This is not really about the news content of the article, it is about the nuances of language. The wording which caught my attention was this, emphasis added:
The attack on Ain al Asad Air Base resembled previous ones carried out by Iran-backed Iraqi armed groups, which have targeted the base repeatedly over the past several years but intensified their attacks after Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza began in October.
Yes, Israel is at war with Hamas, but is it Israel's war with Hamas? That makes it sound like Israel is responsible for the war when it is Hamas who started the war.
Prior to October 7, 2023, there was an existing ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. Hamas broke the ceasefire to invade Israel with the goal of killing IDF soldiers and Israeli civilians. It is indisputable that Hamas broke the ceasefire and that it did so in pursuit of committing genocide and recapturing all of Israel.
Israel was the victim of Hamas's aggression and lost 1,200 dead and 240 captured. Most civilians.
But that possessive "Israel's" makes it sound like this is an Israel-initiated war with Hamas as the victim.
Would we say in World War II after Pearl Harbour, "America's war" with Japan? Yes, I suppose we would now, with the hindsight that we won. What did we say then? Did we characterize it as America's war with Japan or Japan's war on America. I am not a deep enough expert to answer but I suspect more the latter than the former given the widespread and persistent shock and characterization of a Japanese sneak attack on America.
"Britain's war on Germany"? No, that doesn't sound right.
I am on uncertain ground. It sure sounds to me like the reporter is wrongly using language in a way that makes Israel the aggressor. Or perhaps I am being overly critical?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment