyahu government but one Canada’s diplomatic Boy Scouts just can’t seem to grasp.

Instead, Prime Minister Carney sees hope on the horizon in the form of 89-year-old Palestinian National Authority dictator-for-life Mahmoud Abbas. He, the PM says in his declaration of recognition, “has provided direct commitments to Canada and the international community on much-needed reforms, including to fundamentally reform its governance, to hold general elections in 2026 in which Hamas can play no part, and to demilitarize the Palestinian state.”

Direct commitments, you say? Well, well. The PA, whose former President was the dashing terrorist Yasser Arafat, has never lied before, now has it? And who wouldn’t implicitly trust the commitments of a near-nonagenarian whose name has been on Middle East assassins’ hit lists for decades? But, errr, who exactly is going to oversee this long-desired “demilitarizing” of Gaza and the “Palestinian state?”

Would it be the very same Mahoud Abbas who lost a civil war to Hamas in 2007, clearing the way for the victors to launch a pogrom that effectively divided the Palestinian territory and entrenched their rule-by-murder in Gaza?

Or would it be the Mahoud Abbas who, two years ago, one month prior to the Oct. 7 atrocity against Israel, suffered global condemnation for an anti-Semitic rant in which he claimed that Hitler launched the Holocaust against Jews – all 6 million of them – because they were money lenders, not because of their faith?

Hey, who wouldn’t back such a trusted, eloquent political warhorse in rebuilding a “peaceful future” for Israelis and Palestinians? Okay. I wouldn’t.

Neither, it seems, would Mosab Yousef, who happens to be the eldest son of Hassan Yousef, a co-founder of Hamas. In a Telegraph story published Sunday, Yousef the younger condemns what he calls “Palestinianism,” by which he means a “cultish curse that threatens not just Israel but the wider world,” in the words of the Telegraph’s Global Health Security Editor, Paul Nuki.

“Palestinianism is a political violent movement, and self-proclaimed Palestinians are those who are profiting out of the Palestinian cause,” Yousef told the Telegraph.

As the son of a founder of that politically violent movement, and an active participant in it until he was sickened by the mind-numbing atrocities he witnessed, Yousef makes a claim so shocking and impolitic that few without his pedigree would dare raise it even as speculation. While Hamas is everything its detractors say, he asserts, it is not the master but a creature of the Palestinian people themselves who have been generationally distorted by decades of resorting to bloodshed.

“Nowadays I make no distinction between Hamas and Palestinians,” he is quoted. “Most of the rapes, atrocities, beheadings, burning people, burning corpses…were committed by Gaza civilians, not the Hamas (military wing). The truth is, Hamas couldn’t control it.”

The Telegraph’s Nuki notes that Yousef’s personal story is a fascinating one whether we accept or reject his point of view. I want to come back to it in a follow-up Substack column to explore how a Son of Hamas, as his autobiography is called, became an Israeli spy in order to avert the terrorist destruction dished out by the death cult. Beyond that, why is his astonishingly well-informed perspective not a central part of the Israeli-Palestinian media narrative?

I want to leave this column, however, on the following note: A) How on earth did Canadian Boy Scout diplomacy become so perversely persuasive as to draw an intelligent man like Mark Carney into such a prime ministerial morass? And B) How is the “recognition” of such a territory-less, government-less, lawless “state” going to play out for federalism when the Parti Quebecois regains power and launches a third independence referendum for Quebec?

Be prepared for that to go sideways, too.

(Peter Stockland is a former Editor-in-Chief of the Montreal Gazette)

Share

Subscribe to The Rewrite.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 14 hours ago

BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology

Agriculture / 14 hours ago

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust: Worshipping Policies While Ignoring Science

Energy / 17 hours ago

Thawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory

International

BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology

Published on November 8, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script that says men can get pregnant isn’t ‘neutrality,’ by any stretch.

Imagine a society in which the state broadcaster demanded that the female hosts eliminate the word “women” in favor of “people” and rebuked them if their facial expressions betrayed any hit of protest on air.

Welcome to the United Kingdom in 2025. According to the BBC: “Martine Croxall broke rules over ‘pregnant people’ facial expression, BBC says.”

Martine Croxall, a BBC presenter, was introducing an interview about “research on groups most at risk during UK heatwaves,” and the teleprompter script she was reading live on BBC News Channel contained the phrase “pregnant people.”

Croxall visibly raised her eyebrows, and corrected in real-time: “Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people … women … and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.”

When Dr. Mistry, a professor, came on for the interview, she too referred to “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people.”

Because a female presenter clearly objected to “women” being erased in favor of “people” for the ideological purpose of buttressing gender ideology, the BBC has now upheld “20 impartiality complaints” against Croxall. According to the BBC: “BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) said it considered her facial expression as she said this gave the ‘strong impression of expressing a personal view on a controversial matter.’”

READ: BBC rebukes newscaster for correcting ‘pregnant people’ with ‘women’ on air

In other words, as a woman, Croxall obviously objected to the implication that men can get pregnant. Croxall has a son and has thus been pregnant herself. But in our current clown world, the Executive Complaints Unit “said it considered Croxall’s facial expression laid it open to the interpretation that it ‘indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity.’”

The totalitarian trans activists desperately trying to force society to play along with their delusions with force or coercion were behind the complaints, with the ECU reporting that Croxall’s facial expressions were “variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt, or exasperation.” In other words: Say your lines the way we gave them to you and look like you believe them, bigot.

The ECU was also concerned that those who, you know, disagree with the idea that men can get pregnant were also pleased by Croxall’s act of defiance, and that she received “congratulatory messages” on social media (including one from J.K. Rowling), which “together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue.”

Clearly the BBC—which is desperately been trying to regain its reputation—is attempting to wave the fig leaf of “neutrality” in order to reestablish its previous bona fides. But rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script and making a facial expression that appeared to indicate opposition to the idea that men can get pregnant isn’t “neutrality,” by any stretch.

Just a decade ago, no media outlet would have considered implementing gender ideology into their coverage as fact. Now presenters are expected to use fundamentally propagandistic language that frontloads the premises of activists while keeping a straight face as if both transgender ideology and observable biological reality are two perspectives deserving of equal respect and consideration.

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

Continue Reading

International

Large US naval presence in Caribbean reveals increased interest in western security

Published on November 8, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By 

As the number of suspected narcotic transport boats destroyed by the U.S. military grows, so does the number of naval vessels in the Caribbean.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced on social media Thursday evening that U.S. forces carried out their 17th strike on alleged drug boats, killing three “male narco-terrorists” in the targeted operation.

President Donald Trump has made it clear that his administration’s intent to target narco-terrorists in the region to help curb the flow of drugs into the country.

Last month, it was announced that the newest and largest U.S. Navy Aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, and its strike group would be transiting to the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility in the Caribbean.

Ahead of the Ford’s arrival, several naval ships are already in the region, including the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, according to the U.S. Naval Institute—the Iwo Jima, a Wasp-class amphibious ship, among the larger classes of ships in the Navy.

The Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group deployed in August, carrying over 4,500 sailors and Marines, according to the Department of War. The group includes the Iwo Jima, USS Fort Lauderdale, USS San Antonio, and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit.

As of early this week, the USNI reported that, in addition to the group, three Navy guided-missile destroyers are operating in the Caribbean, including the USS Jason Dunham, USS Gravely, and USS Stockdale. In addition, USNI reported the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) and the USS Wichita (LCS-13) are operating in the Caribbean.

The buildup of navy ships in the region points to the administration’s commitment to prioritizing targeting narco-terrorists. Still, it could also signal the U.S. focusing on potential adversarial threats in Latin America.

Hegseth told The Center Square last month at an event in the White House that the Department of War is keeping its eyes on adversaries in the region after TCS asked the secretary and the president if they had plans to expand U.S. Naval operations in Puerto Rico, specifically Roosevelt Roads, a Navy base closed in 2004.

“We’re familiar with the location that you’re referring to, and we will make sure that we’re properly placed in order to deal with the contingency we’re dealing with there, and also any ways in which other countries would attempt to be involved also, so we can walk and chew gum. We’re definitely keeping our eyes on near peer adversaries at the same time,” Hegseth told TCS.

The secretary’s response cemented the administration’s “America first” policy, which is beginning to shift focus to its “own backyard.”

“But we think sending a message on these cartels, these narco-terrorists, is an important, important inside our hemisphere, which for far too long other presidents, as the president pointed out, they’ve ignored our own backyard and allowed other countries to increase their influence here, which only threatens the American people. We’re changing that,” Hegseth concluded.

The naval buildup in the region could highlight concerns in recent years that Venezuela, under the dictatorship of socialist Nicolas Maduro, has aligned the country with American adversaries, such as Russia, China and Iran.

In 2022, Venezuela hosted military drills with countries including Russia, China and Iran.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that Latin America is ripe for U.S. adversarial influences.

“While Western observers have focused their attention on joint connivances of Russia and Iran in Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and the Middle East, where Russo-Iranian military-security operations directly affect U.S. and European interests, the Western Hemisphere is not isolated from the two countries’ quests for global influence. In fact, in many ways it is an essential piece of the puzzle. First, both Iran and Russia perceive Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) as a fertile ground for exploiting popular resentment vis-à-vis the United States and the ‘collective West,’ which they – rather successfully – harness to advance their view of a multipolar world,” according to CSIS.

The group cites sanctions from the West, which are growing in large part due to Russia’s ongoing offensive in Ukraine.

“Second, LAC partners could prove instrumental in offsetting the impacts of Western sanctions against Moscow and Tehran by mitigating their diplomatic and economic isolation. Finally, certain LAC countries could also serve as less scrutinized partners for further developing Russo-Iranian warfare capabilities or cooperation, sheltering mercenaries or militias – such as Hezbollah – and acting as vectors for ‘horizontal escalation’ of conflicts in which Russia and Iran are currently involved,” the group added.

Continue Reading

Trending

X