The reason I don’t appreciate this framing is that while it contains a kernel of truth (Carney hasn’t come out swinging against Israeli policy, and evidently some of his brief government’s actions are questionable) it also distorts the truth in several ways.

For example, what does “pro genocide” mean? I would say that Ben Gvir is unambiguously “pro genocide”, like the guy wants to go kill all Palestinians. Is that Carney’s position? No. Then you have for example the German government that are actively trying their best to refuse to face reality and are therefore functionally pro genocide. Is that Carney’s position? No. And since “genocide” is such a signifier of unambiguous evil, is being “pro genocide” just not forcefully being “against genocide”, the way that South Africa and Ireland are? In that case for example are, I dunno, …say, Portugal, or Mexico, or Sweden “pro genocide”?

At the same time, Carney has talked about the territorial integrity of Gaza, putting Palestine and Ukraine (and Canada!) on the same rhetorical space. Is that what a “pro genocide” politician would do? I don’t think so.

So, I don’t appreciate the framing at all. A phrase like “Carney is pro genocide” is just plain misinformation.