Category: Uncategorized

The following letter was sent on September 10, 2020 to the CBC Ombudsman requesting an official review of CBC’s flawed explanation of its language guide on Palestine. The Ombudsman has already confirmed that the review will happen, noting the results will be made public on his website.

Dear Mr. Jack Nagler,
CBC Ombudsman

We have received the more detailed reply regarding CBC’s language guide on Palestine from Paul Hambleton, Director of Journalism Standards. We understand many people received a very similar response with identical points defending CBC’s insistence on not using the word “Palestine” except in very rare circumstances (i.e. part of a name). Even in that, CBC management could not adhere to its own policy when Mr. Hambleton referred to the Palestinian Liberation Organization rather than the Palestine Liberation Organization in his reply.

We are not satisfied with this response and are requesting the Ombudsman Office to launch a review of this case.
Frankly, the more CBC explains this biased policy the more convoluted their verbal gymnastics seem to become. They have now shed more light on the relevant clause that started the whole fiasco and led to The Current apologizing on air for referring to Palestine, rather than the Palestinian territories. The full clause has fastidious detailing of when not to use the word Palestine; one cannot refer even to pro-Palestine supporters, they can only be pro-Palestinian. And when referring to historic Palestine, one must use the term “British Palestine” if talking about the period of British colonial rule after WW1.

Even if one puts aside CBC’s argument on Palestine not yet being a “sovereign country”, why this obsession with removing any usage of the word Palestine in nearly all other contexts, including generic or historic ones? The “British Palestine” reference seems particularly ridiculous and archaic in post-colonial times.

Here are some documented historic facts:
a. In 1896, the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl wrote in his book “The Jewish State”: “In Palestine (our emphasis) … we shall be for Europe a part of the wall against Asia, we shall serve as a vanguard of civilization against barbarism.”
b. In 1897, the First Zionist Congress listed as some of the aims of the movement: “Zionism strives to create for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine (our emphasis) secured by public law. The congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:
The promotion on suitable lines of the colonization of Palestine (our emphasis) by Jewish agricultural and industrial workers…”
c. The British Balfour Declaration that adopted and legitimized Zionism stated: “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine (our emphasis) of a national home for the Jewish people…”
As demonstrated, Palestine existed and was referenced as such before and during the colonial British Mandate on Palestine, the official name of which explicitly recognized Palestine. For CBC to claim that it should now be referred to only as “British Palestine” is not just dishonest, misleading and a fabrication of history, it also adopts the narrative of the Zionist movement that denies the existence of Palestine and its people.

As CBC seems to fully understand that language is an important component of defining issues, we assume that they also understand that their policy makes them complicit in trying to eradicate Palestine’s national identity. This has long been a pillar of the Zionist project, which goes to great lengths to ensure that the Palestinian struggle is not framed as a national struggle against settler-colonialism.

Mr. Hambleton stated: “We think it would be misleading to state or imply that “Palestine” is a sovereign country (which is substantially different from having “non-member observer status” at the United Nations). We also think it would be inappropriate for the CBC to unilaterally declare that Palestine suddenly exists (where are its negotiated borders?)…”

We should inform CBC that Israel has never officially demarcated its “borders” (negotiated or non-negotiated), so by this logic, it is inappropriate for CBC to use the term Israel.

Although CBC does state the term “occupied territories” is preferred to “disputed territories”, most of their language guide nonetheless refuses to frame the Palestinian and Arab struggles as national ones against a foreign occupying power. The language guides also notes, after acknowledging that the Golan Heights is “occupied territory”, that this is territory “which Israel and Syria are at odds over”. “At odds over” – really? This is not the kind of precise language that Mr. Hambleton repeatedly insists CBC wants to use when reporting on these issues. The Golan Heights is not only occupied territory, it is also illegally annexed territory, and should not be represented as a “territorial squabble”.

In response to our question on how this language guide was developed, Mr. Hambleton stated that amongst other criteria, it was based “on research and interviews conducted by CBC foreign correspondents (including interviews with Israeli and Palestinian experts inside and outside the Middle East)”. He does not specify which “Palestinian experts” were interviewed or if they were even Palestinian. We would like him to clarify who these experts are because we seriously doubt any Palestinian or knowledgeable objective expert on Palestine and its history would have agreed to such restrictions on referencing the Palestinian national struggle.

It is interesting to compare CBC’s approach to language around Kosovo. Although each situation is unique, surely there are universal principles that should guide CBC’s policies. Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations in any capacity, it is recognized by fewer countries in the world than the state of Palestine, yet CBC is happy to use the proper term Kosovo in its reporting. The only difference we can see is that the Canadian government has officially recognized Kosovo, but not Palestine. Although CBC’s mandate states it has administrative and programming independence from the Canadian government, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Their website states: “This principle of ‘arm’s length’ relationship between the CBC and government is critical to the Corporation’s independence.” This “arm’s length relationship” doesn’t seem to have held up well. Shouldn’t we just acknowledge that our national broadcaster implements the foreign policy of successive Canadian governments in its reporting? A foreign policy that resulted in Canada twice losing out on a seat at the UN Security Council, a foreign policy that desperately is in need of a review, a foreign policy that has isolated Canada internationally. CBC could better serve people in Canada by discussing these issues rather than just simply reflecting the defunct foreign policy of the day.

Finally, we strongly believe that CBC is promoting the Zionist narrative, and the official Canadian position in support of that narrative; in doing so, this makes CBC complicit in the dispossession and genocide of a whole nation and its people. It is a sad and supreme irony that the program in which CBC enforced these biased policies and denied the existence of Palestine was titled “the themes of colonialism and resource extraction”.

Regards,
Hanna Kawas, Chair
Canada Palestine Association

Updated article in Canadian Dimension: CBC Doubles Down on Erasing Palestine

By Hanna Kawas

This week marks the two-year anniversary of the Great Return March in Gaza. Two years since the people of Gaza came out in protest to highlight their right of return and right to live in dignity; thousands paid with their lives or limbs for this protest, be they journalists, medics or children. Coverage of the demonstrations in Canada, and in other Western countries, was skewed and predictably pro-Israel. CBC, Canada’s “national” broadcaster, was one of the more egregious examples of this bias, and a campaign was launched to try and hold them to account. However, their reporting on the Great Return March and other incidents since then, most notably the smears against protesters at York University in Ontario, begs the question of how much the Israeli military censor impacts mainstream news coverage in Canada. Here is a just-released open letter that demonstrates how CBC’s coverage, and their justification of such biased reporting, is both “unacceptable and disingenuous”.

————————————————————

Open Letter to CBC and its Ombudsman:

Two years ago, we made a complaint to CBC and a follow-up to the Ombudsman Office regarding your biased coverage of the Great Return March in Gaza and down-playing of the Israeli military’s murder and maiming of Palestinians during those protests. We also exposed how even the wording and terminology in your reporting was being dictated by Zionist lobby groups.

Since that original complaint and your belated response to it on Sep. 17, 2018, new facts have come to light that support our contention that “CBC is unabashedly supporting Israeli ethnic cleansing, war crimes and Apartheid.”

1. On March 6, 2020, a report by Israeli reporter Hilo Glazer in the Israeli paper Haaretz showed the true face of Israeli intentions, under the title  ’42 Knees in One Day’: Israeli Snipers Open Up About Shooting Gaza Protesters. It clearly demonstrated that Israeli snipers were shooting Palestinian demonstrators to teach them a lesson, making an example of them to stop people from continuing with their protests.
   “This isn’t a war, it’s a Friday afternoon D.O. [disruption of order]. The goal is not to take down as many as possible, but to make this thing stop as quickly as possible.”
   “We’re not even winning on points. After some time there, in a debriefing, I said: ‘Let me just once take down a kid of 16, even 14, but not with a bullet in the leg – let me blow his head open in front of his whole family and his whole village. Let him spurt blood. And then maybe for a month I won’t have to take off another 20 knees’.”
2. An opinion piece by Gideon Levy was carried a day later in Haaretz, entitled The Israeli Army Doesn’t Have Snipers on the Gaza Border. It Has Hunters. He stated: “None was court-martialed. Correction: One got seven days in military jail for shooting a sheep. Soldiers in the world’s most moral army don’t shoot sheep. With 200 dead and 8,000 wounded, they think ‘the restraints on us are shameful.’ That is their shame. They are our shame. They, and their commanders. They and the army that orders them to shoot at protesters as if they were ‘ducks who chose to cross the line.’”
3. On Feb 28, 2019, the Israeli paper Haaretz reported under the title UN Council: Israel Intentionally Shot Children and Journalists in Gaza about the finding of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2018 Gaza protests. “The commission found that 35 children had been killed, some from direct weapons fire. The commission also noted one case involving a disabled person in a wheelchair and direct fire at journalists who claimed that they were clearly identified as press … the commission also recommended that materials it collected be transferred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague and that UN members ‘consider imposing individual sanctions, such as a travel ban or an assets freeze, on those identified as responsible by the commission’.”
4. On March 15, 2019, the Israeli 972 Magazine reported on the Israeli censorship in 2018 (the year the March of Return started):
   “Israel’s military censor prohibited the publication of 363 news articles in 2018, more than six a week, while partially or fully redacting a total of 2,712 news items submitted to it for prior review. According to the data, provided in response to a freedom of information request filed by +972 Magazine, Local Call, and the Movement for Freedom of Information, the censor barred more news stories from publication in 2018 than in almost any other year this decade.”

Considering all the facts above, we would like to ask you again; was your reporting on the March of Return in Gaza on March 30, 2018 true to your stated values of “Accuracy, Fairness, Balance, Impartiality and Integrity”?

Two years ago, we asked you to look at the Israeli human right organization B’tselem reports “who not only warned in advance that the Israeli military were about to conduct a massacre, but have launched a new public campaign calling on Israeli soldiers to refuse such orders to shoot at unarmed protestors.” Clearly, these reports did not have an impact on your coverage nor your eventual ruling!

Your ruling emphasised the language angle of our complaint, ignoring our concerns about the inaccuracies and bias in your stories, as well as the CBC attempt to minimize Israeli war crimes by highlighting the official Israeli military version of this new alleged “security threat”. Your statement that “The stories reported the facts appropriately as events unfolded…The stories did not violate CBC policy” was and is misleading, unacceptable and disingenuous.

Finally, we would like you to address several issues:

1. Considering the facts that are mentioned above, do you trust Israeli military statements? And will you continue to report them without verification?
2. Can you tell us and the Canadian public (who has a right to know), if CBC stories are subjected to Israeli censorship? Are you under the same rules the Israeli press are subjected to? And if the Israeli military censor does demand changes to one of your stories, are you forbidden from telling your Canadian public that your story was censored?
3. The (not so honest) “Honest Reporting” is an Israeli lobby group who are effectively playing the role of the Israeli censor in Canada; its objective is to implement the Israeli Hasbara 3 D’s. Distract from the truth, Distort the message and Defame the messenger. Will you again jump to immediately “implement” their “suggestions” to your stories?
   And please don’t tell us CBC is not influenced nor “beholden“ to the Israeli lobby, we regret to tell you that much of the Canadian political establishment allows themselves to be bullied by their intimidations and blackmail. The recent false allegations against pro-Palestinian students at York university and the defamation of Dimitri Lascaris by major Canadian political figures, including the Prime Minister, are just two small examples.

We would all do well to take a lesson in morality, humanity and objectivity regarding the Palestinian genocide, from archbishop Desmond Tutu, the renowned fighter against South African apartheid and racism, who said:

 “Those who turn a blind eye to injustice actually perpetuate injustice. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Article carried in Palestine Chronicle