The Media Accountability Project  

"Stating that the pro-Palestine protesters are supporting Hamas is inaccurate to say the least. You can be pro-Palestine and not support Hamas. You can be pro-Palestine and push for a one-state solution with Israel. Most people showing up at these protests want the Israeli occupation to end, which is the sole responsible for how Palestinians in Gaza are treated. Such language discredits the cause of the Palestinian resistance and liberation and adds to the fuel of anti-Palestinian hate."

"Alors que vous invoquez clairement le blocus de Gaza depuis 15 ans, un peu plus haut dans votre article, avec les mots suivants : « soumise à un blocus israélien terrestre, aérien et maritime depuis plus de 15 ans », il est désolant que vous citiez le secrétaire d’État américain qui jette le blâme sur les Palestiniens pour la situation et les pertes actuelles à Gaza."

"However, it should be mentioned that the article’s emphasis on how uncommon it is for Israeli soldiers to be prosecuted obscures the outrage that 10 days of imprisonment is at all an adequate punishment. Human rights groups are understandably concerned by such light sentencing."

"I urge you to redact your previous statement about “terrorist” attacks and refrain from using the word “terrorist” in future broadcasts unless it refers to specific instances that meet the widely accepted definition, as described by the IPI."

In particular, I take issue with your subjective characterization of Hamas as an “extremist” group. By using the term “extremist” you are stating an opinion as fact. While the United States and some Western countries consider Hamas a terrorist group, this is not universally agreed upon. 

"Netanyahu’s judicial coup is certainly alarming, but it is not a radical departure from Israel’s foundational principles which always privileged the rights of one group over another."

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."

"We believe that your news article does a good job of detailing the consequences of this racist law for Palestinians. However, the headline is misleading and inaccurate for several reasons, and we are requesting an immediate change.

First, your use of the term 'Arab' in the headline is problematic, as it refers specifically to Palestinians. Israel’s preferred use of the politicized terms 'Arab-Israeli' or simply 'Arab' is intended to downplay or erase the 'Palestinian' identity of the vast majority of the members of this group. We, therefore, urge you to follow the widely used and respected Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association (AMEJA) guidelines on covering issues related to Israel and Palestine, which encourage journalists to avoid the language of 'Arab-Israeli' or 'Arab' and instead use the more appropriate term 'Palestinian citizens of Israel,' or simply 'Palestinian.'"