"AP is quick to label unconfirmed cases of chants calling for “death to Jews” as antisemitic, but will only refer to extremist Israelis chanting “death to Arabs” as nationalists or ultranationalists."
June 6, 2024
To:
Julia Frankel, Journalist, The Associated Press
Julie Pace, Editor-in-Chief, The Associated Press
Josef Federman, News Director, Jerusalem, The Associated Press
John Daniszewski, Standards Editor, The Associated Press
Rob McKinley, Lakeland Today
Dear Julia Frankel, Rob McKinley, and editors at The Associated Press,
I’ve grown increasingly concerned by Julia Frankel’s work in recent weeks, as her writing has regularly undermined Palestinian existence and suffering. Most recently, AP published an article titled “Israeli nationalists march through Palestinian area of Jerusalem, some chanting ‘Death to Arabs’” which also appeared in Lakeland Today on June 5, 2024.
Signs of anti-Palestinian racism and fundamental bias are clear as early as the title:
Israeli nationalists march through Palestinian area of Jerusalem, some chanting ‘Death to Arabs’
On the first order, chanting ‘Death to Arabs’ is an extremist slogan, not a nationalist one. It’s an Islamophobic chant, not a nationalist one. It’s a clear case of anti-Arab racism, not a nationalist chant. In an article published on January 11 about a lawsuit filed over alleged antisemitism on Harvard’s campus, the author includes a testimony stating the following:
Mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty have marched by the hundreds through Harvard’s campus, shouting vile antisemitic slogans and calling for death to Jews and Israel.
AP is quick to label unconfirmed cases of chants calling for “death to Jews” as antisemitic, but will only refer to extremist Israelis chanting “death to Arabs” as nationalists or ultranationalists. To mitigate this racist double-standard, please replace “Israeli nationalists” with “Israeli extremists” in the title.
I also take issue with your use of the phrase “Palestinian area of Jerusalem” to describe occupied East Jerusalem in the title. Within the first sentence of the article, you write that the march takes place “through a sensitive Palestinian area of Jersualem.” The route the settlers take is through Israel’s illegally occupied East Jerusalem, regularly halting to assault Palestinians and vandalise their property. To refer to this march as taking place in a “Palestinian area of Jerusalem” undermines the illegality and invasiveness of this march, and, thus, serves as an endorsement of Israel’s illegal occupation of East Jerusalem. Please edit your title to “…march through occupied East Jerusalem…” to uphold minimum standards of factual accuracy.
Near the middle of the article, it reads the following:
The annual march commemorates “Jerusalem Day,” which marks Israel’s capture of east Jerusalem, including the Old City and its holy sites sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims, in the 1967 Mideast War.
The word “captured” is also used to describe East Jerusalem in all of the image captions. 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.
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.
Thank you for making these edits promptly. 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