Journalists use the term “boilerplate” for brief standard explanations. Here, for instance, is how the BBC describes the West Bank settlements:
“All the settlements on occupied territory are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.”
Simple. Truthful. Unbiased. Sixteen words.
Here’s how Isabel Kershner handled the same reality in today’s New York Times:
“Located within the city limits set by Israel after the 1967 war, Israelis consider it [the Har Homa settlement] an integral Jewish neighborhood of their capital. But the Palestinians and much of the world consider it and similar Jewish developments across the 1967 lines as illegal settlements on occupied land.”
Kershner’s formulation is a modest improvement on some of the Times‘s previous versions. But she still leaves the impression that settlement legality is a matter of opinion, instead of a violation of international law.
Here’s the hidden subtext:
“An integral Jewish neighborhood” (just like the old King’s Highway in Brooklyn, or Rogers Park in Chicago), is being challenged by “Palestinians and much of the world” (people with an irrational hatred for Israel), who “consider” (it’s just their opinion) that such “Jewish developments” (like Co-op City in the Bronx) are “illegal settlements.”
It is no wonder the American reader is confused.
