Active Voice vs Passive Voice: You might notice that headlines and articles use slightly different language depending on what is being reported.

• Active voice is when the subject is clearly identified as conducting an action. Example: “Hamas launches surprise air and land attack on Israel – in pictures” on the Guardian, 7 October.

• Passive voice is when the subject is not identified, with the action or result of the action emphasized on its own. Example: “Gaza Strip protesters received bullet wounds to ankles, medics report” on the Guardian, 5 October.

It does make sense for journalists/outlets to sometimes use passive voice when it’s not yet clear who committed the action (which explains all those weird headlines saying the Al-Ahli Arab hospital ‘exploded’). But there is a pattern of Western media outlets using passive voice when reporting on Israel’s actions, and active voice for the actions of Hamas or Palestinian civilians. By being too hesitant to name the IDF in headlines, the media distances it from the actions.

Apartheid: The U.N. International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid defines apartheid as:

• Denial of a racial group’s right to live by murder, serious bodily or mental harm, infringement of freedom or dignity, or subject to cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment, or arbitrary arrest or illegal imprisonment;

• Imposing living conditions calculated to cause their destruction;

• Legislation to prevent their participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country, including designating separate reserves or ghetto, expropriation of property, and use of forced labour;

• Persecuting organisations and individuals who oppose apartheid.

Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people meets the criteria for apartheid. This is the view of: the U.N Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights (as early as this 2007 statement, and recently as the 2022 report and statement); Human Rights Watch (2021 report); B’Tselem (2021 report); Amnesty International (2022 report); and more.

While some argue that Palestinians are not a racial group, these reports found that they are a clearly defined group being targeted by the state of Israel – therefore, it qualifies.

Evacuation Order: In its simplest terms, this is an instruction – typically by a state authority – for people to leave a dangerous location to move somewhere safer. An evacuation aims to protect people. But consider a different reading: a hostile military warning you to leave your location because they intend to bomb, kill or commit other acts of violence to any person found there. In practice, these ‘evacuation orders’ should be considered threats.

Genocide: My 2007 edition of the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics describes it as: “the deliberate killing, coordinated by the state and justified by claims of racial distinctiveness, of a population selected on cultural criteria.” It is a crime under international law.

The U.N. has warned that Israel is conducting a genocide of Palestinians. This article outlines what ‘genocidal language’ is being used by Israel against all Palestinian people, including civilians.

Ground Offensive: Media has been reporting for days that the IDF is planning a ‘ground offensive’ in Gaza. In its simplest terms, this is a military action launched by land – the use of troops on foot, tanks, trucks, etc.

In this case, it also means Israel will be entering Palestinian territory by land – better defined as a ground invasion. The term ‘invasion’ was certainly preferred by Western media when covering Russia’s entry into eastern Ukraine in February 2022. I was initially seeing more use of “ground offensive” than “invasion”, but this seems to be changing in the past few days.

Examples: “VIDEO: Gaza continues to suffer as Israel prepares ground offensive” on ABC, 15 October
“VIDEO: Ground invasion now dependent on Gaza humanitarian corridor” on ABC, 16 October (an interesting combination of passive voice. A ground invasion by whom?)
“Russia has invaded Ukraine. Here's what you need to know” on ABC, 24 February 2022

Right to Defend: The right to self-defence is protected in the Charter of the United Nations. However, as I wrote in this article, whether or not Israel initiated the attack or defending against an attack depends on when you start the timeline. Hamas killed Israeli civilians on October 7th, which is what Israel defines as the instigating event. However, Israel broke a ceasefire agreement in May with airstrikes on Gaza, and in July conducted two raids on the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank (killing civilians in each event). ​​Hamas and Islamic Jihad considers these to be instigation, and their actions to be defence against Israel’s escalation.

This does not justify Hamas’ horrific attack; but if the war did not start on October 7th (as we know it did not) then the right to defence cannot justify Israel’s actions either.

Verification/Verified: It is difficult for journalists to verify what is happening in Gaza right now. And good journalism does require verification of what a civilian, government representative, political figure, soldier, or anyone tells them. ‘Independent’ verification is what we want to look for.

For example: It is still unclear who bombed the Al-Ahli Arab hospital. Israel claimed it has evidence to prove the Palestinian Jihad was responsible. The U.S. government and French governments agree, Canada does not (yet). Government statements are not independent; unless an independent source is able to see the evidence or intelligence (highly unlikely) any version of events should not be considered verified. This Channel 4 analysis is a good example of what examining claims looks like.