Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Ismaik v Fadaat Media which is transgressed if someone from either heritage expresses a political view more typical of the other. So the question comes down to what this allegation says about Mr Ismaik’s character and integrity more generally. 69. The opinion expressed about Mr Ismaik in the ‘authorship’ allegations, in the meaning I have determined, is certainly intended to make opponents of the views expressed in the Foreign Policy article (as described in the piece complained of) think ill of Mr Ismaik. It is certainly intended to incite what it perceives to be mainstream Palestinian/Jordanian public opinion against him. It thoroughly deprecates his politics. But an invitation to existing partisans to despise not only the politics of an article but the person under whose name it appears is not the test for defamatory tendency. Nor is the likely reaction of any particular segment of society who might be politically predisposed to accept that invitation. I have to look at the meaning of the words, not the political intent behind them. And I have to look at common values and standards and assess the meaning against them. 70. I cannot find, shorn of their political objectives and focusing on their meaning, that the ‘authorship’ allegations suggest Mr Ismaik has transgressed our shared values or that reasonable people’s judgment of his integrity would be significantly adverse as a result. An ordinary, reasonable reader would recognise the judgment they were being invited to make about his association with the Foreign Policy article as depending wholly on their own political outlook. If they agreed with the journalist’s general polemic, they might join him in thinking ill of Mr Ismaik. If they did not, they might consider this an unpleasant piece of journalism not content with making political argument unadorned with personal sneering and conspiracy theory, and which says more about the writer than it does about Mr Ismaik. 71. Either way, I do not recognise in the meaning I have determined either hypocrisy, dishonesty or a failure of personal integrity or character tending to produce a damaging effect to his reputation in society generally, or substantially affecting in an adverse manner the attitude of (fair-minded) others towards him. I find highlyflavoured political critique, which appropriates Mr Ismaik into its rhetorical tropes. Those tropes are sufficiently recognisable and dominant in this article as effectively to subsume the forming of distinct judgment about Mr Ismaik personally. He is being called a ‘Zionist’ or fellow-traveller as an intended and freighted term of political insult, embellished with those tropes. I do not recognise that, in our society, as a generally accepted term of personal insult, or an adverse imputation going to morals or character, or a label suggesting he has transgressed our shared values. So I do not consider it defamatory. I am not persuaded Mr Ismaik need fear for his reputation in the kind or degree with which defamation law is exclusively concerned. Decision 72. The defamatory content of this article is that Mr Ismaik was convicted in Jordan in financial cases involving petty sums of money; and that he was prosecuted in a major money laundering case. These are allegations of fact, the former at Chase level 1 and the latter at Chase level 2. The article is not otherwise defamatory.