Guardian wants to be certain you know: Israeli terror victim was a “SETTLER”!

Yesterday, early evening Israeli time, the Guardian‘s Jerusalem correspondent Peter Beaumont reported on two Palestinian terror attacks since Sunday. The first incident, on Sunday evening, involved a fatal attack on a 39-year-old woman in Otniel in the West Bank. The second, on Monday, involved the stabbing of a pregnant woman in Tekoa.

Here’s the original headline, per the Guardian’s tweet of the article.

screen capture of guardian headline


The headline was subsequently changed to “Palestinian with knife attacks Israeli woman in West Bank settlement”.

Before the change, some derivation of the word “settlement” or “settler” was used no less than eight times between the headline, strap line photo caption and first two paragraphs of the article.

Of course, this isn’t merely a random word count.

As most followers of this blog understand, Guardian readers have been conditioned by years of tendentious articles and inflammatory op-eds and letters to view not only the physical settlements themselves as “illegal”, but the Jewish men, women and children who live on the ‘wrong side’ of the 1949 armistice lines as representing a ‘provocation’ and an obstacle to peace.

In June, 2014, we prompted corrections at both the Independent and Guardian to false claims that the three Israeli teens abducted by Palestinian terrorists that month were “settlers”.

14 replies »

    • @Michael –

      The only “agenda” I have when commenting here is to correct factual errors, point out failures to contextualise, redress imbalances, and condemn racist remarks … in other words, all those things UK Media Watch claims to champion in its analysis of British I/P coverage!

      As far as this article is concerned, my grouse is with Adam’s (on-going) attempt to portray the terms “settlement” and “settlers” as illegitimate. Whether he likes it or not, these descriptors reflect an overwhelming majority world view on the legal front – with a good many Israeli journalists/editors acknowledging as much by using them too.

      In the current stories’ coverage, for example, the Times of Israel @ even manages to rival Peter Beaumont on the prominence/frequency score:

      * Headline – “Palestinian workers banned from settlements after stabbing attacks”
      * Picture caption – “Palestinian workers being transported out of the Tekoa settlement south of Jerusalem on January 18, 2016 following a stabbing attack.”
      * 1st paragraph – “Israel is temporarily banning all Palestinian workers from West Bank settlements in the wake of two attacks in two days.”
      * 3rd par – “The decision, made in the wake of two attacks inside West Bank settlements in two days, is open-ended but will be reviewed daily, the army said.”
      * Paragraphs 6, 7, 9, 10,11 and 12 – all containing refs either to “settlements” or “settlers”

      For other Israeli press reports using these terms, see ; ;,7340,L-4754849,00.html . Arutz Sheva and Israel Hayom do, however, seem to avoid – ban (?) – their use altogether.

      • You have completely ignored the context of all of this.

        First of all, you provided examples of using the word “settlement”. But the issue here is a murdered person referred first and foremost as a “settler”. A “female settler”, as if the main object here is a “settler”, not a person who happened to live in a settlement and who was murdered.

        You are pretending innocence here. They use careful deliberate terminology all the time to excuse violence. Instead of writing:

        “Palestinian with knife attacks female Israeli settler in West Bank settlement”

        with a REDUNDANT usage of the word “settler”, Why not write:

        “Palestinian with knife attacks Israeli woman in West Bank settlement” ??

        Do you not see what they are doing here?

      • Interesting. And to suggest that Miranda thinks all Jews in Israel should die for various reasons goes beyond the scope of her criticism?

        The high and mighty Miranda takes another dump on Israeli terror victims. News at 11.

      • “Whether he likes it or not, these descriptors reflect an overwhelming majority world view on the legal front” – which is still legally illiterate and based on nothing more than antisemitism. You should empathise with that.

        “The only “agenda” I have when commenting here is to correct factual errors, point out failures to contextualise, redress imbalances, and condemn racist remarks” – ROFL. Miranda, the champion of correct contextualising.
        You couldn’t make it up.

  1. “Palestinian with knife attacks Israeli woman in West Bank settlement”

    Wow – so the knife didn’t attack all by itself. Guardian standards are slipping!

  2. The DELIBERATE misuse of language and particular terminology applied only to Israel when reporting on Jews that are murdered by Palestinian terrorists is so shameful in its brazenness I can hardly bear to read the Guardian any more. I am ashamed to say that I rely on Adam and UK Media Watch to do the reading for me. Mea culpa: I am a coward.

    Daniel Borg, a Swedish ex-member of ISM [and now a fervently outspoken pro Israel activist] has made some excellent comments about the reporting of this mother’s brutal murder. Borg states that “the Swedish Press quotes from the French press: ‘A settler killed at her home.’ Dafna Meir is a settler, meaning not a civilian, not a normal mum of three small children whose children were at home and witnessed their mother being stabbed to death.”

    So here we have in Guardian-speak: Settler = Combatant = Terrorist.

    Borg adds: “But the language is also different if the Israeli is killed BEYOND OR WITHIN THE GREEN LINE.” This is true. Witness how the Guardian et al always refers to anyone murdered in Hebron or Shomron [or any other place in Judea and Samaria] as “settlers.” This blatant skewing of the narrative happened when the three teens were abducted and murdered in June 2014. And in every single case the term ‘settler’ directly slips into the collective [judgemental] unconscious of the Guardian readership as ‘combatant.’

    Borg also makes the point that the European press [and here the Guardian wins first prize] is incapable or unwilling to differentiate between a civilian and a combatant BUT ONLY WHEN THE VICTIM IS JEWISH. Borg asserts that: “In European terminology ‘Israeli settler’ is viewed far more pejoratively than ‘a Jew living in Tel Aviv’ because the media automatically views all Jews living beyond the green line as active participants in the conflict.”

    As Borg states: “The media is cunning not to write this directly, but given that they refer to the settlers as ‘illegal’ in ‘Palestinian occupied territory’ they strip these victims of their status as civilians and as human beings.” The media further reduces victims such as Dafna Meir to mere cyphers. And the press does this by not mentioning her by name, nor her children’s names and ages, nor contextualising the scene in which Dafna was murdered in her home.

    To ignorant prejudiced liberal lefty Guardian readers [and other antisemites] ‘a settlement’ is never a ‘home.’

    I am not an international lawyer but surely the Guardian is breaching the Geneva Convention in misreporting and thereby inciting hatred to Israel??

  3. Lest we forget the Settlement in the Falklands that the Royals earned some Fame. There are other occupied dots still left around the World that England occupies and the Guardian ignores. China occupies Tibet and deaths occur there all the time. Remember the Dali Lama lived there until 58′ Guardian do you get rough with China. Russia occupies Japanese Islands where is your reporting. Egypt occupied Gaza till 67′ and Trans-Jordan the West Bank till 67′ before there were Palestinians. There was no outrage about occupies or any Palestinians. Show us where you wrote about Palestinians before 67′. You just called them Arabs.