Any point in repprting this article?

[GRex]

BBC decides to talk about "Jewish settlement expansion" rather than Israeli or migrants / refuge? This casual mixing of terms can only further support anti-semitic agendas. Is it even worth reporting this sort of racism?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjdym32z9v7o
AIBU - don't bother, nobody is listening
YANBU - they would at least rewrite the article

The paragraph in question is

'Hamas has been running the Gaza Strip for years, with its rival Fatah in charge in the West Bank. But even in the West Bank, the PA, led by Abbas, has struggled to govern, faced with rival groups and Jewish settlement expansion.'

The last paragraphs are

'The state of Palestine is currently recognised by 147 of the UN's 193 member nations.

But with no recognised borders, Israeli settlers controlling large parts of the West Bank - illegal under international law - and calls to do the same in Gaza, any recognition of a Palestinian state would not change much on the ground.'

I agree that the first paragraph is not in keeping with the rest of the article, which does not refer to faiths - a comparison would be to refer to 'any recognition of a Muslim state' (with possibly a mention of Christians who are also there, but perhaps not).

Maybe they would edit it after a report?

I assume the choice of the word Jewish rather than Israeli was deliberate? Israeli might imply government support for the settlements which officially there isn’t support for the expansion of.

As the settlements are based on religious doctrine and implied rights to the land - what would be a better way to phrase this? (Asking in good faith as a non Jewish person).

"Palestinian" is allowed as a state, yet the first mention of Hamas is correlated with the word Jewish, i.e. equating a terrorist organisation with a particular religion. That religion has people living globally who have nothing to do with Israel and certainly not all Jewish people globally are settlers, they are a tiny number of migrants. The religion Judaism is not an equivalent to a terrorist organisation. Then we have further complicatiins that the settlers in question are not all Jewish and not even all Israeli, and their action is individual not a state nor religious action; they are troublesome migrants moving into new areas where they are not wanted.

Picture the news with every reference to Hamas, Taliban and other extremist groups only ever referred to as "Muslims". Choosing at random: "How Muslims built a force to attack Israel on 7th October", "Muslims execute xxx". Do you see the problem when it's not Jewish as the religion?

Thank you. This helped me see the issue