I am afraid this framing creates a false balance by juxtaposing what is unequivocal under international law with the position of an apartheid state whose Prime Minister and former Defence Minister are currently subject to ICC arrest warrants. The legality of Israeli settlements is not a matter of opinion.
To the Toronto Star,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (www.cjpme.org) regarding the Associated Press article published on June 10 by the Toronto Star titled: “Amnesty accuses Israel’s government of ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Palestinians from the West Bank.”
The article reports on Amnesty International’s new report, which, in Amnesty’s own words, demonstrates that Israel is carrying out an ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinian Bedouin and herding communities in the occupied West Bank in order to facilitate illegal annexation.
However, I take issue with the article in three respects.
First, the article states: “The international community overwhelmingly considers the settlements illegal. Israel, meanwhile, views the West Bank as disputed territory and says its final status is subject to negotiations.”
I am afraid this framing creates a false balance by juxtaposing what is unequivocal under international law with the position of an apartheid state whose Prime Minister and former Defence Minister are currently subject to ICC arrest warrants. The legality of Israeli settlements is not a matter of opinion. The International Court of Justice reaffirmed in its 2024 Advisory Opinion that Israel’s settlement policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are unlawful under international law. By presenting Israel’s claim that the West Bank is “disputed territory,” the article creates the misleading impression that the legality of the settlements remains contested when, in reality, international legal bodies, including the ICJ, have been unequivocal that the settlements are illegal under international law.
I therefore urge your newsroom to remove this false balancing language from the article. Israel’s political position on the status of the West Bank should not be afforded equal weight to settled questions of international law.
Second, I want to raise the issue that Reuters recently deleted a post that referred to Israel’s latest settlement expansion as being considered illegal by “many.” Again, Israeli settlements in the Occupied West Bank are not illegal because “many” people consider them to be so; they are illegal under international law.
The same issue appears in this article. It states that “the international community overwhelmingly considers the settlements illegal.” The qualifier “overwhelmingly” is unnecessary and misleading, subtly framing a settled legal question as a matter of international opinion.
I therefore urge your newsroom to remove this unnecessary qualifier. Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. This is a legal fact, not a matter of opinion.
Third, the language used throughout the article is noteworthy. I have observed a pattern in which terms such as “accuse,” “accusation,” and “alleged” are frequently used when reporting on findings by human rights organizations against the apartheid state of Israel, whereas reporting on states commonly viewed as adversaries of the West, such as Iran, relies on less adversarial language such as “said,” “stated,” or “called on.”
To be clear, terms such as “alleged” and “accusation” are standard journalistic practice. My concern is not with their use per se, but with their selective application. Applying this language to some states but not others amounts to a double standard in reporting.
To illustrate this double standard, consider the language used in a Toronto Star article on the death toll from protests in Iran earlier this year: “A U.S.-based activist agency said Sunday it has verified at least 3,919 deaths.”
The U.S. based organization's findings were presented as verified information, not as allegations or accusations.
Similarly, in a 2016 Toronto Star article reporting on Amnesty International's concerns regarding Iran, the article stated that Amnesty was “calling” on Iran to release a professor from prison. Again, Amnesty’s recommendations were presented as a call to action directed at Iran, not as an allegation.
I should note that my comments should not be interpreted as a defense of the Iranian government. Rather, my concern is with the unequal language choices used in Canadian media coverage of different states, and the way the Associated Press, and by extension the Toronto Star, framed the findings of a major human rights organization as “accusations” rather than conclusions, thereby applying a level of skepticism that is often absent from reporting on other states.
We urge Toronto Star editors to take heed of this advice and revise its language guidelines to end this practice that represents a clear double-standard. Selective application is incompatible with principles of balanced and fair reporting.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Media Analyst
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East