The Terrorible Truth

ter-ror (n) 4: violence (as bomb throwing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands [insurrection and revolutionary].

ter-ror-ism (n): the systematic use if terror esp. as a use of coercion -- ter ror-ist adj or n.

I picked up the above definitions from the 1973 edition of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (I received the now-tattered volume as a gift when I turned 15 and I still use it). The world made more sense back then...

When Egypt and Syria (later joined by Jordan and Iraq) attacked Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, a good part of the world thought it was a despicable act. Today, blood and body parts litter our Shabbat, Rosh Hashanah and Passover tables, as well as our busses returning with worshippers from the Western Wall - and a good part of the international community is no longer sure if it’s so bad. Some wonder if, perhaps, it isn’t justified. And I wonder if the confusion is due to the media’s reluctance to classify these acts as terror perpetrated by terrorists.

Last week, in “Truth or Consequences”, I reported that Foxnews.com linked their lead story of a terrorist bombing in Riyadh to an Associated Press listing of “Recent Terrorist Attacks Around the World”. The listing referred to 16 attacks in 13 countries from as far back as 1998, and Israel wasn’t mentioned (nor was Russia, India or Chechnya).

I feel the issue warrants further exploration, as the media’s response to Israel is most certainly linked to a disturbing pattern of unraveling current events.

Is it possible that, in the media’s attempts at non-bias and political correctness (i.e., avoiding the application of a uniform usage of the term “terror”), they may have inadvertently legitimized and encouraged terrorist groups?

After all, everyone knows that terrorism is abominable, but that ain’t necessarily the case for a popular uprising.

The media’s avoidance of labeling these murderous groups as terrorists may have originally stemmed from their need to maintain good relations with these groups and their leaders in order to “get a story” in a fiercely competitive field. This poses a real moral dilemma for the press and can, of course, backfire on both a grand and personal scale; Daniel Pearl being a classic example.

But the media, especially news-wire services, must stop and think. The primary responsibility of an international news agency should be to disseminate accurate information and to provide clarity, rather than cloud the issues. In these precarious times, the media is obligated to reassess their goals and purposes. In today’s world, the mere flash of a camera can destroy lives and bring the world to the brink. This is no exaggeration. The world is in crisis and no one understands this better than the journalists, photojournalists and news agencies. So what gives?

There may be a bigger question bothering the perverse conscience of the press - one which drives their depraved sense of morality and fuels their habit for distorting the truth. Perhaps they feel that, in certain cases of terrorism (a case perpetrated by the Palestinians), the end justifies the means. Is it ever legitimate for a group to use terrorist tactics in order to achieve their religious, political, cultural or economic goals? That question is best left to theologians, philosophers, historians, professors, students and editorial commentators to grapple with - not international news services. But not to worry AP and Reuters, as a final and just decision on that perplexing matter will be rendered by none other than G-d Almighty Himself.

In the back of my mind, there remains another immensely disturbing question. By acting as prosecutor, judge and jury, with regards to Israel, is the electronic media in some not-so-small way responsible for a resurgence of classical anti-Semitism?

It occurred to me that in my quest to figure out what motivates the media, I may have given them too much credit. Could it be that there is something far more sinister behind all of this?

The other night, I couldn’t help myself, and so I snuck a peek at CNN.com to see how they covered the Turkish synagogue bombings. Sure enough, the lead CNN.com homepage story was linked to a Reuters list entitled “Worst Terror Attacks Since 9/11".

This time, Russia, Chechnya and India made the list. But, once again, Israel didn’t merit a mention amongst 20 nations suffering from 13 highlighted incidents of terrorism since September 11th, 2001. It should be noted that, within hours, the Reuters list was removed from the CNN site. I believe this was due in part to the actions of some alert and concerned supporters of Israel.

FoxNews.com, CNN.com, the Associated Press and Reuters News Agency are among the top sources of up-to-the-minute news in the world. People believe what they read, hear and see, and even if Israel’s miserable public relations apparatus could mass produce and distribute cloned Netanyahus, we wouldn’t stand a chance against this out-of-control Leviathan.

There should be an international outcry followed by rigorous efforts to correct this gross distortion of reality on the part of worldwide news services. If such an outcry isn’t heard, or if the protests go unheeded, then we can assume that there is indeed a deliberate and calculated bid to segregate the State of Israel from the world community. This is no conspiracy on the part of the international community - it is in your face anti-Semitism, the likes of which we haven’t seen since WWII. It’s not about occupation, territorial disputes or settlements. It never was.

This dramatic shift in the scales towards injustice isn’t new - just painful and ever so clear. But I know which side I’ll throw my weight on... “Yaacov remains alone,” but he stands on the side of truth. That being the case, I appeal to all of my fellow Jews in the Diaspora to come home and stand with me.

From Merriam Webster on line. They define terror the same way

http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands (insurrection and revolutionary terror)
synonym see FEAR
- ter·ror·less /-l&s/ adjective

I support Israel, BUT...

Somewhere. sometime, they have to fess up that there were Israeli terrorists who perpetrated the same mindless bombing violence during their fight to drive the British out of what was then known as the Palestine Mandate after WWII.

The Irgun, headed by a man who later became the leader of Israel bombed the King David Hotel in one of the most notorious terrorist events of that era.

That doesn't mean the PA is right. Hopefully the civilized world can move beyond terror, but the Israelis practiced it as well and we should all remember and regret it.

The King David Hotel was being occupied by the British. It was the headquarters for the occupation. That made it a legitimate target.
An Irgun member called the French and British consulates to warn them. The French, who worked from a building accross the street, heeded the warning. The British refused to even inform the civilians in the hotel.
This is not to say that the Irgun/Etzel, much less its splinter LeHI/Stern Gang, did not commit questionable or even immoral acts. However, I do not see the bombing of British Military HQ as one of these.

The Irgun, headed by a man who later became the leader of Israel bombed the King David Hotel in one of the most notorious terrorist events of that era.

The King David Hotel had British soldiers in it. In addition, they were warned. It was a legitimate target.

Regarding the legitimacy of the target, simply because there were soldiers there--doesn't that legitimize the baathist terrorists in Iraq if they happen to kill a few civilians along with our troops?

Warned? No army can operate if it moves out of a location simply because they get a phone call. They take precautions, yes--but to move out is an admission of fear and failure.

Bombs have a nasty habit of being indiscriminate, killing porters, bell-boys, restaurant workers, passersby, civilian employees and guests as well as any military personnel.

I support Israel, but anyone who thinks they haven't pulled a few nasty things in their quest for a nation, simply isn't being honest.

Regarding the legitimacy of the target, simply because there were soldiers there--doesn't that legitimize the baathist terrorists in Iraq if they happen to kill a few civilians along with our troops?
We are an occupying power. They have the right to try to drive us out. We have the right to slaughter them mercilessly, as we should.

Warned? No army can operate if it moves out of a location simply because they get a phone call. They take precautions, yes--but to move out is an admission of fear and failure.
They could have passed the warning on to the civilians working there. The Brits kept them as human shields.

Bombs have a nasty habit of being indiscriminate, killing porters, bell-boys, restaurant workers, passersby, civilian employees and guests as well as any military personnel.
Hence the warning the Brits purposely kept from the innocents.

I support Israel, but anyone who thinks they haven't pulled a few nasty things in their quest for a nation, simply isn't being honest.
Re-read my post. I specifically said that unpallatable and even immoral things were done. I just don't see this bombing as one of them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.