"This article contains a glaring omission. You accurately quote the Israeli military’s chief advocate as saying that Israel’s proposed judicial reforms “may crack the aura the judicial system provides to the military.” You then inaccurately report the controversy that has resulted, wrongly telling your readers this is a two-sided debate."
To:
Steve Bartlett, Managing Editor, Saltwire
Maayan Lubell, Reporter, Reuters
Dear Steve Bartlett and Maayan Lubell,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME, cjpme.org) to highlight the need for correction of your September 4 article, “Israeli military legal officer warns of curbs to judicial independence.”
This article contains a glaring omission. You accurately quote the Israeli military’s chief advocate as saying that Israel’s proposed judicial reforms “may crack the aura the judicial system provides to the military.” You then inaccurately report the controversy that has resulted, wrongly telling your readers this is a two-sided debate. Your article reads:
The [Supreme] [C]ourt has long been feted as a torch-bearer for democratic rights by its supporters at home and abroad but is frequently accused of being elitist, interventionist and left-leaning by its critics.
This description is incomplete and therefore inaccurate. There is a third position.
Yes, some argue that (1) the Israeli Supreme Court is “a torch-bearer for democratic rights.” Yes, others argue that (2) it is too “left-leaning.” But a more credible, more representative, and more numerous group argues that (3) Palestinian human rights have for decades been violated under cover of that “aura the judicial system provides to the military.”
This third position cannot accurately be suppressed. It is supported by a majority of United Nations member states. It is supported by the most widely respected human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem. And it is supported by a nearly unanimous consensus within Palestinian civil society.
Accuracy demands the replacement of your misleading paragraph above with language that is accurate and credible. I propose the following alternative:
The Israeli Supreme Court has long been criticized for failing to adequately censure the IDF’s violation of Palestinian human rights. But Jewish Israeli centrists value the court’s safeguards, while the Israeli far right denounces its liberal constraints.
With this or other wording, that third, majority-world position must be accurately reported.
You should be familiar with the expressed positions of United Nations agencies and human rights organizations, as summarized above. But I would be pleased to provide specific documentation on these positions, should you require further corroboration.
If you wish, you can reach me at 438-380-5410.
Sincerely,
Dan Freeman-Maloy
PhD, University of Exeter
For Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East