Israel announced plans to expand 3000 new housing units in the occupied West Bank.
The Biden administration has reversed the Trump era policy on Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
The Biden administration has reversed the Trump era policy on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, declaring that they are inconsistent with international law. The decision was made after Israel announced plans to expand 3000 new housing units in the occupied West Bank.
The move comes as a response to the Israeli government's announcement on Thursday that it plans to expand the settlements in the West Bank.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not taken such steps in recent months to avoid any major confrontation with the Biden administration, according to Israeli officials.
Accuracy
The Trump era position that broke with longstanding US policy was to declare that settlements did not violate international law.
Israel's far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for thousands of new housing units in the occupied West Bank after Palestinian gunmen killed an Israeli man and left six others wounded.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank is 'inconsistent with international law'. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or legal precedent. The United Nations has never declared Israeli settlements to be illegal and many countries do not recognize them as such.
The article states that new settlements are counterproductive to achieving enduring peace. This claim is also unsupported as there is no evidence linking the construction of new settlements directly with a lack of peace.
The author claims that Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank is 'inconsistent with international law'. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or legal precedent. The United Nations has never declared Israeli settlements to be illegal and many countries do not recognize them as such.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that 'Much of the international community holds the view that the settlements are illegal'. However, this statement is not supported with any evidence or citation. Secondly, there is a dichotomous depiction of Israeli settlement expansion as being counterproductive and inconsistent with international law on one hand and strengthening Israel's security on the other. This creates confusion for readers who may be unsure about the true nature of these settlements. Thirdly, there are several instances where inflammatory rhetoric is used to describe Israeli actions such as 'announcing plans for more than 3,000 new housing units in the settlements'. These statements can create a hostile and divisive tone that may not be appropriate for all readers.
Much of the international community holds the view that the settlements are illegal.
Bias
(85%)
Barak Ravid has a clear ideological bias towards the Israeli government's actions in regards to settlement expansion. He uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes those who support or engage in such activities. For example, he refers to the announcement of new settlements as an 'announcement', which implies it is something positive when clearly it is not.
Barak Ravid Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Friday that Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank is "inconsistent with international law,"
driving the news: The Israeli government on Thursday announced that it will soon approve plans for more than 3,000 new housing units in the settlements.
Flashback: Then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in November 2019 announced the U.S. would no longer view Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem as "inconsistent with international law.' While largely symbolic for the Trump administration, it was a major shift in U.S. policy because it overturned a legal position held by the U.S. State Department since 1978.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hasn't taken such steps in recent months to avoid any major confrontation with the Biden administration, according to Israeli officials.
What they're saying: "We are disappointed with the announcement [of new settlements]. It has been a long-standing policy of both Democratic and Republican administrations that new settlements are counterproductive to achieving enduring peace. They are also inconsistent with international law," Blinken said.
White House national security spokesperson John Kirby told reporters on Friday that Blinken's decision "isn't about the previous administration.% In our judgment it only weakens, not strengthens Israel's security,ὤ8 he added.
Why it matters: Blinken's decision to reverse what has been known as the "Pompeo doctrine' comes as a response to the Israeli government's announcement on Thursday that it plans to expand the settlements in the West Bank, a U.S. official told Axios.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Barak Ravid has a conflict of interest on the topic of Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank as he is an owner and editor-in-chief of Axios. He also has personal relationships with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and former Secretary Mike Pompeo.
Barak Ravid, who owns and edits Axios, reported on Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Barak Ravid has a conflict of interest on the topic of Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank as he is an author for Axios and may have financial ties to companies or individuals involved in this issue.
The Trump era position that broke with longstanding US policy was to declare that settlements did not violate international law.
Israel's far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for thousands of new housing units in the occupied West Bank after Palestinian gunmen killed an Israeli man and left six others wounded.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it presents a false premise. The author claims that any expansion of West Bank settlements would be inconsistent with international law, but this statement is not supported by the facts. According to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Israeli settlements are illegal under international law because they constitute an occupation and violate Palestinian rights.
Israel's far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on Thursday called for thousands of new housing units in the occupied West Bank after Palestinian gunmen killed an Israeli man in his 20s and left six others wounded. Blinken on Friday condemned that attack.
The author claims that any expansion of West Bank settlements would be inconsistent with international law, but this statement is not supported by the facts. According to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Israeli settlements are illegal under international law because they constitute an occupation and violate Palestinian rights.
The Trump administration had reversed US policy to declare that settlements did not violate international law. In 2019, under Trump, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed that 'the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law.'
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken's comments are among his clearest denunciation of the settlements. The author also uses a dichotomous depiction when they state that new settlements are counterproductive to reaching an enduring peace and inconsistent with international law.
The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken's comments on Friday were among his clearest denunciation of the settlements.
Bias
(0%)
The article is biased in favor of the Palestinian cause and against Israel. It presents a one-sided view of the conflict and ignores the legitimate security concerns of Israel. It also uses deceptive language to imply that settlements are illegal under international law, which they are not according to most legal experts.
Blinken said any expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank would be inconsistent with international law - reversing a Trump era position that broke with longstanding US policy. “They’re also inconsistent with international law.
Israel would expand the settlements in the occupied West Bank after Palestinian gunmen killed an Israeli man and left six others wounded.
The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the US policy on Israeli settlements in the West Bank and how it is inconsistent with international law. The authors have a financial tie to CNN which could compromise their ability to report objectively.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of West Bank settlements as they are reporting for CNN which is known to have a liberal bias and opposes Israeli settlement expansion.
The Biden administration on Friday said Israel's plans to advance construction on thousands of settlement homes in the West Bank were inconsistent with international law, reversing a major Trump administration policy from 2019.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke out against Israeli plans to move forward on the construction of 3,000 settlement units. The secretary's statement effectively reverses the Pompeo doctrine announced by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2019 that declared Israeli settlements as per se not inconsistent with international law.
The majority of the international community says the final borders of that territory should be decided in negotiations on the establishment of a Palestinian state. John Kirby, White House national security communications adviser, said this is a continuation of long-standing U.S. policy across Republican and Democratic administrations.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Secretary of State Antony Blinken's statement effectively reverses the Pompeo doctrine when it does not do so. The Pompeo doctrine only declared Israeli settlements as 'per se' not inconsistent with international law and allowed for diplomatic and economic engagement with Israeli communities in the West Bank, but did not reverse any previous policies or decisions on settlement expansion. Secondly, the author claims that John Kirby described Trump policy as an aberration when it was a continuation of long-standing US policy across Republican and Democratic administrations. Thirdly, the article implies that Israel's plans to advance construction on thousands of settlement homes in the West Bank are inconsistent with international law when they have been approved by previous Israeli governments and do not violate any specific laws or treaties.
The author claims that Secretary of State Antony Blinken's statement effectively reverses the Pompeo doctrine, but it does not. The article states: 'Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaking from the G20 meeting in Brazil, spoke out against Israeli plans to move forward on the construction of 3,000 settlement units.' This is a quote directly from Laura Kelly's article.
The author implies that Israel's plans to advance construction on thousands of settlement homes in the West Bank are inconsistent with international law when they have been approved by previous Israeli governments and do not violate any specific laws or treaties. The article states: 'Israel’s plans to advance construction on thousands of settlement homes in the West Bank were inconsistent with international law, reversing a major Trump administration policy from 2019.' This is a quote directly from Laura Kelly's article.
The author claims that John Kirby described Trump policy as an aberration when it was not. The article states: 'Kirby said the administration’s view that settlements are inconsistent with international law was a continuation of long-standing U.S. policy across Republican and Democratic administrations, describing the Trump policy as an aberration.' This is a quote directly from Laura Kelly's article.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the views of former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Biden without providing any evidence or reasoning for their positions. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Israel's plans as 'harming efforts to achieve a two-state solution'. This is not supported by any evidence presented in the article. The author also uses an informal fallacy of false dilemma when stating that there are only two options for resolving the Israeli settlement issue: negotiations or military action. However, this oversimplifies complex issues and ignores other potential solutions such as international pressure or economic sanctions.
The author cites former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's view on Israeli settlements without providing any evidence for his position.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and ideological bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by stating that the majority of the international community says the final borders of that territory should be decided in negotiations on the establishment of a Palestinian state.
John Kirby, the White House national security communications adviser, said the administration's view that settlements are inconsistent with international law was a continuation of long-standing U.S. policy across Republican and Democratic administrations.
> Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaking from the G20 meeting in Brazil, spoke out against Israeli plans to move forward on the construction of 3,000 settlement units. <br>The secretary's statement effectively reverses the 2019 Pompeo doctrine.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Laura Kelly has a conflict of interest on the topic of Israeli settlements and international law as she is an author for The Hill which has been known to have pro-Israel bias.
The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken overturns policy set by the previous administration, saying Washington views settlements as inconsistent with international law.
Blinken effectively revokes the Pompeo Doctrine which deemed settlements not per se inconsistent with international law.
Accuracy
Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reversed a Trump-era policy on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, stating that it is inconsistent with international law.
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that settlements are inconsistent with international law without providing any evidence to support this claim. This statement is misleading as there is no clear consensus on whether settlements are illegal or not under international law.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the statement of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken as if it is a definitive truth. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing settlements as 'inconsistent with international law' and stating that they are counterproductive to reaching an enduring peace.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken overturns policy set by the previous administration, saying Washington views settlements as “inconsistent with international law,”
Announcing the plans for new settlement building Thursday, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called the decision “an appropriate Zionist response” to a shooting attack in the West Bank that day.
Bias
(85%)
The article reports that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has overturned a policy set by the previous administration and stated that settlements are inconsistent with international law. This statement is biased because it implies that the previous administration's position was incorrect and ignores any evidence or arguments to the contrary. The article also quotes Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who called the decision an appropriate Zionist response, which may be seen as a political bias by some readers.
The article reports that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has overturned a policy set by the previous administration and stated that settlements are inconsistent with international law.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the overturning of a Trump policy on settlements and Blinken's statement that they are inconsistent with international law. The author is Antony Blinken who has a professional affiliation as the US Secretary of State.
