Elizabeth May’s recent interview with Rachel Gilmore reveals a worldview that many liberals still cling to—but one that no longer holds up under the weight of reality in Palestine.
Throughout the conversation, May repeatedly draws a moral distinction between “good” and “bad” forces in Israel: good Israelis versus a bad Netanyahu government; legal Israel versus illegal settlements; acceptable pressure versus unacceptable movements like BDS. This framing may sound balanced, humane, and reasonable. In practice, it is profoundly misleading—and politically disabling.
The violence Palestinians endure is not the product of a single prime minister, a far-right coalition, or a handful of extremist settlers. It is the outcome of a system: a decades-long structure of military occupation, apartheid law, land theft, economic strangulation, and routine dehumanization. That system existed before Netanyahu and will persist after him unless it is confronted directly.
By locating the problem primarily in bad leadership rather than structural domination, May reduces a colonial reality into a moral disagreement among elites. This allows Canadian politicians to condemn atrocities rhetorically while maintaining the economic, diplomatic, and trade relationships that sustain the system itself.
Her repeated emphasis on “good Israelis” and Israeli peace groups—while genuine and well-intentioned—recenters Israeli moral agency rather than Palestinian rights. The central question is not whether ethical Israelis exist. They do. The question is whether Palestinians have freedom, equality, and self-determination. Elevating Israeli dissent as the moral reference point risks turning Palestinian liberation into a secondary concern.
The same problem appears in May’s insistence on separating “Israel proper” from illegal settlements. This distinction collapses under scrutiny. Israeli banks finance settlement construction. Israeli companies operate seamlessly across the Green Line. Israeli arms manufacturers test weapons on occupied populations and sell them globally. The occupation is not an aberration on the margins of the Israeli state—it is integrated into its political economy.
This is why May’s rejection of the Palestinian-led BDS movement matters so much. BDS does not exist to make liberals uncomfortable or to deny anyone’s humanity. It exists because decades of dialogue, diplomacy, and “balanced” engagement have failed. It is a non-violent strategy aimed at confronting an entire system of domination, not just its most visible abuses.
By opposing BDS while supporting continued trade with Israel, May effectively endorses a framework in which injustice can be managed but not dismantled. Consumer labelling and selective sanctions offer moral reassurance without structural consequence. They preserve “business as usual” at a moment when Palestinians are facing mass displacement, starvation, and annihilation.
What May frames as nuance increasingly looks like avoidance. What she frames as balance increasingly looks like delay.
History is not kind to those who insist on moderation in moments of catastrophe. The language of “good” and “bad” actors may soothe consciences in Ottawa, but it does nothing to stop bombs, bulldozers, or blockades.
