Israeli West Bank mines 'illegal'
The story:
Yesh Din said Israel's mining broke international laws
An Israeli human rights group has filed a petition at the High Court demanding an immediate halt to Israeli mining operations in the West Bank.
The group, Yesh Din, accuses Israel of breaking international law by exploiting the occupied territory's resources for its own gain.
It says Israel has never conducted a thorough review of the practice.
But Israel says the procedures are in line with both international law and agreements with the Palestinians.
So,
a) it's a "claim".
b} it hasn't yet gone before a court.
c) the group is a well-known anti-government policy activist/advocacy outfit.
d) there's a counter-claim that all is legal.
So why write the headline that way?
Why not: "Anti-settlement advocacy group: mining in WB illegal" ?
or "Left-wing anti-settlement group claims WB mining illegal"?
I forgot, it's the BBC.
Posts
4 comments:
Yes your are right, the headline "Israeli West Bank mines "illegal"" is misleading although technically proper because of the "goose legs" around the word illegal.
The claim that these mines are illegal is a claim made by a party on one side of the argument, a claim unproven by any court or procedure and taken at face value by the BBC despite it knowing that the source is defensive of Palestinians and critical of the Israeli government.
Without the "goose legs" the headline would be pure propaganda. With the "" the headline marginally slips into the gray area of being able to allege something without responsibility.
The true neutral headline would have been; "Yesh Din claims West Bank mines illegal."
That would have been all around clearer to the readers and not misleading towards a preferred stance (by BBC) in the argument to be take by the reader.
i read it completely differently. I thought the headline implied Israel was planting mines in the west bank, as in the explosive daisy chain type.
Yes, I missed that interpretation
Yes, that was my first idea too. Not such a strange idea, given the fact that the occupied Syrian Golan heights are still covered with Israeli minefields. Some of them immediatly next to inhabited Druze houses in the 5 remaining villages.
Post a Comment