|Some Israeli victims of terrorism|
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|
'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