Speaking of stupid moral equivalence, and scare quotes on terrorists, Foxnews seems to think that the IDF are "Israeli militants." From the first paragraph:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip -- Israeli militants killed a senior Hamas (search) official and two of his bodyguards Thursday in a strike meant as retaliation for Tuesday's deadly Jerusalem bus bombing.

[Update at 12:48 PM PDT]

Fox has fixed it, but I've got a screen shot. I'll put it up in a couple days when I get home--my laptop doesn't do graphics all that well, and I can't convert to JPG.

Also, Charles Johnson found an amusing NPR piece from this morning, in which Julie McCarthy slipped up and accidentally called "militants" terrorists. Listen carefully, it's almost toward the end of the piece.

What am I missing? I read the Fox story twice and didn't see the word "militants". It did say "military". Was the link to the wrong article?
I give the Israeli's credit for even allowing the terrorist's to say they want to try and work out a peace deal. Anyone in their right minds knows that their only interest is the total distruction of the Jewish state. Nothing will change that. They teach hate and are supported by states that do the same. The circle of death will not be broken if the present leadership is allowed to continue.

They fixed it. After a barage of e-mails and phone calls, about 7 hours after it was originally posted, it was fixed.

I was wondering how long it would be until they fixed it.

I've still got the original version in a browser window. I might put up a screen shot later.

In fairness to FOX, it was probably what we computer nerds call a "thinko:" like a typo, but with semantics instead of syntax messed up. Even fair-minded journalists covering the ME must have the word "militant" imprinted into the medulla... could easily pop out.

Actually, I think that the word "militant" should be purged from all articles about the Middle East, because it's usually a euphemism. Militants engage in military operations. These folks (not the IDF) are just good old-fashioned terrorists.

Could someone please explain to me what all the fuss is about? According to my dictionary, the word "militant" means "A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party." Seems apt to me.

The fuss is over the fact that a) the word is not generally applied to professional military and b)"militant" is the word usually applied by the media in the Middle East to people who deliberately murder children, and rejoice when they're successful. It is odious to use the same word for the IDF.

I see.

The latest Palestinian bombing was in retaliation for the killing of Mohammed Sidr. And before that Israel killed two boys, ages 3 and 13, in a botched attempt to kill Sidr.

So calling the IDF "militants" is "odious" not because they don't kill children (because they do), but rather because it's not their objectve (as if the summary execution of someone without trial was a laudable goal) and there is no subsequent rejoicing. Hm.

Don't get me wrong, I am not in any way condoning the Palestinian attacks on civilians. These are horrific crimes. But just because your enemy is evil that does not make you good. The Israelis are not lily-white, and Fox's use of the word "militant" was, it seems to me, at worst a minor faux pas (since corrected) and possibly even defensible (given what the dictionary has to say about it). In no way does it warrant all the brouhaha with screen shots and whatnot. All this indignation at Fox sounds to me like casting the mote out of your neighbor's eye.

You can rationalize it all you want, Erann, but there is no moral equivalence, or equivalent term, between uniformed, disciplined soldiers in a war for the survival of their nation, and irregular murderers fighting to destroy that same nation.

Because they are at war, there's no need for a trial to kill the enemy leadership (he was a leader of an organization whose stated goal is to end the Jewish state), and deliberately murdering children in response to it is not "tit for tat."

> but there is no moral equivalence, or equivalent term, between...

I didn't say there was. What I said was that the response to Fox's screwup is a tempest in a teapot.

What response? I didn't bombard them with emails. I noted it on my blog. I only did so because it was Fox. If it had been CNN or BBC I would have figured it par for the course.

> What response? I didn't bombard them with emails.

No, but other people did. According to Evan Fox received "a barage of email".

> I noted it on my blog.

You did more than that. You went to the trouble of capturing a screen shot, and promised to display it as soon as you were able. You could have instead simply noted that the mistake had been fixed and let the matter drop (which is exactly what I now intend to do).

How did "I might put up a screen shot later" become a "promise"? I would only do so if there were some effort on Fox' part to deny it. Look for the mote in your own eye when it comes to "overreaction."

Unless I hear more about it, I'm dropping it as well.

> How did "I might put up a screen shot later" become a "promise"?

You're right, I misremembered what you wrote. My bad. Sorry.

Well, actually, we're both right, because I see now that I also did a post update in which I said I would when I got home. But I didn't say "cross my heart and hope to die." ;-)