Media Backspin points to a discussion of the NYT’s use of the word “terror.”
Elder of Ziyon, though, finds the standard of former Israel correspondent, James Bennett
The memo said he settled on a rough rule: He would use the words, when they fit, to describe attacks within Israel’s 1948 borders but not in the occupied West Bank or Gaza, which Israel and the Palestinians have been contending over since Israel took them in 1967. When a gunman infiltrated a settlement and killed a 5-year-old girl in her bed, Bennet did not call it terrorism. “All I could do was default to my first approach and describe the attack and the victims as vividly as I could.â€
In this way, the New York Times didn’t even meet the standards of Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, two organizations that decry terror, but find every Israeli response to be too much. Amnesty International writes:
Palestinians are also prohibited from targeting Israeli civilians, including settlers who are not bearing arms, and civilian objects.
Human Rights Watch is even clearer (.pdf)
Finally, Palestinian groups have argued that Israeli settlers in the West Bank, by virtue of their presence in an occupied territory, are not civilians, and that because many Israeli adults are members of the military reserve, they, too, are legitimate military targets. These claims also run counter to international humanitarian law. Even though Israel’s policy of maintaining and expanding civilian settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is illegal under international humanitarian law, a person who resides in an illegal settlement continues to be a civilian unless he or she directly participates in hostilities. Except in those circumstances of direct participation in armed conflict, these residents are entitled to full protection as civilians. Similarly, international humanitarian law leaves no doubt that reserve members of military or security forces, while not on active duty, are not combatants and thus benefit from protection as civilians.
I think it’s safe to call both AI and HRW anti-Israel, yet even they acknowledge that targeting Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria is illegal (and by definition – whether they say it or not – is terrorism.) Yet at least one reporter for the New York Times is of the opinion that if Jews living in Judea or Samaria are attacked, they have it coming to them.
Clark Hoyt, deserves credit for his understanding of the word “terror.” Alas, all too often, those who write for his paper don’t.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
