But that wasn't inciting enough.
So we then had "Jewish settlers."
But with overuse, it didn't bring in the hate that journalists wanted to bring across.
So then came "Right-wing Jewish settlers."
But even that didn't capture the seething disgust that objective journalists wanted to convey towards them.
So now we have, from Daylife/Reuters:
 |
| Extreme right wing Jewish settlers, one of them injured from a rock hurled by pro-Palestinian activists during a weekly protest, stand in front of their house in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem December 30, 2011. Some 100 activists protested against the Jewish settlement in the predominantly Arab neighborhood and threw rocks towards a house occupied by the settlers leading them to confront the protesters, to minor clashes. |
So people who live in a house in Jerusalem are "extreme right-wing Jewish settlers."
But the people who throw rocks at them, literally spilling their blood, are simply "pro-Palestinian activists."
Not "violent protesters." Not "left-wing terrorists." Not "anti-Zionist provocateurs." Not "pro-Palestinian stone-throwers." Not "rioters." Nope, they are peaceful supporters of Palestinian Arabs, mere "activists" - who throw stones at people they don't like.
And who can blame them:? After years of reading Reuters describing these Jews in such terms, who wouldn't want to throw stones at them?
To Reuters, it's the people who are being hit by rocks who are "extreme."