Re.: Mohammad Alam article in Counterpunch

[Chris Brady <cdbrady@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

About the passivity of the word "settler":

Today a report on the news decried an attack on "Israeli settlers".
Nasty stuff: bombs go off next to a bus, people, mothers and children
gunned down.  They were only settlers, innocently settling.
News watchers may assume:
Even though twice as many Palestinians, including mothers and children,
are killed by the Israeli armed forces, that was never their
intetention: the people simply got in the way, or walked into a tank
shell flying by, etc., all accidental, the hard truths of a dirty
conflict. But what a horrid act to deliberately attack settlers!  They
are just there to settle, like precipitate drifting down through a fluid
to rest quietly on the bottom of a glass vessel.

But what if these reports acknowledged the history of the conflict and
properly described the ostensibly innocent civilian settlers as invaders
and occupiers, or usurpers and destoyers, spoliating the land to
ethnically cleanse it of its natives, systematically sacking native
homes and replacing them with *militarily defended emplacements*
disguised by such passive appellations as "settlements"?



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.