"The term “occupy” denotes tension and a sense of contestation, which is far more appropriate. Similarly, the consistent reference to settler encroachment on Palestinian land as “contested” and not “illegal” is misleading to readers. Please make edits accordingly to maintain minimum journalistic standards."
To:
Jack Jeffery, Journalist, The Associated Press
Josef Federman, News Director, Jerusalem, The Associated Press
John Daniszewski, Standards Editor, The Associated Press
Dear Jack Jeffery,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East to offer a couple of recommendations for a recent article titled “Israel orders eviction of Palestinian family from east Jerusalem property, reigniting a legal battle,” published on April 15 in The Associated Press.
Near the middle of the article, it reads the following:
Israel captured east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed the area in a move that is not internationally recognized. Israel considers the entire city its capital, while the Palestinians seek east Jerusalem, home to the city’s most sensitive holy sites, as the capital of their future independent state.
Definitionally, legally, and historically, Israel did not “capture” East Jerusalem. This usage may mislead the reader into thinking that Israel has a strong claim to, or ownership of, these Palestinian territories. Nevertheless, such usage 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.[1]
In 2001, the signatories of the Fourth Geneva Convention reconfirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, thus confirming that Israel is indeed considered an occupying power. Canada, along with other signatories, does not recognize Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories as a “capture” but an “occupation.” Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are in stark violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and referring to them as being “captured” by Israel carries a false sense of concreteness, finality, and widespread acceptance. The term “occupy” denotes tension and a sense of contestation, which is far more appropriate. Similarly, the consistent reference to settler encroachment on Palestinian land as “contested” and not “illegal” is misleading to readers. Please make edits accordingly to maintain minimum journalistic standards.
I’ve also taken issue with The Associated Press’ consistent use of the phrase “legal battle” to describe a clear case of forced illegal evictions. Under international law, the Israeli judicial system has “no legal authority over the population it occupies.” As such, the extension of Israel’s civil legal system into occupied East Jerusalem is illegitimate and should not be referred to as a “legal battle.” Perhaps you should frame this as an “illegal expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory” rather than an ambiguous “legal battle.”
I appreciate your consideration. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Rose Mardikian,
Media Analyst, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East