The Media Accountability Project  

Rather than stating the legal fact — that under international law, East Jerusalem is unequivocally recognized as occupied Palestinian territory — the article resorts to the misleading euphemism that Israel “captured” East Jerusalem, deliberately evading the legally accurate term “occupied.”

"As a member of the National NewsMedia Council, the Toronto Sun has a responsibility to adhere to journalistic standards of accuracy and fairness. By framing the occupation as a matter of dispute without providing proper context, the article fails to meet these standards."

The use of “captured” vs “occupied” misleads readers into thinking that Israel has a legitimate claim to Palestinian territories, rather than acknowledging its illegal occupation. Palestinians are the indigenous peoples of Palestine – and media outlets should not be complicit in enabling the kind of language that softens Israel’s illegal colonization of Palestinian land.

"The usage of “captured” vs occupied misleads readers into thinking that Israel has a strong claim to, or ownership of, Palestinian territories – which is blatantly not the case. Palestinians are the indigenous peoples of this land – and media outlets should not be complicit in enabling the kind of language that normalizes Israel’s illegal ongoing colonization process."

"I take strong issue with your sentence, “The Palestinians seek the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza – areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war – for an independent state.”  Your use of the term “captured” rather than “occupied” to describe Israel’s authority over the West Bank is inaccurate and misleading.  You should take note that the International Court of Justice ruling 2004 specifically re-iterated Israel’s status as the occupying power."

"I take strong issue with your sentence, “Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war, territories the Palestinians want for a future state.”  Using the term “captured” rather than “occupied” may mislead the reader into thinking that Israel has a strong claim to, or ownership of, these Palestinian territories. Nevertheless, such usage runs directly counter 1) to how international law views the military seizure of territory, 2) to how the international diplomatic community currently views Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories, and 3) to how both words are understood in plain English."