It is both unfair and misleading to readers that you use the term “disputed territory” in the same sentence as ‘occupied’ and then fail to provide any relevant background to help them understand these terms in the context of both International Law and the UN resolutions. Not qualifying the use of the phrase “disputed territory” makes it unclear to the reader that it is both a loaded and heavily contested term.
Dear Ms. Baillie, Mr. Cook, Mr. Federman and Mr. Ledesma,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) regarding The Associated Press article, A US envoy clarifies his comments on Golan Heights that contradicted Trump’s position that Canadian Press published online on August 24, 2026.
My concern with the article is the use of the term ‘disputed territory’ in the opening sentence: “The U.S. special envoy to Syria and ambassador to Turkey on Sunday walked back his comments from two days ago that Israel "still” occupies the Golan Heights in violation of U.N. resolutions, remarks that went against U.S. President Donald Trump's position on the disputed territory.”
It is both unfair and misleading to readers that you use the term “disputed territory” in the same sentence as ‘occupied’ and then fail to provide any relevant background to help them understand these terms in the context of both International Law and the UN resolutions. Not qualifying the use of the phrase “disputed territory” makes it unclear to the reader that it is both a loaded and heavily contested term.
In the next paragraph, you describe Israel’s occupation and subsequent annexation of the Golan Heights. You state that the United Nations and most of the international community “consider” the territory occupied Syrian land and do not recognize Israel’s annexation of it. Yet you fail to mention on what foundation the UN and the majority of the international community are basing their position.
There is no debate as to the legal status of the Golan Heights as detailed in repeated UN Resolutions and international humanitarian law. The responsibilities of Member States and signatories to the Fourth Geneva Convention are clear. The United States and Columbia are the only two UN Member States of the UN that recognize Israel’s annexation. However, their recognitions do not alter the legal status of the Golan Heights as Syrian territory.
I hope that future articles will, at a minimum, include background or context that challenges positions and terminology that are not based on fact or international law.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Debbie Hubbard
Kelowna, British Columbia