The Media Accountability Project  

"While I am glad the Globe and Mail are covering the ICJ decision, your article and its headline not only downplay the ICJ findings but outright misrepresent them. While this is a wire article, the Globe and Mail should, as is common, modify the headline to make clear that ICJ did not merely find that 'Israeli settlements' in Palestinian territories violate international law, but rather that 'the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [which includes the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, not merely settlements] is unlawful.' To frame the ICJ opinion as being specifically about settlement policy, rather than about occupation in a much larger sense, is to fundamentally mischaracterize the nature of this ruling for your readers."

"First, while you merely give voice to Republican critics of the initiative, it would have been more appropriate to give other critics more space to make your article more balanced."

"According to Haaretz, this directive essentially permits actions that could lead to the death of captured soldiers or Israeli civilians taken hostage, ultimately to prevent their capture. The use of this directive has important implications for the events of October 7 and drastically changes the original narrative reported by Israel about Hamas’ capturing of civilians. Including this context in your article and future reports about October 7 is crucial to providing a balanced and comprehensive understanding of the actions taken by the Israeli military and their impact on Palestinians in Gaza, as well as their own civilians and soldiers."

"While I appreciated Ms. Farouk’s attempts at humanizing Palestinian women victims of the Israeli siege on Gaza, some of her reporting decontextualized important elements of the story by quoting the one-sided views of the Israeli state and its military without skepticism."

There are glaring holes in your reporting of the famine and ongoing Genocide in Gaza due to your weak and obscure language, which subtly undermines the scale of starvation and dehydration in the Gaza Strip and, most importantly, absolves Israel of its central responsibility for these devastating outcomes.

"Israel’s allegation – that 12 of UNRWA’s 30,000 employees may have participated in the October 7 Hamas attack in some way and that 190 UNRWA employees are double agents – has not been proven and must be approached with significant caution and qualification."

"I find it inappropriate to report the numbers of Israeli  dead in the first section of the article, while not giving the much larger Palestinian losses until the fourth section. One would expect to see these closer together unless the intention is to downplay the number of Palestinians killed."

"Informed Canadian readers should by now all know that Israel has decisive control over the Rafah crossing. The Saturday Globe and Mail, for instance, gave us reports that Rafah was closed because “Israel has not agreed to allow humanitarian supplies to enter Gaza from Egypt, where large numbers of trucks are awaiting entry.” Israel, the Globe clarified, has this week exercised its control over the Rafah crossing to impose a siege on Gaza: “the Israeli authorities halted all supplies of food, fuel, water, and medicine into Gaza.” 

“The instructions issued by the Israeli authorities for the population of Gaza City to immediately leave their homes, coupled with the complete siege explicitly denying them food, water, and electricity, are not compatible with international humanitarian law.”

"Your article does not fairly depict Hamas, although it is the main focus of your article. Your reference to “Gaza's ruling Islamist movement Hamas” is not an adequate description."