When a major news outlet publishes an opinion column by a former diplomat, readers expect an analysis grounded solidly in international law. Unfortunately, Jon Allen’s recent commentary in The Toronto Star omitted critical details in offering his indictment of Israel.

On May 23, The Toronto Star published a commentary by Jon Allen, a one-time Canadian ambassador to Israel, “I was Canada’s ambassador to Israel. Its reaction to the flotilla is undermining its own case.” Allen lambasts Israel’s interception of 68 protest vessels aiming to breach the maritime blockade of Gaza, characterizing the arrest of some 430 activists as a “violation of international law.”

Allen’s analysis makes little mention of the strategic reality of Israel’s security requirements. Allen, a frequent critic of Israel, has been critiqued by HonestReporting Canada for suggesitng that “opposing Palestinian propaganda counts as censorship.” He also recently signed an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney calling for more thorough targeting of charities allegedly connected to Israel’s military.

Allen’s central thesis relies on the claim that Israel’s maritime blockade is a lawless enterprise. It is not. Under the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, a maritime blockade is an entirely legal defensive mechanism, provided it is declared, effectively maintained, and allows for the passage of strictly humanitarian goods through monitored channels. Israel is fighting an active war against a genocidal terrorist proxy that has repeatedly smuggled sophisticated weaponry via sea routes. Intercepting a hostile, unvetted ‘flotilla’ in international waters before it can breach a military blockade is standard operational procedure, not a breach of international law.

Allen never acknowledged why Gazans are in need of aid in the first place, failing to note that Hamas, the governing authority in Gaza, has systematically commandeered billions of dollars in international civilian aid, diverting concrete, pipes, and fuel to build an underground terror metropolis and stock an arsenal of rockets. If Gazans lack resources, it is because their leaders prefer building tunnels over infrastructure.

Allen attempts to bolster his narrative by drawing a parallel to another recent media storm. He writes that “this incident follows closely on another recent controversy involving competing narratives over allegations of abuse of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails in an op-ed by the New York Times’ Nicolas Kristof.”

To put Kristof’s column on the same level as documented reality is without basis. Kristof’s column was a collection of unverified allegations, which experts say are not even physically possible. Yet Allen appears to treat it as a legitimate counterweight to an official Israeli commission of inquiry that found objective evidence of Hamas’ sexual assault against Israeli civilians.

Treatises built on anonymous prison hearsay do not equal forensic evidence of mass sexual violence used as a weapon of war by Palestinian terrorists.

Allen leveled accusations against Israel such as these actions “belie” Israel’s status as a liberal democracy. But they are actions that are backed up in international law, and eminently defensible.

In fact, Israel’s defensive measures, including its blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, are legal, necessary, and vital to preventing another October 7-style massacre. Jon Allen’s opinion column should have noted this critical point, though he failed to do so.