Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)

Wednesday, 31 July 2013

More Moral Relativism & The T Word

Some Israeli victims of terrorism
"Some of the prisoners have carried out militant attacks that claimed Israeli lives and were jailed for up to 30 years."  Thus reports the BBC in relation to Israel's current commitment to release 104 Palestinians in its gaols to facilitate the resumption of "peace" talks.

The BBC is evidently not alone in using the euphemism "militant" for depraved killers (killers of Israelis, that is) who merit the description "terrorists".

For example, in The American Thinker, Leon Rennert, a former White House correspondent, notes: "Israel and Israel alone it seems is immune from terrorism in the pages of the Washington Post."

That newspaper, he writes, "stoutly refuses to describe blood-soaked Palestinian murderers of Israeli children as terrorists. Instead, it substitutes a totally inaccurate euphemism, calling such depraved killers "militants."'

It's an inaccurate term, he continues, since
'"militant" is a non-judgmental, neutral noun. It carries no pejorative connotations. Whereas use of "terrorist" makes it crystal-clear that the writer and/or publication deems such depraved acts as beyond the pale. Which of course they are if they involve deliberate murders of innocent civilians in pursuit of a political agenda -- the basic definition of terrorism....
Never mind that children were firebombed on a bus or that Palestinian killers singled out women and the elderly as targets, these killers [the paper's Jerusalem correspondent William] Booth insists, are NOT "terrorists"; they are instead "militants." In so writing, Booth washes his hands of any trace of moral turpitude attached to such acts.
As he makes clear in the next paragraph: "The Israeli public views these prisoners as terrorists who have blood on their hands. Palestinians see them as freedom fighters struggling to reclaim their homeland and oust the occupiers."
So there you have it: Moral relativism carries the day at the Washington Post. Israel may call them terrorists -- but not Booth or the Washington Post. Message to readers who retain a modicum of absolute morality: Be grateful that we don't extol them as freedom fighters. Just take your pick. Call them freedom fighters or terrorists. But we won't. The Post sees nothing repulsive, nothing subhuman, nothing immoral in Palestinians murdering Israeli kids."
... and some more
Yet, again like the BBC, the Washington Post does not resile from employing the description "terrorist" in certain situations:

'Compounding this deliberate rejection of the T-for-terrorism word is the fact that the Post does not hesitate to use it in reporting on terrorist attacks elsewhere, including when such attacks occur in Europe or the United States....'
Read more here
Hat tip: Love of the Land blog


  1. Your article convicts you of the very errors you complain about.

    Your nation is dropping white phosphorus on children. That's a war crime under Geneva IV and Rome 2002. But you seem blind to that? ... Perhaps we can call that Isreali "militancy"?

    Ethics begins with understanding that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. try and see things from other people's points of view?

    The truth is that both sides in this conflict need to stop with the war crimes. That should be Step#1.

    To do this, both sides are going to have to police their own extremists ... but also NOT over-react to *incidents*

    Otherwise, you are trapped in the logic of your own reciprocal violence.

  2. Wow ...

    After "approval"


    Once again you convict yourself of hypocrisy ... you are calling for freedom of speech yet you censor posts ... wow ...

    1. Sometimes comments are or seem to be defamatory and I've no desire to be embroiled in a lawsuit, Chris.