Article 1
Headline: Back off, Israel tells 'bully' US
Section: News
Written by: Fred Attewill
Page: 25
Outline: This article is a bit of a mix of some accurate reporting of facts but the overriding theme is one of bias towards Israel.
It reports on the Israeli Government's decision to build an extra 900 housing units on Illegally Occupied Palestinian land.
Firstly the headline is interesting, the use of the word bully (even if taken from a Israeli Govt quote) convey Israel as the victim, which immediately sets a sympathetic tone for the article towards Israel.
However at the end of the 1st paragraph Attewill does mention that the contruction of the settlements will be on "...occupied Palestinian territory...",which is an accurate description for the West Bank.
However in the subsequent paragraph Attewill mentions that the Israeli are voicing their protest against the US over what he described as plans for building "...another 900 homes for Israelis built in the West Bank..."
This is a use of Unspeak e.g. the word 'home' is used when describing a dwelling for a family, it's a very personal description and as such it has personal dimension in the readers minds by making them immediately think about people linked to these 'homes'. It makes them question why anyone would oppose the construction of 900 homes for these people, this is another subtle tactic to generate sympathy for the Israeli position.
The following paragraph talks about the expansion of this particular settlement which is described as being "...built on Palestinian land conquered in the 1967 war..."
There's a good and bad with statement, the good part is the acknowledgmentof the fact that this is 'Palestinian land', the bad part is that it's described as being 'conquered', the factually correct terminology should have been "illegally occupied"
In the 2nd to last paragraph Attewill writes that "...More than 30 Palestinians were left homeless this week after Israeli authorities demolished two family homes in east Jerusalem. Officals said the homes were built without Israeli permission..."
This is another example of a good and bad paragraph. The good part is the mention of at least some Palestinian suffering, even if it is buried towards the end of the article, and the personalisation of the plight through the use of the words "family homes". The bad part however is the omission of any statement which clarifies for the reader the fact that East Jerusalem is also considered illegally occupied under International Law. This would have made it clear that the Israelis have no jurisdiction and therefore have no moral or legal authority to grant or deny permission to Palestinians to build homes.
The final paragraph mentions the Geneva convention by stating "...While the fourth Geneva convention outlaws population transfer into occupied territory, more than 500,000 Israelis live in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem - under military occupation for more than 40 years - among 2.7 million Palestinians..."
Once again this is a mixed bag of an article. It correctly highlights that Israel's actions are in violation of the fourth Geneva convention even if Attewill shies away from using the words "contravene" or "violation". The blatantly inaccurate statement is to claim that the 500,000 Israelis in the West Bank live under Military Occupation. This statement could not be further from the truth.
The fact on the ground is that it is the Palestinians not Israelis that live under Israeli Military Occupation. The 500,000 Israeli Settlers live in gated communities in mansions with manicured lawns and swimming pools where no non-jewish person is allowed to live whilst the Palestinians live under a system that restricts their every movement and have little access to clean drinking water.
Whilst there are a very few number of accurate words used here and there this is an overwhelmingly biased piece in favour of Israel right from the Headline through to the final few words of the last paragraph. For this reason Attewill's article is given a negative rating.
It reports on the Israeli Government's decision to build an extra 900 housing units on Illegally Occupied Palestinian land.
Firstly the headline is interesting, the use of the word bully (even if taken from a Israeli Govt quote) convey Israel as the victim, which immediately sets a sympathetic tone for the article towards Israel.
However at the end of the 1st paragraph Attewill does mention that the contruction of the settlements will be on "...occupied Palestinian territory...",which is an accurate description for the West Bank.
However in the subsequent paragraph Attewill mentions that the Israeli are voicing their protest against the US over what he described as plans for building "...another 900 homes for Israelis built in the West Bank..."
This is a use of Unspeak e.g. the word 'home' is used when describing a dwelling for a family, it's a very personal description and as such it has personal dimension in the readers minds by making them immediately think about people linked to these 'homes'. It makes them question why anyone would oppose the construction of 900 homes for these people, this is another subtle tactic to generate sympathy for the Israeli position.
The following paragraph talks about the expansion of this particular settlement which is described as being "...built on Palestinian land conquered in the 1967 war..."
There's a good and bad with statement, the good part is the acknowledgmentof the fact that this is 'Palestinian land', the bad part is that it's described as being 'conquered', the factually correct terminology should have been "illegally occupied"
In the 2nd to last paragraph Attewill writes that "...More than 30 Palestinians were left homeless this week after Israeli authorities demolished two family homes in east Jerusalem. Officals said the homes were built without Israeli permission..."
This is another example of a good and bad paragraph. The good part is the mention of at least some Palestinian suffering, even if it is buried towards the end of the article, and the personalisation of the plight through the use of the words "family homes". The bad part however is the omission of any statement which clarifies for the reader the fact that East Jerusalem is also considered illegally occupied under International Law. This would have made it clear that the Israelis have no jurisdiction and therefore have no moral or legal authority to grant or deny permission to Palestinians to build homes.
The final paragraph mentions the Geneva convention by stating "...While the fourth Geneva convention outlaws population transfer into occupied territory, more than 500,000 Israelis live in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem - under military occupation for more than 40 years - among 2.7 million Palestinians..."
Once again this is a mixed bag of an article. It correctly highlights that Israel's actions are in violation of the fourth Geneva convention even if Attewill shies away from using the words "contravene" or "violation". The blatantly inaccurate statement is to claim that the 500,000 Israelis in the West Bank live under Military Occupation. This statement could not be further from the truth.
The fact on the ground is that it is the Palestinians not Israelis that live under Israeli Military Occupation. The 500,000 Israeli Settlers live in gated communities in mansions with manicured lawns and swimming pools where no non-jewish person is allowed to live whilst the Palestinians live under a system that restricts their every movement and have little access to clean drinking water.
Whilst there are a very few number of accurate words used here and there this is an overwhelmingly biased piece in favour of Israel right from the Headline through to the final few words of the last paragraph. For this reason Attewill's article is given a negative rating.
Share on Facebook
Article Verdict: Negative
No comments:
Post a Comment