UPDATE
As a result of complaints, The Sunday Times has added some more context (in bold). The sentence in question now reads:
A sign on the winery welcomes visitors to the settlement of Gush Etzion, parts of which were settled by Jews during the 1920 and 30s, on land purchased legally, before they were driven away, and which is considered by the locals to be part of Israel. But the town is in the West Bank, built on land seized from the Palestinians after the Six Day War of 1967.
While this does not address all of our concerns, it is nonetheless an improvement.
Writing for The Sunday Times of London (paywall), Louise Callaghan visits Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem, where efforts are being made to increase tourism to the area. While it is a positive that the article references terminology such as “disputed land” and “ancient Judaea,” Callaghan states, matter of factly:
A sign on the winery welcomes visitors to the settlement of Gush Etzion, considered by the locals to be part of Israel. But the town is in the West Bank, illegally built on Palestinian land seized by settlers after the Six Day War of 1967.
Gush Etzion isn’t a settlement per se, but a bloc of settlements. While this may not be a serious error, it is important in light of the missing context in the article. Gush Etzion isn’t only “considered by the locals to be part of Israel.” It is part of a mainstream Israeli consensus on both sides of the Green Line that views certain settlements that would most likely be included as part of Israel in the event of a deal negotiated with the Palestinians.
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
The Sunday Times fails to differentiate between areas such as Gush Etzion, outlying settlements that are located in more isolated areas, and settlement outposts that have been built without government permission and are illegal according to Israeli law.
Instead, the article makes a serious generalization by referring to settlements as “illegally built on Palestinian land seized by settlers after the Six Day War of 1967.” The land was, of course, under Jordanian occupation when Israel took control in 1967. Gush Etzion had existed on land bought and paid for by its Jewish residents before they were driven from the land in the 1948 War of Independence. It simply wasn’t “Palestinian land” and the charge that it was illegal is disputed by Israel as well as some scholars of international law.
It’s also worth noting the somewhat sensationalized headline and accompanying photo:
For many Americans, guns and shooting ranges are viewed as legitimate leisure activities. For the average British person, guns are not treated the same way and even a shooting range would be considered in a somewhat negative light. Whether or not The Sunday Times deliberately chose the photo with an agenda, the effects on its British readership would be obvious.
While this is certainly not the worst story we have seen concerning settlements (which we acknowledge are not a consensus issue within Israel or the global Jewish community), it still plays on the automatic knee-jerk reaction that has been created by the continuous delegitimization of settlements and settlers in the mainstream media and beyond.
The Sunday Times had an opportunity to expand on the context surrounding Gush Etzion and the wider issues but failed to do so.
You can send your letters to The Sunday Times – [email protected] – remembering to include your postal address and contact telephone number to stand a chance of publication.
