It’s hard to say with any certainty what motivated Canada’s arms embargo—anti-Semitism, or simple moral confusion, or something else—and in any case the question is largely academic. But something else happened in Canada just a little earlier this month: the country’s two largest kosher-certification agencies filed suit against the national government, claiming that recent regulations on kosher slaughter amount to a de-facto ban on the practice, which is crucial to Jewish life and religious observance. And it is especially damning that, unlike similar regulations in several European countries, these don’t affect the production of halal meat—only kosher meat.

Eric Grossman observes:

The new regulations . . . are, ostensibly, being put forward as a measure protecting animal welfare; however, selectively singling out Jewish slaughter as an odious treatment of animals has a long and ugly history, intimately intermingled with . . . anti-Semitism. As Jews, it is difficult not to feel targeted when governments go to great lengths to rationalize brutal practices of other groups but determine Jewish [observances] to be barbaric.

For instance, Grossman writes, seal clubbing is entirely legal in Canada—a practice that claims the lives of tens of thousands of Canadian pups every year. He adds:

As noted by Professor Dan Michman, head of the International Institute for Holocaust Research, “The Nazis perceived ritual slaughter not as a religious matter but, . . . as a manifestation of Jews’ cruel nature.” One hardly needs to highlight the bitter irony that the Nazis banned Jewish slaughter at the same time as they were preparing their slaughter of the Jews.

While I doubt many Canadian parliamentarians would make statements about the cruel nature of the Jews, the case against Israel ultimately rests on the assertion, or implication, that there is something especially cruel in the manner in which it defends itself. And it’s not as if anti-Semitism is unknown in Canada, as Grossman points out:

Among the many incidents that occurred last week alone, anti-Israel protestors descended upon Jewish neighborhoods in Toronto and Montreal, and angry mobs intimidated attendees of synagogues in both cities. Demonstrators surrounded the Jewish Federation building in Montreal and blocked participants attending a pro-Israel event from getting in or out for hours; . . . pro-Palestinian protestors in Ontario shouted, “Go back to Europe.”

Robert Clark explains why the resumption of hostilities is both just and necessary:

These latest Israeli strikes come after weeks of consistent Palestinian provocation; they have repeatedly broken the terms of the cease-fire which they claimed they were so desperate for. There have been numerous [unsuccessful] bus bombings near Tel Aviv and Palestinian-instigated clashes in the West Bank. Fifty-nine Israeli hostages are still held in captivity.

In fact, Hamas and their Palestinian supporters . . . have always known that they can sit back, parade dead Israeli hostages live on social media, and receive hundreds of their own convicted terrorists and murderers back in return. They believed they could get away with the October 7 pogrom.

One hopes Hamas’s leaders will get the message. Meanwhile, many inside and outside Israel seem to believe that, by resuming the fighting, Jerusalem has given up on rescuing the remaining hostages. But, writes Ron Ben-Yishai, this assertion misunderstands the goals of the present campaign. “Experience within the IDF and Israeli intelligence,” Ben-Yishai writes, “has shown that such pressure is the most effective way to push Hamas toward flexibility.” He outlines two other aims:

The second objective was to signal to Hamas that Israel is not only targeting its military wing—the terror army that was the focus of previous phases of the war up until the last cease-fire—but also its governance structure. This was demonstrated by the targeted elimination of five senior officials from Hamas’s political and civilian administration. . . . The strikes also served as a message to mediators, particularly Egypt, that Israel opposes Hamas remaining in any governing or military capacity in post-war Gaza.

The third objective was to create intense military pressure, coordinated with the U.S., on all remaining elements of the Shiite “axis of resistance,” including Yemen’s Houthis, Hamas, and Iran.