The Media Accountability Project  

"There have been different interpretations of Jama’s comments with many groups, including Jewish ones, contesting her comments as being antisemitic. However, you assert this in your headline as fact whereas it is way more accurate to describe it as an 'antisemitic controversy' for sparking debate. As such, I insist that you change the headline from 'antisemitic comments' to 'antisemitic controversy' to better reflect the fact that this is a news article."

"Cohn claims that the phrase, 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' is controversial 'because it speaks for liberation from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – with no Israel to speak of.' The reality, however, is that Israel is the occupying power, ‘from the river to the sea.’"

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.

"You have also failed to provide any balancing perspective on whether Sarah Jama’s comments are antisemitic and have therefore failed in your journalistic mandate to provide diversity in your news reporting.  By comparison, the Globe and Mail, in an article about Jama and her comments published March 14, cited Independent Jewish Voices which supports Jama, as well as Michael Bueckert of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, who describes the ruckus as a “smear campaign.”" 

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.

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."

Lilley makes only three actual assertions against Jama: she has attended protests and events in support of Palestinian human rights; she supports the Palestinian call to boycott Israel until it respects international law; and she has named Israel’s racist practices as ‘apartheid’ – as have Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UN experts, and many of Israel’s human rights organizations. These are not just legitimate but necessary responses to Israel’s ongoing violations of Palestinian human rights, and should be commended.