"While I am glad the Globe and Mail are covering the ICJ decision, your article and its headline not only downplay the ICJ findings but outright misrepresent them. While this is a wire article, the Globe and Mail should, as is common, modify the headline to make clear that ICJ did not merely find that 'Israeli settlements' 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 ICJ opinion as being specifically about settlement policy, rather than about occupation in a much larger sense, is to fundamentally mischaracterize the nature of this ruling for your readers."
July 22, 2024
To:
Sandra E. Martin, Globe and Mail
David Walmsley, Globe and Mail
Christine Brousseau, Globe and Mail
Brian Moss, Reuters
Dear Sanra E. Martin, David Walmsley, Christine Brousseau, and Brian Moss,
I'm writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East to express concern about the article "World Court says Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory are illegal,” written by Reuters and published by the Globe and Mail on July 22, 2024.
While I am glad the Globe and Mail is covering the ICJ decision, your article and its headline not only downplay the ICJ findings, but outright misrepsent them. While this is a wire article, the Globe and Mail should, as is common, modify the headline to make clear that ICJ did not merely find that “Israeli settlements” 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 ICJ opinion as being specifically about settlement policy, rather than about occupation in a much larger sense, is to fundamentally mischaracterize the nature of this ruling for your readers.
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 Globe and Mail must consider the above in its future reporting about Gaza, as the paper 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