“In a world on fire, it’s our duty to speak out against injustices — so that’s what I’m doing,” by Shellene Drakes-Tull, published in The Toronto Star on October 9, is a column built on moral absolutism rather than factual grounding. It presents sweeping claims about the Israel–Hamas war that are both analytically unsound and ethically irresponsible.
Drakes-Tull writes, “in the face of wiping out an entire people it is imperative to speak because being silent isn’t a real choice.” The statement is incredibly misleading. Israel has not sought to “wipe out an entire people.” Even accepting Hamas’ own inflated casualty figures, they represent a tiny fraction of Gaza’s total population, and a substantial portion of those killed have been combatants. The accusation of extermination grossly distorts the nature of the conflict and trivializes the meaning of genocide itself. Israel has, in fact, taken significant risks to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, including issuing evacuation warnings and facilitating humanitarian corridors – actions incompatible with any intent to eradicate a population.
Drakes-Tull’s invocation of the “International Association of Genocide Scholars,” referring to a mini-survey of its members accusing Israel of genocide, further undermines her credibility. This organization is not a serious academic authority but a nominal association that allows virtually anyone with a credit card to obtain membership. Relying on such a source reflects a disregard for evidentiary standards and a willingness to elevate rhetoric over substance. Assertions of genocide require rigorous proof, not the endorsement of organizations whose credibility is paper-thin.
Drakes-Tull’s framing of the conflict also rests on a selective retelling of events. She describes Hamas’s October 7, 2023 massacre—where 1,200 Israelis were murdered and more than 250 taken hostage—as a “terrible” episode that precipitated Israel’s “all-out war.” The characterization implies that the war began with Israel’s response rather than with Hamas’ years-long campaign of violence and explicit commitment to Israel’s destruction. This inversion of cause and effect misleads readers about the nature of the ongoing threat Israel faces. It also omits Hamas’ continued rocket fire, use of human shields, and deliberate entrenchment within civilian areas – tactics that render civilian suffering both tragic and strategically engineered.
The shortcomings in Drakes-Tull’s argument are not new. HonestReporting Canada, in its earlier critique of her commentary claiming that the world had forgotten Gaza, noted that Gaza “is anything but ignored,” calling her analysis one that “collapses under the weight of reality.” Gaza is “one of the most reported, protested, and debated conflicts on the planet,” countering the narrative of neglect she continues to advance. Rather than deepening public understanding, her columns recycle emotionally charged but factually thin assertions that reinforce misunderstanding.
Later in her piece, Drakes-Tull turned to the Democratic Republic of Congo, citing UNICEF reports on the horrific use of sexual violence – including child rape – as a weapon of war. She quoted statistics detailing widespread atrocities and the suffering of civilians largely overlooked by mainstream media. This section, which briefly departs from the rhetoric surrounding Gaza, could have offered meaningful engagement with a neglected humanitarian crisis. Instead, it serves as a prelude to another rhetorical question: “should I not speak because I’m not a part of the Congolese community? Or should I use whatever platforms I have to highlight injustice?”
Indeed, there is immense value in drawing attention to under-reported crises such as the ongoing atrocities in the Congo. That is precisely where Drakes-Tull’s platform could serve a constructive purpose – by providing context, data, and thoughtful analysis where global awareness is lacking. Yet rather than expanding the discussion to such overlooked tragedies, she reverts to a familiar and misleading narrative about Israel, squandering the opportunity to contribute to a more informed and balanced understanding of global injustice.
Speaking out against injustice requires more than moral posturing; it demands intellectual discipline and factual accuracy. Drakes-Tull’s piece offers neither. By equating Israel’s actions with genocide, citing discredited sources, and stripping away context, it transforms complex reality into a caricature. The world may indeed be “on fire,” as she writes, but inflaming public discourse with distortion and hyperbole only fuels the blaze. Those who claim to confront injustice bear a responsibility to tell the truth – not to substitute outrage for evidence.
