The Media Accountability Project  

"The article casts some doubt on the accuracy of reported Gazan casualties and in doing so, contributes to anti-Palestinian racism by dismissing well-established evidence of mass civilian harm as unreliable because the health-ministry was backed terror-group. We feel these points should be clarified in print and would welcome your comments."

When a claim from a party to the conflict has not been checked, it should be reported as that party's claim, and readers should be told if it could not be verified. That is AP's own journalistic standard.

For a non-Palestinian Canadian to suggest that what is happening in Palestine is ‘marvelous’ does not speak to the history or current reality of Palestinians living there.  This reality is reflected in November 2025, when Palestinian Christians, launched their document: “Kairos Palestine II: A Moment of Truth: Faith in a Time of Genocide”.  

To characterize the expansion of Israel’s occupation of Gaza as something done “quietly” is incorrect and unfair. Israel is illegally expanding its occupation in Gaza.

In the interest of accurate and fair reporting, we therefore ask the headline be changed to specifically mention that Israel is violating the ceasefire agreement, not “testing” it.

An insurgency is a condition of revolt against a government. I don’t think it is an apt descriptor of Israel's actions in this case, in the name of accuracy and in accordance with CBC’s JSP I would suggest changing it to "invasion" or "assault" or as every international body has described as an ethnic campaign of genocide from the ICJ to Amnesty to the United Nations.

While I appreciate some of the balance of this article it irresponsibly omits a Palestinian voice or perspective as the story of the Nakba demands. It also lacks a progressive and empathetic Jewish representation of which there are many - Independent Jewish Voices and Jews Say No to Genocide to name only two.

This language misleads readers into thinking that Israel has a strong claim to or ownership of Palestine. Nevertheless, such usage runs directly counter to 1) the way international law views the military seizure of territory, 2) the position of the international community regarding Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territories, and 3) the ordinary meaning of the term in plain English.

The characterization of Israel’s blockade of Gaza is supported by authoritative international bodies, not critics. Framing it this way reduces established international legal conclusions to the level of subjective criticism.

Israel’s blockade of Gaza is illegal under international law but AP did not say this once in the article. Why?