CBC’s The Current radio broadcast on December 18, once again illustrated how host Matt Galloway conducts interviews on Israel in a manner that is deferential to anti-Israel narratives while conspicuously avoiding any serious scrutiny of his guests’ claims. In this episode, featuring Jolien Veldwijk, spokesperson for CARE, a “social justice” organization, and Liberal MP Sameer Zuberi, Galloway offered a textbook example of what passes for “balance” at CBC: emotionally charged assertions against Israel are amplified, while Hamas’ role, Israeli security concerns, and factual challenges are left untouched. This approach is consistent with Galloway’s track record of framing Israel as the default aggressor and treating its critics as neutral moral authorities rather than partisan actors.

Click below to listen to the segment:

The interview with Veldwijk is particularly revealing. From the outset, Galloway accepts her framing wholesale. He introduces her claims by stating that “Palestinian health officials say Israeli airstrikes and shootings have killed more than 300 Palestinians,” without noting that Gaza’s “health officials” are controlled by Hamas, a designated terrorist organization with a documented history of inflating or manipulating casualty figures. This omission matters, yet Galloway never raises it. Instead, he invites Veldwijk to describe Gaza in bleak, emotive terms and responds with affirmations rather than questions. When she declares, “it doesn’t sound like a ceasefire, it doesn’t look like a ceasefire, and it certainly doesn’t feel like a ceasefire,” Galloway does not ask what Hamas has done during this same period, whether Hamas continues to operate militarily from civilian areas, or whether Israeli strikes were responses to violations of the ceasefire. The statement stands unchallenged, presented as self-evident truth.

Similarly, when Veldwijk claims there has been “an enormous amount of airstrikes” and that there are “barely any quiet moments in the Gaza Strip,” Galloway never asks for verification, context, or proportionality. There is no mention of Hamas’ continued presence, its use of tunnels, or its embedding within civilian infrastructure, facts essential to understanding why Gaza remains a combat zone. Instead, Galloway gently prompts her to expand on humanitarian suffering, reinforcing a narrative in which Israel acts arbitrarily and Gazans are passive victims of unexplained violence.

The aid discussion follows the same pattern. Veldwijk states, “we have our warehouses full with items that we’ve been trying to get into Gaza since March the 2nd, which is the start of the blockade,” and that access is denied because “the items are not allowed to come in itself.” Galloway never asks the most basic follow-up: which items, and why? Israel has repeatedly stated that restrictions exist to prevent Hamas from diverting materials for military use. Yet Galloway treats “we simply don’t get the access” as a sufficient explanation, never challenging the implication that Israel is restricting aid out of cruelty rather than security necessity.

The second interview, with Sameer Zuberi, is even more overtly indulgent. Zuberi recounts being denied entry to Judea & Samaria (West Bank) and alleged misconduct by Israeli border officials. Galloway accepts these claims at face value, prompting him with sympathetic questions such as, “What did you see there at the crossing?” and allowing emotionally loaded phrases like “she was roughed up” to go unexamined. There is no attempt to corroborate, contextualize, or even ask whether Israeli authorities dispute this account.

When Galloway briefly introduces Israel’s explanation – that the trip was linked to an organization Israel considers connected to terrorism – he immediately allows Zuberi to dismiss it as “completely ludicrous,” adding, “Israel also considers UN agencies terrorist organizations.” This is a serious allegation, yet Galloway does not ask for evidence, clarification, or examples. Nor does he note that Israel’s designation of certain charities is often based on intelligence about Hamas financing. This is, again, a crucial context missing from the conversation.

Perhaps most telling is Galloway’s failure to challenge Zuberi’s sweeping insinuation that Israel bars entry because “there’s clearly something to hide.” This is an extraordinary claim, implying systematic wrongdoing, yet Galloway treats it as a reasonable inference rather than a partisan talking point. When he does momentarily push back, observing that “there are journalists who are there who are documenting what’s unfolding,” he immediately retreats, allowing Zuberi to return to claims about settlements and checkpoints without scrutiny or counterpoint.

Throughout the episode, Hamas is functionally erased. It is never named as the governing authority in Gaza, never described as a combatant, and never held responsible for initiating or prolonging the conflict. Israel, by contrast, is presented as an opaque, hostile force that restricts aid, attacks during ceasefires, and hides the truth from the world. Galloway’s role is not to interrogate this narrative but to smooth its delivery, and his program is bereft of any opposing views who may balance out this coverage.

This is not journalism in any meaningful sense. It is advocacy by omission, achieved through softball questioning and selective skepticism. By declining to ask even minimally challenging questions, about Hamas’ actions, about security constraints, about disputed claims, Galloway once again demonstrates that on The Current, Israel is not interviewed; it is prosecuted, without a defense present and without any burden of proof.