A recent report by the Henry Jackson Society raises serious doubts about the credibility of death toll statistics from Gaza, as published by Hamas’s health ministry. The analysis suggests these figures, widely circulated and treated as definitive by international media, may include natural deaths, pre-conflict fatalities, and even those caused by Hamas itself. It also claims that 17,000 militants reportedly killed by Israel are excluded from these numbers. Discrepancies in victim classification—such as individuals listed as both casualties and patients—further undermine the statistics. These findings call into question assertions that women and children were disproportionately targeted or killed.
This report comes amid international efforts to hold Israel accountable for alleged genocide. Cases are pending at the International Criminal Court, with critics arguing that Gaza’s civilian death toll reflects a deliberate targeting of non-combatants. Israel and its supporters reject these allegations, pointing to Hamas’s use of human shields, its operations in urban areas, and the questionable reliability of its statistics. Experts argue that even Hamas’s own numbers suggest a lower civilian casualty rate than is typical in urban warfare.
Meanwhile, in Canada, these debates have fueled local tensions. The Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) recently hosted events featuring speakers whose rhetoric has drawn sharp criticism for being inflammatory and hateful. Ramsey Zeid, one such speaker, has likened Israel to ISIS, accused it of following in Hitler’s footsteps, and described Zionism—the Jewish people's right to a state in their ancestral homeland—as a “disease.” Another speaker, Mona Abuamara, the Palestinian Authority’s Chief Representative to Canada, downplayed the brutal October 7, 2023, attacks as “unfortunate events,” supported the Palestinian Authority’s “pay-for-slay” program, and equated Israel’s actions to genocide.
In an exclusive interview with the Winnipeg Jewish Review, Pierre Poilievre pledged to defund institutions promoting anti-Semitic or "toxic woke ideologies," including federally funded universities and museums. He promised to fire government officials imposing such ideologies and pass laws to address terrorism and radicalism in Canada. Poilievre criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's handling of terrorism and pledged to screen immigrants for terrorist links. He reiterated his plans to defund UNRWA and cut global bureaucratic spending, directing funds to the military. On Israel, he vowed to lift restrictions on military equipment sales and strengthen ties with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The interview highlighted his stance on fiscal responsibility, with commitments to cut bureaucracy, consultants, and corporate welfare.
The CMHR defended its decision to host the event, citing its mandate to foster dialogue and reflect diverse perspectives. However, hosting figures who endorse hate speech and armed resistance raises serious concerns about whether the Museum is inadvertently legitimizing harmful narratives. The question must be asked: Does the CMHR believe promoting armed struggle aligns with its mission of fostering understanding?
This issue is not confined to the Museum. Protests in Winnipeg over the Middle East conflict have become increasingly divisive, requiring heavy police presence and costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some demonstrations feature slogans and rhetoric that exacerbate tensions and target local Jewish residents. For example, protestors have labeled Jewish Canadians and their supporters as “baby killers”—a repugnant and baseless attack, especially in light of the Henry Jackson Society’s findings that Hamas’s death toll figures are inflated and misleading.
Such protests, often rooted in misinformation, pose broader challenges to community cohesion. Comparisons of Israel to ISIS or Nazi Germany trivialize historical atrocities and fuel antisemitism. Winnipeg’s Jewish community has reported a troubling rise in hateful rhetoric and actions, from online platforms to public spaces. Institutions like the CMHR risk normalizing this discourse, making it harder to combat hate and build genuine understanding.
Crown institutions have a duty to ensure their activities align with principles of equality, dignity, and respect. Policies must be in place to vet speakers and ensure events do not amplify harmful narratives. The CMHR’s failure to address these concerns—despite receiving thousands of complaints—raises serious questions about its commitment to its stated mission.
As a city, Winnipeg must also reflect on the costs and consequences of these divisions. Protests should not devolve into platforms for hate speech or misinformation, and public institutions must be held accountable for their role in amplifying such rhetoric. Freedom of speech is essential, but it does not grant a license to spread falsehoods or incite division.
Winnipeg’s leaders, both political and cultural, have a responsibility to ensure the city remains a place where all communities feel safe and respected. Achieving this requires more than rhetoric; it demands a commitment to facts, accountability, and the rejection of harmful narratives. Only by addressing the root causes of division can Winnipeg move forward as a stronger, more united community.