For the second time in three weeks, in the lead-up to the federal election, The Toronto Star published yet another opinion column urging readers to make Gaza a central part of their vote.

In her April 24 column entitled: “This election, I’m voting for Gaza. But please don’t call me a single-issue voter,” Beisan Zubi, a Waterloo-based “antiracism trainer,” repeatedly attacked Israel while failing to mention Hamas and its responsibility for the situation in Gaza.

Zubi began with the claim that “over the past 18 months, I have watched Israel violate just about every human right that I learned about in school, while so many Canadian politicians stayed silent.” She accused Israel of targeting hospitals, blocking medical supplies, and destroying the environment.

Zubi didn’t say what happened eighteen months ago to set off these so-called violations.

What happened eighteen months ago? On October 7, 2023, squads of heavily armed Palestinian terrorists from Hamas and other terror groups invaded Israel. They brutally massacred well over a thousand Israelis and dragged another 251 into hellish Gaza tunnels. They were followed by hordes of ‘civilians’ who subsequently looted Israeli towns and villages and who took part in the massacre.

Instead of mentioning any of that, she plucked readers’ heartstrings with a barrage of heartbreaking stories. Each was superficially persuasive. Most readers probably won’t click through the links—they’ll assume that the facts are exactly as Zubi presented them.

The attacks from Gaza were a declaration of war. Israel responded as any responsible government would, by ending the threat to its citizens.

Yet even at war, there are few nations in the world as aware of human rights as Israel. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) holds itself to a strict ethical code. Unfortunately, Hamas thwarts this with its strategy of hiding behind civilian infrastructure—and among innocent civilians who serve as human shields.

And far from “staying silent,” as Zubi claimed, Canadian politicians have made a number of statements that have effectively delegitimizing Israel’s right to self-defense.

That includes Prime Minister Mark Carney’s reply to a pro-Palestinian activist making unfounded genocide claims against Israel. He said, “Thank you… I’m aware. Which is why we have an arms embargo.” Carney later backpedaled, but actions speak louder than words: the embargo continues under his leadership.

Troublingly, Zubi wrote that “a politician’s stance on Gaza says volumes about… a range of domestic issues.” This is completely false, leading to surreal twists and turns.

For example, she argued that a politician who hasn’t shown support for pregnant women in Gaza can’t be trusted to defend women’s rights in Canada. A politician who hasn’t condemned a hodge-podge of disability issues in Gaza can’t be trusted to fight for disability justice here.

She flattened every single issue in the same way, discrediting political candidates for zero cause. This actually plays into a favourite theme of Hamas and its supporters aimed at fueling outrage and delegitimize Western governments: Western silence equals approval.

Political life is too nuanced to give in to over-simplifications. Especially when so many of those narratives, such as victim counts, are suspect due to Hamas manipulations of war statistics.

Ironically, Zubi asked: “how can I trust a politician will treat infrastructure and adequate housing as a human right when they haven’t said a thing about the UN reporting that 92 per cent of all homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed…?”

In fact, it’s the UN who can’t be trusted. They have been caught repeatedly inflating and manipulating their own Gaza statistics.

Finally, Zubi drew a parallel between Israel’s supposed “dispossession” of Palestinian land and the threat to Canada’s “territorial integrity” from U.S. President Donald Trump.

She’s attempted to paint a portrait of the U.S. and Israel as twin bullies. This creates, in her view, a moral imperative for Canadians to resist by “voting for Gaza.” This casts Palestinian “resistance” almost as a mirror of Canadian identity—and nothing could be further from the truth.

Zubi, a “Palestinian Canadian equity consultant,” says she learned about human rights in school. That’s because she grew up here in Canada, not in Gaza.

In Gaza, Zubi might have used an UNRWA curriculum that encourages martyrdom and violent jihad. That venerates figures like Dalal al-Mughrabi, who helped massacre 38 Israelis, including 13 children. And there certainly would have been no talk of human rights, at least not in any way that includes Jews and Israelis.

Like her opinion column, Zubi’s entire X (Twitter) feed is essentially a tirade of small, unsubstantiated anti-Israel claims. She badgers Canadian politicians about their stance on Israel. She’s also spread blood-libel fake news against Israel. That includes recent unsubstantiated claims that Israel used a nuclear weapon on Syria. (In fact, Israel bombed weapons storage facilities, creating massive secondary explosions.)

Zubi’s article follows a similar opinion piece in early April by Khaled Al-Qazzaz of the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council (CMPAC), a group that has sponsored speakers who have expressed pro-Hamas views. His piece framed the Hamas-Israel war as a litmus test for Canadian values, which, like Zubi, he failed to mention Hamas entirely.

Together, these columns highlight an editorial trend at The Toronto Star: amplifying one-sided narratives that erase terrorism and encouraging Canadians to vote based on a skewed and uncritical portrayal of the Gaza conflict.

At the same time,The Toronto Star hasn’t published any election-related op-eds reflecting other viewpoints on this conflict or matters affecting Canada’s Jewish community. That might include writers for whom antisemitism, pro-terrorist rallies, or support for Israel are major considerations.

Every Canadian should vote based on their personal convictions. By repeatedly platforming a single, distorted perspective on Gaza—one that erases terrorism and ignores rising antisemitism—while ignoring others—it risks turning informed debate into political propaganda.