"Contrary to the headline and opening paragraph, the ICJ did not merely find that 'Israeli settlement policies' in Palestinian territories violate international law, but rather that 'the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [which includes the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, not merely settlements] is unlawful.' To frame the article as being specifically about settlement policy, rather than about occupation in a much larger sense, is to fundamentally mischaracterize the nature of this ruling."
July 19, 2024
To:
Yasmine Hassan, CBC
Nancy Waugh, CBC
Brodie Fenlon, CBC
George Achi, CBC
Jack Nagler, Ombudsman, CBC
Dear Yasmine Hassan, Nancy Waugh, Brodie Fenlon, George Achi, and Jack Nagler,
I'm writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East to express concern about the article "ICJ finds Israeli settlement policies in Palestinian territories breach international law,” published on July 19, 2024.
While I am glad the CBC is covering the ICJ decision, your article and its headline downplay the ICJ findings if not outright misrepsent them.
Contrary to the headline and opening paragraph, the ICJ did not merely find that “Israeli settlement policies” in Palestinian territorities violate international law, but rather that “the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [which includes the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, not merely settlements] is unlawful.” To frame the article as being specifically about settlement policy, rather than about occupation in a much larger sense, is to fundamentally mischaracterize the nature of this ruling.
There is some acknowledgement in the article indicating that the courts finding related to occupation beyond just settlements when you write “The advisory opinion related to the legality of Israel's 57-year occupation of lands sought for a Palestinian state.” This should be reflected in the headline and opening paragraph so as not to mislead readers into believing this was a narrow finding only concerned with settlements.
On a related matter, the Court summarized its Opinion as it relates to whether Israel continued to occupy Gaza after 2005 in the following way:
Based on the information before it, the Court considers that Israel remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip, including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone, despite the withdrawal of its military presence in 2005. This is even more so since 7 October 2023.
In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip.
The CBC must consider the above in its future reporting about Gaza, as the CBC often claims, as fact, that Israel ended its occupation of Gaza in 2005. Clearly, even the ICJ does not share that view.
Sincerely,
Jason Toney
Director of Media Advocacy, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East