Without Trust, Democracy Begins to Crumble

You can read our full statement here.

The very next day, Israel launched an unprecedented strike in Qatar, targeting Hamas leaders who were meeting to deliberate on the latest US–Israel hostage release and ceasefire proposal.

You can read our full statement here.

Finally, closer to home, on Wednesday, far-right political commentator and influencer Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a public appearance as part of his tour of US campuses.

These events differ in scale, context, and political implications.

Some are carried out by individuals, others by states. Some are rooted in long-term systemic decisions, others in extremist ideologies. They are not equivalent. And yet, when seen together, they reveal patterns. Threads can be drawn between them, telling a broader story not only about what we must fear, but also where we can take action.

In Israel and Palestine, unrest continues to rise as the war grinds on. More Palestinians are killed, wounded, and displaced each day. The lives of the hostages remain in jeopardy, hanging in the balance as their families plead relentlessly for a deal to secure their release. This instability predictably reverberates across the wider society, as Monday’s attack in Jerusalem tragically demonstrated.

Experts have warned about this trajectory for years. Long before October 7, senior Israeli military and political officials cautioned about the deteriorating situation in the occupied West Bank. They noted how unilateral actions by the Israeli government, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s freezing of Palestinian Authority tax funds, would fuel unrest and resistance, raising the prospect of a third intifada.

And yet, even identifying these dynamics has become controversial. Immediately after October 7, pointing to the siege of Gaza as one factor that contributed to Hamas’ horrific terror attack was treated as justification for the attack itself. Talking about the humanitarian situation in Gaza was framed as excusing Hamas’ crimes. But identifying causes is not the same as excusing actions. Recognizing patterns is not the same as justifying violence. If we wait until a mass uprising greater than the second intifada erupts, it will be far too late to confront the policies and conditions that brought it about.

The same logic applies to Palestinian statehood. Some oppose recognition because they fear it would be seen as a gift to Hamas. But in reality, the better path would have been for major Western states to recognize Palestinian statehood well before October 7, as over 100 other countries had already done.

Better still, Israel itself could have recognized Palestinian statehood within the framework of a two-state solution, recommitted to negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, and ensured the preservation of land intended for a future contiguous Palestinian state by halting the construction of settlements and outposts.

We cannot afford to wait until circumstances deteriorate to their worst possible state, suffer the inevitable consequences, and then insist that it is too late to identify cause and effect.

The political violence that led to the shooting and death of Charlie Kirk is part of the same trend. It is an alarming sign of escalation. While Canada has been spared the sheer scale of politically motivated killings that occur in the United States, largely due to differences in gun laws, we are not insulated from the rise in rhetoric that condones or calls for violence. We should not assume such violence will not reach us.

Kirk’s case is fraught, precisely because the political violence that took his life was also a by-product of the political violence he himself helped to incite. This mirrors dynamics in the Middle East. The strength and resources that allowed Hamas to carry out the atrocities of October 7 were in no small part the result of long-standing Israeli policies. Successive right-wing governments deliberately strengthened Hamas and undermined the Palestinian Authority in order to keep Palestinians divided and unable to pursue statehood.

Nor is Qatar’s role an accident. It was the Americans, encouraged by Israel, who invited Hamas to establish itself there. It was the Americans, under now two different presidents, and Netanyahu’s government that empowered Qatar as a mediator. And members of that same Netanyahu government are now under investigation for their ties with Qatar while in office. Israel is lashing out at an arrangement it itself constructed.

How long can this cycle continue? We can only push systems to their limits for so long before they break, sometimes figuratively, often literally. When that breaking point arrives, the consequences are catastrophic and impossible to contain.

The common thread in all of this, in Jerusalem, in Gaza, in Qatar, in North America, is the erosion of democracy and the collapse of trust in our institutions. That erosion has roots across the political spectrum. It is not difficult to see why it has happened. But while we can understand how we got here, it is far harder to accept where “here” has brought us.

The answer cannot simply be to criticize or point fingers, which only deepen divisions and polarization. The challenge before us is to rebuild trust in democracy itself, a fragile but essential project.

For Canada, this means taking principled action when Israel violates international law. Not because we want to weaken Israel or harm the Jewish state, but because demonstrating our commitment to the liberal democratic order we claim to cherish is an essential step in restoring trust in institutions and norms.

For Israel, this means living up to the standards of a Western democracy and an ally of Canada. Not because we have the right to dictate Israel’s choices, but because alliances grounded in shared values must be sustained by adherence to those very values.

Much has already been said about Israel’s deteriorating international image and its slide toward pariah status. We should not wish for this trajectory to continue, nor celebrate embargoes or suspensions of trade. Such measures are unfortunate and unavoidable responses to a situation in which Israel has left the international community no choice.

And these measures are not designed to punish Israel, nor even simply to act as the tough love of a friend. They serve a larger purpose: to push back against the collapse of democracy and the unraveling of international norms, to affirm that the world still has red lines, and that we remain committed to protecting them.

The demise of these shared norms will have consequences far beyond Israel and Palestine. We saw that this week, in Jerusalem, in Gaza, in Qatar, and even in the United States. We will see it again if we do not act.

We must resist this trend through the greatest collective project of our time: the preservation of democracy. Without it, no one will walk away unscathed.