Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Ismaik v Fadaat Media readers would have no difficulty in grasping the partisan rhetorical quality of this piece – they might or might not enjoy being swept along on its polemical tide, but they can see it for what it is. (c) Conclusions on natural and ordinary meaning and fact/opinion 55. This is an exercise in which the yielding of meaning cannot be achieved in a compartmentalised way separate from the understanding of genre, voice, and the piece as a whole. I have found it hard in this context to move very far from my initial impression that what is said about Mr Ismaik’s authorship of the Foreign Policy article is largely colour for the journalist’s political messaging and rhetoric about the content of the article itself. What I think an ordinary reader would take from this piece is that what is says about Mr Ismaik is ancillary, and consequential, to its polemic. 56. It is entirely natural that Mr Ismaik should be preoccupied with what the piece might be saying about him personally. An ordinary reader would in my view be less so. Its critique is undoubtedly personalised (hence the opening paragraphs), but it is a piece at core about the Arab-Israeli issue. The politics of the Foreign Policy article are repugnant to the journalist; and to the rhetorical question of what Mr Ismaik, as a Palestinian/Jordanian, was doing in endorsing them, it offers a rhetorical answer. 57. I do not think a reasonable reader would find an imputation of betrayal or disloyalty here other than at this purely political and rhetorical level. Mr Ismaik is not positively asserted to have actually done anything contrary to Palestinian/Jordanian interests other than express views, by way of paid journalism under his own name, with which the journalist vehemently disagrees. The rest would be taken as rather theatrical extrapolation. In this I consider the case distinguishable from some of the authorities we looked at where there are sober imputations of active working with hostile intelligence agencies to produce covert or insidious propaganda. 58. Here, the flavour is different. Mr Ismaik is accused of openly espousing views with which the journalist is so strongly in disagreement that he classifies them, and him, with the machinations of ‘Zionists’. That is an extrapolated or externalised trope of a familiar sort. Of course, the political context is profoundly polarised and issues of national identity are fundamentally at stake. But while a Palestinian/Jordanian advocating something other than a two-state future (or an Israeli advocating it) may be inviting casual dismissal as a ‘traitor to the cause’ or ‘no true Arab/Israeli’, that is not in my view the same as an allegation of literal or factual treasonous behaviour – conduct proscribed by law or custom. It simply refers to the expression of a minority view in a highly polarised context, likely to inflame and provoke, as indeed happened here, with the journalist in question adding some fuel to the fire in the form of allegations about Mr Ismaik’s past. I do not think a reasonable reader would find an imputation of actual betrayal or disloyalty beyond that. They would certainly understand the political labelling of Mr Ismaik as counter-cultural, but they could readily tell the difference between that and allegations of literal ‘betrayal’. Literalism is the principal trap to be avoided here, in my view. 59. So then Mr Ismaik is identified as taking or benefiting from ‘Zionist’ money to express ‘Zionist’ views in the Foreign Policy article. But it is hard to read that in context as going much beyond deprecating an alleged well-financed international