Why can the media say 'Jewish terrorist' but not Arab or 'Palestinian' terrorist?

Last week, a Jew named Jack Teitel was convicted of murdering a 'Palestinian' taxi driver and a 'Palestinian' shepherd, and was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life in prison (not to be shortened by any 'prisoner exchange'). Teitel was referred to as a 'Jewish terrorist' in all of Israel's mainstream media, as well as in such international media as Sky News, the Times of London, the Los Angeles Times, Reuters and the New York Times.

Yet when 'Palestinians' murder Israelis, the international media refers to them as 'militants' or 'activists' or 'fighters' or 'gunmen.' Honest Reporting tries to make sense of the inconsistency.

If the media is prepared to acknowledge the Israeli media’s usage of the term when applied to a Jewish terrorist, why then, are they still not prepared to apply it to Palestinian terrorists?

When it comes to consistency, it is difficult to match AFP’s long-standing aversion to labeling Palestinian terrorists as anything other than “militants” or “activists.” Bizarrely, AFP, in its coverage, refers to Teitel as a “religious activist.”

While the term “activist” is consistent with AFP’s approach, we have to ask if the wire service ever refers to religiously motivated Muslim terrorists as “religious activists” or is this term only reserved for Jews?

At least the Associated Press demonstrated consistency when it referred to Teitel as a “radical” and “extremist.”

To reiterate – the description of Yaakov Teitel as a “terrorist” is not the issue. What is disturbing, however, is the sudden acceptance of the term by some media as a legitimate reference to an Israeli Jew while avoiding it when referring to Palestinians or other Arabs involved in the murder of Jews. Isn’t it time for some consistency when it comes to the “T-word?”

 Hmmm.