October 7, Two Years On: Canada’s Place in a Conflict That Reverberates Here

October 7, Two Years On: Canada’s Place in a Conflict That Reverberates Here by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The world we live in continues to grow more dangerous by the day. Wars in Ukraine and Gaza, along with rising conflicts across Asia, Africa, and South America, reflect an era of global instability that could easily spiral into a wider conflagration. Among these crises, the war that began in Israel and Gaza stands out for its intensity and moral complexity. It is a conflict that continues to haunt not only the Middle East but also countries like Canada, where its echoes have reshaped politics, culture, and community relations. On October 7, 2023, Hamas militants launched a massive and coordinated assault on southern Israel, killing over 1,200 people—mostly civilians—and abducting more than 200 hostages. The attack shattered Israel’s sense of security and triggered an all-out war with Hamas. The response devastated Gaza, displacing more than two million Palestinians and killing tens of thousands. The shockwaves spread around the world. In Canada, images of the carnage and the ensuing destruction in Gaza provoked strong emotions and deep divisions. What began as sympathy for Israel’s trauma soon evolved into a national debate over proportionality, morality, and responsibility in warfare. Two years later, the conversation is far from settled. Canada was quick to condemn Hamas’s assault. The federal government denounced the attacks as “heinous,” affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself, and called for civilian protection under international law. In the months that followed, Ottawa’s tone shifted as the humanitarian disaster in Gaza worsened. Canada joined calls for “safe and unimpeded humanitarian access” and greater restraint. The balancing act was unmistakable: support for Israel’s security on the one hand, and growing unease over civilian casualties on the other. By March 2024, this tension reached Parliament. The House of Commons passed a non-binding motion to halt future arms sales to Israel, signaling discomfort with the war’s civilian toll. A year later, Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand reiterated Canada’s condemnation of Hamas, acknowledged that seven Canadians were killed on October 7, and urged the release of the remaining 48 hostages.Then, on September 21, 2025, Canada made a bold diplomatic move—recognizing the State of Palestine. The government framed it as a reaffirmation of the two-state solution and the right of both peoples to live in peace and security. Critics saw it as premature, but supporters hailed it as a moral stand in a moment of global paralysis. This double posture—condemning terror while advocating statehood—captures the essence of Canada’s approach: a cautious equilibrium between alliance and conscience. The October 7 attacks and their aftermath reverberated sharply within Canada’s borders. Jewish communities, already wary of rising antisemitism, faced a wave of threats, vandalism, and hate speech. Synagogues were defaced, Jewish schools received bomb threats, and in Toronto, the Bais Chaya Mushka girls’ school was struck by gunfire more than once. In response, Ottawa pledged to act. Minister Anand reaffirmed that Canada “unequivocally condemns antisemitism in all its forms.” However, community leaders insist that rhetoric must be matched with protection. Many Jewish Canadians say they now feel vulnerable in public, particularly near large pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The war abroad, they argue, has turned into a psychological war at home. At the same time, Muslim and Palestinian-Canadian communities have endured anguish and frustration over Gaza’s devastation. Protests calling for a ceasefire have filled streets from Vancouver to Montreal. While most have been peaceful, some have turned confrontational, feeding polarization and mutual mistrust. This emotional divide—between grief for Israeli victims and outrage over Palestinian suffering—has tested the very idea of Canada as a pluralistic, tolerant society. The shock of October 7 also reached Canada’s cultural frontlines. A notable controversy erupted at the 2025 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) over Barry Avrich’s documentary The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue, which recounts Israeli rescue efforts during the attacks. Initially withdrawn due to copyright concerns about Hamas-recorded footage, the film was reinstated after public pressure. The dispute revealed how volatile the subject has become. In Canada’s cultural institutions, even acts of commemoration can be politicized. How do we tell stories about trauma without being accused of bias? How do we remember without choosing sides? These questions haunt artists, journalists, and educators alike. As the Gaza war enters its third year, Canada’s foreign policy faces scrutiny at home and abroad. Human rights advocates argue that Ottawa has been too cautious in confronting Israel over civilian deaths. Others warn that distancing from Israel risks alienating key allies and diminishing Canada’s global credibility. The government insists that its approach is principled and balanced, emphasizing four core pillars: 1. Condemnation of terrorism and demand for the release of all hostages; 2. Humanitarian advocacy, pushing for UN-led aid corridors into Gaza; 3. Support for a two-state solution, including recognition of Palestine; and 4. Combatting hate at home, through strengthened anti-hate laws and community protection; Critics, however, describe these steps as symbolic, lacking meaningful leverage over the parties involved. Some see Canada’s recognition of Palestine as a courageous moral act; others view it as diplomatic naivety. Public opinion mirrors this divide. Surveys show that younger Canadians are more likely to sympathize with Palestinians and support recognition, while older Canadians tend to prioritize Israel’s security concerns. The generational split is shaping the future of Canada’s foreign policy debate. As the second anniversary of the attacks passed this October, Jewish communities across Canada held vigils, services, and educational events to remember those who perished—among them, seven Canadians. The government’s statement echoed their grief, calling October 7 “a day of horror and loss that must never be forgotten.” Yet even commemoration has become fraught. Organizers of memorials often take great care to keep ceremonies non-political, aware that expressions of solidarity can easily be misinterpreted. Many Jewish groups emphasize that remembering the victims does not preclude advocating for peace, justice, or humanitarian relief. Canadians are debating what it means to “remember responsibly.” Does commemoration mean reaffirming military alliances—or confronting moral blind spots? The question goes beyond geopolitics: it speaks to how Canadians define compassion, balance, and belonging in a fractured world. Two years after October 7, Canada faces its own test of conscience. First, remembrance must not be passive. Canada can contribute by supporting credible investigations, accountability for war crimes, and renewed diplomatic engagement through the United Nations. Second, protection of communities must be paramount. Combating antisemitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of hate is not just a moral duty—it is a measure of national resilience. Third, polarization must be resisted. The ability to disagree without dehumanizing is Canada’s greatest defence against extremism. Finally, Canada’s recognition of Palestine should be more than symbolic. It must be leveraged into constructive diplomacy—advancing civilian protection, humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and genuine peace negotiations—while never retreating from condemnation of terror or Israel’s right to exist in security October 7 is no longer a distant foreign tragedy for Canadians. It lives in our communities, our politics, and our collective conscience. Two years on, Canada stands both as witness and participant—challenged to transform grief into resolve, remembrance into responsibility, and principle into peace