CAMERA Responds to Washington Post’s “Language of Terrorism”

The Washington Post published the following response by Eric Rozenman, CAMERA’s Washington Director, to a September 21, 2003 column on the definition of terrorism by Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler.

The original Washington Post column appears below the response.

Balancing Coverage of the Middle East
September 27, 2003; Page A23

Michael Getler [“The Language of Terrorism,” ombudsman, Sept. 21] says that readers who complain that your paper’s coverage “is biased against Israel” frequently cite the paper’s “description of people or organizations that carry out or sponsor suicide bombings as “˜militants’ rather than “˜terrorists.’ ”

Getler says your use of “terrorist” and “militant” follows your paper’s internal stylebook. Well, your stylebook needs an overhaul. According to Getler, good journalism as outlined in the stylebook avoids “labels” such as “terrorism” and “terrorist” in favor of “more informative and precise” language. But camouflaging terrorists as militants and avoiding information about why the United States identifies Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad and others as terrorist organizations amounts to subjective labeling and imprecise generalization.

The ombudsman quotes Post Foreign Editor David Hoffman as saying that “if the Israelis say they have assassinated a terrorist, we should not embrace their labeling automatically. We may say he was a suspected terrorist, or someone the Israelis considered a terrorist. . . . [W]e should always look independently at whether the person has committed an act of terrorism.”

Yet your Sept. 21 news story “State Department Transfers List of Suspects” contained repeated references to “suspected terrorists,” “known or suspected terrorist associates” and “foreign terrorist organizations.” The word militant was absent.

The ombudsman tries to rebut readers who “attempt to equate the U.S. battle against al Qaeda with the Israeli battle against Hamas.” Instead, he exposes the conceptual flaw underlying your paper’s usage:

Hamas conducts terrorism but also has territorial ambitions, is a nationalist movement and conducts some social work. As far as we know, al Qaeda exists only as a [multinational] terrorist network. . . The Palestinian resistance is indigenous.

Discounted are Hamas’s territorial ambitions including not only the West Bank and Gaza but all of Israel; its status as an Islamic movement funded partly by Iran; and the recruitment aspect of its “social work.”

Discounted also are al Qaeda’s pan-Islamic ambitions in Europe and North America, as well as its social work, including clinics and roads in Afghanistan and Africa. Ignored is the reality that Arabs have been massacring Jews, an indigenous and returning people, at least since the 1920s. If humiliating occupation was the issue, why didn’t Palestinian Arabs accept virtually all those territories in exchange for peace at Camp David in 2000?

Eric Rozenman
Fairfax

The author, a former newspaper reporter and editor, is Washington director of CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

Ombudsman
The Language of Terrorism
By Michael Getler
Washington Post
September 21, 2003; Page B06

Some readers complain regularly that Post news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle is biased against Israel. One enduring example, they say, is the description of people or organizations that carry out or sponsor suicide bombings as “militants” rather than “terrorists,” the term these readers view as more accurate and descriptive.

They say terrorism is distinguished from militancy in that “the aim is to spread fear and to kill, indiscriminately, men, women and children. Softening the nomenclature tends to encourage and legitimize terrorism,” as one reader put it. The State Department, they note, labels the Islamic resistance movement known as Hamas as a terrorist organization and The Post calls it a militant group. They say the Post uses “terrorist” to describe Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network but not Hamas, Islamic Jihad and their leaders.

These complaints are not unique to the Post. Many news organizations face similar challenges, and a number of them are reviewing their internal guidelines. These are difficult issues, and it is good to be challenged and to think things over. The Post, for example, had no formal guidance on this in its internal style manual until March 2002.

Here is some of what the guidelines now say.

The language we use should be chosen for its ability to inform readers. Terrorism and terrorist can be useful words, but they are labels. Like all labels, they do not convey much hard information. We should rely first on specific facts, not characterizations. Why refer to a ‘terrorist attack in Tel Aviv’ when we can be more informative and precise: ‘The bombing of a disco frequented by teenagers in Tel Aviv,’ for example. Our first obligation to readers is to tell them what happened, as precisely as possible.

When we use these labels, we should do so in ways that are not tendentious. For example, we should not resolve the argument over whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, or a political organization that condones violence, or something else, by slapping a label on Hamas. Instead, we should give readers facts and perhaps quotes from disputing parties about how best to characterize the organization.

The guidance also quotes Foreign Editor David Hoffman:

If the Israelis say they have assassinated a terrorist, we should not embrace their labeling automatically. We may say he was a suspected terrorist, or someone the Israelis considered a terrorist, or someone the Israelis say participated in a terrorist act. In other words, we should always look independently at whether the person has committed an act of terrorism, whether we know sufficient facts to say he has or has not and what the facts are. We should always strive to satisfy our own standards and not let others set standards for us.

That last sentence is central to the editing process here. The terrorist label is very powerful and the paper takes care in avoiding language that is preferred by one side or another in the Middle East. I don’t get mail from readers who say they don’t understand what happened in any particular attack. Readers seem able to conclude on their own whether something appears to them as a terror attack.

Using “militant” or “gunmen” with terrorist actions, as many news organizations do, may not be very satisfying. But adopting particular language can suggest taking sides and a diminution of the reporter’s invaluable role to report what is seen and said and to not take sides. If Israeli officials describe something as a terrorist act, they are frequently quoted in the paper on that point. By the same token, Palestinians who describe an Israeli missile attack on a Hamas leader that also kills civilians as “state-sponsored terrorism” also get recorded.

Making a general point, the Post guidance also says that “terrorism is real and identifiable, and we can identify it when that is appropriate.” When it comes to the Middle East news report, however, that word is mostly used when describing one side’s assessment of the other, and usually not in the descriptive voice of a reporter.

Critical readers also attempt to equate the U.S. battle against al Qaeda with the Israeli battle against Hamas. There are, however, differences. Hamas conducts terrorism but also has territorial ambitions, is a nationalist movement and conducts some social work. As far as we know, al Qaeda exists only a
s a terrorist network. It is composed of radicals from several Islamic countries. The Palestinian resistance is indigenous. Al Qaeda launched a devastating surprise attack on the United States. Israelis and Palestinians have been at war for a long time. Palestinians have been resisting a substantial and, to Palestinians, humiliating, Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza since they were seized in the 1967 war. That resistance has now bred suicide bombers. These are terrorist acts, not to be condoned. But the contexts of the struggle against al Qaeda and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are different. News organizations should not back away from the word terrorism when it is the proper term. But as a rule, strong, descriptive, factual reporting is better than labels.

Michael Getler can be reached by phone at 202-334-7582 or e-mail at ombudsman@washpost.com.

AP Calls Terrorists “Revenge Bombers”

The Associated Press (AP) has coined a new term for attacks by Palestinian terrorists: “revenge bombings.” Israeli counter-terror strikes are said to “lead to” or “trigger” “revenge bombings” or “revenge attacks.”

Characterizing as “revenge” the deliberate terrorist targeting of Israeli civilians – on buses or in their homes and public spaces – mangles the facts:

1) It suggests Israel initiates violence while Palestinians merely respond, exacting a just “revenge” on Israeli civilians. In actuality, it is Palestinian-initiated attacks on Israeli men, women and children that prompt Israeli military measures aimed at thwarting future attacks. AP’s formulation implies a moral rationale for terrorism.

2) It suggests that if Israel refrained from counter-terror strikes, terror would stop. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise. When Israel has refrained from military action after terrorist attacks, for example in the aftermath of the Dolphinarium bombing that killed 22, the terror continued unabated. Similarly, there were numerous terror attacks and attempted infiltrations by bomb-strapped would-be attackers during the recent so-called cease-fire, and most occurred before Israel resumed targeted killings of terrorists.

3) It ignores the Palestinian movement’s longstanding strategic use of terrorism as a tool for political goals — not as a tactical or emotional response to Israeli actions.

4) It conveys opinion about motives – not simply facts about events – and suggests grievance and morality are on the Palestinian side. This is neither accurate nor the proper function of a “news” article.

It is certainly appropriate for AP to quote or paraphrase threats made by terrorist groups and their leaders, such as that of an Islamic Jihad leader who “promised revenge”(AP, Aug 14, 2003). But it is unprofessional for AP to use the phrase as its own, as in:

The killing of two Hamas members under similar circumstances last week led to a revenge attack on Tuesday in which a teenage Hamas suicide bomber killed a Jewish settler. [emphasis added] (“Israeli troops kill Islamic militant in West Bank raid,” AP, Said Shiyoukhi, Aug. 14, 2003)

As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz notes:

It is not a “˜cycle of violence’ [of strike, counter-strike and revenge].It is a Hamas policy of terrorism against innocent civilians to which Israel responds by targeting guilty murderers that it is unable to arrest. These actions are in no way morally (or legally) equivalent. (Toronto Globe and Mail, Sept. 16, 2003) 

AP’s  inappropriate phrase appeared as early as June:

Generally the militant group Hamas carries out revenge attacks — as it did this week, when a suicide bomber killed 17 people in a Jerusalem bus blast. [emphasis added] (“Helicopter attacks spotlight Israel’s policy of targeted killings,” AP, Ravi Nessman, June 13, 2003)

And more recently, it has been used in most reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In an article published two days after the horrific Jerusalem bombing of a bus carrying families with children from the Western Wall, Ibrahim Barzak concluded the bombing was revenge:

Hamas carried out two revenge bombings, including Tuesday’s attack on a Jerusalem bus that killed 20 people. [emphasis added] (“Slain Hamas leader had pushed for cease-fire, but Israel says he still plotted attacks,” AP, Ibrahim Barzak, Aug. 21, 2003)

And Mark Lavie reported on September 16, 2003:

In the West Bank town of Dura, Israeli troops killed an Islamic militant fugitive in an arrest raid, witnesses and military officials said. Such raids have triggered revenge bombings by Islamic militants in the past…Israeli troops carried out two deadly arrest raids during the unilateral truce, prompting revenge attacks by militants. [emphasis added] (“Palestinian premier-designate hands Arafat power to appoint most of new Cabinet,” AP, Mark Lavie, Sept. 16, 2003)

Dan Perry repeated this deceptive language the next day:

 “Such raids have triggered revenge bombings by militants.” (“Israelis rebuff Palestinian offer of comprehensive cease-fire,” AP, Dan Perry, Sept. 17, 2003).

Has “revenge bombing” become AP’s new byword for “terrorism?”

WASHINGTON POST-WATCH: The Washington Post Misses Sharansky, Nearly Omits Syria

One of the world’s most influential political dissidents, Natan Sharanksy, spoke at Georgetown University, George Washington  University, and the University of Maryland on September 17.  Sharansky, imprisoned from 1977 to 1986 and now a member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament), was a leader among Soviet Jewish “refuseniks.” He also helped energize the overall dissident movement that eventually weakened Kremlin authority. The Washington Post ignored his D.C.-area appearances, part of a week-long tour of 13 American and Canadian campuses.

 The Washington Times September 18, 2003 edition covered his talk in a page A-9 story, “Sharansky says Israel gets bad rights rap,” by staff reporter Julia Duin. “I am representing the country that is the real champion of human rights,” Sharansky told 150 students packed into the University of Maryland Hillel. Noting that many criticize Israel for alleged rights violations, he asserted that his country “demonstrates more sensitivity to human rights than any other democracy in the world.” Sharansky pointed out that of Middle Eastern countries, only in Israel do women exercise the same freedoms as men and are the rights of minorities – including Arabs – protected.

 Syria Almost Under the Radar

The Washington Post‘s September 17, 2003 edition covered Bush administration concerns about Syria in a four-sentence Associated Press brief on page A-28, the back of the section.

In contrast, its D.C. competitor, the Washington Times, ran a lengthy front-page piece on the subject. Likewise, the New York Times had also covered the story extensively, if not on the front page, on September 16 in a report by Weapons of Mass Destruction expert Judith Miller (“The Struggle for Iraq,  Senior U.S. Official to Level Weapons Charges Against Syria”).

The headline on the Washington Times report by Bill Gertz, the paper’s respected national security correspondent, read: “U.S. arms.” Gertz, like AP, covered congressional testimony by John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control. Bolton said that Syria is developing medium-range missiles with help from North Korea and Iran that could be fired in nerve gas attacks hundreds of miles from Syria’s borders. “Syria’s missiles are mobile and can reach much of Israel from positions near their peacetime garrison,” Bolton said.

In addition, the Washington Times noted that Syria continues to allow Arab volunteers to cross into Iraq to fight American troops, is expanding chemical, biological and perhaps nuclear weapons capabilities, and might have hidden Iraqi arms for Saddam Hussein. Bolton said Syria has one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Arab world, according to the Washington Times.

No Details, No Devil

The Post‘s news-brief mentioned Bolton’s focus on Syria allowing what the paper called “militants” to cross into Iraq to attack Americans, Damascus’ continued support for Hezbollah, Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement), and Islamic Jihad, and on continued development of weapons of mass destruction. But it provided none of the details reported by the Washington Times or the New York Times.

Christianity Today Divorced From Facts in Story on Marriage Law

One month after Christianity Today first received word from CAMERA that an Aug. 4 on-line column by Gary Burge contains multiple factual errors, the editors have made no move to correct the record.

· In “Speaking Out: Israel’s Anti-Family Values,” Burge erroneously reports: “Modern Israel has about 6.5 million Jewish citizens and about 1 million Arab citizens.” In fact, according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, the country’s Jewish population is 5.4 million, and the Arab population is 1.2 million.

· Burge also clearly misunderstands the basics of the new marriage law passed by the Israeli Parliament, which he erroneously believes applies only to Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians from the territories. He writes: “No such ethnic marriage laws apply to Jewish choices in marriage partners.” In fact, the law applies equally to Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs, though Arabs are more likely to marry Palestinians than are Jews. In other words, if a Jewish Israeli man wants to marry a Palestinian woman, she too will be prohibited from moving to Israel. (See http://www.bstelem.org for a translation of the law.) The new “temporary order” states that “the Minister of the Interior shall not grant citizenship to a resident of the region pursuant to the Citizenship Law . . . ” The original Citizenship Law stipulates: “The spouse of a person who is an Israeli citizen or has applied for Israel citizenship and meets or is exempt from the requirements of Section 5(a) may obtain Israel citizenship by naturalization even if he or she does not meet the requirements of Section 5(a).” Notice that the law states the “The spouse of a person who is an Israeli citizen.” It does not specify “Israeli Arab citizen.”

· He then goes on to mislead readers: “And up till now, they [Arab citizens of Israel] have been free to marry anyone they wish.” Arab citizens of Israel are still free to marry anyone they wish. Israel’s new law prohibits Arabs from the Palestinian territories who marry Israelis–Jewish and Arab Israelis, not just Arabs, as Burge misstates–from moving to Israel. This is not tantamount to prohibiting Arab citizens from choosing marital partners.

BBC-WATCH: Julian Marshall Shows Disdain

It is accepted practice that journalists keep a certain
distance when interviewing subjects for a news story. Listeners expect
newscasters to remain neutral and unemotional. Not so, however, at the BBC.
Interviewers for the British network regularly hector Israeli representatives
while allowing Palestinian speakers to broadcast their messages unchallenged.
And often BBC broadcasters use interviews as opportunities to air their own
negative opinions about Israel’s policies.

This was the case recently with BBC World Service’s
Julian Marshall who interviewed Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister and former
Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert on September 14, 2003, about his statement that
Israel would consider killing Arafat.

Marshall approached the interview like a teacher
disciplining a wayward student who has misspoken. Citing U.S. Secretary of
State Colin Powell’s deploring of Israel’s stated option of removing
Arafat, he introduced the interview as follows:

BBC – MARSHALL:
Have Mr. Powell’s words given Ehud Olmert any cause to reflect upon what
he’d said?

OLMERT: No, I think that this
is a question that must be considered. We didn’t talk in any definite
terms about the timing, but this is an option which must be seriously
considered. I think that it is widely recognized now that Yasir Arafat is
personally responsible for the downfall of a more moderate government which was
destined to campaign against terror. And because of this, it was brought down
by Yasir Arafat. He was responsible for inspiring and encouraging the continued
suicidal attacks against the State of Israel which started this time in both
places–from Ramallah where he sits. He is the main obstacle for a serious
new direction for the political process in the Middle East.

Marshall could not restrain his hostility in imputing
broader, ulterior motives to the Israeli leader’s statement. The
interviewer asked:

Are you trying to
provoke the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert?

Olmert responded:

Not at all. Do you
really seriously think an Israeli reaction after the repeated killings of so
many innocent people is a provocation? Don’t you understand the impact of
what is happening in our part of the world? Do you think that this is a game
for us? Do you know that as mayor of the city of Jerusalem, I had to go to more
than 50 sites of suicidal attacks in my city in the last 10 years seeing the
pieces of bodies that were torn apart by people that were inspired and most
times financed by Yasir Arafat?

Marshall came to Arafat’s defense, snidely challenging
the Israeli:

BBC-MARSHALL: You
only assume that –- that Mr. Arafat is the architect of all this
terror.

OLMERT: No, I don’t assume
that. What I say is established on very good evidence, on intelligence that we
have.

BBC-MARSHALL: And killing Mr.
Arafat would bring that terror to an end, would it?

OLMERT: What I said is that the
elimination of Mr. Arafat is no different from the elimination of any other
head of a terrorist gang. And I don’t know that there is any dispute in
the Western world about the right to take such measures in order to stop
terror. I think that this is precisely what other nations are doing, including
Great Britain together with America in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan against
the Taliban.

Marshall did not stop there. He continued to champion Yasir
Arafat as a head of state while expressing contempt not only for the Israeli
leader but for the Israeli state as well.

MARSHALL: Do you
think it is appropriate though as the deputy Prime Minister of a country that
considers itself to be one of the few if not the only democracies
in the Middle East, you should be advocating the assassination, the
killing of a man who is effectively a head of state?

OLMERT: There are three major
errors which I am sure you’ve made innocently. Number one, we don’t
consider ourselves to be a democracy. We are a democracy, no less
than Great Britain. The second thing is that Yasir Arafat is not a head of
state. There is no Palestinian state, he was not elected as a head of state,
and he is considered by a large part of the Western world to be at terrorist.
And that’s why the President of the United States and the American
administration, for instance, decided that he is entirely irrelevant.

MARSHALL: But the European
Union, a collection of Western democracies, do not hold that view of Mr.
Arafat. They continue to have dealings with him.

OLMERT: They also didn’t
hold this position probably about Saddam Hussein. Does it make Saddam Hussein
any better a person? A more moral person? Any less of a murderer than he was?
So there are sometimes disputes. The difference between you and us is that
thank God for you, you don’t have to suffer from the consequences of what
Arafat is doing and we have to bear the consequences of what he does in the
streets of our cities. And if Yasir Arafat is responsible for it, he has to be
held responsible for it.

MARSHALL: But if the
Palestinians were to follow your logic and to look upon Ariel Sharon as an
obstacle to peace, why shouldn’t they therefore go down that road of
wanting to remove him?

OLMERT: Do you think that had
they been able to, they wouldn’t have done it already? Do you think that
they didn’t try to do it? Do you think that they didn’t send
terrorist groups in order to try and perpetrate precisely this– against
him, against myself, against others in the Israeli government? Did they not
kill an Israeli cabinet minister?

There is no such sneering, sarcastic questioning of
Palestinian leaders. On September 16, 2003, Marshall questioned Yasir
Arafat’s security advisor, Jibril Rajoub about his conditional truce offer
toward Israel. Rajoub never explained exactly how the Palestinian Authority,
refusing to disarm or dismantle terrorist groups, would enforce a halt to
violence by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade — the very
groups that carried out terrorist attacks during the previous truce. Marshall
questioned Rajoub gently, allowing him to convey his message that Israel was to
blame for the situation in the Middle East, and that the ceasefire was
dependent only on Israel’s willingness to “reciprocate.”

BBC- MARSHALL:
Despite the recent breakdown of the hudna, or temporary cessation of
hostilities declared by Palestinian militant groups, Mr. Arafat believes that a
general ceasefire with Israel is still possible if Israel reciprocates. The
proposal was made public by Mr. Arafat’s security advisor,
Brigadier-General Jibril Rajoub.

RAJOUB: According to my own
experience, I think that the only way, the right way is to have a ceasefire
declared by the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government in which there
will be mutual understanding and mutual listening. Reciprocity should be the
principle of implementation of the ceasefire from both sides and toward both
sides.

BBC – MARSHALL: But you are
attaching a number of conditions to the ceasefire in terms of Israel.

RAJOUB: Ceasefire means
ceasefire. It means that all kind of attacks from both sides should stop.
Israelis cannot only ask the Palestinians to stop shooting on them. They keep
on confiscating land, building settlements, keeping on the policy of
assassination, closure and curfews. Everybody should know that those are the
direct reasons for the tension and confrontation and reaction.

BBC – MARSHALL: But on your
side, can you deliver a ceasefire? Can you get Hamas and Islamic Jihad to stop
their attacks against Israel?

RAJOUB: We have the
capabilities, we have the determination, we have the interest, we have the
motivation. As soon as the Israelis accept a ceasefire, reciprocity from both
sides, I am pretty sure that the Palestinian side will implement its part of
such a package deal.

MARSHALL: Does this also have
the support of the new, incoming Palestinian government, the new, incoming
Palestinian Prime Minister?

RAJOUB: Listen, it will be the
responsibility of the incoming cabinet to discuss, to follow-up, to negotiate,
to talk with everybody in order to have a ceasefire. I’m pretty sure
according to my own experience and according to the logic that this is the only
way to assure security and to get out of this cycle of violence and the
bloodshedding.[sic]

MARSHALL: Why this particular
initiative and at this time? Is it because Yasir Arafat is threatened with
expulsion, is threatened with possible assassination?

RAJOUB: Listen, this did not
come as an initiative. It came through our understanding to the whole
situation. ..For Yasir Arafat, everybody knows that Yasir Arafat is a fatalist
and I don’t think that he is worried about his life or about anything
else, because everybody should know that touching Yasir Arafat either by
killing him or expelling him, it will lead to a catastrophe to the Israelis as
to the Palestinians.

Listeners should demand that broadcasters maintain a neutral
during all interviews. As long as BBC continues to allow its
correspondents to express contempt for some of the people they interview, it
cannot be considered a fair, objective or reliable news source.

Daniel Benjamin’s Faulty Terrorism Assessment

In his Sept. 11 op-ed, Daniel Benjamin writes: “[T]he last two years have witnessed an unprecedented wave of terrorism outside the United States, including attacks in Bali, Moscow, Mombasa and Riyadh, to name only a few of the most lethal strikes.” The country which is the most frequent target of lethal terrorist strikes is conspicuously absent from this list. In just one attack, 22 Israelis (including six children packed into a bus leaving the Western Wall Jewish holy site were killed by a Palestinian terrorist on Aug. 22. This compares to 16 people killed Nov. 28 in an Al Qaeda attack in Mombasa which targeted Israelis in an Israeli-owned hotel. From September 2001 to August 2003, Palestinian suicide bombers have hit Israel nearly 100 times. Israeli security forces managed to thwart another 239 planned attacks. Talk about “an unprecedented wave of terrorism outside the United States.”

Given that Israelis have been the prime target of terrorism outside the United States in the last two years, it is certainly curious that the writer omitted them in his assessment of the international phenomenon.

WASHINGTON POST-WATCH: Balanced Work at the Washington Post

Balanced Work

CAMERA’s WASHINGTON POST-WATCH regularly criticizes Washington Post coverage of Arab-Israeli news. But the paper’s September 11, 2003 edition, which published five major stories relating to contemporary Israel, and a sixth on ancient Jerusalem, deserves praise.

Page One

The front page story, “Instead of a Wedding, a Double Funeral in Jerusalem; Doctor and Daughter Killed in Café Bombing Buried Side by Side,” by Jerusalem correspondent Molly Moore, related the deaths of David Applebaum, 50, and his daughter, Naava, 20 – along with five other people – in the September 9 terrorist bombing of the Café Hillel. The long feature, illustrated by four color photographs, presented a detailed portrait of a remarkable father and daughter, their family, friends and co-workers, and gracefully conveyed some sense of the loss.

Inside

“Instead of a Wedding, A double Funeral in Jerusalem” continued on page A-14. Three other related stories took the rest of the page, which carried no advertisements.

Across the top was “Israel and India Draw Closer; Sharon’s Shortened Visit Yields Cooperation on Terrorism, Other Areas,” by John Lancaster of the Post‘s foreign service. It was illustrated by a two-column color photo of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with Indian security agents. The article provide a balanced look at the first visit by an incumbent Israeli prime minister to India, growing Israeli-Indian relations, concern by Pakistan, and some Indian opposition.

“Bush Backs Pressure on Palestinian Militants,” by Post staff writer Glenn Kessler, detailed President Bush’s call “for an aggressive crackdown on Palestinian militant groups, saying the dismantlement of those groups is “˜probably the most important condition for peace to prevail’.” The report erroneously used the term “militant” when reporting on Israeli targeting of leaders of the terrorist Hamas (Islamic Resistance Organization). However, it made plain the White House view that the onus is on the Palestinian leadership “to wrest control of the Palestinian security services” from Yasir Arafat and, in Bush’s words, “unleash those security forces against killers.”

“Bomber Took Revenge for Palestinians, Mother Says,” by Post foreign service correspondent Andy Mosher recounted the words of the mother and other family members of Ihab Abed Qader Abu Salim, 19, a suicide bomber who murdered eight Israeli soldiers at a bus stop near Tel Aviv a few hours before the Cafe Hillel massacre. Weakest of the five reports, it fails to distinguish between cause and effect (Israeli checkpoints, for example, exist in response to previous acts of Arab terrorism and to help prevent new ones, not, as the Palestinians complain, unjustified Israeli affronts). It also fails to pinpoint responsibility (alleged harassment apparently justifies killing among those interviewed). Nevertheless, Mosher’s report illustrates the narrow, self-justifying attitudes adopted by Palestinian Arabs to deny responsibility for their own circumstances and for mass murder.

“Israeli Jet Bombs Home of Hamas Leader, Killing 2; Group’s Co-Founder Among 30 Injured,” by Jerusalem correspondent John Ward Anderson, illustrated by one large color photograph and two maps, takes the top half of page A-13, first of the “World News” section. Several erroneous usages weaken this otherwise detailed story. Mahmoud Zahar, target of the attack, is referred to a “political leader” as if Hamas was a party instead of a terrorist organization. A statement vowing attacks on Israeli homes is said to come from Hamas’ “military wing.” Again, an organization whose hallmark is murdering civilians does not possess a “military wing.” Nevertheless, although buried, information that Israel might have failed to kill Zahar and, in an earlier attack, Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin, because it used smaller bombs to lessen civilian casualties, and that Israel held Zahar responsible for planning terrorists attacks and preaching incitement also appears.

“Scientists Confirm Ancient Date of Jerusalem Conduit; Siloam Tunnel May Have Been Planned to Offset Siege,” by Post staff writer Guy Gugliotta, with a large black-and-white photograph, smaller satellite photo and map takes the top half of page A-3. It reports new research that “confirmed what a majority of scholars had long believed — that the tunnel was built about 700 B.C. and is almost certainly [King] Hezekiah’s “˜conduit,’ mentioned in II Kings 20:20 and further described in II Chronicles 32:3-4.” Newsworthy in its own right, the report also helps rebut a school of new Bible critics who alleged that Jewish history before the Babylonian exile — and, by implication, early Jewish claims to nationhood and to eretz Yisrael — are based on myth or legend.

UPDATED: “Terrorism” as Defined by the New York Times

New update follows.

On Tuesday, August 19, the New York Times published a front-page, above-the-fold, story with an accompanying photograph on an inside page about the possibility several Israeli Jews are involved in “terror attacks” against Palestinian civilians (“Israelis Worry About Terror, By Jews Against Palestinians,” Ian Fisher, August 19, 2003).

The article raises real questions about the Times‘ news judgement. Why such prominence for a story about unproven allegations? Why use “terror” in the headline and in reference to Jews who have yet to be found guilty — while at the same time terming as “militants” Palestinian suicide bombers who have undeniably committed atrocities. Why rely on statistics from a partisan and unreliable source?

By Mr. Fisher’s own admission, Israeli attacks on Palestinians are rare. Yet he grossly overestimates their prevalence by including deceptive statistics from the pro-Palestinian group B’tselem:

According to B’Tselem, 32 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli civilians in the last three years. At the same time, 328 Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinians inside Israel and 190 more in the West Bank and Gaza.

B’tselem posts a disclaimer on its Web site – unmentioned by the Times – acknowledging some of the shortcomings of its findings:

…B’Tselem is unable to issue a definitive conclusion regarding every incident in which a person was killed. Firstly, the large number of cases makes it impossible for us to conduct an exhaustive investigation into every instance in which persons were killed. Secondly, even in cases that we investigate, it is not always possible to determine unequivocally the actual circumstances… Furthermore, as an information center, B’Tselem faces the problem of disinformation supplied by both sides regarding the circumstances of the deaths of many of the persons killed during the current events.

Thus, by its own admission, B’tselem is not a reliable source of statistics on casualties and their circumstances. Furthermore, with regard to the 32 cases cited for which B’tselem claims to have facts, 13 of  the total Palestinian “civilian” deaths at the hands of “Israeli civilians” were a direct result of defensive measures. These included the shooting by security guards or Israeli civilians of Palestinians who had assaulted or were trying to assault Israelis by stabbing or gunfire. Some Palestinian assailants were killed while in the act of trying to infiltrate gated communities with the express purpose of perpetrating a terrorist attack. 

Mr. Fisher states that “at the faltering start of a peace effort opposed by many right-wing Israelis, worry about terror attacks by Jews is growing,” implying that these events are becoming more common. Again, this is highly misleading and the facts point to the contrary. After a few well publicized shootings by a shadowy group (presumed to be Israeli but never caught) calling itself “Committee for Security on the Roads” two years ago, documented Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israeli civilians have been few and limited almost exclusively to the defensive shooting of armed Palestinians by Israelis protecting themselves and their communities from terrorist attacks.

Why have Mr. Fisher and the New York Times chosen to feature  a nearly 1200 word article on the front page containing specious references and unreliable claims? Why is “terror” terminology used for Israelis though rarely for Palestinian terrorists? 

UPDATE:  Myre Omits Context for Suspects’ Release

In a September 13, 2003 article, “Israel Rejects Wide Criticism of Its Threat to Exile Arafat,” Greg Myre reported that the Israeli police released seven of eight Jewish men under investigation for “involvement in deadly attacks against Palestinians.” The clear implication was that Israeli police are indulgent toward Jews suspected of crimes against Palestinians.  In fact, the evidence available now to the public does not apparently support indictments.

Myre stated:

In another development, the Israeli police announced the release of seven of the eight Jewish men under investigation for involvement in deadly attacks against Palestinians. The men remain under house arrest and are still being investigated in connection with nine attacks that have killed seven Palestinians since 2001, the police said.

What Myre failed to mention was that:

1. the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court ordered the release of the men because there was not enough evidence to indict them

2. the available evidence supported indictment of only two of those arrested – and not for attacks on Palestinians – but for possessing explosives

3. While the details in the case are under a court-imposed gag order, Myre should at least provide the context that is available instead of implying that Israeli courts are guilty of double standards.

NPR Tortures the Truth to Malign Israel

National Public Radio has covered in various reports the trial in Israel of Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti, who has been charged with planning and ordering numerous terror attacks, and with heading the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which is on the United States list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

In NPR’s most recent report on the subject, reporter Peter Kenyon informed listeners that the Palestinian witnesses against Barghouti claimed in court that their confessions had been extracted under torture, but that under Israeli law the confessions were nonetheless admissible:

Palestinians convicted of terrorist crimes were called by the prosecution to implicate Barghouti. They recanted their confessions on the stand, saying they had been extracted under torture. Under Israeli law, however, the confessions stand as presented and Barghouti has offered no rebuttal. (Weekend Edition Sunday, Aug. 24, 2003)

While it is hardly unusual for people to claim during a trial that damaging admissions were made under duress, it is absolutely untrue that under Israeli law such claims are ignored, and in particular that confessions obtained through torture are admissible.

On the contrary, under Israeli criminal procedures when a person claims that his confession was extracted via torture, a “trial-within-a-trial” is immediately held (in Hebrew mishpat zuta) in which the prosecution must disprove that torture or other illegitimate means were used. If the prosecution is unable to disprove claims of torture the confession is thrown out. In addition, if it appears that other illegal means short of torture were used, the confession can be admitted, but only if the court finds that the interrogation did not prejudice the defendant’s free will. (See for example, The Right to a Fair Trial, D. Weissbrodt and R. Wolfrum, eds., Springer, 1997.)

In addition, it is worth noting that Israel actually offers more protections in this regard than does the United States. Thus, if a defendant in the US charges that a confession was extracted via torture, the defense must file a “motion to suppress,” leading to a hearing in which the defense must prove that the confession resulted from untoward means. That is, unlike in Israel, the presumption in the US is that torture was not used, and the burden of proof is on the defense. Moreover, in most states the motion to suppress must be filed before the trial, whereas in Israel there is no such restriction.

The bottom line – in extraordinarily difficult circumstances Israel has done a far better job of upholding the rule of law than NPR has done of upholding the rules of responsible journalism. The network should immediately correct Kenyon’s false claims.

Call Terrorists “Terrorists”

Yet another newspaper has published a column that wrestles with the question of when it is appropriate to label a murderer a terrorist. On September 5, 2003, Boston Globe ombudsman Christine Chinlund wrote a column entitled “Who should wear the “˜terrorist’ label?” Chinlund, did not employ the same clear, one-standard approach of Philip Gailey, the St. Petersburg Time‘s editor of editorials  Instead, she explained to Globe readers that the newspaper’s editors consider it acceptable to label attacks against civilians “acts of terror,” but do not consider it appropriate to name the perpetrators “terrorists,” unless they are from Al Qaeda.

There are numerous contradictions in the piece all stemming from a view that if we in America are attacked by mass murderers seeking to destroy our people and way of life — those killers are obviously terrorists. But when far-away killers deliberately blow up children and pregnant women on buses in Israel, fine points of definition and complexity supposedly apply requiring these killers to be described in circuitous and gentler language.

The column appears below, followed by CAMERA comments on its discrepancies.

THE OMBUDSMAN

Who should wear the “˜terrorist’ label?
By Christine Chinlund, 9/8/2003

With this week’s 9/11 anniversary comes reflection on all that has changed these past two years. Even our language has shifted; the word terrorism itself casts a different shadow.

It has always, of course, been a powerfully negative label. But post-9/11 the word’s potency has multiplied. In the current climate, the terrorist tag effectively banishes its holder from the political arena. More than ever, it condemns rather than describes.

Indeed, newspapers must be doubly careful about how they apply the word. Sparing use is the norm. For example, the Palestinian organization Hamas, whose suicide bombers maim and kill Israeli citizens, is routinely described in the Globe and other papers as a “militant,” not terrorist, group.

Such restraint infuriates some Middle East partisans (most often, but not exclusively, supporters of Israel) who say it sugarcoats reality and that any group targeting civilians is terrorist. I receive regular demands to, as a Chelmsford reader put it, “stop misleading readers with terminology that affords terrorists a false degree of legitimacy.”

What possible reason is there for not unflinchingly applying the word terrorist to any organization or person who targets civilians? It may seem like hair-splitting, but there’s a reason to reserve the terrorist label for specific acts of violence, and not apply it broadly to groups.

To tag Hamas, for example, as a terrorist organization is to ignore its far more complex role in the Middle East drama. The word reflects not only a simplification, but a bias that runs counter to good journalism. To label any group in the Middle East as terrorist is to take sides, or at least appear to, and that is not acceptable. The same holds true in covering other far-flung conflicts. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter; it’s not for journalists to judge.

That said, journalists can not, and should not, be blind to reality. When we see terrorism, we should say so. A suicide bombing on a crowded bus is clearly an act of terrorism and should be so labeled. And it should also be described in all its painful detail. Such reporting is more powerful in its specificity than any broad label.

This approach – call the act terrorist, but not the organization – is used in many newsrooms, including the Globe‘s. It allows for variations: The terrorist label can appear in a quote or when detailing Washington’s official list of terrorist groups. But not in the reporter’s own voice.

The wisdom of this approach is, understandably, the subject of renewed debate in the wake of the recent, horrible bus bombing in Jerusalem that killed 21 people. There are good arguments on both sides. But I cast my lot with those who believe the current approach – perhaps imperfect and a bit contrived – best serves accuracy and impartiality, at least for now. It is a necessary accommodation in a complicated world.

“The overall approach here is to describe events and present facts rather than to attach labels to individuals or groups,” notes Globe editor Martin Baron. “We particularly seek to avoid hot-button language that has become associated with a point of view . . .”

Baron notes that Middle East coverage is a special concern for many readers. He acknowledges the view of supporters of Israel who “believe we should use the term “˜terrorist’ to describe militant Palestinian groups that encourage or carry out horrific suicide bombings against civilians” — and of Palestinians and their backers who “argue that theirs is a legitimate struggle over land and freedom . . . (and) that Israeli military killings of Palestinian civilians should be properly portrayed as “˜state terrorism.’ ” The debate, he says, is complicated by the fact that some militant Palestinian groups also perform some social service functions.

Best, he says, to avoid attaching labels to either side, instead providing “accurate, fair and honest accounts of specific news events.” That includes calling suicide bombings “acts of terror” and “terror attacks.” (The Globe also routinely points out the State Department designation of Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad as terrorist organizations.)

The Globe practice, says Baron, is to evaluate each story individually. In the “relatively rare” instances where the terrorism label is used broadly, he says, “it has been applied to groups that have no clearly identifiable or explicitly articulated political objective.”

Count Al Qaeda as one of those exceptions. In the Globe and elsewhere, it’s called a “terrorist network” — which prompts critics to argue, anew, that if Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization so is (fill the blank).

It’s difficult, given that the definition of Al Qaeda in the United States is almost solely based on the 9/11 attacks, to imagine seeing it as anything else. A more precise definition – “a radical Islamist network that employs violence against innocents” – trumps “terrorist” on grounds of specificity, but it ignores one of our most profound national experiences, 9/11. Given Al Qaeda’s self-definition and its large-scale embrace of terrorism, it has proven itself an allowable exception.

—-

The ombudsman represents the readers. Her opinions and conclusions are her own. Phone 617-929-3020 or, to leave a message, 929-3022. Our e-mail address is ombud@globe.com

CAMERA comments:

1) The article asserts that Hamas should be called a “militant” group – not a terrorist one – because of its “complex role in the Middle East drama.”

However, if “complex” refers to the “good” side of Hamas, the “social service functions” mentioned, why does this mitigating factor not apply to Al Qaeda too, which also built hospitals, clinics and roads in Afghanistan and Africa?

2) The author maintains that to use “terrorist” means “to take sides.”

In fact, not using the term is taking sides — the Palestinian side. The Palestinians blowing up buses prefer not to be called “terrorists.”

3) The article trots out the tired platitude: “One person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist; it’s not for journalists to judge.”

But there are millions of “person[s]” who consider Al Qaeda freedom fighters and Globe journalists do “judge” — that Al Qaeda should be called a terrorist organization.

4) Globe editor Martin Baron is quoted as saying that in the “relatively rare” instances where the terrorism label is used broadly, “it has been applied to groups that have no clearly identifiable or explicitly artic
ulated political objective.”

But the term terrorist or terrorism does, by dictionary or /U.S. Legal Code/State Dept definition, apply to groups with political objectives.

• violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands (Webster’s Dictionary)

• …premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. For the purposes of this definition, the term “noncombatant” is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty. [From Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) and the State Department’s “Patterns of Global Terrorism” 2000]

Al Qaeda has a political objective — the defeat of the West, by apocalyptic means if necessary, and the triumph of a brand of extreme Islam. But the Globe considers Al Qaeda a terrorist group.

5) The author argues that America’s “profound national experience” – the trauma of 9/11 – changes everything and makes it right to call the killers of 3,000 citizens “terrorists.”

But every 50 dead Israelis, targeted for deliberate murder, equates in quantity in that tiny nation to the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks in the United States. Israel has suffered, and continues to suffer many “profound national experiences.” But the Globe advocates sanitized language for the killers.

6) And what is Globe policy regarding terminology for the group Islamic Jihad, which has no clinics, hospitals or childrens’ summer camps and only one purpose in life — the destruction of Israel and its people? Is this a “terrorist”group?

CAMERA agrees entirely that Al Qaeda should be termed a “terrorist” organization — and urges the Globe and other media outlets to cease their double standard and start characterizing groups such as Hamas as “terrorist” as well.