My point is that by deciding that Hamas people with guns can’t be “soldiers,” but IDF people with guns can, the NYT is giving a subtle stamp of legitimacy to the IDF.
Let me put it this way - it was Nazi soldiers which rampaged across Europe during WW2.
Soldier is not a designation of morality or legitimacy. It is a designation of association - namely, association with a state’s military apparatus. Excluding paramilitaries, which are generally (though not always) referred to with other terms.
If we’re calling Hamas “militants” out of pure desire for accuracy, can we start calling people who work for the IDF who blow up universities and snipe doctors “terrorists”? And mount a factual defense of that term, based on their conduct in the “war”? Because I think I could make a pretty good argument for why that term applies to them more accurately than “soldiers” and “war” for what’s happening on the ground right now.
The category of ‘state terrorism’ is contentious, I wouldn’t reasonably expect it to be used in a reputable news source at this point in time (though I would be thrilled if it was used in one). But I agree that the description is absolutely apt.
Soldier is not a designation of morality or legitimacy. It is a designation of association - namely, association with a state’s military apparatus. Excluding paramilitaries, which are generally (though not always) referred to with other terms.
Yeah, I get that. My point is that this is part of a consistent pattern where the NYT uses one set of words for the “good guys” and a different set of words for the “bad guys,” as part of a (fairly successful) effort to get their readers to look at the conflict within their chosen parameters (which diverge quite a bit from the reality).
The category of ‘state terrorism’ is contentious, I wouldn’t reasonably expect it to be used in a reputable news source at this point in time
Yeah fully agreed. I don’t think anyone should be obligated to describe Israel as a terrorist state in their news coverage. Just saying that, if the pro-Israel writers want to be super specific about reporting every action with the exactly correct chosen words, then okay sure I think it becomes fair to start exploring the exactly correct words that actually do describe better what’s really going on.
Let me put it this way - it was Nazi soldiers which rampaged across Europe during WW2.
Soldier is not a designation of morality or legitimacy. It is a designation of association - namely, association with a state’s military apparatus. Excluding paramilitaries, which are generally (though not always) referred to with other terms.
The category of ‘state terrorism’ is contentious, I wouldn’t reasonably expect it to be used in a reputable news source at this point in time (though I would be thrilled if it was used in one). But I agree that the description is absolutely apt.
Yeah, I get that. My point is that this is part of a consistent pattern where the NYT uses one set of words for the “good guys” and a different set of words for the “bad guys,” as part of a (fairly successful) effort to get their readers to look at the conflict within their chosen parameters (which diverge quite a bit from the reality).
Yeah fully agreed. I don’t think anyone should be obligated to describe Israel as a terrorist state in their news coverage. Just saying that, if the pro-Israel writers want to be super specific about reporting every action with the exactly correct chosen words, then okay sure I think it becomes fair to start exploring the exactly correct words that actually do describe better what’s really going on.