On ‘militant’ vs. ‘terrorist’: JTA responds
We’ve gotten several complaints for our use of the term “militant Palestinians” in this headline following last week’s terrorist bombing in Jerusalem: "New violence suggests end of lull between Israel and militant Palestinians."
Here’s why we used it:
There’s a difference between the terms terrorist and militant, as our critics surely would agree.
Militant is a wider term of use, encompassing not only those who perpetrate terrorist violence, but those who practice, advocate for or otherwise promote the use of violence against Israel or Israelis. In this case, the headline suggests that the lull between Israel and this wider group – not just the perpetrators of terrorist attacks who detonate bombs on Jerusalem streets and stab settlers in their beds – may be over.
At the same time, our use of this phrase draws a distinction between militant Palestinians and non-militant Palestinians, the latter of whom are not using violence against Israel or Israelis.
Willfully and repeatedly referring to Palestinian terrorists as militants smacks of a double-standard applied only for Israel and the Jewish people, and JTA categorically rejects it. It’s why we clearly called the March 23 Jerusalem bombing a “terrorist attack” in the story’s second sentence, and why Hamas, which is mentioned later in the story, is referred to as a “terrorist group.”
But that doesn’t mean that every Palestinian militant is a terrorist, or that we won’t occasionally refer to members of groups like Islamic Jihad and Hamas as militants. Being a member of a group that espouses violence surely makes you a militant, but does mere membership make you a terrorist? That requires action that targets, or helps target, civilians.
Share
9 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
It appears to me that you are arguing that if you indirectly but affirmatively aid a terrorist action, you are not a terrorist but a militant. If an individual raises funds or contributes funds in any manner to a general fund or works to recruit for a group that espouses violent action against civilians that person is not part of the terrorist attack financed by those funds or the act is committed by recruits to the organization that person is a militant and not a terrorist? I think not! The people who placed the bomb at the bus stop or who made it possible are all responsible. The people who slashed a 3 months old baby’s throat in Itamar and the people who made it possible are all responsible. That includes but is not limited to, the actors, the planners, the fundraisers, the dues payers, and the recruiters, in essence the entire organization.
I clearly understand the distinction between militant and terrorist. It is rational and logical. The question I have is this definition accepted as mainstream in the general Mass Media, or is this how we as Jews or JTA seek to distinguish the meaning between the two words?
Your attempt at such a distinction is ludicrous and a reflection of the political correctness that you pretend to avoid. By definition, all terrorists are militants, but not all militants are terrorists. So? As a Jerusalem resident for the past 40 years, I suggest that you are missing the point entirely. The so-called lull between Israel and terrorists that you erroneously refer to has never existed; nor has there ever been a lull between Israel and those who militate against its existence. We Israelis are not confused about who our enemies are and don’t devalue the language in describing them properly. Anyone attacking innocent civilians in a manner calculated to arouse terror—in Lenin’s verb, to terrorize—is a terrorist.
Words do matter. Your tepid explanation notwithstanding, I still can’t understand why JTA (and other media) continue to use the word “militant” when “terrorist” is really what should be used. “Militant creates some kind of neutral or more benign response than “terrorist.”
According to dictionary.com, militant means :vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause” or it could be “a person engaged in warfare fighting.” By that definition U.S. troops are militants. Terrorism uses “violence and threats to intimidate or coerce” and cause “a state of fear and submission.” That description seems closer to an accurate description of those who support the actual perpetrators of the violence as well. It’s called aiding and abetting. And those who support the act are culpable and deserving of the name “terrorist.”
Based on what George explains above, assuredly those who support Zionism, be they Jew or evangelistic Christian-- they too must be identified as terrorists not militants…
Since most Israelis serve the military & the govt consists of retired or reserve militiary; Zionist history is replete with massacres, bombings, false flags, ethnic cleansing, brutality, contraventions of International laws (Geneva / human rights violations) pre-emptive strikes, assassinations, kidnappings, forced confessions, forced collaborations, and of course imprisonment of children, mass nighttime roundups, routine extensions of administration detentions, incarcerations without charges ...--failure to present evidence, gagging of journalists, routine checkpoint abuse & humiliation.
Certainly one would have to identify such gun totin’ bomb dropping missile lobbing, self exonerating by this singularly powerful military Occupier --has gone well past militant to fascistic /terrorist occupiers, just as Stern, Irgun & other fascist admiring zionist foundation history informs us & daily news report inform. The Israeli crock pot points an accusing finger at the Occupied kettle and takes avenging collective punishment as fitting response to their never ending oppression.
Enough!...enough killing, bloodshed and criminal brutality. Apologize..release the children...feed the hungry and remove the hundreds of thousands of zealot illegal colonialist setters from stolen Palestinian homes and land. Become what the solution you seek. God aint no real estate broker...he is Father of ALL his Children...they is no “lesser God”...we are all ONE family --to dispute this is to spit on halacha if you believe in it...and if you dont you have even less justification to claim “God’s real estate gift”.
The distinction between militant and terrorist Palestinians might have merit if Palestinians engaged in non-terroristic military activity against Israeli people and institutions. Unfortunately, militant Palestinians have chosen to battle Israel almost exclusively through terrorism, including the current firing of missiles from Gaza into Israeli civilian areas. Terror is their weapon of choice.
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Jonathan on Is Tel Aviv or Jerusalem the real Israel?
- Don on Time cover mashup: Suckling Bibi
- Terry N. Gardner on Israeli para-Athlete Moran Samuel wins gold, saves the day with her own rendition of 'Hatikvah'
- Michael Poppers on Israeli para-Athlete Moran Samuel wins gold, saves the day with her own rendition of 'Hatikvah'
- Ed Greenberg on Israeli para-Athlete Moran Samuel wins gold, saves the day with her own rendition of 'Hatikvah'
Betsy
03/31/11 03:42 PM
Well said.
The general media (i.e.NYTimes plus most others) too often eschew calling terrorists terrorists. JTA’s definition of militant vs. terrorist is appropriate.