It's a list of Canadians with the implication, but little to no evidence, of war crimes beyond the fact that they served in Israel's military.

To me it feels a lot like the published lists of people who "celebrated" Charlie Kirk's death. Yes, it's likely factual, but it feels like it's trying to start a witch hunt. And in this case, there's even less proof of any "wrongdoing".

There is more than enough context in each bio ... If they did war crimes as part of their service ...

Your arguments show bad faith and as it is not journalism at all.

Before you accuse someone openly as it is done in this report, you would - hopefully also as an 'ordinary' person, but certainly as a professional journalist - contact these people and give them a chance to respond to the accusations. Reading their social media posts and then publish their names is not good journalism. You may do this with some public figures if and when the context is clear, but not with individuals of whom you know nothing but their alleged social media accounts. If only one of these accounts are fake or one or more of them have been impersonated, you can do a lot of harm to innocent people. A journalist should know that.

Your comments point in the same direction: You say, "if" they did, and "may" have participated in war crimes. But "if" and "may" is no research. These are assumptions.

Yes, Israel very likely committed war crimes, I hope the judges at the ICC will have the opportunity to open a trial soon. But before everyone else accuses other of a crime, we should do research. This includes data about who did what, when, where. This is missing here.

This is extremely bad practice. It has nothing to do with proper research. And, again, the majority of the articles published on their website follows a similar pattern. There is barely in-depth research, it's just conveying narratives that appeal to a certain target group. This is, at best, campaigning, but is has nothing to do with journalism.

[Edit typo.]