Ashamed And Disgusted

Those two adjectives perhaps succinctly sum up the feeling of many people over Mark Carney's attempt to appease Trump by rescinding the Digital Services Tax. While some commentators are trying to put lipstick on a pig, twisting themselves beyond recognition to justify what the prime minister did, savvy readers of newspapers are having none of it.

Here are some letters from Globe and Mail readers:

Yes, Mr. Trump

Re “Ottawa says talks with U.S. back on after pulling digital services tax” (June 30): By rescinding the digital services tax within a weekend of Donald Trump’s withdrawal from tariff negotiations, Mark Carney has shown that he is no longer negotiating with Mr. Trump to protect Canadians. He is, in fact, continuing to bow down to threats from a bully who belies all reason when it comes to decision-making. Canada may vehemently refuse to become the 51st state, but it seems to have no problem capitulating to Mr. Trump’s demands without much of a fight.

From committing to a 5-per-cent increase in defence spending, at the expense of more pressing domestic priorities, to bulldozing a bill through Parliament that steps all over Indigenous rights and territories and now immediately backing out of a digital services tax more than a year in the making, this government is showing no signs of standing up to fight for Canada and Canadians.

Themrise Khan Ottawa

So Trump has a tantrum and we blink. Is this elbows up? Is this negotiation? Many other sovereign nations have implemented a digital services tax. But I guess the eventual 51st state should not. What’s next, supply management? It is protected by an Act of Parliament? But that law can also be rescinded when Mr. Trump pulls out again in a couple of days.

Sinclair Robinson Ottawa

Knuckling under to Mr. Trump’s blackmail on the digital services tax is a shameful betrayal. Not only is it a weak and pathetic response, it is also stupid. Giving in to blackmail only invites him to do it again and again and again – and he will.

Trevor Hancock Victoria

I used to tell my students that we are as Canadian as the U.S. lets us be. Sadly proven true yet again.

Kevin Byrne Sarnia, Ont.

So we implement a digital services tax, a questionable move on its own, and then we withdraw it because Mr. Trump has a public tantrum. Now we look foolish and weak. Mr. Trump’s bombast, disinformation and bullying represent one end of the negotiation tactic field. The Prime Minister has just identified the other end of that playing field.

Mark Knudsen Mississauga

One of the first rules of negotiation is to give to the other side only if you get something in return. Otherwise, it will encourage them to push for further concessions. Eliminating the digital services tax on U.S. tech giants is a step backward for Canada. We are chipping away at Canadian sovereignty by allowing the president of another country to set our tax policy.

Neil Tudiver Ottawa

And this one from The Star:

Carney cancelling the digital services tax a weak move

Canada cancelled its digital services tax. What was it and why did the U.S. hate it? June 30

I am horrified to see that Prime Minister Mark Carney has given in to Trump and cancelled the digital services tax.

What makes Carney think Trump will now treat Canada fairly? Is he afraid of the big online companies, the oligarchs?

It’s past time to stand up to Trump and his gang, and make Canada self-sufficient.

Kate Chung, Toronto 

No one more than me would like to be proven wrong in condemning Carney for this move. I just don't see that happening, however.

UPDATED: What Canadian Pride?

On the day before Canada Day, I doubt I am the only one to feel utterly outraged this morning. Our government, which has gone to great measures to stoke our Canadian pride,  has betrayed all of us. It has succumbed to Trump's threats and rescinded the Digital Services Tax.

The announcement came following a phone call between Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump, and just hours before the first payment under the tax was going to come due for major tech companies like Amazon and Google. 

On Friday Trump announced on his social media platform Truth Social he was terminating all trade discussions with Canada because of the tax.

The tax, which was set to be collected starting today, was unpopular with the U.S., and Trump had one of his many tantrums. In rescinding it, as opposed to possibly suspending it, Canada has shown itself to be at Trump's mercy.

Daniel Béland, a politics professor at McGill University in Montreal, called Carney’s retreat a “clear victory” for Trump.

“At some point this move might have become necessary in the context of Canada-US trade negotiations themselves but Prime Minister Carney acted now to appease President Trump and have him agree to simply resume these negotiations, which is a clear victory for both the White House and big tech,” Béland said.

He said it makes Carney look vulnerable to President Trump’s outbursts.

“President Trump forced PM Carney to do exactly what big tech wanted. U.S. tech executives will be very happy with this outcome,” Béland said.

Notably, the U.S. finalized a trade deal with the U.K last month, despite the fact that country has a 2% DST.

One can only expect more American abuse and craven Canadian submission ahead. 

In Sunday’s interview [on Fox], Mr. Trump also criticized Canada’s supply-management system, which strictly controls imports of eggs, dairy and poultry to protect domestic producers.

I don't know what I will be doing tomorrow on Canada Day. One thing I won't  be doing is celebrating Canadian 'pride'. 

UPDATED: If, despite the above, your pride is still intact, try this one on for size:

Karoline Leavitt, Mr. Trump’s chief spokeswoman, told a press briefing Monday that Mr. Carney telephoned Mr. Trump to inform him that Ottawa would be cancelling the tax, two days after Mr. Trump threatened to walk away from trade talks and impose retaliatory tariffs over the levy, and one day before the first payment of the tax was meant to be collected.

“It’s very simple: Prime Minister Carney and Canada caved to President Trump and the United States of America,” Ms. Leavitt said. “The President made his position quite clear to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister called the President last night to let the President know that he would be dropping that tax.”

And from the horse's mouth: 

UPDATED UPDATE: 

University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist, who is Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, said Canada came out of this exchange over the DST looking weak.

By scrapping the DST now, Canada has “given up what was a non-trivial card and they basically used it to get back exactly where they were a week ago,” Prof. Geist said. 

And this from The Globe and Mail's Robyn Urback: 

Killing the DST now reeks of desperation. It is a capitulation without reward; the U.S. has since agreed to resume negotiations – but that’s it: talks. The mercurial Donald Trump could decide that supply management is his real gripe, and call talks off again. Should that happen, we would be weaker than we were before since we have robbed ourselves of a bargaining chip in the DST that we could have used if, for example, Mr. Champagne announced that Canada was pausing or delaying collections, rather than rescinding the legislation altogether.

The message this decision sends to Canadians is that our domestic policy is being set by the White House, and the message it sends the White House is that we are pathetic little weaklings who will bend to the President’s whims. 

Silence Is Not An Option

About a week ago, Gabor Mate wrote a heartfelt piece about the genocide in Gaza. His thesis was that we must speak out against the carnage. Mate is Jewish, and that fact lent heft to his argument that criticism of Israel cannot be conflated with anti-semitism, a stance I have long held. For too long,  condemnation of Israel's slaughter of Gazans has been muted for fear of wearing that odious label. If you have access to The Star, I would encourage you to read it.

Star readers are united in their agreement with Mate. Following are some letters to the editor that unconditionally support his position.

Silence is not an option, and if images coming from Gaza of emaciated children being deliberately starved don’t get us to speak up loudly, nothing will. Gabor Maté lays out the reasons we should be able to do so without fear of being called antisemitic. It seems that the true meaning behind the phrase “never again” has been forgotten.

Paul Kahnert, Markham, ON

I agree 100 per cent with Maté that silence is not an option when Israel continues to slaughter children, as well as hospital patients and workers. This whole situation is enraging. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plays on our collective guilt about the Holocaust, but enough is enough. His behaviour is that of a crazed and power-hungry leader who’s bent on destroying Palestine, and it’s being abetted by the United States. Starving innocent Gazans while destroying their homes and their country is inhumane. I have many Jewish friends who don’t support Netanyahu’s actions. Silence will only enable Israel. It’s about time the rest of the world woke up and called a spade a spade.

Lillian Shery, Toronto

Maté deserves thanks for writing this article, and the Star deserves praise for having had the courage to publish it. Governments, workplaces and school boards in Canada have too often assented to the notion that criticism of Israel is automatically antisemitic and deserving of punishment. The fact that some Jewish children don’t feel safe is used as an excuse to ban expressions of sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza, where people also don’t feel safe — and for much clearer reasons. My opinion of what Netanyahu and the Israeli military are doing to Palestine doesn’t make me pro-Hamas or pro-terrorism. As Canadians, we should never be discriminated against for speaking out about injustice, wherever it occurs. And Israel should not be exempt from a clear examination of what it’s doing in Gaza.

Caroline Andrews, Toronto

It’s been well-documented that the Israeli Defense Forces have committed atrocities in Gaza. As citizens, we should be able to express our opinions about Israel’s actions without fear of being branded antisemitic. I have Jewish and Palestinian friends, and all any of us wants is peace in Gaza and a settlement that is amenable to both parties in the conflict.

Bill Melvin, Toronto

Speaking out may seem thin gruel when one contemplates the carnage in Gaza. However, remaining silent does no service to the starvation, mutilation and death taking place there, and can only compound the moral injury many of us feel when bearing witness to the slaughter.

I'll close with an small excerpt from Mate's piece:

The only resolution is the freeing of the discussion around Gaza. People deserve the right to experience as much liberty to publicly mourn, question, oppose, deplore, denounce what they perceive as the perpetration of injustice and inhumanity as they are, in this country, to advocate for the aims and actions of the Israeli government and its Canadian abettors amongst our political leadership, academia, and media.

We Should Not Be Surprised

Well, the news has come in that Trump is cancelling trade negotiations with Canada over our digital services tax, which he says is an attack on the U.S. He promises punishing tariffs for our 'temerity'.

No doubt he expects us all to quiver and cave. I think it's time to take the gloves off and really hurt the Americans at least as much as they intend to hurt us.

Here's a video that articulates a Western view about life in the U.S. and the need to act:

The Mighty Euphemism

I have still not recovered my equilibrium vis-a-vis the world, so the following are not my words. I got them from a Facebook group called Films for Action. Nonetheless, they echo exactly what George Orwell said so many years ago.

Propaganda starts with the manipulation of language. The goal is to render violence morally palatable when committed by those aligned with imperial interests.

Noam Chomsky has long argued that the most effective propaganda in democratic societies is not the outright lie, but the strategic framing that defines the bounds of acceptable thought. This happens not by controlling what we think, but by controlling what we think about, and more crucially, how we talk about it.

Consider the way governments are described. Allies of empire are governed by “administrations” or “democracies,” while enemies have “regimes.” Allies engage in “preemptive strikes” or “targeted operations,” while others “attack” or “escalate.” Our allies “defend themselves”; their enemies are “aggressors.” When a powerful nation stockpiles nuclear weapons, it is “deterrence.” When an enemy pursues the same, it’s a “threat.”

These choices aren’t accidental. They signal who the audience should empathize with and who they should fear. They suggest legitimacy or illegitimacy without ever needing to make a direct argument. It’s not that one country does self-defense while another does terrorism—it’s that the label itself is a tool of propaganda, applied selectively to support imperial policy.

This manipulation of language also defines who is human and who is not. Our civilians are “families,” “children,” “innocent lives lost.” Theirs are “collateral damage.” We never “bomb a city”; we “neutralize targets.” They never “resist”; they “foment instability.”

This is how public consent is engineered—not with force, but with framing. Through decades of this conditioning, populations come to internalize the narrative: that our wars are necessary, our allies righteous, our enemies barbaric. Even when the facts are plain, the language inoculates the public against outrage.

But once you start seeing these linguistic patterns, you can’t unsee them. And that’s when the real work begins—challenging the narrative, exposing the frame, and refusing to accept the moral double standards that justify endless war under the banner of peace.

Given the Americans' involvement in yet another war, one might be well-advised to look for ongoing, even greater, perversions of language and thought.

Time For Reflection

Just a short note to let you know my posting may be less frequent for the next while. The world is too much with me, so I am planning on reducing my consumption of the news of that world; the dance of death grows wearying, so I think it's time for a break from it

Therefore, I'll probably write only when I feel strongly about something in particular,  or challenged by it.

It Has Come To This

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has launched a new tip line to encourage the public to report illegal immigration and criminal activity related to undocumented individuals. The hotline, operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), can be reached at 866-DHS-2-ICE (866-347-2423). This initiative aims to assist law enforcement in locating and apprehending illegal aliens. The DHS has issued public statements urging citizens to use the tip line to help restore law and order.

If you're a real American, Uncle Sam wants you to do your patriotic duty. Be vigilant and report all those you suspect are foreign invaders. (The English teacher in me will not carp on the obvious redundancy here, but I have never heard of domestic invaders). One also notes that the deportation criteria have expanded to include all undocumented immigrants as criminals, something that has no basis in law.

Here is an example of the authorities' zeal for 'purifying' Amerika.

Can loyalty oaths be far behind? 

Performative, But Not Necessarily Valueless, Politics

While it has limited value and smacks of political theatre, it is, as they say, a good start. 

Canada, alongside four other countries, is formally sanctioning two Israeli ministers for comments they say are “incitements of violence against Palestinian communities.”

The sanctions were announced by the foreign ministers of Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Norway on Tuesday in a joint statement.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich will both see their assets frozen and face travel bans.

Both men face sanctions for being “responsible for, engaging in, inciting, promoting and/or supporting activity which amounts to a serious abuse of the right of individuals not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in particular acts of aggression and violence against Palestinian individuals in the West Bank.”

“These two individuals promoted extremist settler violence and it has to stop,” said Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand on Tuesday afternoon.

While the sanctions have limited value in and of themselves, they at least mark a departure from the former Trudeau government's slavish adherence to America's stance on Israel. And, delightfully, that new stance has inflamed the U.S.

The United States has condemned Canada and four other countries for imposing sanctions on two Israeli cabinet ministers.

 Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement the United States urges the countries to reverse the sanctions.

Rubio says the sanctions do not advance the United States' efforts to achieve a ceasefire in the region, bring home hostages and end the war.

Since the Yanks always stand "shoulder to shoulder with Israel," as they like to say, Rubio's response is predictably reflexive and  senseless, as is much of America's contemporary foreign policy. The real problem, in my view, is the limited nature of the sanctions. Why restrict them to two cabinet ministers?

NDP foreign affairs critic Heather McPherson said Canada should be sanctioning all senior members of Netanyahu's government.

"Canada should respect international law and sanction Netanyahu and his cabinet immediately for their role in the genocide of Gaza. All Israeli officials who incite or are responsible for genocide should be sanctioned," McPherson said in a media statement. 

In what is becoming a rudderless world, that, apparently, would be a bridge too far for the West, However, one can live in hope that spines will grow as the senseless slaughter of Palestinians continues apace. 

Back From La Belle Province

Travel, as they say, broadens one's perspective, and even though I am getting long in the tooth, I am still open to learning things. One impression I take from our sojourn in Montreal is that its citizens have a different approach to getting around their city. In addition to an extensive subway system is their quite impressive network of bike lanes, which we seemed to encounter everywhere we went. As well, their Bixi Bike share program is thriving; by all observations it is very, very well-used.

While I know little about the city's politics, I was struck by the fact that cars really don't seem to be granted the status of near-godhood they enjoy in places like Toronto. While Ontario's Premier Ford is intent upon ripping up bike lanes there, Montreal enjoys a bikeways network of over 3400 kilometres, and the lanes seem to be everywhere you can imagine. 

Another notable observation is the wealth of EV cars, partly attributable, I suppose, to the fact that Quebec retains a subsidy for the vehicles. As well, there seemed to be pedestrians everywhere. Walking is clearly encouraged, as many streets are currently pedestrian only, with restaurants (outdoor patios abound) and hawkers taking advantage of the space.

The streetlife is reminiscent of what one finds in Europe, which is no surprise given Quebec's distinctive status. And the strangest thing is that congestion did not seem to be especially bad, at least when I was driving. A shame we can't import that sensibility to other parts of the country, especially Ontario, where people grow apoplectic at the mere mention of taking out a lane or closing down a street for a weekend.  

That's it for now. I leave you with a picture of Shwartz's famous smoked meat sandwich. Regular programming will resume shortly.

Doing Our Part

As part of our 'new' relationship with the United States, Canadians are being encourage

d to vacation in our own country rather than spend our dollars in a hostile nation. For me, that is not a problem, since I have not been there since 2016 and have no intention of ever travelling there again. 

And more and more Canadians are making that decision, with significant impact:

There appears to be no turning back on the journey away from the United States. Its animosity, its many dangers, are roadsigns all of us should heed.

Special Note: We will be doing our part in supporting our country by taking a little road trip to Montreal, starting today. See you when we get back.

Life Must Be Simple For The Simple

There are times when one almost envies the simple person who can accept things at face value. For them, there is nothing to see here:

‪Aaron Rupar‬ ‪@atrupar.com‬

· 10h

BASH: Is it fair to say that what you are doing now is in part enacting Project 2025? VOUGHT: No, of course not. (This is a blatant lie.)

More About Diffeences

In my previous post, I discussed a few of the differences with the U.S. that make Canada the country it is. I contrasted our more welcoming natures with the increasing suspicion of 'the other' in the U.S., currently reflected in that its efforts to drive foreign students from Harvard and other universities.

Canadians have often been pilloried for allegedly having a weak sense of national identity, frquently defining ourselves only as "not American". It almost implies that if our foes friends to the south ceased to exist, we would be condemned to a cultural void, having lost any basis for identity.

But what does 'not being American' really mean? I'll return to that question in a moment, but please first watch the following video about one man's experience with American healthcare.

Interesting, isn't it, that the only real criticism here is not the massive cost for a six-day hospital stay but only understanding the charges. Perhaps that is what comes from growing up in a culture where the idea of 'socialized medicine' is anathema, and that paying through the nose for medical treatment is 'the American way'.

So yes, we are not American in that we have public healthcare. Despite complaints about long wait-times for elective procedures, it is obviously far superior to the private model. But looking beneath the surface, consider what it really means. Our public system, funded by all taxpayers, represents a value system whereby we look after each other, rather than consign a person's fate to either the good fortune of having a private insurance plan, paying out of pocket, or quietly expiring from a lack of timely medical intervention.

We purposely sacrifice a little more take-home pay, paying the taxes that make the common good a priority. Obviously, there are many other examples of our "not being American," but healthcare is one of the touchstones of those differences.

Prizing the collective good or extolling rugged individualism? For me, and for most Canadians, the choice is clear.

Reflections On Differences

While there is much favourable talk about King Charles' Throne Speech yesterday, from my point of view the most important aspect was his emphasis on Canada as a distinct nation, one with a history and ties to something much larger than ourselves. We have a culture and a character and ideals that need to be savoured and promoted. If there ever was a time to stress this, it is now.

Were I still teaching, and the lesson was about the use of comparison and contrast, I would use Canada and the United States as models. For the purpose of today's post, one basis of contrast will suffice.

Canada, although we have had many stumbles, has traditionally been open to 'the other.' People come here from all over the world, attracted to our traditions of peace, order and good government. Consequently, our multiculturalism is one of the shining jewels of our identity. And while we are perhaps less open than we used to be, we still exceed what many other nations have fallen prey to: xenophobia and exclusion.

Those two ugly qualities are on full display in the United State as it quickly descends into an authoritarianism that would have seemed inconceivable just a few years ago. Attacks on judges, rule by fiat (a.k.a., executive order), interference in states' rights and academic freedom are rampant under Trump. One sees that the traditional safeguard against such excesses, the separation of powers, is being rapidly dismantled, aided immensely by a craven, submissive legislative branch.

Consider the latest salvo, as the U.S. continues to close itself off from the rest of the world.

US President Donald Trump's administration has ordered US embassies around the world to stop scheduling appointments for student visas as it prepares to expand social media vetting of such applicants. 

An official memo said social media vetting would be stepped up for student and foreign exchange visas, which would have "significant implications" for embassies and consulates.

 Foreign students who want to study in the US are usually required to schedule interviews at a US embassy in their home country before approval.

State department spokesperson Tammy Bruce told reporters on Tuesday: "We take very seriously the process of vetting who it is that comes into the country, and we're going to continue to do that."

This move is likely retaliation for Harvard's refusal to surrender its academic freedom to the Trump regime, a retaliation that includes the freezing of grants.

Harvard University has been the focal point of the president's ire; he has frozen $2.65bn (£1.96bn) in federal grants to the institution and has sought to put other federal funding worth $100m under review.

The university's president has said the cuts will "hurt" the country, not just Harvard, because academics were conducting research deemed "high-priority" by the government. 

The implications of these actions are great, and telegraph a message that the U.S. is no longer a welcoming, inquisitive nation but rather one that is collapsing in on itself. 

Let that be a lesson to every Canadian lest we succumb to the temptation of complacence. We have something here that needs to be constantly nourished, and I am cautiously optimistic, after Carney's initial symbolic act of asking the King to read the Throne speech, that we are on the right track.

 

On Moral Injury

A moral injury is a severe stress reaction following the experience of an event or a recurrence of situations that contradict an individual’s moral beliefs. Moral injury is characterized by enduring feelings of guilt, shame, disgust, anger, contempt, and hopelessness. In severe cases, this may lead to suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts. Moral injury appears to impact one’s capacity for trust and elevate despair.

I have been thinking a great deal lately about the genocide going on in Gaza. Almost daily, we are presented with images of starvation, mutilation and death. Especially difficult to watch are the images of innocent children being made to pay a price no one should have to pay for the madness of others. It is often too much even for a stalwart soul like me.

Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett writes feelingly on this topic, wondering about its effect on the human soul.

I have seen images on my phone screen these past months that will haunt me as long as I live. Dead, injured, starving children and babies. Children crying in pain and in fear for their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers. A small boy shaking in terror from the trauma of an airstrike. Scenes of unspeakable horror and violence that have left me feeling sick.

As we watch, horrified, we feel a pervasive helplessness and hopelessness; any action we might take, whether it be letter-writing, protests, donations to relief groups, seems to have at best a miniscule effect on the carnage, and little balm for the soul.

This overarching sense of impotence when confronted with unimaginable horror is creating a mass sense of moral injury – a form of profound psychological distress that can happen to people when they are forced to act, or indeed not act, in ways that are in direct opposition to their values or moral code.  

But that feeling of powerlessness and, as an extension, complicity: what does it do to those around the world who feel what is happening is wrong? What is the impact of witnessing so much profound suffering – even through a screen – and feeling unable to act or to force others to act?

We in the West live cosseted lives; no matter how bad one's personal situation may be, it is nothing compared to what the people of Gaza experience daily. Our own sense of guilt and shame here is especially acute if we have children or grandchildren. As a grandparent, I know all to well the ardent hope I harbour for a good and fulfilling life for my grandchildren, but the knowledge that I would do anything to protect them hardly assuages what the writer calls moral injury.

There is something about being in the daily company of a little person – their innocence, their vulnerability, their silliness, their loving nature – that makes the pain of any other child feel like a profound affront. But I know you don’t have to be a parent to feel horror at what is being inflicted on Gaza’s children in the most visceral way. I believe – or at least I used to – that it is ingrained in us, as humans, to feel a collective responsibility towards children, and that this collective responsibility can extend beyond borders.

 Feeling powerless in the face of such egregious injustice can result in a loss of trust or faith, not just in governments and institutions but also in the moral order of the world, and its ability to protect children. I wonder what the impact of this will be: will it, as certain politicians no doubt hope, result in a numbness that presents as indifference? Traumatic events can result in a lack of affect – millions more people should be marching and raising their voice – but they can also be channelled into righteous anger.

I certainly feel a profound loss of faith. Something I felt to be true about humanity – that people are fundamentally good, that we owe it to children to protect them – has shifted because of this conflict. I walk around with a feeling of heaviness that I cannot seem to shake. Thousands of miles from Gaza, I am changed by the past 18 months. I have learned that, for some people, compassion for children has political limits. What does one do with that terrible knowledge once it sits inside you like a leaden stone? I don’t seem be able to find an answer. 

We have all borne witness to the darkness our species is capable of.  And none of us emerges unscathed after tasting of that bitter fruit.

Politicizing Tragedy

I have observed over the years that whenever there is something like a school shooting in the U.S., there are two reactions. The progressive side calls for gun reform; the gun-loving right's political stooges proclaim, "Now is not the time to politicize tragedy."

Yet that is exactly what Benjamin Netanyahu, a profoundly evil man, in my view, did after the terrible murder of the young Israeli embassy officials in Washington.

I was frankly disgusted by the Prime Minister's words, his exploitation of a tragedy for his own selfish purposes. His words also carry an assumption that jewish lives matter far more than the over 50,000 Gazans who have thus far been sacrifice in the retaliation for the October 7th attacks. The collective punishment of Palestinians, a war crime in itself, is normalized as an appropriate response to that attack, which took 1400 Israeli lives

An I am not alone in this disgust. Martin Regg Cohn, a man who spent many years as a Middle East correspondent, has this to say about Netanyahu.

Netanyahu’s primary purpose is to save his political skin at home.

This is a domestic political stratagem masquerading as military strategy.

Hamas has already been largely eviscerated. To eradicate the militant movement entirely, as the prime minister keeps promising, would force more innocent people to pay an incalculable price that no one should bear.

In his pursuit of political salvation, his evasion of any responsibility for the attack, he has alienated much of the world,

Last Sunday, Canada joined France and the U.K. in releasing a formal statement that condemned Israel for its renewed deployment of firepower and weaponization of food shipments in Gaza.

“The Israeli government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable,” the three governments declared, adding pointedly that some of Netanyahu’s cabinet ministers had crossed a line by suggesting ethnic cleansing:

“We condemn the abhorrent language used recently by members of the Israeli government, threatening that, in their despair at the destruction of Gaza, civilians will start to relocate.”

The European Union and the United Nations have also called out Israel for withholding food and medical aid in a cynical bid to demoralize an entire population so that people will turn on Hamas.

Netanyahu, however, is nothing if not brazen in his defiance of the rest of the world. Indeed, his response to the above condemnation was unequivocal, accusing 

Canada, the United Kingdom and France of giving Hamas “a huge prize” by threatening to take action against Israel over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

This defiance is made possible by the absence of countervailing influences within i his cabinet.

His early war cabinet — which brought in opposition National Unity party chair Benny Gantz and then-defence minister Yoav Gallant has been disbanded (Gantz departed and Gallant was fired as defence minister for dissenting from the most outlandish plans).

Now, the prime minister depends for his political survival on bellicose cabinet ministers from far-right parties that do not countenance co-existence with Palestinians in peacetime or wartime.

Regg Cohn ends with a lacerating assessment of Israel's leader:

His calculations are based on personal political survival rather than Israel’s national interest, its international standing, and Palestinian co-existence.

That, by all sane metrics, makes Netanyahu manifestly unfit to hold public office. 

UPDATE: Here is Netanyahu at his demagogic 'best' as he rebukes Canada, the UK and France over its condemnation of Israel's starvation of Gazans: