Shouldn't Hillary and State be watching their language?

On March 12th, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was “shocked and deeply saddened” when she learned about the murders in Itamar. She announced:
The United States condemns this appalling attack in the strongest possible terms. To kill three innocent children and their parents while they sleep is an inhuman crime for which there can be no justification.
She did not use the term “illegitimate” or “corrosive” which she employed previously to describe what those five civilians were doing with their lives: residing in a Jewish community beyond the Green Line.  What does Mrs. Clinton presume Arabs would think, and then do, if they hear the words she utters?  Does she not grasp her language influence?
And no sooner did Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announce the authorization of construction of hundreds of new housing units in Judea and Samaria (to be located in those areas termed ''blocs'' to distinguish them from other sites) and in a visit to the families sitting shiva for those murdered Jews saying “they shoot, we build” did the State Department then let loose another volley of verbal abuse:
U.S.: Israel''s approval of new West Bank homes counters peace efforts - State Department calls settlement activity ''illegitimate.'' Israel''s continued West Bank settlement construction runs counter efforts to resume Middle East peace negotiations, a statement by the U.S. State Department said on Sunday. In the first U.S. reaction to the Israeli decision, the State Department said in a statement Sunday that Washington was deeply concerned by continuing Israeli actions with respect to settlements in the West Bank."
And the statement, also issued by the US Tel Aviv Embassy (which the US refuses to move to Jerusalem despite a Congressional directive) continued:
Israeli settlements are illegitimate and run counter to efforts to resume direct negotiations...through good faith direct negotiations, the parties should mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties.
The statement stressed that “the continued peace-talks stalemate injured both parties, saying that the lack of a resolution to this conflict harms Israel, harms the Palestinians, and harms the interests of the United States and the international community.”
Well, to my mind, the United States in now justifying, in principle, that attack.  If the Arab side is “injured,” if the Arabs of the former Mandate of Palestine territory are “harmed,” if the right of Jews to reside in their national homeland is “illegitimate” and runs “counter” to peace efforts, what do you think an Arab, educated in the hate-filled incitement-generated atmosphere of the Palestinian Authority with its anti-Semitic mosque sermons, is assuming and concluding?
And if agency reports, along with many other mainstream media outlets, including the Washington Post, continue to call the persons who slaughtered the Fogel family members as “militants” and here’s The Guardian headline:
Five members of Jewish family killed in suspected Palestinian militant attack
Then terror is irrelevant as a moral issue simply because the media assures it doesn’t exist.  That term is not part of the public discourse.  A new value system is in place.
In the fixation centered on the Jewish communities in Yesha, the media will overlook this story:
Hamas is planning to murder Israelis, take their bodies and then ''negotiate'' their return to Israel. The sources said Hamas activists believe they cannot keep Israeli hostages out of the Shin Bet and Palestinian Authority''s reach for long. So they plan to kill them, abduct and bury the bodies, then negotiate returning them to Israel.
Which was published prior to the terror attack on Itamar.
It is terror that is illegitimate just as the Pal. Authority incitement is illegitimate.  And what is especially "corrosive" is an American Administration policy that cannot but appear to encourage Arab obstinacy and even provide succor for violence against Jews.