For over three years, in continual updates and through TerrorPetition, HonestReporting has led the campaign to insist that news outlets call Palestinian terror "terror."  Now, as the scourge of Islamic terrorism continues to spread throughout the globe, it is more important than ever that Israel's struggle against Palestinian terror be properly identified as part of the larger battle to preserve civil, democratic society against militant Islam.

Definition of terrorism

Though a number of definitions exist, the United States Government's definition has gained broad acceptance:

Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

The term "terrorist group" means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

Under this definition, the US State Department and Canadian government define Hamas and Islamic Jihad as terrorist organizations, and outlaw all financial or logistical support for their activities. Even Yasser Arafat, writing in The New York Times on February 3, 2002, described Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as "terrorist."

Media use of term "terrorism"

Media outlets however, especially in news reports, will oftentimes shy away from the use of the term "terrorism" when describing deliberate attacks on civilians worldwide. This, in the effort to maintain journalistic neutrality, which some journalists believe is jeopardized when using the pejorative term "terrorism."

HonestReporting's position is that a deliberate attack against a civilian target, anywhere in the world, is most accurately referred to as a "terrorist attack," for two fundamental reasons:

▪ It has become common English usage to use "terrorism" to describe these horrific events (as per the definition above), and it therefore is the most accurate term available.

▪ The post-9/11 political climate is characterized by a struggle between radical Islamic groups and western democracies. The repeated Islamist targeting of innocent western civilians to further jihadist goals is understood by the great majority of world to lie beyond the pale of legitimate political struggle. The term "terrorism" is therefore necessary to differentiate between this wholly illegitimate method of warfare and legitimate methods, as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

When media outlets refuse to use the term "terrorism" to describe what are clearly terrorist acts, they both depart from common usage, and in effect (if not in intent) embolden those who use the mass murder of civilians to further their ideological goals. And since the language of news coverage has an extremely powerful effect on popular opinion, this refusal to call terror "terror" confers a degree of legitimacy to the horrific acts, in the minds of millions of media consumers.

On occasion, media outlets will even deny third parties the right to call terror "terror." An example from the New York Times (7/15/04):

In June, Israeli forces regularly raided Jenin by night, arresting or killing young men the Army accused of being militants.

No, the Israeli Army accuses them of being terrorists. It's one thing for a media outlet to refuse to call terror by its name. It's quite another to twist another party's language to fit their highly questionable editorial policies.

Double standards in media coverage

As HonestReporting has repeatedly documented, while media outlets often use the accurate term "terrorism" in other world contexts, when it comes to Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israelis the term is rarely used. This double standard is particularly evident when comparing terrorist attacks in Israel and elsewhere that occurred nearly simultaneously, or in very similar physical circumstances. A few recent examples:

▪ In the beginning of April, 2003 an Iraqi army officer killed five American soldiers by blowing himself up in a taxi. In Netanya that week, a Palestinian ignited his explosive belt at the entrance to a cafe, injuring 50 Israelis. The Associated Press listed the Iraqi attack among other historical "terror attacks against the U.S. military," but AP coverage of the Netanya blast referred to the bomber as a Palestinian "militant."

▪ In May, 2003 the New York Times launched a new, special section of their news site called "Threats and Responses: Targeting Terror." Recent deadly terror attacks in Chechnya, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines were included, but absolutely no reference was made to two terrorist attacks in Israel during that period.

▪ In October, 2003 suicide bombers killed a number of American soldiers in Iraq, and 19 Israelis in a Haifa cafe. The San Jose Mercury News reported on Iraq: "Suicide bombers unleashed a wave of terror in the Iraqi capital Monday..." But in Israel, the Mercury News reported no "terror."

Editors' positions

On Jan. 4, 2004, the executive editor of the Miami Herald expressed his paper's commitment to call terror "terror," despite the overriding concern for evenhandedness:

It's Herald policy to use the most neutral language available in a given situation. We, too, label those who fight for a cause as militants. But unlike some of our colleagues, we see a line where a militant becomes a terrorist and we don't shy away from the latter word. When a suicide bomber blows up a bus carrying innocent civilians, it's an act of terrorism, not militancy.

The Herald is the latest in a string of papers to recently address this issue head-on, however belatedly.

Here's an overview of the positions that ombudsmen and editors at various papers have expressed (Note particularly the distinction between al Qaeda and Hamas that the Orlando Sentinel, Boston Globe and Washington Post attempt to make):

The quite similar claims by the Orlando Sentinel, Boston Globe, and Washington Post demand attention, since both attempt to justify the non-use of the term "terrorism" in the specific context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These editors posit that since Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad are "resisting occupation," "at war," and have "nationalistic ambitions," the term "terrorism" may not apply to their actions ― even brutal attacks on Israeli civilian buses and restaurants. At the same time, the editors are willing to accept the use of the term to describe al Qaeda terrorist acts.

Their logic is faulty for a number of reasons:

▪ Palestinian Arab terrorism against Jews ― in the decades before and after 1948 ― long preceded the 1967 war that created the disputed (or "occupied") territories.

▪ Hamas and Islamic Jihad have repeatedly clarified, in official documents and statements, that their goal is not the creation of an independent Palestinian state, but rather the genocidal elimination of all Jewish presence in the region.

▪ Palestinian terrorist groups have strong affiliations with global Islamist terrorist groups and regimes, and are not merely "regional" in scope.

▪ Even in the context of warfare, deliberate attacks against civilian targets are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and therefore demand being described as terrorism.

Conclusion

The latest wave of Palestinian terrorism, including over 100 suicide bombings since September 2000, has caused the brutal murder of over 1000 Israeli civilians. Israeli policy and action regarding the Palestinian people and leadership must be understood in the context of this unprecedented assault on a Western democracy.

As the West unites against barbaric Islamic terrorism that now also haunts continental Europe, it is essential that Israel's struggle against Palestinian terror be properly identified as part of this larger battle. When news outlets differentiate between attacks in Israel and those elsewhere, they expose an editorial decision that Palestinian attacks are not part of that larger battle between Islamist terrorists and democratic civilization, but rather, more justified acts of nationalistic "resistance." This journalistic act is factually wrong, morally dangerous, and a far cry from "neutral reporting."