First things first: Donald Trump deserves lots of credit. Even Trump critics like this writer agree.

On the second anniversary of October 7, I spoke at a vigil for the hostages still held by Hamas. Unsurprisingly, some of the Jews present kibbutzed with me about the rumoured coming peace deal. I asked them whether Trump could pull it off.

One woman summed it up perfectly. “I’m no fan of Donald Trump, like you,” she said. “He’s a bit crazy. But this is a situation where his craziness helps – Hamas obviously feels he’s crazy enough to wipe them out!”

We laughed, but that was – and remains – the key question: will Donald Trump’s peace deal result in the eradication of Hamas? Because make no mistake: Hamas is the biggest impediment to lasting peace in the Middle East. Israel, and every surrounding Arab nation agree on that.

Given that, what does the future hold? What challenges lie ahead, for Trump and the rest of the world? There are five main ones.

The Propaganda War. I’ve written a book about this subject, titled The Hidden Hand, and it’s out in February. One thing that is indisputable: the anti-Israel, anti-West propaganda campaign – overseen by Iran, funded by Qatar and assorted anti-Israel charities and NGOs, and staffed by Hamas and its axis – is not going away, peace or no peace.

The antisemitic, anti-Israel information war has been wildly successful for Hamas and its cabal – far beyond their own expectations, in fact. Just this week, Harvard-Harris released a poll showing nearly half of young Americans fully support Hamas over Israel. And, online and in the streets – and in academia, government and public sector unions – Israel is losing, or has lost, the information battle. The antisemitism we see everywhere is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

The Governance of Gaza. There is a reason why no surrounding Arab nations ever took on Palestinian refugees – and why Egypt even built a wall bordering Southern Gaza that was impenetrable: stable Arab states regard Gaza, and Palestinians, as completely ungovernable. So who is going to run the Gaza Strip, if the Palestinian Authority can’t, and Hamas shouldn’t?

For the likes of Canada’s Mark Carney, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Britain’s Keir Starmer, answering that question is very politically perilous. Those three, and others, recently recognized the state of Palestine and made grandiose pledges to pay for its reconstruction and rehabilitation. There will be a steep dollar cost for that, which Canadian taxpayers are unlikely to appreciate. And, if Carney makes good on speculation that Canadian troops could be sent to Gaza to keep the “peace,” what happens when some of them inevitably become casualties?

Words are cheap. Messrs. Carney, Macron and Starmer may soon regret theirs.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (0)

“Truth is the first casualty of war.”

Of course.

Everyone knows that one. You hear it all the time. But – good God Almighty – that latest Harvard-Harris poll: there perhaps has never been better evidence of the war-murders-truth proposition, perhaps ever. Not even since the Greek playwright Aeschylus wrote those words, some 3,000 years ago.

The Harvard-Harris survey landed on our computer screens on October 7, and was issued by the university’s respected Center for American Political Studies. Nearly 2,500 registered voters were contacted at the start of the month, and the results are considered to be accurate 95 per cent of the time. The poll covered the mood of the country, Trump, economy, jobs, and so on.

It was the answers to the “Israel and Gaza” questions, however, that were – and this word is used too much by those of us in the media, but it applies in this case – shocking. Really, truly shocking.

The Harvard-Harris numbers can’t be easily dismissed, either, international law expert Elliot Malin noted, because Harvard-Harris is “consistently been the only pollster asking questions on Israel-Hamas over the last two years.” So they have what pollsters like to call a “baseline” or “benchmark,” and are therefore much more accurate.

Here is a sampling of what Harvard-Harris found:

• Nearly half of Gen Z – those from ages 18 to 24 – support Hamas over Israel. Almost 40 per cent of Millennials – ages 25 to 34 – support the terror group over Israel.
• Over 40 per cent of Gen Z oppose Hamas releasing the hostages they took on October 7, 2023. A third of Millennials feel the same way.
• Over 60 per cent of Gen Z oppose Trump’s peace plan, which is supported by every Arab nation in the region, and just about every country on Earth. Nearly 50 per cent of Millennials oppose the peace plan.
• Sixty per cent of Gen Z falsely believe Israel has actually rejected Trump’s peace plan. And 45 per cent of Millennials have somehow concluded the same thing.
• Forty per cent of Gen Z think Hamas should reject the peace plan. And almost 30 per cent want Israel “ended,” and power simply handed over to Hamas/Palestinians.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (10)

Today, on October 7, any Jews gathering in public are taking a risk. Because it is dangerous.

It is sad, and disgusting, and shocking, that that is the case. But that is the reality for Jews across the West on this day, October 7, 2025.

Many Jews will still come together in public, just the same. For them, doing so is also an important act of defiance.

Why? Because, on this day – the worst days for Jews since the Holocaust – coming together, gathering, is an important symbol of unity on a solemn day of remembrance. It’s an expression of unity.

After Manchester – after Washington DC, after Minneapolis, after Boulder, Colorado, after too many lives lost in too many other places – everyone knows there is a risk, no matter how remote, in gathering in public on this day. There is a risk of bodily harm, or worse.

At Concordia University in Montreal, at the University of Toronto, hateful people – some students, some not – have put up posters to celebrate their “martyrs.” To celebrate the death cult that is Hamas.

That is why Canada in October 2025 has become not unlike Berlin in 1935: killers are being praised, and a religious minority being demonized. But standing with our Jewish brothers and sisters – supporting them on this day, of all days – is something we must do. We must.

We, Jew and non-Jew alike, must show our commitment to civilization. To decency. To humanity. To each other.

We must show our opposition to the beast of antisemitism and hate, which is now everywhere to be seen. We must fight back.

We do that, of course, by always remembering the hostages, and calling for their release. We do that by remembering those we have lost on October 7 and on the days since. We do that by pushing back against the rising black tide of antisemitism and hatred.

We do that by simply being here together, and saying: you, the haters, will not cancel us. You will not silence us. You will not replace us.

Truly: October 7 was one of the darkest days of our lifetimes. Words alone cannot describe it.

So, October 7 places an obligation on the shoulders of all of us. It requires us to remember the men, women and children who had life taken from them by monsters in the shape of men – and it requires us to ensure that it never, ever happens again.

We do that in many ways. We do that by gathering together on this day, to say:

We will defy the haters. We will defeat them. The Jewish people have been here for thousands of years – and the Jewish people will be here for thousands of years to come.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, another proud Christian Zionist, said: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that.”

We have love, and humanity and civilization on our side. We have decency and and the truth on our side.

And with those things, the forces of hate will never, ever defeat us.

[A version of these remarks were used by Kinsella at an October 7 vigil in Belleville, Ont. today.]

Comments (1)

Comments (12)

After Manchester – after Jews were attacked and killed while at prayer, on the holiest day of their religious calendar – after that, didn’t you wonder? Didn’t you ask yourself?

I did. I wondered: out of all the monstrous acts of terror now happening in the West with mind-numbing regularity, who is behind most of them? What homicidal ideology, more than the others, is motivating the killers of innocents?

In Britain, analyst Andrew Fox had a clear answer, hours after a man named “Jihad” – that was his actual name, folks, that was the name his parents gave to him, and no one in Britain’s police or intelligence agencies apparently found that even passingly worrisome – tried to kill Jews with his car and then succeeded with a knife. “Jihad.”

Andrew is a remarkable person, a former Airborne officer and now a PhD student of jihads, in Gaza and Ukraine. You should follow him.

Here is what Andrew wrote:

“Fatal terror attacks in the UK since 1st January 2000.

Total killed: 109.

Killed by Islamist terrorists: 96 (+2 unconfirmed).

Please walk me through how people waving British flags, the ‘far right,’ and ‘divisiveness’ are the issues the government is most worried about.”

That is a deeply disturbing statistic. Reading that – and recalling how, here in Canada, we are so often similarly scolded by Ottawa and the CBC and sometimes the Toronto Star – I wanted to know: is the greater threat coming from far-Right terrorists, or Islamist terrorists? Is the situation in North America similar to that of the United Kingdom?

Or, is it like official Ottawa always says: the monsters likeliest to kill you are found in the likes of the Aryan Nations or the Hammerskins or Atomwaffen or one of their variants.

I’ve written books about terrorism on the far Left and on the far Right, and I honestly wasn’t sure. The refrain from Ottawa is often relentless: the bigger threat, they intone, is on the far Right. Not the Islamists.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (1)

Comments (3)

In Nashua, New Hampshire; in Minneapolis; in Boulder, Colorado; in Washington, D.C. In those places, where Jews were murdered, the killers yelled: “Free Palestine.”

In Manchester, where two are known to be dead this morning, we don’t know if the killer did likewise. But he killed Jews at a synagogue, on Yom Kippur – the holiest day of the year in Judaism.

So: have any killings taken place, anywhere, where the killer yelled: “Am Yisrael Chai”?

That we know the answer to. The answer is no.

**

1. Hamas won’t accept the deal. Why? Because war – and the resulting loss of innocent Palestinian lives – is their only strategy.

2. In Israel, people want the war over, hostages home, Gaza demilitarized, Hamas gone, Bibi retired.

Point two won’t happen because of point one.

**

This past week saw another Truth and Reconciliation day. As a Dad to an Indigenous girl, I say to residential school deniers: stop with your sophistry about graves. Stop. Thousands of Indigenous kids were taken from their parents and terribly abused. That’s the truth. So, reconcile.

 

**

This was an emasculation of Israel’s Prime Minister, and I suspect everyone in Israel knows it.

**

My friend Guy Goldstein, @revenuepath, has the same view as me: Trump’s new peace plan is essentially pre-Balfour British rule, with minor differences.

The bottom line is that it implicitly acknowledges Palestinians are incapable of stable governance. Also bottom line: Hamas will reject it. And the “ceasefire now” and “Free Palestine” cabal won’t say fuck all when Hamas does that.

**

Nigel Wright’s sudden passing is a shock. Here is the piece I wrote about the tragic loss of a good man.

I don’t know if he had it, and I don’t know if they give it, but he deserves the Order of Canada.

**

This will be news to Canadian Jews. “Poilievre claims Christians ‘may be the number one’ victims of hate-based violence.”

**

Finally found it. It’s the Mats LP they never released. 49:00 by Paul Westerberg on SoundCloud.

**

Iggy, 1984.

**

These Project Ontario folks – some of whom are friends – need to remember Ontario is a huge province and that ideological, doctrinaire approaches simply won’t work. Doug Ford knows that.

Also: inviting Jivani is a mistake. That guy has a pathological hatred of Ford. Bad look.

**

Brad Bradford is the guy who should be mayor of Toronto. He’s confirmed his name will be on the ballot next year. Why?

• he represents change

• he’s an ethical guy and scandal-free

• he’s young and energetic

• he’s an urban planner and has a plan

• he’s a uniter – he doesn’t divide communities

• he’s got a record of success in his ward

• he’s the best communicator at City Hall

• he’s a centrist

• he wants to fix a city that has become dirty, dangerous and dysfunctional

• he started losing his hair and leaned into it and has this cool The Rock thing happening

**

Watching from a distance, it seems that the only Democrat with the balls to consistently and effectively oppose Trump is Gavin Newsom. On that basis alone, he must be the nominee.

**

Maybe it’s just me, but I think cheering for the side that kidnaps babies is a really bad look.

**

Season ender of Star Trek Strange New Worlds: meh. Bore more than a faint resemblance to City on the Edge of Forever, but lacked any of that classic’s emotional impact or coherence. Harlan Ellison, wherever he is, is unamused.

**

SWEET JESUS JOEY FARTED I THINK SINÉAD IS DEAD

 

Comments (6)

Nigel Wright and I belonged to opposing political parties. We had differing views about politics. We didn’t move in the same circles.

And, full disclosure: my ex-wife was Wright’s partner for many years. They met in the office of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

Nigel and I didn’t socialize, me being a hardcore Alberta Liberal, and him being a hardcore Ontario Conservative. We weren’t friends, per se.

So, I did not ask my wife-to-be much about him. But, eventually, I learned a few things. A picture emerged.

Nigel Wright was adopted and brought up in a loving, good family. His parents were not wealthy, and Wright worked very hard for everything he got. He was a deeply religious Anglican who, for a time, contemplated the priesthood.

He devoted himself to his studies and charitable causes, his faith and — almost as much — the Conservative party.

As a young man, Wright conquered Bay St. – as a lawyer, as a dealmaker. He even became a millionaire at a very young age. But blue Tory blood ran through his veins — and there are only a handful of unelected people in this country who gave as much to conservative causes. Fundraising, policy, organization: Nigel Wright did it all.

He was successful, he was physically fit, he was – as far as I know – exceedingly happy and healthy.  Which is what makes his sudden death Tuesday such a terrible shock.  It is a huge loss for his party, for his employer Onex, and for the country.

Said Gerry Schwartz, Onex’s chairman and Nigel’s mentor: “Nigel was a remarkably astute investor, an outstanding leader and an even more exceptional individual. His professional and personal achievements may seem at odds with a man who was so humble and selfless with his time and resources. His passing is a loss not just for Onex but for anyone who had the privilege to know him.”

Nigel worked in Ottawa as Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Chief of Staff, where he was admired widely – including by those of us on the other side of the aisle.  He left Ottawa, as so many of us do, disappointed by what we experienced there.  So, he returned to Onex and the private sector and flourished.

He should be remembered for what he achieved on the Hill – not for anything else. The last time we spoke, that is what I said to him. He thanked me.

Nigel Wright was one of those names you hear about – one of the political and business advisors who does not seek the limelight, and who does so much good, selflessly.

Nigel Wright did good.  He was a good and decent man. And the country is diminished by this terrible and sad loss.

Comments (8)

On Truth and Reconciliation day – as a Dad to an Indigenous girl – I say to residential school deniers: stop with your sophistry about graves. Stop. Thousands of Indigenous kids were taken from their parents and terribly abused. That’s the truth. So, reconcile.

Comments (1)

Palestine is a state now formally recognized by Canada.

Is it a state that sponsors terrorism? And what should happen, if it is?

The key section is tucked into a little-known federal statue, the State Immunity Act. In section 6.1(2), Parliament has decreed that cabinet may “set out the name of a foreign state if, [cabinet] is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign state supported or supports terrorism.”

When that happens, foreign states – which are always protected from prosecution and lawsuits in Canada – loses their immunity. They can then be prosecuted criminally, or sued civilly. So, Palestine could be taken to court, by governments or (significantly) citizens.

Thus, the key question: does Palestine sponsor terrorism?

“Terrorism,” in Canada’s Criminal Code, is defined as doing something for “a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause,” or doing it with the intention of intimidating people – and/or causing death or injury or property damage. Canadians don’t need to be the terrorist’s targets.

On October 7, 2023, however, Canadians were. Canadians Ben Mizrahi, Vivian Silver, Judih Weinstein Haggai, Adi Vital-Kaploun, Alexandre Look, Neta Epstein, Shir Georgy and Tiferet Lapidot all were all murdered by Palestinian terrorists on that day. Many more Canadians were caused bodily harm.

So, (a) Palestine is a state, and (b) Palestinians engaged in acts of terror against Canadians. Those are the facts. One key question remains: should the state of Palestine be prosecuted or sued for being a sponsor of terrorism?

Secure Canada was founded by families of 9/11 victims, Jewish and not. It regularly brings together an international network of counter-extremism experts, lawyers, policy analysts to combat extremism and terrorism. It also works with human rights and Muslim groups – including the Global Imams Council – and publishes studies about terrorism.

Secure Canada’s most-recent paper should be read very, very carefully by those who work in the office of the Prime Minister and down the street at Global Affairs. Because it methodically and convincingly makes the case that Palestine is, in fact, a state sponsor of terrorism.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (4)