Specifically, the article gives her space to claim that coordinated U.S. strikes are “necessary” to eliminate what Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described as an “existential threat” posed by Iran’s nuclear program and its regime. Presented without challenge or context, this framing leaves readers with the impression that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes an established and imminent threat, when in reality this remains deeply contested.
To the Globe and Mail,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (www.cjpme.org) to express concern regarding the article titled: “Israel pushes back against Canada’s criticism of its occupation of southern Lebanon” published on March 27, 2026.
The article is primarily framed - through its headline and lead - not around the blatant illegality of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, nor the mass displacement of over 1 million people, nor the mounting death toll, though some of these details are briefly mentioned. Instead, the Globe centers the article on Israel’s “push back” on Canada’s position, which includes the predictable and overused talking points we often hear from Israeli officials. While the article does include many valuable contributions that balance it out, some of Foreign Minister Sharren Haskels’ remarks are given minimal journalistic scrutiny.
Specifically, the article gives her space to claim that coordinated U.S. strikes are “necessary” to eliminate what Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described as an “existential threat” posed by Iran’s nuclear program and its regime. Presented without challenge or context, this framing leaves readers with the impression that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes an established and imminent threat, when in reality this remains deeply contested.
Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated on March 3, 2026, that while there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon, its stockpile of near weapons-grade uranium and limited inspector access remain serious concerns.
In other words, there is legitimate concern, but not verified evidence of an imminent threat. Additionally, these latest warnings from Israel about an existential threat are the same ones that Israel has laundered for over 30 years. Time and again they have been proven wrong. This is essential context that ought to be added for readers to have a more balanced understanding.
At minimum, responsible journalism requires that Sharren Haskel’s be contextualized, challenged, and balanced with alternative perspectives.
The current framing falls short of these basic standards and misleads readers into reinforcing the longstanding U.S. narrative that Iran is perpetually on the brink of developing nuclear weapons, a claim that has been invoked for decades to manufacture consent military aggression.
This is especially important as Donald Trump’s former top counterterrorism official, Joe Kent, resigned on March 17, 2026, urging the US administration to “reverse course,” stating that Iran posed “no imminent threat” to the United States, and alleging that escalation was driven due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
With all of the above said, we do appreciate the article’s references to international law as it relates to attacks on civilian infrastructure, the mentions of past invasions, and the inclusion of criticisms by the UN human-rights chief. All of this does help alleviate aspects of our concerns.
We hope you will consider our feedback in future reporting.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East