|
When you were a child do you remember a parent or a teacher handing around a treat and skipping you? Do you remember another child taking your toys and not giving them back? Did you feel upset and angry? Did you protest to your parents or teacher? Punch the child who took your toys?
When something like that happened, we knew instinctively it was wrong. In adult language, we would say it was unjust. How we felt and reacted could also have been right or wrong. By these scenarios we can see that what counts as justice or injustice is multi-dimensional. In the first case, it was being treated unequally, not getting the same as others. In the second, it was having something that we owned, our property, being taken from us. How our parents, teachers and we responded is also related to justice. Were we fair in responding, or did we go overboard? Was there accountability for the one who wronged us, or did they get off scot-free? According to Islam’s scripture, the Qur’an, one of the most important things God asks humanity to do while they are on earth is to establish justice. There are many different Arabic words in the Qur’an that convey the various shades of meaning connected to the concept of justice. Yasein Mohamed, Emeritus Professor of Arabic Studies and Islamic Philosophy, University of the Western Cape in South Africa, gives a good summary: The most common term for the word “justice” in Arabic is ʿadl, and related terms include qisṭ [equity], istiqāmah [straight], wasaṭ [middle], naṣīb (share), and mīzān [balance]. The opposite meaning is injustice (jawr), and related terms are ẓulm (wrongdoing), ṭughyān (tyranny), and inḥirāf (deviation). Majid Khadduri, in his comprehensive study from 1984, “The Islamic Concept of Justice,” (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press), says that there are “two hundred admonitions against injustice," expressed in words like zulm and ithm [sin]. He concludes there are “almost a hundred” direct or indirect expressions embodying the notion of justice, such as the ones mentioned above and in verses like this: “ O you who believe! Stand firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even if against yourselves, or your parents, or your relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, God takes care of both. So do not follow your desires, lest you swerve. If you deviate, or turn away—then God is Aware of what you do.” (4:135) When we think about how we might have responded to the child who took our toys, we can see that being “just” towards them might also activate other virtues, like forgiveness, mercy, forbearance or compassion. Speaking up to the teacher would have needed courage. If we were the teacher or parent, we’d have needed wisdom and temperance in handling the situation. We’d have also needed fairness, evenhandedness and acting to hold ourselves or others to account. That’s why the Greek philosopher Aristotle said that justice is “the greatest of virtues… and in it every virtue is comprehended.” The first Muslim scholar to write a major book on philosophical ethics was the 10th century Persian, Ibn Miskawah, called the Refinement of Character (Tahdhīb al-Akhlāq). He said the four highest virtues are: wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice, and that justice is the one that embraces all virtues. Justice includes:
The Qur’an also talks about God creating the universe with justice. In this case the word justice means the harmony, balance and orderliness of the planets and stars, and in our natural world: “He created the heavens and the earth with justice. He is exalted above the associations they attribute.” (16:3) The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) told us that God said, “O My servants! I have forbidden oppression/injustice for Myself, and I have made it forbidden amongst you, so do not oppress/commit injustice to one another.” Justice For All Canada works to prevent people from oppressing others and to establish justice in ourselves and in society. It’s never easy and is always a project in progress. True justice will come on the Day of Judgment. That’s where we will pay for our wrongdoings and be compensated for the injustices done to us: The Day [of justice] when no soul will avail another soul anything; and the decision on that Day is God’s.” (82:19)  By Tazeen Hasan
Senior Researcher and Policy Analyst, Justice For All Canada At the Rafah border, over 2,200 trucks full of life-saving aid including food, medicine, and water stand idle, blocked from entering Gaza. Behind each truck is a promise: sustenance for hungry children, relief for sick patients, and the hope of survival for a besieged population. But these trucks aren’t moving. Instead, the world watches as Western governments, including Canada, airdrop aid packages into Gaza. While photos and videos of fluttering parachutes aim to project compassion, the truth is far more cynical and no one seems to be asking the obvious question: Why are we airdropping food into Gaza when aid trucks are already waiting at the border? And the answer is simple: Western governments are not intervening to stop the genocide, they are buying time for it to be completed. Canada’s recent announcement that it is joining the air-dropping effort may seem like a humanitarian gesture, but this tactic is not new, not effective, and most importantly, not an alternative to ending the siege. In April 2024, a joint U.S.-Jordanian airdrop campaign sought to deliver food to starving Palestinians. It was a PR-driven project. Despite the participation of Jordan’s King Abdullah II himself in the operation, only a few thousand packages were delivered daily, nowhere near what’s needed for a population of over two million. What’s worse is that airdrops are deadly. Palestinians were killed while scrambling to catch packages. Stampedes broke out. One Palestinian professor in Gaza reported that when some packages were finally opened, they contained only water and vinegar. Nothing about this was humane. The operation was expensive, inefficient, and lethal. So why are Western nations, Canada included, still pursuing this strategy? Because symbolic airdrops are easier than confronting Israel’s blockade. Because dropping a few parachutes buys political cover. It allows governments to say to their outraged citizens, “At least we’re doing something.” But they’re not doing what’s actually needed: imposing an arms embargo, enforcing sanctions, and launching the kind of military operation international law permits to stop genocide and unblock humanitarian access. Let’s also ask a question no one in mainstream politics seems to want to touch: If Israel is allowing Canada to airdrop aid into Gaza, why is it still blocking the trucks at Rafah? Israel permits airdrops because they do not interfere with the goals of its operation. They do not halt the starvation. They do not break the siege. They do not interrupt the airstrikes, the displacement, or the systematic destruction of Gaza’s civil infrastructure. In other words, airdrops serve genocide, not justice. Meanwhile, Canada and other Western countries continue to champion a hollow, demilitarized Palestinian state and recycle the long-dead “two-state solution” while watching an entire generation in Gaza be erased. With no arms embargo, no sanctions, and no military intervention to end the siege, these gestures ring hollow. This is not diplomacy. It’s complicity. The international community has the legal and moral responsibility to intervene under the Genocide Convention and the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P) when a population faces mass extermination. Airdrops do not fulfill that obligation, they mock it. If Canada truly wanted to save Palestinian lives, it would stop arming Israel, sanction Israeli officials responsible for war crimes, and demand the opening of land crossings for uninterrupted humanitarian access. Instead, we are left with parachutes floating over rubble, while aid trucks rot at the gates of Gaza. It’s not just inaction. It’s an active strategy to buy time for genocide under the cover of humanitarian theatre. Looking at Israel’s 76-year history of Zionist settler-colonialism, occupation, and apartheid, it is clear that only a UN-led takeover of Gaza and the enforcement of international protection for Palestinians can bring an end to the blockade, displacement, and starvation. And if Canada is genuinely committed to ending starvation and protecting Palestinian lives, it must move beyond symbolic gestures and condemnations. Canada should follow the path Ireland has begun advocating: invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter to authorize international military intervention to end the siege and allow humanitarian aid to reach Gaza by land. Under international law, when all diplomatic means have failed and a civilian population is being deliberately starved, such action is not only justified but necessary. Anything less is complicity.  By Tazeen Hasan
Senior Researcher and Policy Analyst, Justice For All Canada Last week, The Globe and Mail ran a headline reading: “Family killed after Gaza airstrike despite Israel’s precautions to not harm civilians.” Then changed the heading. For the past 22 months, the United Nations, human rights organizations, international media, and even Israeli outlets have consistently documented that the Israeli military is deliberately targeting children, families, hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and shelters. It is well established that Israeli forces are routinely firing on civilians waiting to collect humanitarian aid for their children and families, resulting in dozens of Palestinian deaths daily. Even Israeli soldiers themselves have openly shared evidence of these war crimes on social media. Yet, The Globe and Mail, like many other Western media outlets, continues to portray Israel as a champion of human rights. Headlines like these are not mere oversights, they constitute direct complicity in genocide, whitewashing Israeli crimes, and misrepresenting genocide as lawful conduct. Changing headline is not enough Hours later, the headline was quietly changed to: “Family killed in Gaza airstrike, while families of Israeli hostages call for protest.” But this correction is far from sufficient. By initially framing the story as if Israel took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties, the paper obscured these documented atrocities. Such reporting is not just a lapse in journalism, it is complicity in genocide. Deliberately Ignoring United Nations Statements The Globe and Mail must issue a public apology for deliberately portraying Israel as a champion of human rights, a framing that misrepresents systematic atrocities and normalizes violence. By publishing such a misleading story, the paper violates basic principles of media ethics, including accuracy, impartiality, and accountability. It disregards repeated statements from United Nations officials, the World Food Programme, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Israeli human rights organizations such as B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel, all of whom have documented Israel’s actions in Gaza as amounting to genocide. Israeli human rights organizations have called for urgent international intervention to stop the Genocide. Such deliberate misrepresentation undermines public trust, shields perpetrators from accountability, and makes it imperative that the editor responsible for this coverage resigns, sending a clear message that journalism cannot condone or obscure crimes against humanity. Complicity in genocide using our tax dollars What adds insult to injury is the fact that The Globe and Mail receives over $2 million annually in government-mandated media subsidies, funded by Canadian taxpayers. Despite this public support, the newspaper’s misleading reporting on Gaza demonstrates a serious breach of journalistic responsibility. Journalism exists to inform citizens with accuracy and integrity, not to misrepresent facts or normalize atrocities. When publicly funded media deliberately mislead readers, it is not only a violation of ethical standards but also a misuse of taxpayer money. The Canadian government must immediately review and reconsider its funding, ensuring that public resources do not support outlets that distort truth and fail to uphold their duty to Canadian citizens. Public apology and resignation of the editor The Canadian taxpayer demands that The Globe and Mail issue a public apology for deliberately portraying Israel as a champion of human rights, a framing that whitewashes systematic atrocities and normalizes violence. Moreover, accountability demands more than words—the editor responsible for this misleading coverage should step down, sending a clear message that journalism cannot condone or obscure crimes against humanity.  Written by Tazeen Hasan, Researcher & Policy analyst, Justice For All Canada
Israel’s plan to militarily seize Gaza City and expand control over the entire Gaza Strip has drawn sharp global condemnation, with leaders warning it will deepen the humanitarian catastrophe in the besieged enclave. UN rights chief Volker Turk said the move violates international law and the International Court of Justice’s ruling to end the occupation, while leaders from the UK, Turkiye, China, Australia, and Finland urged Israel to halt its escalation, warning of mass displacement, famine, and further bloodshed. Many reiterated calls for an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, and unimpeded humanitarian aid, with Australia and China stressing Palestinian statehood and territorial integrity. Even Israel’s opposition leader Yair Lapid denounced the decision, calling it a disaster that defies military advice and risks long-term damage. Such verbal condemnation is not new, we have been hearing it for the past 22 months, with little to no impact on the ground. On July 21, a coalition of 32 countries issued a joint statement calling for an immediate ceasefire, the protection of civilians, and unrestricted humanitarian access, yet Israel’s actions have only escalated since. If global institutions and Western governments are truly serious, they must act now. Mere words will not stop the deliberate starvation of children, will not open Gaza’s crossings to allow unrestricted aid deliveries, and will certainly not prevent Israel’s takeover of Gaza. Condemnations, without decisive follow-up, only embolden the aggressor. At this point, high-level diplomatic circles and global institutions should heed the urgent calls from Israeli human rights organizations and the Irish president, who have both demanded international intervention to halt Israel’s genocidal campaign. The UN Security Council has clear authority under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to take binding measures, including the use of force, when peace and security are under grave threat. Without invoking these powers, and without deploying enforceable measures such as sanctions or protection forces, Israel’s current path will continue unchecked. The reality is that Israel is relentlessly advancing its aggression to the next stage. Even if the genocide in Gaza were to end, it would not stop there, it will move to erase and exterminate Palestinians from the West Bank, and escalate its operations in Syria and Lebanon. Its far-right leadership openly declares a settler-colonial, expansionist agenda, and recent strikes on Lebanon, Syria, and even Iran demonstrate its willingness to export this aggression regionally. The world cannot afford to treat this as a series of isolated escalations, it is part of a coherent and declared strategy of territorial expansion, ethnic cleansing and Genocide. The time for statements has long passed. Only coordinated, decisive, and sustained action under international law can stop the unfolding catastrophe and prevent the destabilisation of the wider region.  By Tazeen Hasan
Senior Researcher & Policy Analyst, Justice For All Canada In a bold and urgent statement, Irish President Michael D. Higgins has called on the United Nations to invoke Chapter VII to authorize an international military force for humanitarian intervention in Gaza. This rare presidential appeal signals the growing recognition that words of condemnation are no longer sufficient. The staggering scale of death, starvation, and displacement in Gaza demands a coordinated, enforceable global response — not just statements of concern. When President Higgins referenced Chapter VII procedure , he was pointing to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which allows the UN Security Council to take binding measures, including the use of force, in response to threats to peace, breaches of peace, or acts of aggression. Chapter VII is the UN’s most powerful legal tool, enabling it to impose sanctions, authorize no-fly zones, and even deploy international troops — all without the consent of the state in question, if civilians are at risk. This legal mechanism is often misunderstood or underutilized, yet it has been invoked in major crises — from Iraq to Bosnia to Libya. In the case of Gaza, its relevance is clear. Over the past 22 months, Israel’s ongoing bombardment, blockade, and ground operations in Gaza have killed over 62,000 Palestinians, the vast majority civilians, including thousands of children. Critical infrastructure has been decimated, and humanitarian access has been deliberately restricted, pushing the population to the brink of famine. Closely related to Chapter VII is the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) — a global commitment adopted at the 2005 UN World Summit. R2P asserts that the international community has a duty to intervene when a state fails to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity. If peaceful means are inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to uphold their duties, then the international community — through the Security Council — must act collectively, using Chapter VII tools if necessary. This moment is exactly what R2P was designed for. Israel, as the occupying power, has not only failed to protect the population under its control — it stands accused by multiple international bodies, including the International Court of Justice, of committing plausible acts of genocide. The world has watched as entire neighborhoods were flattened, hospitals bombed, and aid convoys obstructed. Appeals for restraint have been met with more bombs. That’s why, back in June 2025, when Canada and several other nations sanctioned two extremist Israeli ministers for inciting violence against Palestinians, our blogs urged the international community to go further — to invoke R2P. Our position was clear then, and remains urgent now: there is no political will for a ceasefire without enforcement. Civilian protection cannot rely on diplomacy alone when the aggressor shows no regard for international law or humanitarian norms. On July 21, 2025, Canada joined 31 other nations — including the UK, Japan, Australia, and several EU members — in a rare and powerful joint statement condemning Israel for using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza. The language was unusually forceful, describing Israel’s actions as deliberate, unlawful, and in violation of international humanitarian law. But condemnation alone has done nothing to stop the carnage. No sanctions were implemented, no arms embargo imposed, and no concrete steps taken to enforce accountability. After 22 months of relentless bombing, siege, and civilian massacre, it is clear that Israel does not care about verbal reprimands — even from its closest allies, including the United States. This genocide will not stop until Israel is faced with the credible threat of coordinated international military enforcement, beginning with the 32 countries who already recognize the severity of its crimes. President Higgins’ statement breaks the silence many Western leaders have maintained for too long. It is a moral and legal alarm bell, and the world should listen. The invocation of Chapter VII to secure humanitarian corridors and protect Palestinian lives is not only justified — it is long overdue. At this stage, military intervention under Chapter VII is the only viable option to halt the slaughter in Gaza and enforce humanitarian protections. The past 22 months have shown that Israel is unmoved by condemnations, UN resolutions, or legal proceedings. Any other demand — whether for more investigations, ceasefire negotiations, or diplomatic pressure — is a smokescreen that enables continued mass killing under the guise of process. The world must stop pretending that words alone will deter a state so emboldened by impunity. At this point, any other demand or delay is simply buying Israel more time to finish what international courts are already investigating as an unfolding genocide.  By Tazeen Hasan
Senior Researcher and Policy Analyst, Justice for All Canada Since October 7, Justice for All Canada has consistently called on the Canadian government to sanction Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich for their direct role in promoting illegal settlements, inciting settler violence, and enabling the unfolding genocide in Gaza. As part of the policy team, I have worked to highlight their actions in multiple documents and advocacy efforts. So when Canada—alongside the United Kingdom, France, Australia, and the United States—announced sanctions against these two ministers last week, I should have been pleased. Instead, I am deeply concerned. While symbolically notable and historically unprecedented, these sanctions are politically calculated and profoundly insufficient. They fail to reflect the severity of crimes in Gaza—and worse, they may serve as a substitute for real action. The joint statement highlights the ministers’ role in inciting settler violence in the occupied West Bank. While their support for land theft and forced displacement demands condemnation, the omission of Gaza—the site of over 50,000 Palestinian deaths, most of them women and children—is staggering. In Gaza, we are witnessing Israeli efforts to block aid, destroy infrastructure, and repeatedly target convoys. The Israeli military has fired on civilians gathering for food and water. To ignore this while selectively sanctioning individuals over West Bank violence signals a disturbing willingness to normalize genocide. This is not a bureaucratic oversight; rather, it is a deliberate political choice to avoid holding Israel accountable. While human rights experts and the International Court of Justice raise the alarm, Canada’s silence on Gaza in the sanctions statement is deafening. The sanctions apply to Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in their personal capacities. Yet, they are not rogue actors—they are senior figures shaping Israeli government policy. Settler violence and expansion are not fringe policies; they are longstanding state strategies since 1967. By isolating these two figures, Canada shields the Israeli state from direct accountability. This, in turn, undermines Canada’s stated commitment to human rights and international law. Moreover, Canadian-made weapons and dual-use technologies may still reach Israeli forces. These tools are used in the bombing of hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and civilian infrastructure. While Canada has halted the issuance of new arms export permits, it has not imposed a full embargo. Existing permits may still funnel Canadian-made components into Israel’s military supply chain. A comprehensive embargo would send a far clearer message: Canada will not be complicit in atrocities. Similarly, a trade embargo on goods from illegal settlements—or a broader review of trade ties with Israel’s military-industrial complex—would demonstrate real resolve. By contrast, targeting two far-right ministers with apparently no assets in Canada and little incentive to visit is symbolic at best, hollow at worst. Since October, Canadians from all walks of life—including Indigenous leaders, Jewish voices of conscience, students, and labour unions—have called for action. Mass protests, campus encampments, and global solidarity campaigns have forced governments to respond. By not addressing Gaza, by not holding the Israeli government accountable, and by failing to impose arms and trade embargoes, it raises suspicion that these sanctions are not the result of a moral awakening but rather political appeasement—measures meant to pacify public outrage rather than prevent atrocities. Canada cannot uphold a “rules-based international order” while applying international law selectively. By failing to sanction the Israeli state or restrict military and trade cooperation, Canada enables continued impunity. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel before the International Court of Justice, and the Court has found it plausible. Under the Genocide Convention, Canada must not only punish genocide but prevent it. Sanctions that avoid confronting the machinery behind the violence are not preventive—they are distractions. The situation in Gaza is dire. Aid is blocked. Civilians are targeted. Entire neighborhoods have been flattened. The West Bank continues to suffer land confiscation, settler attacks, and systemic apartheid. Sanctions targeting just two ministers—without naming the broader structure of state violence—are inadequate and dangerously misleading. Canada must do more. It must impose a full arms embargo. It must reassess its trade relations. It must stop treating Israeli state policy as compatible with Canadian values. Anything less is complicity. Finally, Canada should support a UN-led Responsibility to Protect (R2P) response to prevent further atrocities. The time for symbolic gestures has passed. Canada must act decisively—and now.  By Tazeen Hasan
Canadians are shocked to hear PM Mark Carney’s statement suggesting that a two-state solution can only happen if the Palestinian state is a “Zionist” one. Such a remark is not only bewildering—it is profoundly unjust, deeply offensive, and reveals the persistent moral double standard that Western leaders apply to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What does it mean to demand that a colonized, dispossessed, and brutalized population must embrace the very ideology that has been used to justify their ongoing oppression? Zionism, as a political ideology, underpins the establishment and expansion of a Jewish ethno-nationalist state in historic Palestine. To impose this framework on Palestinians—whose land has been fragmented, whose people have been expelled, and whose aspirations have been violently suppressed—is akin to asking South Africans to endorse apartheid as a condition for their liberation. No other people seeking self-determination have been told they must accept the worldview of their occupier. Did Canada require Indigenous peoples to become colonialists in order to reclaim their rights? Were Irish nationalists told to embrace British imperialism? Would the world have required Black South Africans to adopt white nationalist ideology before dismantling apartheid? Carney’s expectation that Palestinians adopt Zionism in exchange for freedom is not only ahistorical—it is morally repugnant. This disturbing suggestion reflects a broader Western pattern: Palestinians are subjected to impossible moral tests while Israel is allowed to act with near impunity. Even as Israel stands accused of genocide by the International Court of Justice, continues to bomb refugee camps, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure, and expands illegal settlements, it remains a welcome partner. Meanwhile, Palestinians—under siege, occupation, and exile—must prove they are peaceful, secular, democratic, and now, apparently, Zionist? This is not diplomacy; it is ideological coercion. It is a form of victim-blaming that seeks to erase Palestinian political agency and rewrite the terms of justice. International law is clear: all peoples have the right to self-determination, free from external domination and without ideological preconditions. Palestinians are entitled to their own identity, political philosophy, and vision for statehood—just as Israelis are. To demand ideological conformity as the price of statehood is to deny the very foundation of freedom. Canadians expect better from our leaders. We pride ourselves on standing for human rights, international law, and decolonization. We must not betray those values by endorsing frameworks that privilege one group’s supremacy over another’s existence. If Prime Minister Carney truly supports a two-state solution, he must first recognize that peace requires justice—not ideological assimilation. Palestinians do not need to become Zionists. They need to be free. GAZA
On arrache les bourgeons Assèche le sol Blesse les racines On détruit maisons Hôpitaux écoles Infrastructures Et ce n’est pas génocidaire On isole On affame Viole les droits On empoisonne l’air Assassine sans distinction Abandonnant les blessés Que voulez-vous de plus C’est un génocide Je voudrais pleurer Le ruisseau est asséché J’essaie de crier Mes poumons se taisent Alors j’écris Pour ne pas étouffer davantage ©Monuit Gautier / 2025 |
