The Media Accountability Project  

"I appreciate how you describe CUPW’s support of a boycott of Israeli products, but the description is limited in a couple of ways. The campaign that CUPW endorsed is more than a boycott, and it is a response to the mistreatment that Palestinians face as a whole, including refugees and Palestinian citizens of Israel (not just those in the occupied Palestinian territories)."

It is incredibly encouraging to see CUPW’s steadfastness in the face of B’nai Brith’s smear campaign. Their case is just one example of how organizations and activists who stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people are often unfairly targeted and defamed by being falsely accused of antisemitism or supporting terrorism.

The settlement of CUPW’s defamation lawsuit against B’nai Brith is a victory for all those who stand up in solidarity with Palestinians and should serve as a reminder for the need to continually oppose attempts to silence support for justice.

"Their case is just one example of how organizations and activists who stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people are often unfairly targeted and defamed by being falsely accused of antisemitism or supporting terrorism."

Unfortunately, your article fails to provide a response to these claims from Palestinians and their allies. Given that you have reported on B’nai Brith’s claims, which depict the Palestinian movement in a negative light, it seems appropriate and necessary to include a response from those who are being targeted. It is not only Jama who is affected by these false and unfair claims which conflate human rights activism with antisemitism.

"In an article already plagued by unbalanced reporting (read: citing B’nai Brith but no Palestinian groups), I was shocked to read a clear-cut case of plagiarism in the twelfth paragraph of Ferguson’s article. Besides one word, all of this language is plagiarized directly from the Associated Press."

If Michael Mostyn has a definition of antisemitism which implies that Palestinians are undeserving of self-determination and basic rights codified by international humanitarian law, then perhaps he needs to rethink his definition of antisemitism.

"Jama’s critics (and subsequently, your article) are wildly misrepresenting the meaning of the Palestinian chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which is a simple and legitimate call for freedom for all Palestinians under Israeli rule. Yousef Munayyer writes in Jewish Currents that the chant refers to “a state in which Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating them.” As he writes, “the claim that [it] carries a genocidal intent relies not on the historical record, but rather on racism and Islamophobia.”

"I insist that you update your article to include a Palestinian perspective regarding the meaning of this legitimate chant, instead of relying on interpretations sourced entirely by perspectives which are hostile to Palestinian narratives and activism."

Overall, the article brought forth most of the key ethical issues involved with the presidents’ trip, and gave a spotlight to traditionally marginalized voices on the issue.  Congratulations, and thank you.  I am sure you will be attacked by “(Dis)honest Reporting Canada” for shedding light on this trip and the related issues, but you can stand firm knowing that you are simply doing your job as professional journalists.