First, note what has become a pejorative characterization, "settler woman", to describe the victim. This represents the first step in Reuters' efforts to justify the terror act. After all, as a "settler", she obviously had it coming to her. (We suppose Fisher-Ilan was being generous in not referring to the woman as a virulent settler woman).A Jewish settler woman was stabbed and wounded on a roadside in the occupied West Bank in what Israeli police said on Sunday was an attack by a Palestinian militant. There were no immediate claims of responsibility for the assault late on Saturday night near the city of Bethlehem and a settlement bloc known as Gush Etzion, which occurred after a mosque was vandalised elsewhere in the West Bank.
Secondly, in reporting the location of the attack, note the reference to "the occupied West Bank". This is the next step in Reuters' defense of attempted murder: tag the scene of the crime as a place where, in Reuters' view, the victim had no right to be (a bus stop at the Gush Etzion junction). Yes, if only the Jews would cease in their provocative acts, i.e., agree to be ethnically cleansed from their homes in the territories, all would be well.
Next comes Reuters' attempt to sanitize the nature of the attack by misquoting sources: Israeli officials did not refer to the perpetrator as a Palestinian "militant" but rather, as a terror operative. When it comes to serving as apologists for Arab terror, writers for Reuters can be relied upon to deliberately distort the Israeli perspective, in violation of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism.
Finally, note Fisher-Ilan's suggestion that the terror attack "occurred after a mosque was vandalised elsewhere in the West Bank." Yes, three days after. For Reuters, murderous Arab violence is always viewed as a direct (and reasonable) response to Jewish provocation.