Palestinian terrorists who murder Israelis are no longer even “militants”, but merely “intruders”

A guest post by AKUS

The airbrushing of Palestinian terrorism continues. Apparently even describing Palestinian terrorists as “militants” is now too much for the world’s media. They are now merely “intruders”, even when they murder a family of 5 including a baby of a few months and two little boys.

Harriet Sherwood in the Guardian:

The attacker or attackers scaled Itamar’s perimeter fence, triggering an alarm. Settlement security investigated but failed to notify the Israeli military. The intruders waited inside the settlement for some time after identifying their target, then entered the Fogels’ house through a window. [emphasis added]


According to a military spokeswoman, an intruder entered the Israeli settlement of Itamar near the northern West Bank city of Nablus around 1 a.m., made his way into the family home and killed the two parents and their three children. [emphasis added]

Israel has complained about CNN’s choice of words:

Israel demands CNN apology over attack coverage (YNet)

Israel is demanding an apology from CNN over its coverage of Saturday’s terrorist attack in Itamar claiming it was “tendentious and deceptive.” Government Press Office director Oren Helman sent a letter to CNN’s Bureau Chief Kevin Flower saying he was astonished at the network’s coverage of the ruthless attack.

…. “Only you decided to use the term terrorist attack in quotation marks, as if this were not necessarily the case,” Helman wrote. “There is a limit to the extent of objectivity regarding such a horrific deed.”

…. The IDF’s official statement noted that forces were searching for a “terrorist” and not an “intruder” as the CNN report noted. The terrorist was also referred to as an “assailant” later in the report. There was no mention of the possibility this was the act of a Palestinian terrorist.

CNN appears to have amended its web page from this, the original version:

Actually, Helman needs to broaden his review of the way news about Israel is reported.  The BBC also managed a double. Quotation marks around ‘kills five Israelis’ and “intruder”.

Palestinian ‘kills five Israelis’ in West Bank

“The family – including three children – were stabbed to death by an intruder who broke into their home, Israeli media reported.” [emphasis added]

The media are going downhill steadily. Once, when there was still an element of conscience in the reporting about Israel, the media referred to terrorists as terrorists. Then they become militants, and now intrudersintruders who come into a house uninvited and cut the throats of a man and his wife and three of their children.

Categories: BBC, Guardian

Tagged as: , , , ,

21 replies »

  1. I remember vividly 9/11/01 Tuesday morning brigtht sunny beginning of yet another beautiful day. Visibility 10 miles. Breakfast in the kitchen with my wife. Idyllic. And than the news “small plane just struck WTC no report on the damage yet it appears this is not a terrorist act”I just looked out the window of our fifth floor apartment. And i said to my wife. Hmmm who will fly the plane into the tallest building of Manhattan skyline on day like this? That must be a terrorist. Soon we all found out that i was right. Media will not call things by name because they are paralyzed by fear of repercussions. We are free from fear. So lets call it as it is.

  2. I remember when the New York Times endlessly referred to Hamas terrorists as “activists.”

    If only they would activate themselves near New York Times journalists. 😀

  3. It looks like the media in these cases is not just using a new word in place of terrorist–if they were, they could have written Palestinian intruder.

    Instead, the media is buying into the idea that it is not clear that a Palestinian Arab did it all.

    That is why The Guardian writes it was “believed to be the work of Palestinian militants,” while CNN writes:

    Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said that “all objective data based on the investigation” led the government to believe “the only possible conclusion” was that the settlement murders were a terror attack. He would not elaborate on what evidence was leading investigators to that conclusion.

    It’s a heck of a time for the media to suddenly become objective and look for confirmation start fact-checking.

  4. Banner headline on this morning’s Guardian:

    Der Guardian geht nach Deutschland

    (Alan Rusbridger: Get to know your neighbours a bit better.)

    You’re already there, mate, you Nazi scum.

  5. The BBC, after the London bombings, called the perpetrators “terrorists” in what must have been a slip of the collective tongue.

    They had referred to Arab terrorists who blew up buses in Israel as “militants” so I wrote and asked what was the difference. I got a waffling reply, after a long period of time, which didn’t address the point at all.

    And the BBC has not changed, as we see from its coverage of the events at Itamar.

  6. And – not forgetting the West’s collective “reward” for terrorism – a rasing of the diplomatic status for the so-called Palestinian Authorities representatives in Europe in the UK to “full” diplomatic status.
    Well done “Baroness” Ashton and William Hague!!

  7. The US government and the press were unwilling to call the officer who murdered his fellow soldiers at a US military base while shouting Allah Ahkbar a terrorist either…..
    But an intruder is someone who does not belong. So does that mean the arab murderer did not belong, he trespassed onto someone elses land? That doesn’t fit the narrative very well….

  8. It is extremely common for news websites to put things like that in inverted commas. Annoyingly so. They do it to avoid being sued for making unqualified statements that some would the try to call libellous.

    To claim this is some kind of tacit or overt racism is plainly ridiculous. But a quick perusal of this site reveals that such claims are not out of character.

  9. re Hattie the Hen as Sanity (pause for hollow laughter)

    It’s plain that he/she/it has certain difficulties, but would Hattie really have the gall (I won’t say “intelligence” because that would be stretching credibility) to post here after her gaff about Messianic Jews?

    She’s probably Berchmans or Dottie in a sequinned dress and wig

  10. Good grief what a bunch of buffoons. Do you really think that Harriet Sherwood would even read this site? And then do you think she would leave her email address? And finally, would she then, having already made two stupid decisions, compound it by leaving the wrong email address?

    Given the logic issues you clearly have, perhaps you do think that. But really, given your inability to think critically in this instance, some introspection about the contents of this appalling hate-filled site would not go amiss.

  11. @Sanity

    Actually she does read this site (along with numerous other Guardian writers) and given who we are dealing with the answer is yes.

    And if you want to start talking about hate-filled sites, why don’t you scurry on back to the Guardian and join the hordes of self righteous useful idiots.

  12. I’ve very certain guardian editors and writers read this site. Googling “comment is free” shows “comment is free watch” at the third choice.

    however…they will never recognize this site for fear of providing it more publicity.

  13. InSanity, Der Guardians “CiF” is as “honest” as a Stalinist history book complete with airbrushed photos missing people who Stalin liquidated.

    CifWatch has multiple examples of deleted comments at CiF which didn’t tow the line with Der Guardians islamofascist-philic party line.

    Google for “cif Why was this deleted”.

  14. check out my original profile:

    the guardian pre-moderated my account because i was critical of some of the comments and journalists. some of my comments had 90+ ratings but were deleted.

    here at CIF trolls are allowed to comment as they want. it seems all the liberal newspapers that claim they are being snuffed and silenced by the zionists are simply projecting – they are the ones doing the silencing.

    the guardian probably isn’t as bad as the huffington post. at least comments are posted instantly rather than being screened.