The Media Accountability Project  

"Thanks to Rick Salutin for his insightful piece, “Is a potential civil war brewing among Israeli Jews?”  Salutin collapses a lot of history and religious lore into his piece, and provides an insightful read for people wanting to understand how Israel arrived at its current political and societal crisis."

"You rightfully call attention to criticism of IHRA in its use to repress and silence Palestine activism. It is very critical for Canadian audiences to be aware of this criticism seeing as IHRA has been adopted in many forums with little or no debate. Unfortunately, it has subsequently been used to undermine the free expression of many activists and human rights organizations fighting for Palestinian rights."

The omission of the fact that the reported events are taking place in occupied Palestinian territory may inadvertently mislead readers into thinking that the site is located within Israel, especially due to the references to “Israeli police.” Most readers are likely not aware that Israeli “police” would be operating in occupied territory.

Your article fails to specify that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is in fact in occupied East Jerusalem which is considered occupied Palestinian territory. This is not an opinion but a matter of settled consensus at the international level as confirmed by the United Nations Security Council, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

This essential context is necessary for readers to be able to understand the nature of the ‘tensions’ and violence by Israeli forces in occupied East Jerusalem. Omitting the fact that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is in occupied Palestinian territory may advertently mislead readers into thinking that the mosque is located within Israel’s recognized borders, especially due to the references to "Israeli police."

In your description of the events, you fail to mention that Jerusalem’s Old City is in East Jerusalem, considered occupied Palestinian territory under international law. This is not an opinion but a settled consensus at the international level, as confirmed by the United Nations Security Council and other legal bodies. It is also the long-standing position of the Canadian government. By omitting this critical context, your article obfuscates the reality of the military occupation under which Palestinian residents of Jerusalem live.

"By deleting “occupied,” you misrepresent T’ruah’s own self-description, and you exclude context regarding Israel’s 55-year military occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem."

I am disappointed that your article failed to consult or quote a single Palestinian.  A Palestinian perspective could have provided insight into the typical inequity in justice in the West Bank.  This is disappointing failure to provide diverse viewpoints – a serious journalistic issue. 

"Netanyahu’s judicial coup is certainly alarming, but it is not a radical departure from Israel’s foundational principles which always privileged the rights of one group over another."

"It is deeply problematic and inaccurate to refer to Palestinian citizens of Israel as 'Palestinian Israelis,' a label they simply reject. In your headline, you employ the term 'Israel’s Palestinians,' and in the second paragraph, 'Palestinian citizens of Israel,' both deemed acceptable by the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association (AMEJA) and the International Press Institute (IPI) as they emphasize the population’s Palestinian Identity. Yet, you adopt the term 'Palestinian Israelis' throughout the article, a label which wrongfully imposes the 'Israeli' identity on the country’s Palestinian citizens."

"Even though Canada is a member of the Rome Statute, it has consistently opposed investigations into Israeli war crimes. Just last November, Canada opposed a United Nations motion which would require an opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the illegality of Israel’s occupation. Canada’s excuse is that “since it doesn’t recognize a Palestinian state, it wouldn’t recognize Palestine’s accession to international treaties.” However, 138 member states do in fact recognize a Palestinian state and ironically, Canada has voted in favour of Palestinian self-determination."