"Taking a single source at its word, especially when this source is the now deemed illegal occupier of the Palestinian territories, is hardly responsible journalistic practice. In the absence of verification from at least one other source, preferably Palestinian, it needs to be made clear that Israel's claim is as yet unsubstantiated."
September 6, 2023
To:
Kennedy Gordon, Managing Editor, Peterborough Examiner
Josef Federman, News Director, Associated Press
Dear Kennedy Gordon and Josef Federman,
I am writing on behalf of the Saskatoon Chapter of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME,https://www.cjpme.org ) with concerns about the article, republished from Associated Press, titled “Israeli military kills 2 Palestinians in West Bank, a militant in an army raid and a teenage gunman" in The Peterborough Examiner on September 5, 2023.
My main concern lies with the paragraph:
“Shortly after the Israeli military received reports of a gunman opening fire toward a shopping mall in a Jewish settlement, it dispatched security forces to the area ...When Israeli forces spotted the gunman they said he opened fire at them, wounding an Israeli soldier...".
There is only one possible source for this information –the Israeli army and/or government – yet you seem to be reporting it as a fact.
Taking a single source at its word, especially when this source is the now deemed illegal occupier of the Palestinian territories, is hardly responsible journalistic practice. In the absence of verification from at least one other source, preferably Palestinian, it needs to be made clear that Israel's claim is as yet unsubstantiated.
I ask you to add "Israel claims" to this paragraph to reflect this. There are numerous examples, such as the case of Shireen Abu Akleh’s murder, where initial statements by Israel were found to be false.
Additional concerns:
As "violence does not occur in a vacuum" [1] you might also have added that the Jewish settlement towards which the alleged shooting was directed is illegal under international conventions and UN Security Council Resolution 2334.I suggest you change the text to "illegal Jewish settlement" to give the reader relevant context.
The article initially correctly refers to the Palestinian territory as being "occupied", but in the last paragraph, strangely, defaults again to its being “captured.”
United Nations Security Council resolution 242 refers to the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war. There exists no concept of legal “capture” of territory and in customary international law the term is exclusively used in reference to belligerent armies taking captives as prisoners of war.
While Israel has denied the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention and does not recognize the Palestinian territory as occupied, this position has been widely rejected by the international community. Global Affairs Canada states clearly that "Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over the territories occupied in 1967. [2]
Moreover, using “captured” may mislead your readers into thinking Israel has some claim to the territory, which is false.
I ask you to use consistent language and replace "captured" with "occupied" in the last paragraph. I also urge Mr Federman to align the AP lexicon with international law.
Making these three small but important changes will help to bring readers the quality of journalism they deserve.
Sincerely,
Renée Nunan-Rappard
CJPME Saskatoon
S0K 2M0
https://www.thepipd.com/resources/10-media-guidelines/
Why the West Bank is "occupied" and not "captured" - The Media Accountability Project (cjpmemap.ca)
If you are neutral in situations of injustice you have chosen the side of the oppressor. Desmond Tutu
We acknowledge that we live and work on Treaty 6 territory and the Homeland of the Métis. We pay our respects to the First Nations and Métis ancestors of this place and reaffirm our relationship with one another.
Connect with us:
Facebook: CJPME-Saskatoon
Email: [email protected]