The Media Accountability Project  

Your article omits a widely reported, key fact in Netanyahu’s decision to pause its legislative agenda. The reason that the far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir agreed to this legislative pause was in return for a commitment from Netanyahu to establish a “national guard” under Ben-Gvir’s control. Without this context, your readers are missing key information that explains how this postponement came to be.

"Haaretz quotes the human rights group Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) in describing the national guard as "a private, armed militia that would be directly under Ben-Gvir's control,” and warns that “this is a police force that will first and foremost act in mixed cities, first and foremost against the Arab population [read: Palestinian citizens of Israel].”"

Haaretz, an Israeli publication, quotes the human rights group Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) in describing the national guard as “a private, armed militia that would be directly under Ben-Gvir's control,” and warns that “this is a police force that will first and foremost act in mixed cities, first and foremost against the Arab population [read: Palestinian citizens of Israel].”

It is critical that this element of the story is included in your reporting so that the coverage highlights the immediate consequences for Palestinians as a result of the legislative pause.

This article omits critical information regarding Netanyahu’s decision to pause the Israeli parliament’s proposed judicial reforms. The reason that the far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir agreed to this legislative pause, rather than resign from the coalition, was in return for a commitment from Netanyahu to establish a “national guard” under Ben-Gvir’s control.

Haaretz quotes the human rights group Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) in describing the national guard as "a private, armed militia that would be directly under Ben-Gvir's control,” and warns that “this is a police force that will first and foremost act in mixed cities, first and foremost against the Arab population [read: Palestinian citizens of Israel].”

It is critical that this element of the story is included in your reporting, so that the coverage highlights the immediate consequences for Palestinians as a result of the legislative pause.

"Historically, the Israeli judiciary and supreme court have given their stamp of approval to racist laws like the Jewish Nation State Law, Jewish settlement activities, and forced expulsions. Thus, Palestinian citizens of Israel fail to see how these protests will address the discriminatory and racist laws that they face."

"Benlolo points to opinion polls which show that Palestinians have lost hope in a political outcome and are turning to armed struggle as a last resort. However, he ignores the many troubling polls which show that Jewish Israelis do not support democracy or equality."

The article fails to acknowledge Palestinian citizens of Israel who despite not actively participating in the protests still constitute a third perspective. 

"What is completely absent from the article is any reference to the significant numbers of anti-apartheid and anti-occupation protesters, largely organized by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC) in the UK. One Twitter post calling for a protest by PSC was seen by over 39,000 people and was shared over 300 times. Photos show protesters with signs reading 'The occupation is a moral crisis' and 'no democracy with occupation,' largely from the 'Na’amod: British Jews Against Occupation' contingent."

This important context is lost in the paragraph in the current article, making it sound like there are only two notable sides of this issue. Whereas, there is a significant third perspective on judicial reforms.