A recent column in The Walrus united two commentators who have regularly assailed Israel. The first is Jon Allen, who despite serving as Canada’s ambassador to Israel from 2006 to 2010, continues to promote misinformation about Israel and has blamed Israel for Hamas terrorism. And the second is Liberal MP and anti-Israel activist, Salma Zahid.

The December 20 column, written by author Justin Ling entitled: “How Trudeau Turned Canadian Diplomacy into a Spectator Sport,” began with unvarnished criticism of Israeli policies and actions, including “settlements,” “annexation” plans, and its “bombing campaign” in Lebanon. He failed to mention Israel’s goal of restoring safety to northern Israelis after over a year of deadly attacks from Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah.

At the same time, he depicted Palestinian and Lebanese people as victims of international apathy—and specifically of Canadian apathy. According to Ling, Canada could do a lot more to help, specifically in a peacekeeping and diplomatic role.

At no point did Ling mention Israel’s security concerns, which might help balance the narrative. For instance, he referred to “Israel’s war in Gaza,” as if Israel started the war, rather than Hamas, the terrorist organization that invaded Israel with massacres on October 7, 2023.

True, Ling referred briefly to the “horrific” Hamas assault before declaring that Israel’s actions constitute “one of the great humanitarian tragedies of the twenty-first century—certainly one of few committed by an ostensible ally.”

Israel is more than an “ostensible” ally. Canada may criticize some Israeli policies, but it still “supports Israel’s right to live in peace with its neighbours… and recognizes Israel’s right to assure its own security.”

Ling devoted much of his commentary to his bizarre suggestion that Canada should up its peacekeeping game. He offered the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis as a proud example of Canadian peacekeeping, where more recent missions—Rwanda, Mali, and Haiti—have failed.

Canada is too passive today, Ling suggested, seeing peacekeeping as a “referee” role. He contrasted this with Russian Wagner Group mercenaries who are prepared “to fight and die.” Perhaps Ling wants more Canadians signing up to fight and die. Starting now. Starting in Gaza. Fighting whom? He doesn’t say. But the clear implication is—against Israel, the only wrongdoer in the region, according to Ling’s column.

The two people Ling interviewed didn’t mention peacekeeping, but they both called for “bold actions,” in Zahid’s words.

Zahid is well known for leveraging her authority as an MP to support South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. She routinely uses her X account to call for sanctions against Israel and support for organizations like UNRWA that support terror in Gaza.

Ling’s other source, former Ambassador Jon Allen, is introduced as Jewish, with relatives in Israel. This apparently gives him free reign to condemn “settlement-building” and other Israeli policies. Ling failed to provide pro-Israel or alternate Canadian viewpoints to counter these two handpicked sources.

For both of his experts, the answer is a Palestinian state. Failing that, Zahid suggested, Canada can embargo Israel. Or perhaps, given how gung-ho Ling seems about the subject, send peacekeepers.

It’s ironic that Ling clings to the Suez Crisis as the supreme example of Canadian peacekeeping. What Ling called Pearson’s “aggressive diplomatic posture” was likely tied to his ironclad conviction that the State of Israel must belong to the Jews.

Though Pearson held questionable beliefs about postwar Jewish immigration, he wrote, “I never had a doubt that this problem is unsolvable without recognizing a Jewish state in the Land of Israel… a national home… was a sine qua non for every arrangement.”

Pearson grew up knowing that “the Jews belonged in Palestine.” He listed Israel, alongside Greece and Rome, as the source of Western values.

So when it came to the Suez Crisis, Pearson knew that Canada had skin in the game. Western values—Canadian values—were at stake.

Today, those values are under attack once again, with people like Zahid coddling terror supporters and journalists like Ling urging Ottawa to take a surreal “fight and die” stance against a longstanding ally.

By failing to uphold standards of objective journalism with multiple views, nuance, and complexity, outlets like The Walrus are complicit.