Occupation Will Never Bring Peace or Security

Of course, even the wording here is fraught, as one could argue the occupation never truly ended with the 2005 withdrawal of settlements and military forces. Israel continued to control Gaza’s land, sea, and air borders, as well as most crossings for people and the movement of goods, hallmarks of ongoing occupation.

Some might say this is a matter of semantics, but it’s not. It underscores just how far the Israeli government is now willing to go, beyond what existed post-2005 and pre-2023, and that we should take them at their word.

At this point, it borders on absurd that extremists in Netanyahu's coalition, including Netanyahu himself, continue to openly state their intentions, yet so many continue to dismiss these declarations as fringe or unserious. Time and again, they have followed through on exactly what they said they would do.

It was not long after October 7 that not only Israel's messianic fringe, but members of Netanyahu's Likud party began calling for the resettlement of Gaza. While hostages languished in tunnels, these extremists held celebratory gatherings, anticipating their return to Gaza settlements, regardless of the fate of the hostages. And increasingly, it seems they may get their wish.

These past weeks also saw another troubling development, though it received less attention: the construction of housing units in area E1. While settlement growth and land expropriation have skyrocketed since October 7, the E1 plan is uniquely dangerous. It threatens to cut the West Bank in two, obstructing development between Ramallah, East Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, effectively ending any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state and killing the two-state solution.

Last week, we welcomed Prime Minister Mark Carney’s commitment to recognizing Palestinian statehood, a move we’ve advocated for since February 2024.

Some have tried to dismiss this announcement as “performative.” But let’s be clear: recognition of a people’s right to sovereignty and self-determination is never performative. If it were, why would so many Jewish groups insist on international recognition of Israel’s right to exist? If recognition were merely symbolic, it wouldn't be treated as a precondition for entry into any discussion about Israel.

More importantly, Canada’s recognition of a Palestinian state places it in a position to take real, consequential action. What does recognition mean if it is accompanied by annexation, land theft, and deepening occupation?

If Canada wishes to avoid charges of performativity, Prime Minister Carney must follow his words with action that helps halt unilateral moves by the Israeli government.

It is painful, especially for those of us who care deeply about Israel as a Jewish state, to consider Canada taking stronger action against Israel. As Zionists, we value not only our connection to Israel, but the Canada-Israel relationship built on shared values. But that relationship must be rooted in mutual respect for international law, democracy, and justice.

Recent polling by aChord, whose CEO Ron Gerlitz spoke at our most recent spring conference, found that 57% of Israelis now support a regional political-security agreement backed by the U.S., which would include a Palestinian state.

Our own polling shows that Canadian Jews continue to favour a two-state solution above all others.

And in a recent Angus Reid poll of the general Canadian public, support for Israel, and for the war, is rapidly declining. Two-thirds of Canadians now see the war as a “moral outrage,” and over half believe what is happening in Gaza constitutes genocide, an 11-point increase since February 2024.

All of this should be enough to compel the Israeli government to do the right thing: agree to a deal that ends the war and secures the release of hostages, freeze settlement expansion and annexation, strengthen the Palestinian Authority as an alternative to Hamas, and return to two-state negotiations, ideally with momentum for regional normalization.

That is our preferred path, rather than international isolation, sanctions, or Israel’s growing status as a global pariah. But that is not the path the current Israeli government is choosing. And it is not only making diaspora Jews deeply uncomfortable, it is transforming Israel and Israeli society in irreversible ways.

A society can become accustomed to isolation, to xenophobic encounters abroad, to forever living by the sword. But that doesn’t make it good, or right, or what’s best for its people. Today's Israelis are the current embodiment of an historical Zionist vision, and the question must be asked: after nearly 80 years, is this truly the society that Israel’s founders envisioned?

In the face of trauma, pain, and fear, hearts harden. And once hardened, they are difficult to soften again, but not impossible. Just as we believe that a two-state solution is difficult but not impossible, because we refuse to abandon hope, and we refuse to give up on what Israel can and should be, we must not give up on a society scarred by trauma and fear.

Nor must we allow our own hearts to harden, toward Israelis, toward Palestinians, or toward our own Jewish communities. Because pulling back from this brink and building peace will require all of us.

And so, we must hope that, within the cracks created by our pain, division, and disagreement, there is an opening from which hope can sprout.