The girls, aged 14 to 16, have come for settler training to learn how to occupy Palestinian land — breaking international law. “God promised us this land and told us if you don’t take it, bad people will try and take it and you will have a war,” says Emuna Billa, 19, one of the camp supervisors. “Why do we have a war in Gaza? Because we don’t take Gaza.”

Their guru is Daniella Weiss, a 79-year-old grandmother in a long skirt and patterned headscarf. Founder of the Nachala or Homeland movement, she has been setting up illegal settlements for 49 years and was recently put under international sanctions. “You will be the new emissaries,” she tells the 50 or so girls at the camp. “I call it redeeming, not settling and this is our duty.”

She unfurls a map of Israel and the Palestinian territories dotted with vivid pink house symbols to represent existing and proposed Jewish settlements. Not only are these all across the West Bank, but also in Gaza. Already 674 people have signed up for beachside plots there, she tells me, and “many more want to join”. When someone asks her about settling Lebanon she smiles and says, “Yes, there too”.

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Can we stop calling them “settlers”?

    Edit: “settlers” is an accurate term, but due to generations of teaching a white washed version of America’s colonial history, the term doesn’t hold the negative connotation that it should to average Americans. It just doesn’t conjure the images it should, whether consciously or not.

    • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      They’re settlers. What they do is violently expel people from their homes in order to claim it for themselves.

      Settlers are people who do that.

      There’s no need to stop calling them the word that correctly describes what they do.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        2 months ago

        How about: invader, encroacher, intruder, illegal immigrant, trespasser, violator, infringer or conqueror?

        • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          You don’t need to say any of that because they’re already settlers. They’re already all those things because that’s what a settler is.

          There is no need for another word.

          • theherk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 months ago

            I don’t think the term settler requires the land already be occupied, though it often is so there is that connotation. But there are better words to describe explicitly the invasion of land.

            • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I know of one example of settlers moving into unoccupied land and that claim is disputed.

              If in all but one (possibly) circumstance the situation is the same then is the meaning tainted? No. Of course not. Settlers and settlement violently disrupt and displace the occupants of land in order to claim it for their own.

              In the context of Israel, settlers is the best word because Israel is a settler colonial state.

              Why do you think a different word is needed?

              • Kiernian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                Why do you think a different word is needed?

                Because the word has been largely washed of all negative connotations, at least across the minds of the majority of the populace in the U.S.

                If you are trying to convey what the word settler means in a dictionary by using it in casual conversation, you are likely to find that it is not carrying the full weight of its intended meaning in the mind(s) of the listener(s).

                This makes it a FUNCTIONALLY inadequate word despite being a technically correct one.

                • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Why has the negative connotation of the word settlers been removed among people in the United States?

                  Why has the negative connotation been removed in the state whose subjugation of other nations literally inspired Hitler?

              • theherk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                I’m not saying another is needed necessarily, but that others may be more precise. Colonizers, for example, may be so. Settlers is a superset here, and the only reason it nearly always involves occupied land is because most habitable land is currently inhabited. Imagine that we begin to settle Mars, hypothetically. That would be settling without taking the land others are occupying. So the word is just imprecise.

                • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Settlers is absolutely pinpoint precise. There isn’t a need for a different word to describe what’s going on.

                  Settlers is not a superset of colonizers.

                  Hypothetical situations don’t matter. There’s no grand council of English language administration that considers every bizarre possibility and issues proclamations regarding them.

                  The words settler and colonist in science fiction were chosen to invoke our history and imply the question of weather human expansion beyond earth was right at best and used to sell space trades to the same people buying cowboy trades at worst.

                  • theherk@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    I get that you believe that the term “settle” implies expelling others from a land, and if that were the case, you’d have a point. But I wonder if you’ve considered consulting a dictionary and the possibility that you’re mistaken.

                    What I’m saying is that “settlers” is a superset of what is happening here, since “settle” doesn’t imply anything beyond:

                    to establish in residence

                    to furnish with inhabitants – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/settle

                    to arrive, especially from another country, in a new place and start to live there and use the land – https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/settle

                    I’ve no doubt that you’ll push back on this and claim the definition in your head is better than those found in dictionaries, but the rest of us are just aware what it means.

          • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            While you’re correct, the word is misunderstood by the general public. So it doesn’t properly convey its meaning

            • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Words don’t properly convey their own meaning.

              People do when they use them.

              Rather than lament the way you perceive the present understanding in absolutes, why not start using the word settlers appropriately: preceded a cuss or followed by spitting.

              If you think people don’t understand how the word settlers conveys historical meaning then do something about it instead of accepting your own transport to another grammatical space wherein you colonize the meaning and context of other words.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I understand. My point is that, for whatever reason (likely generations of white washed education regarding America’s colonial history), people in the US don’t view the word “settler” with the contempt it deserves.

        • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah. It’s darkly funny that right after the founding of Israel and the nakba the un went and changed the rules so displaced people have no right of return.

          Big “”no one’s gonna know” “they’re gonna know!”” Energy.

          I think perhaps the best thing to do to be understood is to continue to refer to them as settlers while people are seeing armed attacks and hate.

      • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        Then are the people illegally coming to the US “settlers” or are they still refugees ?

        Because I’m confused on the difference with that definition.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Settlers is an accurate descriptor, the problem is generations of Americans have been taught a white washed version of America’s colonial history, so the term doesn’t hold the negative connotation that it should.

            To me it is more about messaging than accuracy. You can describe them accurately using different terms that average Americans immediately understand as negative.

          • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Settlers. The frontier means ‘place we can kill and steal from “them” for land and resources’.

            But that doesn’t undermine my question about refugees.

            Does context matter or not ? Because if it does not matter than the Palestinians fleeing death and destruction could be called settlers, too.

        • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          No. People coming to the us and integrating into American culture (even if it’s not recognized by the law) aren’t settlers.

          A person wrote a book about this called “settlers”. You can read it.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t see any daylight between these folks and the KKK this is basically the klan with different headgear

    • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s what they are, even according to themselves they’re settlers. Perhaps a more accurate term might be settler-colonial but I think just settler works (when you stop glorifying America settlers it especially works.)