"Second, referring to Israel’s presence in the occupied West Bank as “disputed” is factually incorrect, legally unfounded, and undermines Palestinians' legitimate indigenous claim to their land. All settlements and outposts are considered illegal under international law based on the Fourth Geneva Convention which specifies that the transfer of an occupier’s population into the territory it occupies is prohibited. To maintain journalistic accuracy, I urge you to describe Israel’s presence in the West Bank as 'occupied' rather than 'disputed.'"
September 19, 2024
To:
Andrea Baillie, Editor-in-Chief, The Canadian Press
Dylan Robertson, Journalist, The Canadian Press
Dear Ms. Baillie and Mr. Robertson,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East to express serious concerns about your recent article titled: “Canada abstains from UN motion calling for Israel to leave Gaza, West Bank within a year” published on September 18, 2024.
Specifically, I take three issues with this sentence:
“The motion pertained to Israel’s decades of disputed presence in the West Bank, as well as its war against Hamas in Gaza. It comes as the first anniversary of the war approaches and as violence in the West Bank reaches new highs.”
First, your statement that the motion pertained to Israel’s decades of “disputed presence in the West Bank, as well as its war against Hamas in Gaza” is misleading.
According to UN Draft Resolution A/ES-10/L.31/Rev.1, which was passed on September 18, 2024, the General Assembly “Welcomes the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice” and “Demands that Israel comply without delay with all its legal obligations under international law, including as stipulated by the International Court of Justice.”[1] The motion was, ultimately, concerned specifically with the ICJ opinion, more so than the ongoing conflict in Gaza. In fact, the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion is clear in its stance on the ongoing war in Gaza and its relevance to their Opinion, stating:
“The Court is of the view that the policies and practices contemplated by the request of the General Assembly do not include conduct by Israel in the Gaza Strip in response to the attack carried out against it by Hamas and other armed groups on 7 October 2023.”[2]
The ICJ is also clear that it considers Gaza to be effectively occupied:
“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.”[3]
The ICJ advisory opinion, and therefore the UNGA motion, are concerned with Israel’s unlawful presence in the entirety of the occupied Palestinian territory, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Your article, unfortunately, distorts the view of the court and the UN motion by narrowing the scope to only the West Bank. In order for readers to better understand the UN motion, as well as the Opinion of the ICJ, I recommend revising your sentence to accurately reflect the scope of the motion: “The motion pertained to Israel’s decades of illegal presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”
Second, referring to Israel’s presence in the occupied West Bank as “disputed” is factually incorrect, legally unfounded, and undermines Palestinians' legitimate indigenous claim to their land. All settlements and outposts are considered illegal under international law based on the Fourth Geneva Convention which specifies that the transfer of an occupier’s population into the territory it occupies is prohibited. To maintain journalistic accuracy, I urge you to describe Israel’s presence in the West Bank as “occupied” rather than “disputed.” Please revise your sentence to: “The motion pertained to Israel’s decades of illegally occupying the West Bank.”
Third, your reference to the approaching “first anniversary of the war” is insensitive and inappropriate. The term "anniversary" is typically reserved for celebratory or positive events, and its use in this context trivializes the immense suffering and devastation caused by Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza. This genocide is far too grave to be marked in such a casual or neutral manner. I urge you to rephrase this as: "As the one-year mark of Israel’s genocidal military actions in Gaza approaches..." to more accurately reflect the severity and inhumanity of Israel’s assaults in Gaza.
I trust you will address these issues promptly to ensure accurate and fair reporting.
Sincerely,
Lynn Naji
Canadians for Justice and peace in the Middle East
[1] A/ES-10/L.31/Rev.1, United Nations General Assembly, adopted September 18, 2024.
[2] “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” including East Jerusalem, ICJ, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-sum-01-00-en.pdf.
[3] “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” including East Jerusalem, ICJ, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-sum-01-00-en.pdf.