The Media Accountability Project  

"The examples demonstrate two things: 1. his anti-Israel stance, which is conflated with antisemitism, and 2. that the media wants to make him guilty by association when he should not bear the responsibility for the people invited to panels where he gave talks."

"I was also disappointed in how little nuance Boudjikanian brought in his description of Jewish and/or pro-Israel pressure on the Liberals.  While the government has indeed been “accused by Jewish groups of not being supportive enough of Israel,” many might describe these groups as overtly pro-Israel."

Your article suggests that these two organizations and Ms. Lantsman are representative of the Jewish community and their concerns. However, this is not fair or accurate to Jewish human rights activists who are against antisemitism but yet critical of the government of Israel and its oppression and occupation of the Palestinian people.

On June 26, 2024, a CJPME MAP volunteer sent a letter to CBC News to ask them to specify that the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) is a pro-Israel advocacy organization in an article about MPs reviewing the new appointment of the Human Rights Commissioner.  

While we have regularly taken issue with media outlets describing CIJA as a “Jewish organization” or “Jewish advocate,” it is the first time that a media outlet has made a change following one of our letters.

Following our ask, CBC decided to add additional context. They added the following words: “whose mission is ‘to preserve and protect Jewish life in Canada through advocacy’” and a link to CIJA’s website.

While this is not the exact change we requested, it is a significant step in the right direction. It sets a precedent for challenging the inaccurate description of organizations such as CIJA.

"The dinner you reported about featured a conversation with actress Mayim Bialik who identifies as a Zionist – a supporter of the Israeli colonial project to establish a Jewish national home by ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their homeland. The demonstrators were protesting against funding Israel’s colonial project, making this incident a case of anti-zionism, not antisemitism. Conflating anti-zionism with antisemitism is misleading and does not accurately represent the motivations behind such protests."

"The report does not discuss the rise in any specific form of hate. Rather, it states, “Incidents related to hate and racism have seen a significant rise globally and nationally.” This statement does not exclude antisemitism, it merely groups it with other forms of hate. No specific statistics are cited in reference to any form of hate, nor is any other form given special attention in the report."

"The numbers you cite are based on B’nai Brith’s annual antisemitism report, which conflates antisemitic incidents with pro-Palestine advocacy. This is a yearly issue, and yet the report is treated as a reliable source. While B’nai Brith keeps the vast majority of the data private, so it cannot be independently verified, some examples they give in their brief public report indicate the numbers do not represent what most Canadians consider antisemitic acts."

Jerusalem, Occupied East Jerusalem in particular, is generally accepted as Palestine’s capital city. Bethlehem is a Palestinian town in the occupied West Bank. Including a quote falsely claiming that Bethlehem and Jerusalem are not part of Palestine signifies the deliberate spread of misinformation or poor research. It also requires a clarification.

"The article quotes a law student who says the Netanyahu’s effigy was 'wearing concentration camp attire.' However, journalist Rachel Lau clarifies that he was actually in 'horizontal black and white prison-like garb,' which is true. Unfortunately, on CJAD 800, it was reported as a fact that Netanyahu was 'wearing black and white concentration camp attire.'"

"CJPME believes the article's one-sided reporting fails to meet the standards of journalistic integrity. It does not address the arrest warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes, including genocide. While the effigy may be a crude form of freedom of expression, it reflects the anger and frustration of those suffering under Israel's siege on Gaza. The absence of this context shows a clear double standard."