"The term “captured” suggests a sense of permanence or legal legitimacy to Israel’s control, which is contrary to the principles of international law. In contrast, “occupied” reflects the ongoing military control of these areas, as consistently described by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN. Failing to use the correct term misleads readers and undermines the accuracy and integrity of your reporting."
January 6, 2024
To:
Nancy Waugh, Managing Editor, CBC News
Brodie Fenlon, News Editor-in-Chief, CBC News
Josef Federman, News Director, Associated Press
Dear Ms. Waugh, Mr. Fenlon, and Mr. Federman,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) to express concern about the language used in the recent Associated Press article titled “At least 3 fatally shot on bus transporting Israelis in West Bank,” published on the CBC website. Specifically, the article describes the Palestinian territories as “captured” by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, which contradicts CBC's usual language, its journalistic guidelines and international legal consensus.
I first take issue with the article’s assertion that “Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.” This misrepresents the legal and diplomatic status of these territories. According to international law, these areas are considered occupied Palestinian territories (OPT).
The term "captured" is inaccurate and misleading for several reasons. I would advise your newsrooms to consult CJPME’s media accountability project essay on the term occupied when referring to the Palestinian territories. However, I will break down the reasons why captured is an inaccurate term when referring to Israel’s actions in the West Bank.
- International law does not recognize the acquisition of territory by force. The United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits such actions, and numerous UN resolutions have reaffirmed that Israel's presence in these areas constitutes an occupation. As such, these territories are internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian territories (OPT), not as territories “captured” by Israel.
- The term “captured” suggests a sense of permanence or legal legitimacy to Israel’s control, which is contrary to the principles of international law. In contrast, “occupied” reflects the ongoing military control of these areas, as consistently described by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN. Failing to use the correct term misleads readers and undermines the accuracy and integrity of your reporting.
- Language plays a powerful role in shaping public understanding. Using “captured” risks erasing the lived experiences of Palestinians and minimizes the illegality of the ongoing occupation. This framing also contradicts the terminology adopted by Canada, the United States, the UN, and human rights organizations, which uniformly describe these territories as occupied. For example, the ICJ ruled in 2004 that Israel's status in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza is that of an occupying power. Similarly, the signatories of the Fourth Geneva Convention reaffirmed in 2001 that the Convention applies to the occupied Palestinian territories, explicitly identifying Israel as the occupying power. These consistent legal interpretations reinforce the necessity of using precise and accurate language in media reporting.
- The term “captured” not only misrepresents legal realities but also perpetuates the erasure of Palestinian rights. It implies that Palestinians have no legitimate claim to these territories, reinforcing a narrative that marginalizes their struggle for self-determination.
In light of the above, I urge you to revise the article in question and to adopt the terminology “occupied West Bank” in all future reporting on this issue. Using accurate language is essential to uphold the journalistic principles of accuracy, impartiality, and fairness as outlined in the CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices and the Associated Press’s own ethical guidelines.
Furthermore, CBC’s own editorial policies emphasize the need for accuracy and fairness in reporting. Describing the territories as “captured” contradicts CBC's past reporting and its recognition of Palestinian territories as occupied under international law.
I also take issue with the following statements in the article:
- “Meanwhile, the war in Gaza is raging with no end in sight, though there has reportedly been recent progress in long-running talks aimed at a ceasefire and hostage release.”
- “Israel's air and ground offensive has killed over 45,800 Palestinians in Gaza, according to local health authorities, who say women and children make up more than half of those killed. They do not say how many of the dead were militants. The Israeli military says it has killed over 17,000 fighters, without providing evidence.”
I’m alarmed that the CBC included this statement without accompanying critical analysis or acknowledgment of the disproportionality of civilian casualties, as documented by multiple human rights organizations. This framing neglects to challenge Israel’s narrative, which has been widely concluded as acts of genocide by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
I urge the CBC and the Associated Press to include these statements by Human rights organizations that Israel is committing a genocide. CBC’s audience deserves reporting that reflects the complexity of the situation and adheres to the highest standards of journalistic integrity.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Anthony Issa
Media Analyst
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East