"To cover such statements without making space for a Palestinian perspective, however, can contribute to this sidelining. Therefore, I insist that you add a Palestinian perspective to your article."
September 14, 2023
Julia Frankel, Journalist, AP
Anne Marie Owens, Editor-in-chief, Toronto Star
Dear Julia Frankel and Anne Marie Owens,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME, https://www.cjpme.org) to express concern regarding your September 13 article, “30 years after Oslo, Israeli foreign minister rejects international dictates on Palestinian issue.”
The article covers what a meeting between the Norwegian foreign minister and the Israeli foreign minister, coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the 1993 Oslo Accords, means for Israel and the Palestinians. You write that Israel’s foreign minister will not let international voices dictate Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians in light of his normalization with countries in the Middle East, which Palestinians criticize.
You suggest that Israeli foreign minister Eli Cohen wishes to sideline the Palestinians: “in an apparent reference to the Palestinians,” you write, “who have criticized the Abraham Accords, Cohen said “states and actors that don't participate in expanding and deepening the circle of peace and normalization will simply be left behind and become irrelevant.”
To cover such statements without making space for a Palestinian perspective, however, can contribute to this sidelining. Therefore, I insist that you add a Palestinian perspective to your article.
Second, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip are not “areas captured by Israel in 1967.” This usage – “captured,” as distinct from occupied – runs directly counter (1) to how international law views the military seizure of territory, (2) to how the international diplomatic community currently views Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories, and (3) to how both words are understood in plain English. In fact, “Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip).”
The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in all occupied territory and establishes Israel's obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.” 
The use of the terminology "military occupied" or simply "occupied" is the most accurate way, legally, diplomatically, and etymologically to describe Israel’s rule of these territories. We suggest rephrasing and correcting this sentence so that the information is accurate: “The Palestinians seek the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip — areas occupied by Israel since 1967 — for a future state.”
We expect that these changes are made and taken into account in future reporting. Although two corrections should be made, your last two paragraphs are a marked improvement from previous language in Toronto Star articles.
Should you wish, you can contact me at 438-380-5410 for more information.
Media Analyst, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
 “Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, Government of Canada. Last modified 29 Jan. 2023. < https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/mena-moan/israeli-palestinian_policy-politique_israelo-palestinien.aspx?lang=eng>.