There is a headline in today's New York Times (front page, below the fold) that reads "Israeli Settlers' Zeal Forces Palestinians to Flee Their Town". [article] When you read the article, it explains that a group of "militant young settlers" have engaged in a year of "steadily mounting violence" against the Palestinian residents of Khirbat Yanun, including "gunfire, stone-throwing, physical assaults and vandalism".

Okay, a couple of questions:

First, how is this not terrorism in its own right? Is it because it's Israeli "settlers" doing the shooting, and not Palestinian radicals? Reread my previous description of the article, but substitute the word "Palestinians" for "settlers", and "Israeli" for "Palestinian". Now is it an example of terrorism? If so, what's the difference?

Second, what does the Times mean by "zeal" (a word that is used in the headline and repeated in the body of the article)? Webster's defines "zeal" to mean "enthusiastic and intensive interest, as in a cause or ideal; ardor"; it's hardly the word to describe a systematic year-long campaign to drive people out of their homes that included shooting at goat herders on a hillside and farmers picking olives in an olive grove. Why the soft-soaping of the settlers' terror campaign?

Third, the jump headline on page A4 restates the headline thus: "Jewish Settlers' Fervor Forces Palestinians to Flee a Town". Why, again, does the Times gloss the fact that this was a calculated terror campaign? "Fervor", like "zeal", is a morally neutral word that simply means that the "settlers" are passionate in their beliefs. These words fail to convey that what they did is criminal, and that their actions recall the tactics of the pogrom, and Kristalnacht and countless other persecutions that Jews have endured in the past. Is the Times afraid to call them terrorists and their actions a reign of terror? If so, why?

All of this leads me to a fourth question, having little to do directly with the Times' article. It is this: why are we (American Jews) in the thrall of this radical branch of Israeli society. They are racist, bigoted, intolerant and criminal. Inspired by the admirable ideal of building a Jewish homeland, they have followed a course of conduct that tramples on both ancient and modern conceptions of what it means to be Jewish. Why must we accept this and continue to support an Israeli government that won't stand up to this home-grown terrorism?

Two other notes: first, I had intended to comment on the Times' use of the term "Jewish settlers" instead of "Israeli settlers", but I think that American Jews, at least, have been complicit in the continuing support that the "settlers" receive from Israel, and so perhaps it's too late to protest the borderless (and therefore, more expansive) group-identifier. Second, throughout this post I have used the term "settlers" in quotes. The reason is that, in my view, using "settler" to describe the Israelis moving into the West Bank is disingenuous since it installs in them a nobility that, judging by their actions, is decidedly undeserved. In the end, however, even though labels are inherently political creations, they are often expedient for telling the sides apart. And so, although for clarity I use the term "settler", I have decided to set it off in quotation marks to remind myself and readers that it is not a label that I subscribe to willingly.