MPs and MSP detained by Israel and barred from entering West Bank

The BBC reports the MPs' and MSP's account of their detention fairly. It names the gunmen who killed two Israeli soldiers but takes Israeli occupation forces out of the sentences about the 2,000 Palestinians displaced in Hebron and the street flattened there. It also removes the settlers from the olive harvest attacks, and in its own voice never says the West Bank is occupied, though its own earlier reporting says all of this.

1. Hides who did it

   Severe

   “About 2,000 Palestinian residents have been displaced in Hebron”

   Why this matters

   The words "have been displaced" leave out who drove 2,000 people from their homes.

   The impression it gives

   A reader learns that 2,000 Palestinians lost their homes but not who did it. It could read like flight or upheaval with no named cause.

   The context

   The BBC reported two days earlier that the Israeli military was demolishing homes and businesses in Hebron. Israel's defence minister put the displaced at about 2,000 'by the operation'. The article never names Israeli forces as the ones who displaced them.

   How we know

   • BBC News wrote earlier“The Israeli military have been demolishing homes and businesses in the city of Hebron”Israel to close West Bank crossings on election day as crackdown escalates (opens in a new tab)
   • BBC News wrote earlier“Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said about 2,000 residents had been displaced by the operation”Israel to close West Bank crossings on election day as crackdown escalates (opens in a new tab)

   Show it in the article

   “one street being completely flattened by bulldozers”

   Why this matters

   The sentence makes the bulldozers the actor and puts the destruction behind "appeared to show" in footage, so no one is shown flattening the street.

   The impression it gives

   A reader is left unsure whether a street was destroyed and does not learn who destroyed it.

   The context

   The next sentence calls it "a reprisal", so the article knows this was Israeli action. The BBC's own earlier report tied the flattened street to the Israeli operation that the defence minister himself described.

   How we know

   • Elsewhere in the article“That came as a reprisal for the killing”
   • BBC News wrote earlier“which has led to at least one whole street appearing to have been flattened”Israel to close West Bank crossings on election day as crackdown escalates (opens in a new tab)

   Show it in the article

2. Hides who did it

   Severe

   “Several other attacks on Palestinians during the annual olive harvest have also been reported”

   Why this matters

   The words "attacks on Palestinians" and "have also been reported" name no attacker and hold the attacks at a distance as mere reports.

   The impression it gives

   A reader learns that Palestinians were attacked at harvest time but not by whom, and may even doubt the attacks happened.

   The context

   The BBC itself filmed dozens of masked settlers attacking Palestinians and burning olive trees during this harvest. Other coverage of this same delegation says the farmers face escalating Israeli settler violence. Settlers appear nowhere in the article.

   How we know

   • BBC News wrote earlier“Dozens of masked settlers have attacked Palestinians and set fire to cars and olive trees during the annual olive harvest”Palestinians and US journalist injured by Israeli settlers in West Bank harvest attack (opens in a new tab)
   • LBC reported“accompany Palestinian farmers facing escalating Israeli settler violence during the olive harvest”Two MPs denied entry to West Bank by Israeli authorities (opens in a new tab)

   Show it in the article

   Written straight

   Israeli settlers have carried out more attacks on Palestinians during the olive harvest; the UN says this season has already seen more settler attacks than the whole of last year's.

3. Hedges the documented record

   Minor

   “barred from entering West Bank”

   Why this matters

   The headline and the outlet's own sentences call it simply "West Bank" and "the territory". Only a quoted MP calls it occupied.

   The impression it gives

   A reader may think Israel was guarding its own border. The occupation then reads as one MP's view, not the reason Israel controls who enters.

   The context

   The BBC's own earlier report calls it the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The ICJ has found the occupation unlawful and the settlements illegal.

   How we know

   • BBC News wrote earlier“in the Israeli-occupied West Bank”Israel to close West Bank crossings on election day as crackdown escalates (opens in a new tab)
   • On the recordThe International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion found Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem unlawful.icj-cij.org (opens in a new tab)
   • On the recordThe International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion found Israel's settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegal under international law.icj-cij.org (opens in a new tab)

   Show it in the article

   “prevented from entering the territory”

   Why this matters

   "The territory" again describes the West Bank in the outlet's voice with no word of its status.

   The impression it gives

   A reader is left to think Israel's power to turn visitors away from the West Bank is ordinary border control.

   The context

   Israel controls entry to the West Bank as the occupying power, under an occupation the ICJ has found unlawful. The article leaves the word 'occupied' to Clive Lewis alone.

   How we know

   • Elsewhere in the article“crossing into the occupied Palestinian territories”
   • On the recordThe International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion found Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem unlawful.icj-cij.org (opens in a new tab)

   Show it in the article

4. Misplaced sentence confuses the facts

   Minor

   “They are the first since the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel in 2023.”

   Why this matters

   The sentence follows straight on from the harvest attacks, so "They" reads as the attacks, although it refers to the elections.

   The impression it gives

   A reader can come away thinking these attacks on Palestinians are the first since October 2023.

   The context

   The BBC reported that the UN counts more settler attacks in two weeks of this harvest than in the whole of last year's.

   How we know

   • BBC News wrote earlier“The UN says the past two weeks have already seen more attacks by violent Israeli settlers than during the entire harvest season last year.”Palestinians and US journalist injured by Israeli settlers in West Bank harvest attack (opens in a new tab)

   Show it in the article

5. Drops what it reported before

   Minor

   What is missing

   The article calls the Hebron demolitions a reprisal for the soldiers' deaths. It leaves out what the BBC reported two days earlier: the gunmen were themselves killed, and Israeli rights groups call such demolitions collective punishment. Without this, a reader may believe the 2,000 displaced residents were somehow linked to the attack, not punished for the acts of two men already dead.

   How we know

   • BBC News wrote earlier“a practice Israeli rights groups have criticised as collective punishment”Israel to close West Bank crossings on election day as crackdown escalates (opens in a new tab)
   • BBC News wrote earlier“Three other Israeli soldiers were injured, and the gunmen were also killed.”Israel to close West Bank crossings on election day as crackdown escalates (opens in a new tab)

   Show where it belongs