This just in from AP/Guardian: Suicide bombers during 2nd Intifada didn’t attack people, they attacked “cities”

The beautiful thing about language is that so much meaning depends on the turn of a phrase, a slight grammatical alteration, or the choice of one word over  another.

While the Guardian has mastered modern day anti-Israel newspeak better than most, much of the mainstream media is equally as adept at the sometimes arduous task of avoiding directly assigning moral agency to Palestinian terrorists or, alternatively, assigning humanity to their Jewish victims.

The Guardian’s Conal Urquhart is a master at such ideologically driven rhetorical tricks – a talent which was on full display in his report on the Jerusalem terrorist attack back in March – in which a terrorist planted a bomb laced with shrapnel at a crowded bus station, killing a woman and injuring dozens. Urquhart informed us alternately, in the same article, that “a bomb exploded” and, then, that “a bus exploded”, without once suggesting that an act of terrorism was intentionally committed by someone, nor noting that the attack on innocent Israeli civilians was quite obviously the work of a terrorist or even the more politically correct “militant”.

The Guardian/AP story “West Bank barrier to be rerouted around Palestinian village, June 26, about an Israeli Supreme Court decision to reroute a section of the security fence, contained the following passage:

“Israel began building the barrier in late 2002 to keep out Palestinian attackers amid a wave of suicide bombers targeting its cities. It says the structure is needed to keep militants from reaching Israeli population centres.”

In addition to the skillful avoidance of the word terrorist anywhere in the passage, note that these  faceless suicide bombers were merely “targeting”, rather than successfully murdering, not Israeli civilians, but, rather, “its cities”.    

No, it shouldn’t need repeating, but in the age of delegitimization, where every conceivable tool is employed to avoid casting Israelis as victims, and Palestinian terrorists as perpetrators, the following can’t be repeated enough.

The 2nd Intifada was a coordinated effort by Palestinian terrorists to kill as many innocent Israeli men, women, and children as their shrapnel ridden explosives could achieve – a murderous onslaught which successfully claimed over 1,000 lives and maimed thousands more.  “Cities” weren’t the target. Jews were.

Israel’s security fence represented the efforts of a democracy under siege to do what any nation facing such a threat would attempt: to protect its civilians from the terrorists’ murderous designs.

In the cognitive war against Israel words matter dearly, and its vital, if we are to win this war, that we not allow this steady drip of political propaganda to go unchallenged. 

14 replies »

  1. Wow. It must be a slow news day at CifWatch !

    “Terrorists attack cities”. Nobody will understand that, even in the context of today’s global terrorism …

    Perhaps you should devote more time to moderation of the bigoted comments that are destroying this site instead of writing pointless articles like this.

    (and you complain when I question your use of the word “certainly”) !

    • MTC, you’re not denying are you, that the use, by the anti-Israel media, of language meant to obscure the malevolance and moral agency of terrorists, and to avoid the humanity of Israeli victims of terror, is a big problem? The sentence I cited “a wave of suicide bombers targeting its cities” is, at best, a horrible use of language, and at worst an intentional attempt to hide the fact that such terrorists were successful at murdering Israelis. Like I said, Israel is in a cognitive war, and I’m sorry if you can’t see this.

      • Of course it is a big problem. But you should post some big examples. The Guardian is often criticized here for calling suicide bombers “militants” or similar, but here Urquhart clearly uses the term “suicide bombers”. So who exactly do suicide bombers attack ? I give the average Guardian reader credit for understanding that suicide bombers attack people, not facilities. There are several possibilities: Settlements, army bases or cities. He says cities. Cities means civilians (I think that post-7/7 Londoners understand that well).

        So you have posted a meaningless example in trying to prove a valid point.

        • Adam, I have to agree with MTC here.
          Ona personal level I believe this example does not reflect the overwhole tone of the Guardian’s coverage.
          in fact this is one of the better coverage.

    • “Perhaps you should devote more time to censorship of comments that don’t toe the line of the Arab imperialist narrative…”

      Fixed it to show what you really intended to say.

      • No, I said what I intended to say, namely, that mental morons like you are destroying a vital web site with your bigoted hatred, your racism and your disgusting attacks on anyone that does agree totally with your destructive point of view.

        • “…with your bigoted hatred, your racism and your disgusting attacks on anyone that does agree totally with your destructive point of view.”

          Mr. “West Bank settlers are fascist scum draining all the monies from ordinary Israelis” says what?

          I’d laugh if it weren’t so sad.

          • Keep up the good work. In the end the only people that visit this site will be your little group of mutually-masturbating-mental-midgets. Your victory will be complete !!!

            Oh wait a minute …. the aim of this site is to monitor Cif ; what good is it if nobody other than the convinced visit the site ?

            I realize that this is a difficult argument for you to comprehend. Do you want me to use a bigger font ?

            • “…your little group of mutually-masturbating-mental-midgets.”

              Not a blot on CiFWatch, this type of comment. Not at all.

              “…the aim of this site is to monitor Cif”

              Yes. I dare say you’ll enlighten me as to how giving a platform for bashing the Jewish inhabitants of Judea and Samaria is conducive to that aim.

  2. “In the cognitive war against Israel words matter dearly”

    yes – it was interesting to see a report on Guardian-on-the-Wold (aka Glastonbury – evil music event indoctrinating gullible youth in the joys of sunshine, rainbows, and has-been pop stars) in the Sunday Times by one strange, one must assume it is some sort of lefty, person known as Caroline Lamb who called the Glasto beanfest – Palestine-on-the-Wold …

    Why? Because of the security fence to keep out those sad enough to wish to enter this god-forsaken hellhole, though there are rumours that a few intrepid souls managed to tunnel their way to freedom.

  3. “Israel’s security fence represented the efforts of a democracy under siege to do what any nation facing such a threat would attempt: to protect its civilians from the terrorists’ murderous designs.”

    That’s a load of crap. Any other nation EXCEPT FOR ISRAEL would have wiped the fuckers out.