The Media Accountability Project  

In fact the company has long been the target of international boycott campaigns due to its direct role in profiting from and sustaining Israel’s apartheid regime and ongoing genocide against Palestinians.

It is unfair and misleading to refer to a matter of settled international law (that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land) as simply the “view” of certain bodies and countries. This is even more problematic given how Israel’s position is stated so strongly. Reuters includes the claim that “Jews have lived for thousands of years” in Israel, but omits any mention of Palestinian indignity.

All of this is important context that readers ought to be aware of to understand the dynamics at play. Otherwise, as it stands, readers are left without the necessary context to fully understand the implications of the agreement on Lebanon’s sovereignty and for the Lebanese people.

There can be no lasting peace in the region as long as the Israeli military violates international law with impunity.

Despite the clarity of the footage, the article repeatedly states that the men only “appeared” to surrender, manufacturing doubt for no reason other than to plant uncertainty in the reader’s mind about what is a self-evident illegal public execution.

"Irresponsibly, the article then platforms Israel’s denial of its own actions, without providing essential context, in stating "Israel disputes the hunger fatality figures given by Gaza's Health Ministry, arguing that deaths were due to other medical causes." It is both unfair and inaccurate not to also mention that famine has been officially declared in Gaza, and there is ample evidence that people with underlying medical causes are the most susceptible to malnutrition and therefore among the first to die in a famine."

"In light of the above, referring to it as “disputed” misleads readers and violates the journalistic imperative of accuracy. I urge you to revise the article in question and to adopt the terminology “occupied West Bank” in all future reporting on this issue. Using accurate language is essential to uphold the journalistic principles of accuracy, impartiality, and fairness expected from professional journalists."

"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."