Rabbi, I agree. If someone using a bulldozer to run over cars and ram into a bus isn’t considered an outright terrorist, and that isn’t a clear act of terrorism, I don’t know what is. Something IS very, very, wrong that the general media feels a need to surround the word terrorist with quotes. I believe this syndrome to be the evil of being politically correct, i.e. afraid to offend to the extent that evil is reduced to neutral in hopes it won’t retaliate against you. And being politically correct to the extent that one is afraid to see reality for what it is, and placating your known enemies, is terrifying in itself. This is much like calling the sky “blue” for fear you will offend the other colors. I am more frightened of those who insist on being politically correct than terrorists. You know where terrorists stand. They want to terrorize and kill you. They don’t pander. They aren’t concerned about offending anyone. The politically correct, on the otherhand, have become afraid of their own shadows, afraid of life, afraid of living because they might offend who knows whom. A very sad way to live…. By the way, as of 1:45pm MST, the quotes around the word terrorist in the CNN article are no longer there. Your blog must have an influence!

P.S. However, the quotes ARE still surrounding the word terrorist under the WORLD header.

Rabbi Brad, I agree with you as well. A man who rams a construction tractor into cars and buses during a busy afternoon is a terrorist. Not a “terrorist,” in quotation marks, simply one who terrorizes — a terrorist. But the media doesn’t seem to think so. News coverage from the Associated Press, Reuters and The New York Times calls this same man a Palestinian. The Associated Press article mentions that the Israeli Police call the man a “terrorist,” but that is clearly not a fact according to the article’s authors.
The news media’s decision to avoid calling him a terrorist misinforms, when in fact his actions, if committed by anyone else, would have rendered that person a terrorist. This particular “Palestinian” man happened to be an Israeli citizen. In fact, he was not a Palestinian any more than I am a Palestinian. My father was born in Jerusalem, Palestine, and I too hold a blue Israeli identity card.

The man with the bulldozer was a psychotic. When it all plays out and the investigation is complete, I bet he would turn out to be just like the man who killed five people and himself after an argument with his supervisor.
The word Terrorist is used to freely these days when Madman or nut case would work just as well.

What is a terrorist? And why do we care about the label? If a Jewish Israeli were to intentionally slam a bulldozer into a crowd of people, he’d be a criminal, not a terrorist. What about an Arab man doing the same thing? What if he did it on his own, with no connection to any terrorist organization? Does the fact that he’s an Arab and his victims are Jews inherently make him a terrorist:?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, and I certainly don’t know the implications of it all. There’s obvious emotional baggage to the word “terrorist,” and what happened in Jerusalem today is a horrible, inexcusable act of violence no matter what the label or motivation.

Drive-by shootings by ethnic groups
are never called acts of terror
because there’s no open political conflict
but wait until there is and the label
will change.

I believe that this was a horrible act of violence. Violence which is aimed at disrupting the lives of many others. I would certainly label him a terrorist, criminal, psychotic, and any other name that would suit someone like this. Names which sympathize with him, would not reflect his motives accurately. He deserves no sympathy, the victims do.

Every violent act is not a terrorist act. I think the rabbi used an example which hinders the goal of accurate news reporting. Too often people who are clearly terrorists are called freedom fighters or given other euphonious names. In this instance, the man may have been a terrorist or he may have been lunatic or he may have been a violent criminal.
Generally a terrorist is someone who has a political objective which he hopes to advance (but seldom does) by violence against innocent people. A paranoid schizophrenic, however, may suffer from grandiose delusions and murder others due to his delusions.
While the bull dozer may have been a terrorist act, in this particular case, the media probably acted prudently by putting the terrorist label in quotations in order to signal that the terrorist appellation was not fully established.

I saw the video clip on several different news sources, and none of them started earlier. It may be the case that the clip itself started there, and that there was no “editing choice” involved at all. The use of quote marks around “terrorist” is, however, entirely inappropriate.

It is possible that the news organizations are not ready to accept the idea that he is a true terrorist for one of two reasons. The first is that without an investigation of the incident, no one knows what the motivation of his actions was. The second reason is related. Even if the act was one of terror, it was not affiliated with any known terrorist organizations whose goal is to use violence against civilians to make them so frightened that they will accede to the terrorist’s demands.
I find this evolution of the use of the word even more frightening, as it grants more legitimacy to terrorism.

Unfortunately, CNN is always more concerned for the Arab/Muslim brothers feelings, than their Jewish/Christian brothers. Who was in Lebanon, filming only the Israeli counter-attack? Yes, CNN. Who was in Israel, filming rockets being randomly fired into populated areas. CNN, NO. Only FOX was. Be aware of CNN.