Channels
Photo: AFP
Terror in London: flowers for the fallen
Photo: AFP

Western media and 'T word'

In London it's 'terror,' but only an 'attack' by 'militant' in Israel

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and blows itself up in the midst of a crowded London train station causing mass casualties, it is likely a terrorist.

 

But if that same "duck" blows itself up on a crowded street in Netanya, it is a "militant" carrying out an "attack." At least according to the U.S. and British media, who still make a distinction between what happens here, and what has recently happened in London.

 

It seems that the news media have finally unwrapped the word terrorist from its hermetically sealed cocoon and let it spread its wings in their newspapers and websites in the wake of last Thursday's suicide terror attacks in London.

 

"The Times" of London Online Style Guide has this entry: “Remember, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”


Aftermath of Netanya terror attack

 

So, I guess British Islamic militants who blow themselves up are the Times' kind of terrorists. Here's a part of their latest story on the incident: "Four friends from northern England have changed the face of terrorism by carrying out the suicide bombings that brought carnage to London last week….Three of the men lived in Leeds and the immediate fear is that members of a terrorist cell linked to the city are planning further strikes."

 

Clear here

 

London's "Independent" newspaper, notorious for its slanted coverage about Israel, posted this headline on its website Wednesday: "The police's nightmare: home-grown terrorists."

 

The BBC, usually known for its reserve, has a heading on its website: "What happened: How the key incidents unfolded on London's day of terror."

 

Despite what seemed clear to us in Israel within the first few minutes of hearing what was happening in London, those news agencies had to be dragged kicking and screaming, as it were, into acknowledging that the four coordinated attacks last Thursday were in fact something other than a "power surge." An air of disbelief hung over those news organizations' early reports.

 

Nonetheless, by mid-week, with the attackers widely believed to be British citizens of Pakistani descent, the terms "terror" and "terrorist" were popping up in unusual places on those sites.

 

Even the U.S. media have gotten into the act. USA Today, in a dispatch from London, said: "In a breakthrough in their investigation, police arrested a man Tuesday in connection with last week's terrorist bombings."

 

The New York Times led its website with this headline on Wednesday: "4 From Britain Carried Out Terror Blasts, Police Say."

 

Dictionary definition

 

Not so in their coverage of the latest suicide bombing in Israel, which has left at least four Israelis dead as of Wednesday.

 

"The Guardian" reported that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas "will be urged by the Israelis to show that he is cracking down on militants."

 

The BBC said: "Tuesday's attack in the Israeli town of Netanya was claimed by Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad."

 

USA Today wrote: "A Palestinian suicide bomber killed three women and injured at least 30 other people in the coastal city of Netanya on Tuesday evening in an attack that ended five months of relative calm in the region. In response, Israeli forces raided the Palestinian town of Tulkarm early Wednesday, killing one police officer who fired on troops hunting down Islamic Jihad militants believed responsible for the bombing…"

 

The New York Times also did its best not to use the T-word: "A Palestinian suicide bomber set off his explosives Tuesday evening at a busy intersection outside a shopping mall here, killing himself and two women and wounding more than 50 people, the Israeli police said."

 

Fellas, try this definition of terrorism from "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition," on for size: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

 

It seems pretty simple to me: If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and employs the unlawful use of force or violence against people with the intention of intimidating societies, it is a terrorist, whether it is quacking in London, New York, Madrid or Netanya.

 

Alan D. Abbey is Editor and Managing Director of Ynetnews.com

פרסום ראשון: 07.13.05, 14:32
 new comment
Warning:
This will delete your current comment