In an October 10 report by Egyptian journalist Pacinthe Mattar published by The Walrus, the author cast doubt about “Hamas hiding under tunnels in hospitals full of the sick and wounded.”

“In Gaza, Language Is All We Have Left,” was Mattar mourning the loss of her voice, or really the language she desires to express freely when as a journalist, unbiased reporting is necessary? But she need not worry, as The Walrus published her piece on this loss of language, Mattar’s essay discussing “when Israel began killing thousands of Palestinians” in a war in which only Palestinians are “paying the price.”

The “‘fog of war’ (…) impacting what is happening in Israel and Gaza” that Mattar so disdains is the fog of war that prevented media workers such as herself from being objective when it was reported a year ago that 40-400 people were killed in the parking lot of Al-Ahli Arab hospital. This fog of war enabled the media to immediately pin the blame on Israel, and aggressively so, even as it soon became clear it was Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) responsible for the misfired rocket.

The Walrus is a registered Canadian charity that has received some $900,000 in taxpayer funds in 2024 alone, and claims to publish “independent, fact-based journalism,” investing in “the idea that a healthy society relies on informed citizens.” With its education mandate as a charity, its published journalism is curated with the intent to expand knowledge and broaden its audience’s uncharted horizons.

But does it really live up to that mandate?

Consider Raizel Robin’s July 19 article: “How a Canadian Rabbi Became a Lifeline for Gaza Residents.” This Reform rabbi, Rabbi David Mivasair, lived in Israel during his sophomore year of college and claims he “saw Palestinian land expropriated and ethnic discrimination laid bare.”

The piece tokenized Mivasair, a radical anti-Israel activist, and others who are characterized as lone wolves for their “support for Palestinians.” Arguably, all that Mivasair’s isolation within the wider Jewish community teaches Walrus readers is that the ‘good Jew’ is one who opposes Israel’s existence and characterizes Judaism in a way that forgoes its connection to Israel. Mivasair’s denunciation of B’nai Brith Canada as an “anti-Palestinian hate group” reinforced this dichotomy of Jews who support Israel being equated with racism or hate.

Or consider Raja G. Khouri and Jeffrey J. Wilkinson’s July 5 commentary entitled: “What Would a Two-State Solution Mean?” In between their characterization of Gaza as occupied territory, the Israel-Hamas war as “Israel’s genocidal acts in Gaza since October 7, 2023,” and their reference to the call for “from the river to the sea, Palestine to be free” as being merely misunderstood, is a narrative that many adopt to simplify the conflict.

In this commentary, Israel was painted as a nefarious state whose intentions are never good, whose actions are always a roadblock in the conflict, whose entire drive is Western, Holocaust-reasoned and anti-Arab. And for a two-state solution were ever to be established, the authors hold that “Zionism will need to evolve its rigid insistence on a state with a Jewish majority.”

No clear understanding of Jewish history — which did not start with the Holocaust, considering half of Israel’s Jewish population spent the Diaspora in the Middle East and North Africa — is demonstrated here, let alone a clear understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its key players.

Mischaracterization (at best) is sprinkled across Walrus publications. One January 2024 article written by Samia Madwar discussed “defense” in the context of the current war attempted to equate Israel and Hamas, painting them both as equally guilty of weaponizing the need for “defence” to cause further violence. Madwar’s primary example of this pattern of thinking is that “The Nazis painted Jews as dangerous when they committed genocide against them.”

But this war is different, argued Madwar, because Israel supposedly occupies Gaza and therefore should not militarily defend itself against Hamas, which rules it. While Madwar doesn’t outright say that Israel should do nothing against the terrorist group that aims to eradicate it (and it can be assumed that this line of thinking extends to Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Islamic Republic at the head, none of which are mentioned), criticism is steadily handed out to both Israel and Hamas for being “uninterested in long-term negotiations.”

The overarching concern with The Walrus is its tendency to push a singular, namely anti-Israel, narrative, one that disproportionately emphasizes Israeli wrongdoings while excusing or omitting the role of Islamic Republic-backed terror proxies in perpetuating violence against Israel.

The articles explored above have featured tokenization of Jewish voices critical of Israel, marginalization of the complexity of Zionism, and most importantly, the simplification of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the point where readers are led to see Israel as the sole antagonist.

This one-dimensional storytelling not only misinforms but also reinforces harmful stereotypes and erases the legitimate concerns of those who support Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself.

By considering both the journalistic choices and diction used in The Walrus, it becomes evident that its purported commitment to “independent, fact-based journalism” with the intent to educate its audience is compromised by a consistent bias that privileges one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, preventing a balanced understanding of the complexities at play.

Accordingly, HonestReporting Canada has registered our concerns with the Department of Canadian Heritage about Walrus’s anti-Israel bias as it is a recipient of significant Canadian government funding largesse.