"Israel has waged a nearly 22-month-long military siege on the Gaza Strip. Yet the article presents these claims as unchallenged fact, despite extensive documentation from international human rights organizations (including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, UN bodies, and now two Israeli human rights groups) which have concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide."
To:
Joseph Krauss, Reporter, Associated Press
Sandra Martin, Standards Editor, The Globe and Mail
David Walmsley, Editor-in-Chief, The Globe and Mail
Josef Federman, News Director, Associated Press
Dear Mr. Krauss, Mr. Mackinnon, Ms. Martin, Mr. Walmsley and Mr. Federman,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) to express my concerns regarding the article titled "What to know as Israel weighs reoccupying the entire Gaza Strip," published by The Globe and Mail and written by Joseph Krauss of the Associated Press.
First, the article repeats Israel’s claim that it “has taken every effort to avoid harming civilians” and also its accusation of blood libel without applying any journalistic skepticism. Israel has waged a nearly 22-month-long military siege on the Gaza Strip. Yet the article presents these claims as unchallenged fact, despite extensive documentation from international human rights organizations (including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, UN bodies, and now two Israeli human rights groups) which have concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide. This passage misleads readers and violates the CAJ principle of accuracy, which emphasizes the importance of verifying facts and clearly distinguishing between assertion and evidence. The article must be revised by clearly labeling Israeli official statements as claims, not facts. They should also be followed up by statements from human rights groups raising concerns over their war crimes in Gaza.
Second, the article refers to Israel's policy aim of giving Gaza’s population the option of “voluntary emigration.” This framing diminishes the severity of the policy by failing to state unequivocally that forced displacement is a war crime under international law and a form of ethnic cleansing. I demand that you include appropriate legal framing for Israel's unlawful policies inflicted on the Palestinians in Gaza.
Lastly, the article refers to Israel having “captured” Gaza in 1967. This is passive language. The term captured evades the internationally recognized legal status of Gaza as occupied Palestinian territory. The use of “captured” is vague and lacks the precision and legal weight that “occupied” conveys. I demand that the Associated Press and The Globe and Mail use the word occupied for journalistic accuracy and to be in line with international law.
I look forward to your response and ensuring that this necessary context is added.
Anthony Issa
Media Analyst
CJPME