A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Daniel Okrent and Settlers

The insidious defamation of Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza is so pervasive, that even when Israel's position is supported, the "settlers" are still demonized, presumably serving a role of useful scapegoat in the interests of evenhandedness.

In his column in Sunday's New York Times Week In Review, Public Editor Daniel Okrent took on the issue of words used by newspapers in its reports from the Middle East.

Okrent was critical of the Times' policy not to use the words "terrorism" or "terrorist." He wrote:

I think in some instances The Times's earnest effort to avoid bias can desiccate language and dilute meaning...

While some Israelis and their supporters assert that any Palestinian holding a gun is a terrorist, there can be neither factual nor moral certainty that he is. But if the same man fires into a crowd of civilians, he has committed an act of terror, and he is a terrorist. My own definition is simple: an act of political violence committed against purely civilian targets is terrorism; attacks on military targets are not.

Regrettably, Okrent also took a shot at the use of the loaded word "settlers", asking: "Are they merely settlers when they carry out armed actions against Palestinians?"

In fact, anyone who carries out armed actions against civilians is a terrorist. Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 Arabs in Hebron in 1994, was one such terrorist. Since 1967, there have been a few other armed attacks by "settlers" against Palestinians, but more than 99 percent of "settlers" have never carried out armed actions against Palestinians. The vast majority are peaceful people.

Were Okrent to analyze the word "Arabs" and ask: "Are they merely Arabs when they carry out armed actions against Israelis and Americans?", the reaction would be fierce. Amid much appropriate fury, Okrent would apologize and be forced to resign for implying that being an Arab is synonymous with being a terrorist.

The truth is that the word "settler" is a loaded term that should not be used. It implies colonialism, when in fact Judea, Samaria and Gaza were liberated in a defensive war against countries (Jordan and Egypt) that were occupying those territories. There was never Palestinian sovereignty over any of these areas and with the possible exception of a few of the outposts, the Jewish communities have not been built on private land.

One need not be a supporter of "settlers" or "settlements" to reject the notion that they are colonialist. While many Israelis are politically opposed to the "settlement" movement, there is a consensus that Jews have a moral right to live in those areas, with the question being whether "settlement" on a large scale is in Israel's interest given the reality of the Arab residents who live in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The widespread support even among leftists for post-1967 communities like Maaleh Adumim, Givat Zeev and those in Gush Etzion would be unexplainable if Israelis saw all "settlement" as illegitimate.

As Haaretz's Nadav Sharagi has written: The morality of "settlement" after 1967, is equivalent to the morality of settling the land after 1948. Morally, historically and religiously, the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, takes precedence over the right of other peoples here. The internal dispute within Israel is over what is possible within the framework of the security and international reality that the country faces.

In general, and almost always, the settlements are not set up on privately-owned land but on state land. The Palestinians were not expelled from their homes as a result of the establishment of the settlements. The settlements were built alongside the Palestinian towns and villages and not in their place. Since 1967, not a single Palestinian town or village has been moved.
posted on 3/09/2005