The Media Accountability Project  

"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.'"

The use of the term “attackers” in the headline is misleading. According to the Israeli parliament’s press release, the new law applies to Palestinians who are convicted of an offense that “constitutes a breach of trust to the State of Israel.” As reported by the Times of Israel, the law applies to Palestinians who have been “incarcerated following a conviction for terror, aiding terror, harming Israeli sovereignty, inciting war, or aiding an enemy during wartime.” Many of these requirements are vague and could potentially encapsulate many Palestinian citizens of Israel convicted of a variety of offences, and not necessarily for violent attacks on Israel. Therefore, referring to them as “attackers” minimizes the potentially harmful implications of this new law.

It is encouraging to see that anti-Palestinian racism is finally being acknowledged by school boards, and was recently named by the Peel school board in their anti-racism policy.This is critically important at a time when Israel’s discriminatory treatment of the Palestinians is increasingly acknowledged by human rights groups as apartheid. Sadly, Kay’s rejection of the idea that Palestinians can face racism, and her slanderous remarks against Palestinian solidarity activists, demonstrate just how pervasive the problem of anti-Palestinian bigotry really is.