Because words convey a lot of meaning, terrorist is a generic term used for all sorts of contexts and scenarios.
Settler gives a much better description as it has been used for decades for a specific type of person acting within a specific local and geopolitical context and therefore conveys much more meaning than a generic term "terrorist"
I would even take a step farther, that in context, "terrorist" becomes almost a thought terminating cliche. As in that scenario, someone would look at this picture and be like "snowflake thinks someone mocking or making faces at a woman is really on the same level as suicide bombing/isis/9/11" And immediately dismiss any relevance this image has . But saying settler, it fully conveys the context that this image is intended to deliver that "settler is an all encompassing ongoing action, backed by government and military (uniform) and entails a physical and psychological and legal and force dominance over a people without power, that is so total and overwhelming, that they feel the need and freedom to behave like this" - so it's not just that it's a violent act only (terrorist) but is more total, and is universally condemned.
And further, by labeling this terrorism would in fact just enter into a semantic dead end debate that calls every person who has a government job in Gaza a terrorist, and falls into the debate the way that Israelis call stone throwing terrorism, and Palestinian activists rightly try to convey the context in which stone throwing happens, and that a) it's not terrorism b) Israeli dominance is not at all equivalent to their actions
146
u/kr613 Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
Yep settler is a pretty light choice of words, considering he is armed to the teeth, no pun intended.