(Jed Tallo/GazetteStaff)
I attended the event covered in “County Considers Gaza” (News, November 19) and felt the need to respond. The article presents the gathering at the Picton Branch Library as a community “discussion” about whether Canada is complicit in genocide. In reality, what took place was not a discussion at all—it was a one-directional presentation designed to persuade the audience of a single conclusion: that Israel is committing genocide. There was no balanced debate, no dissenting voice, and no scrutiny of the claims being made.
Three invited speakers—each aligned in their view—spoke at length without challenge. That alone would make the term “discussion” misleading. But the article also omitted a critical piece of context: two of the speakers, Adham Diabas and Hassan Husseini, have public histories of glorification of terrorist groups, and even praise or justification for the atrocities of October 7. These are not private accusations; they are documented in public archives of the speakers’ own statements. When individuals with that background are presented as neutral educators, readers deserve to be informed.
The central claim at the event was that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The article repeated this allegation without question. But genocide is one of the most severe accusations that can be made in international law, and it requires clear evidence of intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Nothing in Israel’s stated war aims—destroying Hamas’s military capabilities, rescuing hostages, and preventing future terror attacks—reflects an intention to exterminate the Palestinian population. Israel takes extraordinary, historically unprecedented steps to warn civilians before strikes: leaflets, texts, phone calls and the creation of evacuation corridors. No modern military has established warnings of this scale.
An important irony was completely ignored: Hamas itself explicitly embraces genocidal intent. Its 1988 charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish people, and the actions of October 7—mass murder, torture, kidnapping, and deliberate targeting of civilians—were not just acts of terrorism, but acts of genocide carried out in accordance with its stated ideology.
Many experts criticize Israel’s conduct, and debate is healthy. But large-scale civilian tragedy does not automatically equal genocide, and no international court has ruled that Israel is committing one. These nuances were entirely absent from the event—and from the article that covered it.
As noted there, Prime Minister Carney did not call Israel’s actions “genocide,” perhaps because they weren’t. While he did state that Canada would recognize Palestine as a state, he also stipulated numerous conditions which have yet to be met, and which will likely take years to achieve, if ever.
The irony of recognizing Palestine as a state is that the only countries who want a two state solution now are the countries who are not directly involved. Anyone who has followed the history of the region will know that Palestinians were offered a state in 1947, 1978, 2000, and 2008, and have turned it down every time. The unvarnished truth is that the Palestinians want only one state “from the river to the sea,” resulting in the annihilation of Israel, the definition of “genocide”.
It is completely legitimate to question Israel’s actions, to grieve the suffering in Gaza, and to debate Canada’s role. But if Prince Edward County is going to host conversations on such serious issues, they need to be honest conversations. That means multiple perspectives, fair context, and recognition of complexity. The event at the library—and the Gazette’s coverage of it—did not meet that standard.
Dr. Pierre LeBrun, DC (ret), Wellington
Re: On Statues (Editorial, November 5). It isn’t true that statues are simple. They are loaded with meaning, from their materials, to their forms, symbolism, and placement. You just have to know how to look. With respect and appreciation,
Jessica Basciano, Prince Edward County
Re: Village A On the Way (News, November 26). The best part of Base31’s plan for Village A is the 5-acre park in the centre.
We live near the Talbot Ridge development by Port Picton Homes and in all of the subdivision there is not a single greenspace or any type of park for the residents. Why does one developer need a park but another developer doesn’t?
Is it true that Port Picton Homes chose to pay Shire Hall a fee in lieu of parkland? They have to know the children need a place to play — and decided that didn’t matter.
Steve Runner, Picton
See it in the newspaper
-2° Light Snow
