"In tandem with my point above, this article lacks critical context regarding Israel’s military assault on Gaza. Given that this article reports on allegations of antisemitism made against the student encampments, it would be appropriate to fully describe student motivations along with the circumstances in Gaza that have prompted the erection of these encampments."
May 10, 2024
To:
Stephanie Taylor, Journalist, The Canadian Press
Andrea Baillie, Editor-in-Chief, The Canadian Press
Dear Stephanie Taylor,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East to express concern regarding factual errors and biased reporting in a recent article titled “Jewish students say they don’t feel safe, as MPs probe antisemitism at universities,” published on May 8 in The Canadian Press.
In the beginning of your article, you write the following:
That day, Hamas militants launched an attack on southern Israel, killing 1,200 Israeli civilians and military members. The retaliatory siege, bombardments and ground attacks in the Gaza strip have left more than 30,000 Palestinians dead, health officials in the region said.
To maintain accepted standards of balance in journalism, the elements of your paragraph describing the events of Oct. 7 and Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza should mirror one another. There are three ways in which your reporting is non-parallel and, thus, imbalanced:
- Even though there is mounting evidence of Israel killing its civilians on October 7, active language is used to attribute all of the October 7 death toll to Hamas-led militants. Despite the 7-month-long siege on Gaza carried out by Israel, The Canadian Press attributes the death of Palestinians in Gaza to a “retaliatory siege, bombardments, and ground attacks,” without clearly naming the responsible agent: Israel. For the Canadian Press, Hamas killed 1,200 people, and an unnamed perpetrator and unclaimed military actions have “left more than 30,000 Palestinians dead.”
- While the source of the Palestinian death toll is specified, the source of the number of Israeli and foreign citizens and military personnel killed in Israel on Oct. 7 is omitted. Clarifying the source of one but not the other implies The Canadian Press’ implicit trust in Israel’s numbers and doubt in the numbers provided by Gaza’s health authority.
- Published on May 8, 2024, the Palestinian death toll is unacceptably outdated. The death toll in Gaza surpassed 30,000 near the end of February 2024. Reporting such a painfully inaccurate Palestinian death toll is journalistically irresponsible, on the first order, but also dehumanizing to the thousands of Palestinian men, women, and children who have been killed by Israel since the end of February. The latest death toll, which is widely understood to be underestimated, is 35,402 Palestinians, 14,500 of whom are children.
You write that the wave of encampments is to “protest Israel’s war against Hamas.” This muted description of the encampments’ messages and goals is woefully inadequate. Student groups at each encampment have clearly stated that students are reclaiming their campuses to demand the university’s implementation of comprehensive safety measures and support systems for all Palestinian students on campus; full divestment from companies and institutions that are complicit in the oppression against Palestinians; cessation of exchange programs with universities in Israel, among other core demands. Their messaging is abundantly clear, yet The Canadian Press chose to relay it vaguely and, thus, inaccurately.
In tandem with my point above, this article lacks critical context regarding Israel’s military assault on Gaza. Given that this article reports on allegations of antisemitism made against the student encampments, it would be appropriate to fully describe student motivations along with the circumstances in Gaza that have prompted the erection of these encampments.
- The recent discovery of over 500 bodies– some of which were tortured, buried alive, executed point blank, etc.– in seven mass graves outside of medical facilities in Gaza.
- Israel’s killing of almost 35,000 Palestinians, 14,500 of whom were children, since Oct. 7.
- The deliberate destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system, as all hospitals in the Gaza Strip have been targeted and damaged by Israel’s strikes and bombs
- On January 26, the International Court of Justice ordered provisional measures in South Africa’s case against Israel regarding allegations of genocide in Gaza.
The context I’ve mentioned above is especially important in an article centered on allegations that encampments are antisemitic and a threat to Jewish students’ physical and emotional safety. A lack of context regarding the motivations of encampments and the genocidal circumstances in Gaza helps to legitimize largely false claims of antisemitism. To this point, this article dangerously conflates antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Entitled “Jewish students say they don’t feel safe, as MPs probe antisemitism at universities,” one would expect the article to mention examples of deplorable antisemitism, not a series of testimonies recalling chants and comments that criticize Israel. Some organizations, like the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), have included some problematic illustrative examples in their conceptualization of antisemitism. Several human rights organizations have publicly rejected IHRA’s working definition of the term as it conflates criticism of Jews with criticism of Israel and suppresses activism and speech that is critical of Israel and Zionism. Considering this seems to be the foundation on which the students on Parliament Hill are basing their conceptualization of antisemitism, the shortcomings of this definition are crucial to mention in your article.
My final criticism is the way you’ve characterized the word “intifada” in your article. You write the following:
Intifada, which means “shaking off” in Arabic, was coined to describe an uprising against Israel’s military occupation that erupted in 1987. What became known as the first intifada was marked by widespread Palestinian protests and a fierce Israeli response.
In the second uprising, which began in 2000, Palestinian militants carried out deadly suicide bombings on buses and at restaurants and hotels, eliciting crushing Israeli military reprisals.
Though this definition of Intifada marks a subtle improvement from The Canadian Press’ previous description– which effectively reduced the Intifada to terrorism– it still has a long way to go. Ironically, you describe intifada’s definition as “shaking off,” yet unilaterally omit the pattern of occupation and oppression that Palestinians were protesting or, as you put it, “shake off.” On the first order, the Palestinian Intifada was a civilian uprising against Israeli occupation. As Israeli land theft, violence, and expropriation reached a peak in 1987, Palestinian suffering and discontent fueled the First Intifada, which mainly involved “nonviolent actions, like mass boycotts, civil disobedience, Palestinians refusing to work jobs in Israel, and attacks (using rocks, Molotov cocktails, and occasionally firearms) on Israelis.”[1] Israel’s violent military crackdown led to the killing of more than 1,000 Palestinians, the injuring of 130,000, and the imprisonment and torture of tens of thousands. The Second Intifada began in September 2000 after Ariel Sharon stormed al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem with 1,000 heavily armed police and soldiers.[2] This historical context underlines the extent to which your brief description of the history of Intifada is imbalanced and more critical of Palestinian violence than Israeli violence.
I hope you make these recommended edits, as it is a question of upholding minimum standards of journalistic integrity, accuracy, and balance.
Sincerely,
Rose Mardikian,
Media Analyst, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East