"Instead of ambiguous statements about Israel’s military assault on Gaza, like writing that it’s caused “widespread devastation,” I’d recommend opting for a more precise and descriptive account."
April 16, 2024
To:
Colleen Barry, Journalist, The Associated Press
John Daniszewski, Standards Editor, The Associated Press
Dave Obee, Editor and Publisher, Times Colonist
Dear Colleen Barry, John Daniszewski, and Dave Obee,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East to express a minor recommendation in one of The Associated Press’ most recent articles titled, “Artist refuses to open Israeli pavilion at Venice Biennale until cease-fire, hostage release,” published in the Times Colonist on April 16.
At the very end of the article, it reads:
The war in Gaza erupted after Hamas and Islamic Jihad carried out a cross-border attack on Oct. 7 that killed 1,200 people in Israel and kidnapped 250 others.
There are reports of Israeli civilians being killed by friendly fire on Oct. 7, including a house in Kibbutz Be’eri getting shelled by a tank, leaving 12 Israelis dead. The ongoing investigation has also reported an instance of a hostage being killed by an Israeli helicopter on Oct. 7. This is a critical component to consider when structuring sentences related to the events of Oct. 7, as not all deaths can be directly attributed to Hamas or Islamic Jihad.
Instead of ambiguous statements about Israel’s military assault on Gaza, like writing that it’s caused “widespread devastation,” I’d recommend opting for a more precise and descriptive account. The phrase “widespread devastation” might be more appropriate for a natural disaster. In the case of man-made and deliberately inflicted mass destruction, however, the phrase is inaccurate and works to absolve Israel of its responsibility for the grazing of Gaza. Please adjust your vocabulary accordingly.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rose Mardikian,
Media Analyst, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East