The Media Accountability Project  

"Failing to do so falsely portrays Palestinian suffering as occurring in a vacuum, rather than as the genocidal result of Israel’s ongoing bombing of its so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation scheme that was designed to further humiliate Palestinians of their inherent right as human beings to food, medicine, and other essential needs of life."

"This framing is misleading and dangerously euphemistic. Israeli officials are not facilitating the voluntary departure of Palestinians from the occupied Gaza Strip but are forcibly displacing Palestinians—a practice that constitutes ethnic cleansing and is explicitly condemned under international law."

"This framing uncritically repeats the Israeli military’s narrative of a counterterrorism operation without questioning its proportionality or compliance with international law. For instance, the article whitewashes the Israeli military’s actions by blindly repeating their justifications for “raids” through the claim that they are targeting "militants" despite there being supporting evidence indicating otherwise. Furthermore, the article barely includes any Palestinian perspectives which contributes to this one-sided reporting that heavily relies on the claims made by an occupying force."

"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."