In recent weeks, The Toronto Star has published a string of opinion columns on various iterations of the same theme: how anti-Israel activists are helpless victims for daring to share their opinions, and how Israel is allegedly guilty of virtually every crime under the sun.

But no matter how many times the same baseless absurdities are repeated, they do not become any more true.

In his February 7 commentary in The Toronto Star entitled: “The ICJ ruling was validating for Canadian Muslims. When will Canada do what it can to prevent genocide in Gaza?,” Steven Zhou, with the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), blatantly misrepresented facts to suit his argument.

He claimed that a recent interim judgement from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague gave “relief” to those accusing Israel of war crimes, representing a “first step toward securing real justice” because it reminded Israel to uphold its obligations to minimize civilian casualties.

As is the case with other commentaries which have attempted to misrepresent the ICJ ruling, Zhou completely omitted that the world court emphatically rejected the core demand of South Africa in sending the case: that it issue an emergency decision ordering Israel to cease its counter-terrorism operations against Hamas, the Islamic terrorist group in Gaza.

As was pointed out in a recent legal analysis of the ICJ ruling, “nothing in the ICJ’s decision concludes — or even implies — that Israel has violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention,” and that “it is presumable that the nature of the preliminary measures ordered would have taken a much different tone if the court truly believed that Gaza was experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, a genocide.”

Zhou wrote that, in speaking out against Israel, “We were called liars. Terrorist supporters. Again and again,” and that “It is our right to be able to freely criticize the foreign policy of other governments.”

This clever verbiage served to blur the line between pro-Palestinian activists, who have a right to express their views, even if they are based on falsehoods, and a disturbingly large number of instances of overt praise for Hamas terrorism and the mass murder of innocent Israeli civilians.

By claiming that pro-Palestinian activists have been defamed simply for sharing their views disingenuously excludes instances of law students praising Hamas, anti-Israel protesters threatening with death, or even physically assaulting others, and the waving of terrorist flags in public.

In the same vein, Zhou argued that Yipeng Ge, an Ottawa doctor who shared the phrase “from the river to the sea,” which explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel, is doing nothing more than “showing solidarity with Palestinians.”

Despite Zhou publicly calling for more tolerance of varied opinions, his employer, the NCCM, has shown far less tolerance for dissent, having recently praised British Columbia Premier David Eby for cabinet minister Selina Robinson’s stepping down as B.C.’s minister of advanced education, for making comments that were not necessarily aligned with the ideology of the organization.

Zhou called on the Canadian government to “reiterate our call for a permanent ceasefire,” while deliberately choosing to not mention Hamas or the Israeli hostages held by the Islamic group a single time, as if the group – which is dedicated to Israel’s violent destruction – is somehow not relevant to the discussion.

Steven Zhou’s commentary in The Toronto Star downplayed the glorification of terrorism present in many corners of the anti-Israel movement, misrepresented the International Court of Justice’s decision, totally ignored Hamas, and – like so many similar columns – attempted to shield anti-Israel activists from the consequences of their decisions.