All of the following headlines refer to, in theory, the same story:
- Jerusalem Post: US, Israel in informal deal on settlements
- Jerusalem Post: PA slams US settlement policy
- Haaretz: Tenders issued for 1,000 housing units in W. Bank settlements
- Canadian Press (as reported on Canada.com): Israel approves more West Bank settlement homes, escalating crisis
- Associated Press (as reported in the Globe and Mail): Israel plans massive West Bank expansion
- Reuters: Israel Plans 530 Settler Homes with U.S. Acquiescence
- BBC: Israel expands settlement growth
- The Guardian: US deal ‘wrecks Middle East peace’
Ok, that last one was just for illustrative purposes. But the differences are not so subtle. An “informal deal” in the Jerusalem Post becomes “U.S. acquiescence” to Reuters. “1,000 housing units” in the leftist Israeli paper Ha’aretz gets interpreted by AP as a “massive West Bank expansion”. The Jerusalem Post reports the Palestinian Authority’s accusations that this will hamper the “peace process” (what peace process?); the Guardian assumes the PA’s complaint is fact.
Language, of course, is politically charged. This is just one example of the pervasive media bias that we all know exists against Israel.
In the meantime, IsraelInsider has an article deploring the use of the term “settlements” in the first place:
When we use the term “settlements” and “settlers,” we feed attempts to portray not just the disputed territories and its inhabitants, but all of Israel and its people as a “settler state” akin to apartheid in South Africa. If Gush Etzion, Hevron and other communities are settlements, so too were Tel Aviv, Rishon L’Tzion and Degania along with many others. To accept the Arab vocabulary and demands for removing “settlements” and “settlers” implies we also would see the dismantling of Tel Aviv, and many other cities, towns and villages in pre-1967 Israel and removal of their inhabitants. “Towns, villages” they are, with inhabitants. “Settlements” and “settlers” only gives the Arabs propaganda ammunition.
Other criticized terms include “creation of Israel” (re-establishment, they argue, would be a better term), “occupied territories” (should be “disputed territories”), “West Bank” (preferring “Judea-Samaria”), “The Wall” (it’s really a “security fence”), and of course, “militants” (terrorists). The editorial urges all Israeli and Jewish publications to choose language carefully to avoid propagating myths being spread by much of the Arab world.
What are your thoughts on the use of “West bank” over “Judea and Samaria” and “settlements” to describe trans-green-line Israeli towns? Agree, disagree? Should distinctions be made between Israeli towns in pre-67 land versus those on post-67 land? Do you see the use of the term “settlement” as evidence of anti-Israel bias?
You mean you want my opinion? Not just mere observation but an actual opinion?
Okay, here goes:
“West Bank” is fine, but so are “Judea and Samaria”. They refer to the places and places have different names to different peoples. So no, it doesn’t offend me when the int’l press uses “West Bank”.
Distinctions should be made between towns only so far as they refer to actual, agreed-upon or de facto political boundaries. Not artificial boundaries. And under no circumstances is it ok to consider an innocent civilian a “fair target” for terror attacks just because of their zip code.
“Settlement” is a term I have a problem with, not just because of the anti-Israel bias reason, but more because it doesn’t describe actual fact. People think of settlements as primitive outposts in the middle of enemy territory, when in truth, most cities and towns in the territories are medium-sized cities, with their own infrastructure, centers and local spots. Many are just a few miles from other similar towns, which just so happen to be a few meters to the other side of the arbitrary “green line”. And most of the people who live in these places are just normal Israelis, not the crazed gun-toting religious fanatics that the media makes them out to be. It’s a distortion that is not entirely innocent.
And I absolutely deplore the media’s insistence of “militants” over “terrorists” for obvious reasons. On that point I’m sure you’d agree.
Sari. Your description of the cities and towns in the territories is exactly what is wrong. Basically your arguments is that you have a problem with the word “settlements” because there are not much differences between towns on both side of the green line. But there are differences for arabs living on both side of the green line. For a jew whatever you live in Israel proper or in the west bank doesn’t make a difference as far as your legal status is concerned: You are a israeli citizen, you vote in Israel election, you pay taxes to Israel and you are subject to Israel’s laws. But for arabs IT IS NOT THE SAME THING. Arabs living inside Israel are Israeli citizen and they vote in Israel’s election. But arabs in the west bank and GAZA are not Israeli citizen and do not vote in Israel election.
And this is why the West Bank and Gaza are territories where a system of apartheid is present.
The problem is not that jews live there, the problem is that they live there under a different legal status than arabs.
Israel must either annex the West Bank and Gaza and offer israeli citizenship to ALL the people. Or it must formally declare that the territories are NOT part of Israel and deny the people (all of them) who live there the right to vote in Israel. Otherwise IT IS APARTHEID. And it is not anti-semitic to say it.
Peace!