The Media Accountability Project  

"Your headline clearly captures the reality for both Palestinians and Israeli citizens but especially for Palestinians who seek not only peace but also justice. We appreciated that you named both the nationalist government in Israel and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority as factors contributing to the bleak outlook."

"In light of United Nations and expert legal opinion, this article’s language on Israel’s status in the Gaza Strip – “both Israel and Egypt maintain restrictions along their frontiers with the territory,” you write – is legally ambiguous and therefore misleading to your readers. Israel legally occupies Gaza."

"This article contains a glaring omission. You accurately quote the Israeli military’s chief advocate as saying that Israel’s proposed judicial reforms “may crack the aura the judicial system provides to the military.” You then inaccurately report the controversy that has resulted, wrongly telling your readers this is a two-sided debate."

"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'."

"This article makes an irresponsible and inaccurate claim. It states: 'thousands of Palestinians have been arrested and hundreds have been killed since last year, mainly gunmen or fighters involved in clashes with Israeli troops but also including several uninvolved civilians'. This is untrue. You did not and cannot cite credible forces for such a plain falsehood."

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.

"Readers deserve to know that Smotrich is openly intent on discriminatory hostility against Palestinian citizens of Israel. You should know, if you do not, that he has publicly said to Palestinian Arab members of the Knesset that they do not live in their homes by right but 'by mistake – because Ben-Gurion didn’t finish the job and throw you out in 1948.'"

"The way that your article is written, particularly paragraph # 2, gives the impression that the Israeli military was acting in self-defense against a group of violent Palestinians. This unfortunate bias, which is all too common, paints the Palestinians as being the violent aggressors."

"Throughout your article, however, the onus is placed not on Israel as the occupying power but on its adversaries. Famously, Israel does not have declared borders. Its approach to illegal territorial expansion has always relied on a fluid and expandable frontier. To omit this well-established context, as your article does – while alluding to some two-way threat of conflict across Israel’s northern frontier – is quite simply to mislead your readers."

"You refer to Islamic Jihad simply as 'Iran-backed' without providing any further context. By using such a reductive qualifier, readers are left with a limited, if not one-sided, picture."