On May 16, Justin Trudeau issued a statement about the disturbances in Gaza, declaring that “Canada deplores and is gravely concerned by the violence,” reiterating the highly suspect claim that “many unarmed people, including civilians, members of the media, first responders, and children” were among those wounded. He went on to condemn Israel’s “reported use of excessive force and live ammunition” as “inexcusable,” while expressing no concern whatsoever about Hamas’s incitement to violence or its attacks on Israel with Molotov cocktails and incendiary kites. (The rocket and mortar fire had not yet begun.) Perhaps understandably, Trudeau also expressed concern about one Tarek Loubrani, who claims to have been injured in both legs by Israeli gunfire. When he found himself criticized for his remarks, writes Vivian Bercovici, Trudeau went to two Jewish parliamentarians for help:

The backlash to Trudeau’s statement was strong and quick. He seems, perhaps unwittingly, to have stumbled onto a hornet’s nest and turned to two Jewish MPs to clean up his mess—Michael Levitt and Anthony Housefather, representing electoral districts in Toronto and Montreal, respectively, with large Jewish populations. They issued a peculiar statement. While not directly critical of the prime minister, they unequivocally condemned and held Hamas responsible for the deaths and injuries at border clashes.

Some observers speculate that Trudeau hopes . . . to allow himself to be “correct,” depending on where and how the chips fall. By dereliction, the prime minister has signaled that the Israel-Gaza issue is a “Jewish” one, as opposed to [part of] one of the most important geopolitical crises in the world. Hamas, like Hizballah, Syria, [and] the Houthis, is yet another Iranian proxy. It is disturbing that two Jewish MPs, representing “Jewish” districts, are the only ones in the Trudeau government speaking out in support of Israel. . . .

[Trudeau] tends to express himself in a sweeping, imprecise manner, oft-repeating distaste for the obsessive bullying of Israel in international forums. All of which is laudable. And he likes to say things about what good friends Canada and Israel are, but that even good friends can, sometimes, disagree.

Indeed, and those are likely the lines he trotted out when he spoke on the telephone with Prime Minister Netanyahu one day after his written thrashing of Israel. . . . Netanyahu’s office declined to comment on the exchange, but Trudeau issued a short readout on the call, [making clear that he] did nothing to walk back his perfervid criticism of Israel other than to acknowledge, as a possibility, “reported incitement by Hamas.” As if there is any doubt. What Prime Minister Trudeau does not say, in this case, is far more important than what he does.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.