Israeli man says he escaped abduction by W. Bank terrorists

The word militant has come to refer to any individual or party engaged in aggressive physical or verbal combat, normally for a cause. Journalists often use militant as a neutral term for soldiers who do not belong to an established military. Typically, a militant engages in violence as part of a claimed struggle for achievement of a political goal. Popular usage sometimes sees "militants" as synonymous with terrorists, though perhaps characterised with a slightly less loaded term. The term "militant state" colloquially refers to a state which holds an aggressive posture in support of an ideology or cause. In French the term "militant" retains a more moderate meaning of "activist" which it formerly had in English.

In a vain attempt to extract the Michael, you are coming across as a complete Richard head.

Typical Shin Bet trick. Stir up trouble between Arabs and Jews by disguising as Arabs and trying to kidnap a Jew. Then sit back and let the Jews be mad at the Arabs. Can't you guys come up with something original? How about dressing up as ARabs and kidnapping Condi? Maybe trade her back for a few hundred camels.

Thank you for referring to to perpetrators of an attempted kidnapping as "militants" and not terrorists. Had you done otherwise, your readers would have been hopelessly confused. You recently referred to a Jew who killed 4 Arab workers as a terrorist. Maybe one day someone at Ha'Aretz will have the guts to explain to the reading public when the term terrorist is used, and when the term militant is used. Na!!!

Thank you for referring to to perpetrators of an attempted kidnapping as "militants" and not terrorists. Had you done otherwise, your readers would have been hopelessly confused. You recently referred to a Jew who killed 4 Arab workers as a terrorist. Maybe one day someone at Ha'Aretz will have the guts to explain to the reading public when the term terrorist is used, and when the term militant is used. Na!!!

Thank you for referring to to perpetrators of an attempted kidnapping as "militants" and not terrorists. Had you done otherwise, your readers would have been hopelessly confused. You recently referred to a Jew who killed 4 Arab workers as a terrorist. Maybe one day someone at Ha'Aretz will have the guts to explain to the reading public when the term terrorist is used, and when the term militant is used. Na!!!

This Israeli man had no right to be in the West Bank. If they had killed him then it would have been as justifiable as it is for the IDF to kill Qassam throwers. He chose to go to Occupied Palestine and profit from the suffering of the native population. The likes of this man bring shame to Israel. Settlers and their supporters are cowards and opposed to peace. They do not deserve protection.

Now Haaretz is saying the yarmulke belonged to the assailants. The bussinessman clearly identified the assailants as being Palestinian. What exactly is Haaretz trying to say here? Once again, journalism at its worst.

Leftist Haaretz calls only our enemies "militants." It reserves the term "terrorist" for our brothers and sisters. Feh!