Why CNN, BBC and SKY call Palestinian terrorists “gunmen”

May 1, 2002

Last Saturday Palestinian terrorists entered the Israeli village of Adora on the West Bank killing four, including a child, and wounding seven others. The wounded were the lucky ones. The bullets that hit them were intended to kill.

None of the networks nor media journalists were at Adora in person to report the news when it happened. They had to rely on Israeli sources to convey the news to them.

”˜Mechablim` are terrorists

Israeli sources have only one word to describe Palestinians who carried out the bloodbath. That word in Hebrew is “mechablim” and it`s denotation is terrorists. Not gunmen. Not militants. Not activists. Not any other euphemism preferred by pro-Palestinian journalists and reporters.

But here`s how CNN reported this breaking news item:

“The Israeli army is searching for Palestinian gunmen who infiltrated the Jewish settlement of Adora near the West Bank town of Hebron, killing at least four Israeli settlers in their homes, including a 5-year-old girl, an army spokesman said.”

CNN did not tell the truth

Why did CNN use ”˜gunmeninstead of ”˜terrorists which the Army spokesman used? The only explanation can be CNN policy which forbids its editors, journalists and anchors to apply the word “terrorists” to Palestinian murderers, trained, indoctrinated and financed to kill Jews. How come altering the words of the Israel Defense Force`s spokesman does not trouble CNN professionals?

CNN demonstrates its prejudice even further in telling their audience that it was the Israel Army which specifically used the word ”˜gunmen`. This is an absolute lie, an outrage.

BBC did not tell the truth

BBC also changes the key words of the Army spokesman, thus: “The Israeli army says four people, including a young child, have been killed by Palestinian gunmen . . .” No sir, the Israel Army called them terrorists, you called them ”˜gunmen`!

SKY did not tell the truth

SKY was hardly different: “Four people have been killed after Palestinian gunmen attacked an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.”

It might be suggested that there`s not much difference between the one word and the other. But if that were true why should these networks deliberately avoid using the terrorist word? Why did they not repeat the word supplied by their source? By what right did they alter it?

The networks` dilemma

I believe there`s a good reason these networks dare not describe the killers as terrorists. For if you are committed to the Palestinian cause how can you, in all good conscience, label them as terrorists? And still continue to support them? That is their dilemma. Their solution, regretfully, is to falsify the news.

It`s hard to believe CNN, BBC and SKY want to be known as terrorist supporters. Yet ironically, by not labeling the murderers for what they truly are ”“ terrorists ”“ they do in fact support them.

Terrorist organizations claim responsibility

Let`s also remember that the terrorist organization involved in the killing of the Adora civilians will claim credit for having organized the death and maiming of their Israeli targets. Frequently the organization in question is one of the 9 listed by the US Department of State as a Palestinian terrorist organization.

Arafat calls them terrorists

Even if responsibility is claimed by a new, hitherto unknown organization, terrorists, not gunmen, carried out the attack at Adora. Thats by Arafats own definition. Here`s his specific quote from his full-page declaration published in the New York Times early in the year:

“But first, let me be very clear. I condemn the attacks carried out by terrorist groups against Israeli civilians. These groups do not represent the Palestinian people or their legitimate aspirations for freedom. They are terrorist organizations, and I am determined to put an end to their activities.”

Britain calls them terrorists

Britain`s Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as:

“. . . the use or threat of action where

· the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public . . .

· the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

· The use or threat of action . . . which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism . . .


The US calls them terrorists

The US State Department defined terrorism in 1983:

“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 “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. http://www.history.navy.mil/library/guides/terrorism.htm#definition

The EU will call them terrorists. Finally, the EU is developing a list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Groups. The EU has proposed that the Palestinian terrorist groups already proscribed by the US Department of State, should be incorporated into its own list. However, the EU has not yet adopted a commonly agreed definition of terrorism. Appeasers in the EU may yet succeed in postponing a decision. For how long?

So there you have it. Israel, Britain, the US State Department, Arafat (and perhaps the EU too) favor calling a spade a terrorist.

But CNN, BBC and SKY are all for calling a terrorist a gunman.

The winners in this public relations debate are those nice guys, the Palestinian murderers. Israeli victims are the losers. Because Palestinian lies are far trump the truth when strengthened by such powerful, prejudiced, networks.

{} {} {}

Comments are closed.