We’ve gotten several complaints for our use of the term “militant Palestinians” in this headline following last week’s terrorist bombing in Jerusalem: "New violence suggests end of lull between Israel and militant Palestinians."
Here’s why we used it:
There’s a difference between the terms terrorist and militant, as our critics surely would agree.
Militant is a wider term of use, encompassing not only those who perpetrate terrorist violence, but those who practice, advocate for or otherwise promote the use of violence against Israel or Israelis. In this case, the headline suggests that the lull between Israel and this wider group – not just the perpetrators of terrorist attacks who detonate bombs on Jerusalem streets and stab settlers in their beds – may be over.
At the same time, our use of this phrase draws a distinction between militant Palestinians and non-militant Palestinians, the latter of whom are not using violence against Israel or Israelis.
Willfully and repeatedly referring to Palestinian terrorists as militants smacks of a double-standard applied only for Israel and the Jewish people, and JTA categorically rejects it. It’s why we clearly called the March 23 Jerusalem bombing a “terrorist attack” in the story’s second sentence, and why Hamas, which is mentioned later in the story, is referred to as a “terrorist group.”
But that doesn’t mean that every Palestinian militant is a terrorist, or that we won’t occasionally refer to members of groups like Islamic Jihad and Hamas as militants. Being a member of a group that espouses violence surely makes you a militant, but does mere membership make you a terrorist? That requires action that targets, or helps target, civilians.
