There are many ways to describe most anything, and HOW they are described influences perception. You are certainly smart enough to understand that and know that the nuance of word usage affects the way people view the event. Journalistic integrity (of which there is precious little these days) requires the use of the least loaded and most accurate terms, and not the ones that a semanticist might argue are accurate enough on a technicality, but which give an entirely different impression. The term "sterilize" IMPLIES a much greater degree of permanence than does "contraception" as you well know.
This case is problematic enough without inflating it through the careful selection of terms calculated to magnify the significance of what has occurred.
Israel has many, many problems and one of these problems is the way their reaction to the persecution they face has resulted in a siege mentality that rises in militancy among a portion of their population that mirrors that which they face. The hard right in Israel IS a problem especially in terms of the intolerance they show towards that which is not Jewish enough from their perspective, but in order to understand the problem, people should understand the whole problem, which precious few do, especially those who only indulge in condemnation and demonization.
Fair enough, I cansee why some peopel find the use of th eword "unpalatable". But at the same time, if the injections are continually administered over an extended period of time (which seems to be the case here), it has the effect of permanence without actually being classified as a "permanent" procedure.
In a practical sense, continually administering this injection to a woman until she is no longer reproductively viable would have an identical effect as a tubal ligation. Identical. It's not a condemnation or demonization to point that out, nor is it at all unreasonable to call this sterilization. It is
certainly not hyperbole to call it that.
Which is why the important issue here is
not terminology. It's whether or not consent was granted, or coercion used. Going even further, it's about whether or not any instances where consent wasn't given or coercion was used were more isolated or if they were government sanctioned.
It doesn't
matter if the program involved tubal ligation (which nobody would seem to have a problem calling sterilization) or birth control injections (where the term "sterilization" becomes less palatable for some). If there was informed consent, they'd both be equally fine. If there wasn't, they are both
equally wrong.
While Israel certainly faces unfair criticism and hyperbole, the use of the term sterilization in this case is not one of those times. Saying it was a government-sponsored secret program of forced sterilization, however, is certainly unfair as there is plenty of reason to maintain skepticism of
that claim.
All that being said, I do understand why some would be so viscerally against the use of the word. I just don't agree that their distaste for the term means that it should not be used. I do feel it should be used with qualification, though, which is why I have made sure to note that it would be called "temporary sterilization" and show that there is some question as to it being coerced.
