The Media Accountability Project  

"Nowhere in the article were the words “occupation” or “occupied” used or an explanation of ‘collective punishment’ provided to help readers understand the context or the background of the current protests."

"First, the onus of blame in this article is unreasonably placed on the Palestinians. A phrase like this one – “This week’s events recall a bloody protest campaign organized by Hamas in 2018 and 2019” – suggests that the “bloodiness” came from Hamas. In fact, it was not the Palestinians who were violent, but rather Israel which responded to the demonstrations with live ammunition."

"Just as Netanyahu can as little be trusted as Musk to speak credibly against antisemitism or much anything else, your readers deserve to know that Netanyahu is a sitting prime minister whose finance minister is a self-described “fascist” and whose minister of national security has been compared by pro-Israel stalwarts to the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan. To report on racism without credible anti-racist sources is irresponsible."

"Taking a single source at its word, especially when this source is the now deemed illegal occupier of the Palestinian territories, is hardly responsible journalistic practice. In the absence of verification from at least one other source, preferably Palestinian, it needs to be made clear that Israel's claim is as yet unsubstantiated."

"This story fails to mention the principal feature of the Gaza crisis: Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip and its neglect of its Fourth Geneva Convention obligations. This is a settled matter of law. In 2023, we have had it restated on the highest authority. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) writes: 'The ICRC considers Gaza to remain occupied territory'."

You accurately report in the twelfth paragraph of this article that the Palestinian Authority is still subject to the Israeli occupation. “The PA,” you write, “set up following the 1990s Oslo interim peace accords, exercises limited governance over parts of the West Bank.” Language to this effect is credible – though further context would improve clarity.

"The article does not clarify that it is illegal according to international law for Israelis to settle anywhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including but not limited to Area C. The repetitive focus on Area C further obscures this fact."

"Your headline contradicts both United Nations and Canadian government opinion on the status of Jerusalem. “Canada does not recognize Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem,” the Government of Canada explains."

"A phrase like this one – 'Israeli soldiers have repeatedly raided the camp to kill and capture suspected militants' – places the violent enforcers of an illegal occupation on the side of 'order,' as you state explicitly in asking whether those you select to define as 'Palestinian forces,' and we quote, 'can impose order without Israeli interference.'"

"Your reporting left out the word “occupied” when describing the West Bank. In the interest of accuracy, it is essential that the word occupied always be used when mentioning the West Bank, bearing in mind that more than 3 million Palestinians live under Israeli military rule there."