To: WSFAlist at keithlynch.net
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:46:16 -0400
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Political Inventions
From: ronkean at juno.com
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 03:31:33 -0400 Ted White <tedwhite at compusnet.com>
writes:
>
> ronkean at juno.com wrote:
> > When the Washington Post reports on violence in Israeli occupied
> > Palestine, the term 'Palestinian gunmen' is routinely used to
> describe Palestinians carrying or using guns, and the term 'Israeli
> soldiers' is
> > used to describe Israelis carrying or using guns.  Of course both
> of those terms are not incorrect, but the subtle implication seems to
> be that the 'soldiers' are somehow more legitimate than the
> 'gunmen'.

>
> The "gunmen" are not uniformed and appear to be private citizens or
> members of a local militia at best.  "Gunmen" is the best reasonably
> neutral descriptive term for them.  And since the Israeli soldiers
*are*
> soldiers, in uniform, what better reasonably neutral term for them is
there?
> I think the relative "legitimacy" of each term is wholly subjective;
*I*
> don't read them as you suggest.
>
> --Ted White

Perhaps the Post is trying to be objective in using the phrase
'Palestinian gunmen'.  Since the Post often uses the term 'gunman' to
describe an unknown person who commits crime using a gun, I thought their
choice of words was a bit slanted.  But if the Post were to call them
'Palestinian freedom fighters' or 'Palestinian resistance fighters', many
would find that prejudicial against Israel.  I have heard complaints from
people who are sympathetic to Israel that the Post tilts in favor of the
Palestinians, as well as complaints from avid anti-Zionists that the Post
is controlled by 'Jews' and does not tell the truth about the conflict.
It's impossible to please everyone.

Ron Kean

.

________________________________________________________________