"To avoid such tropes, I’d revise the section to properly contextualize the reliance on clan networks within the breakdown of civil infrastructure due to war, rather than presenting them as a cultural default."
June 26, 2025
To:
David Walmsley, Editor-in-Chief, The Globe and Mail
Howard Goller, Global News Desk Editor, Reuters
Brian Moss, Trust Principles, Reuters Alexander Cornwell, Journalist, Reuters
Nidal al-Mughrabi, Journalist, Reuters
Dear Mr. Walmsley, Mr. Goller, Mr. Moss, Mr. Cornwell, and Mr. al-Mughrabi,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) to express serious concern with your June 26 article titled “Israel halts aid into northern Gaza, officials say, clans deny Hamas is stealing it,” published by Reuters and syndicated by The Globe and Mail. The article presents a distorted and incomplete narrative on humanitarian aid in Gaza, undermining journalistic integrity and failing to meet basic standards of fairness, accuracy, and accountability.
First, the headline frames the issue as a petty blame-game over Hamas, ignoring the urgent reality that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. This exclusion of a well-documented violations obscures Israel’s deliberate systematic policy of blockade and collective punishment.
Second, your article also mischaracterizes the statement from the Higher Committee for Tribal Affairs. The Committee did not merely "deny Hamas involvement." It accused Israel of spreading malicious disinformation to justify its blockade, demanded a UN investigation, and condemned what it called Israel’s attempt to create “death traps” for civilians. Your article also avoids mentioning that Israel’s suspension of aid is not an isolated event but part of a long-standing siege that has decimated Gaza’s infrastructure and food supply. The tribal committee’s own statement emphasized that current aid deliveries are “not even a drop in the ocean” compared to dire humanitarian needs. This strong language and its call for international intervention were entirely excluded, amounting to a silencing of Palestinian civil voices and whitewashing Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza.
As this passage currently stands, rather than include this essential context, your article instead focuses on describing these clans as “extended families connected through blood and marriage.” Although not necessarily inaccurate, this type of framing without added context on how clans play a role in Palestinian civil society reinforces longstanding Orientalist tropes by portraying Palestinian society in Gaza primarily through the lens of tribalism and factionalism. Describing aid protection as managed “solely through tribal efforts” and emphasizing clans as “fundamental” to society can evoke the stereotype of Middle Eastern societies as inherently pre-modern and governed by kinship ties rather than institutions. This framing, particularly when contrasted with depictions of Hamas as a militant faction and Israeli officials as rational planners, presents a binary narrative (tribes vs. militant, Israeli order vs. Hamas chaos) that have historically been used to diminish Arab political agency. To avoid such tropes, I’d revise the section to properly contextualize the reliance on clan networks within the breakdown of civil infrastructure due to war, rather than presenting them as a cultural default.
These binary tropes are further seen in the way the article misleadingly describes Hamas as a “militant group that has ruled Gaza.” Hamas is a political and social movement with a military wing. The civilian administration that governed Gaza was managed by Hamas' political branch and not the armed wing. This inaccuracy needs to be distinguished to meet journalistic standards.
Furthermore, this passage implies that Hamas has not played a role in securing aid convoys, despite public statements to the contrary and Israel’s own admission of arming disruptive, ISIS-linked militias. This selective sourcing reinforces a one-sided power dynamic. You also repeat unverified Israeli claims about Hamas seizing aid based on "new unspecified information" and a vague video without any independent verification. Presenting these claims without appropriate qualifiers or skepticism violates the Canadian Association of Journalists’ (CAJ) ethical requirement to “distinguish between assertions and fact.” I demand that you revise this section to include the mention of Israel also arming militias raiding aid sites and properly attribute Israel’s claims about seizing aid.
I urge Reuters and The Globe and Mail to revise the article to correct these factual, ethical, and narrative shortcomings. At minimum, this should include correcting the misrepresentation of Hamas and Gaza’s civil governance; including the full context and content of the Gaza Tribal Affairs Committee’s statement; presenting the systematic Israeli blockade and starvation policy as central to the story; applying proper skepticism and context to unverified Israeli government claims.
I await your response and hope your editorial teams will take these concerns
Sincerely,
Anthony Issa
Media Analyst
CJPME