In his June 4 opinion column in the Toronto Star, Taha Ghayyur insisted that: “Canada must recognize Palestinian statehood,” arguing that failure to do so represents a profound moral failure and perpetuates injustice. But Ghayyur’s essay was rife with historical misrepresentations, moral reversals, and a disturbing minimization of terrorism. There is a moral obligation to reject recognition of Palestinian statehood at this time, and to do otherwise would reward violent extremism, distort historical truth, and ignore the far more pressing threat of rising antisemitism in Canadian society.

Taha Ghayyur is the executive director of Justice for All Canada, a non-profit that an investigation by NGO Monitor claims has worked with the terrorist group Samidoun, and has on multiple occasions produced anti-Israel propaganda in sympathetic newspapers.

In his column, he wrote that “Canada’s refusal to recognize Palestinian statehood becomes harder to justify” as humanitarian conditions worsen in Gaza. But this is a stunningly reckless position. Rewarding genocidal terror groups with statehood isn’t a remedy for suffering – it’s a catalyst for more of it. The article glossed over the reality that Palestinian political authorities, namely Hamas in Gaza and elements of the Palestinian Authority, are not merely flawed actors, but active participants in terrorism. Hamas, which governs Gaza, carried out the October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel, the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Over 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, were slaughtered. Hostages, including children and the elderly, were taken. As of June 2025, dozens remain in captivity.

Recognition of statehood under such leadership would effectively legitimize terrorism. Canada does not and must not confer the status of statehood on entities that glorify mass murder and call for the annihilation of their neighbours. International law and precedent make clear that recognition is not a right, it is a privilege based on compliance with norms, including peaceful coexistence. As legal scholar Malcolm Shaw wrote in International Law, recognition is a “discretionary political act” by states, not a reward for persistent belligerence.

Ghayyur claimed that Israel’s founding was a cataclysm for Palestinians: “The Nakba (‘catastrophe’) saw more than 750,000 Palestinians expelled, hundreds of villages destroyed and thousands killed.” But this presentation strips away context and nuance and replaces it with a misleading morality play. The truth is that Israel was invaded by five Arab armies in 1948 the day after it declared statehood, and it was fighting for its survival. The war was not initiated by Jews seeking conquest, but by surrounding Arab states and militias committed to destroying the fledgling Jewish state and its inhabitants. As historian Benny Morris – no right-wing apologist – has written: “That war and not design, Jewish or Arab, gave birth to the Palestinian refugee problem.”

Indeed, many Arab residents of Palestine left voluntarily or at the urging of Arab leaders, who promised a swift victory and the chance to return once the Jews were “driven into the sea.” As recorded by Middle East historian Efraim Karsh in Palestine Betrayed, Arab leaders such as Haj Amin al-Husseini bore much of the blame for the exodus by rejecting partition and inciting war.

Ghayyur wrote that: “the Nakba is not just a historical moment. It continues through military occupation, home demolitions, forced displacement and the siege on Gaza.” But this phrasing subtly recasts a failed war of extermination against Israel as an ongoing colonial project. Such narrative inversion not only distorts historical fact but undermines prospects for peace by denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state within secure borders.

Ghayyur lamented “rising anti-Palestinian racism” and claimed that “over 80 per cent of respondents…experienced discrimination for expressing support for Palestinian rights.” While all forms of discrimination should be taken seriously, the article’s portrayal of this issue as a widespread epidemic ignores a much larger—and better-documented—crisis: the rise of antisemitism in Canada.

In fact, Jews remain the most targeted religious group for hate crimes in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, police-reported hate crimes against Jews increased by 52 percent in 2022, reaching their highest level since 2009. These numbers are not merely statistics—they are evidence of a growing threat.

Since October 7, 2023, antisemitic incidents in Canada have surged to unprecedented levels, including synagogue vandalism, physical assaults, and online threats. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) reported an almost 50 percent increase in reported hate crimes against Jews in 2023 following the Hamas attacks. By contrast, the claim that “anti-Palestinian racism” affects “a growing number of Canadians across different communities” is vague and unsupported by comparative data. Ghayyur’s attempt to universalize this issue—highlighting that even “white” and “Christian” individuals feel discriminated against—suggests a conflation of legitimate political disagreement with racism. Criticism of Hamas is not racism. Support for Israel is not bigotry.

Ghayyur ended his piece with the line: “The Nakba never ended. And for Canada, the question is no longer whether to stand on the right side of history — but how much longer we’ll choose to stay on the wrong one.” This is a powerful rhetorical flourish, but one that conceals more than it reveals. Canada is on the right side of history, by refusing to reward terror with sovereignty, by understanding that history is more complex than victimhood narratives allow, and by recognizing the real, rising threat of antisemitism in its own borders.

Supporting Palestinian dignity does not require denying Jewish nationhood. Nor does standing for peace mean legitimizing those who call for genocide. Recognizing Palestinian statehood in the face of Hamas’ terrorism would be not an act of justice, but a dangerous concession to extremism.