The short answer is: It sure looks like it.
Let’s start with the basics. First, Hamass is a terrorist organization. It has been designated as one by our government since 1997. That means that through five presidents, two republicans and three democrats, every single administration agreed that they were terrorists.
And it fits the definition in American law. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 2331 states that international terrorism include activities that:
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
Sorry for the strange formatting, but the site's programming doesn’t allow for us to properly indent it. We think most of the statute speaks for itself, but we will offer these quick notes.
First, there is definition of domestic terrorism in that statute which is pretty much the same as international terrorism except 1) it has to be in actual violation of American law and 2) has to occur primarily in America’s borders. We aren’t bothering to going through that definition further because we think it is pretty clear that Hamass is primarily international in operation.
Second, notice that the intent element only requires that the perpetrators only have to ‘appear’ to have the required intent. Their actual intent could be something radically different but as long as it appears to have that intent, that element is met. So, let’s say, hypothetically, that a group of criminals take over a building in a business park in Japan known as Nakatomi Plaza, and holds a number of people hostage. Let’s say that they tell the authorities that they will hold the hostages until a number of radicals around the world are freed from prison. But it turns out all this about releasing hostages is a red herring, and what the criminals are actually doing is robbing a vault in the building, and they couldn’t care less about any cause. Under those facts, their intent would appear to be ‘to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,’ and, therefore, they would be engaged in international terrorism even if they were not sincere about it.
Recommended
And, of course, sharp-eyed readers will notice in our hypothetical, we are describing the activities of the bad guys in Die Hard. The only change was to actually place Nakatomi Plaza in Japan, so it is clearly international, not national, terrorism. We apologize for bringing up this Christmas movie before December has properly begun.
Jokes aside, with all that in mind, Hamass has been an international terrorist organization for decades and the October 7 pogrom was itself international terrorism. Let’s apply the facts to the law. Focusing just on October 7, mass rape, kidnapping and murder are obviously ‘violent acts,’ they would have violated the laws of every state, and we have little doubt that this conduct is designed to ‘to intimidate or coerce a civilian population’—namely the civilians of Israel—while there is even less doubt that it appeared to have that intent. Finally, it occurred exclusively outside of America. So, October 7 was a veritable saturnalia of international terrorism, according to American law.
But people at the Voice of America were not so sure:
Three days after Hamas rampaged through southern Israel, an editor at Voice of America offered some lexical guidance in a staff-wide email: Avoid calling the perpetrators “terrorists.”https://t.co/a9ubo3FnIq
— Stars and Stripes (@starsandstripes) November 30, 2023
From the article:
Three days after Hamas rampaged through southern Israel, an editor at Voice of America offered some lexical guidance in a staff-wide email: Avoid calling the perpetrators ‘terrorists.’
The Oct. 7 Hamas attack, which killed around 1,200 people in Israel and claimed some 240 hostages, could be called ‘terrorist acts’ or ‘acts of terror,’ wrote Carol Guensburg, VOA’s associate editor for news standards. But she advised VOA to ‘avoid calling Hamas and its members terrorists,’ except in direct quotations from sources.
The guidance embodies the fraught conversations in newsrooms about how to describe the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Some journalists believe that the term ‘terrorist’ conveys a value judgment that punctures the media’s objectivity, and that such terms as ‘militant’ or ‘combatant’ would be more appropriate.
But now Republican lawmakers are objecting to the word choice at VOA, an editorially independent news organization that is funded entirely by the U.S. government, to the tune of $267.5 million this fiscal year.
The article goes on to talk about how seven Republican senators—Bill Hagerty (Tenn.), Ted Cruz (Tex.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Pete Ricketts (Neb.), John Barrasso (Wyo.) and Deb Fischer (Neb.)—all signed on to a letter denouncing this in terms that are blindingly obvious to anyone whose moral compass is not hopelessly broken. But we will note two things in that Stars and Stripes Coverage.
First, Stars and Stripes editorializes to cover for VOA, acting as if whether or not it is terrorism is a value judgment. It is not. This purports to be the voice of my country (and for Stars and Stripes, the military) but it can’t recognize that this country has spoken through its laws. And under those laws, Hamass is obviously a terrorist organization.
We suppose they misinterpret this as a value judgement because the moment someone is correctly labeled a terrorist, people know they are opposed to it. But the same can be said if one calls someone a rapist or if they say someone has committed infanticide—which Hamass also did. No reputable news organization should shy away from using any of those terms.
Second, Stars and Stripes misleadingly calls VOA ‘an editorially independent news organization.’ This is always nonsense. When an entity is funded by the government, it is never truly independent. As the saying goes, ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune.’ When we are talking about a Democracy or a Republic, an inherent conflict of interest arises because they have to please the party or candidates that wants to keep them funded. Let’s say for instance that Candidate A in the primaries wants to end VOA entirely, while Candidate B want to double their funding. How can they possibly cover that contest fairly when VOA’s literal existence is on the line?
Your tax dollars at work. https://t.co/LrIotW9850
— Danielle Pletka 🇮🇱 🇺🇦 (@dpletka) November 30, 2023
Most of the government & the media should not be trusted.
— Chief_Capital (@capital_chief) November 30, 2023
Crooked as the stock market.
Gotta learn how it operates & /who/what purposes it REALLY serves.
Not sure why you wouldn't call terrorists terrorists.
— Wes (@ganobleberries) November 30, 2023
Because leftists have a soft spot for Jew-killing terrorists.
“Some journalists believe that the term ‘terrorist’ conveys a value judgment that punctures the media’s objectivity, & that such terms as ‘militant’ or ‘combatant’ would be more appropriate.”
— 💜 The Graying Lady 💜🤍💜 (@SoulSurvivor24) November 30, 2023
So shooting rockets into Israel, murdering civilians & taking hostages is not terrorism?
“Some journalists believe that the term ‘terrorist’ conveys a value judgment that punctures the media’s objectivity, & that such terms as ‘militant’ or ‘combatant’ would be more appropriate.”
— 💜 The Graying Lady 💜🤍💜 (@SoulSurvivor24) November 30, 2023
So shooting rockets into Israel, murdering civilians & taking hostages is not terrorism?
Indeed, the Federalist was on this story long about a week ago:
Voice Of America Aids Hamas Terrorists By Refusing To Call Them Thathttps://t.co/obE21kEjmX
— The Federalist (@FDRLST) November 23, 2023
The author, Sean Durns says very similar things to what we have said, but adds this important wrinkle:
Importantly, VOA’s standard is selective. VOA had no problem labeling al-Qaeda or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) ‘terrorists.’ Yet Hamas, a similar Islamist movement, is given a pass. There is little difference between the groups. …
VOA’s coverage of the latest war has been replete with anti-Israel bias.
In a Nov. 9 report, the outlet regurgitated Hamas claims that an Israeli missile hit Shifa Hospital. In fact, it was an errant terrorist rocket that fell short. Shifa Hospital has long been used as a primary base of operations for Hamas — a fact confirmed by U.S. intelligence and noted by U.S. administration officials. Indeed, one can go back more than a decade and find reports from The Washington Post, PBS, and others detailing how Shifa is used by Hamas. Nonetheless, in a Nov. 11 tweet, VOA presented this as merely an Israeli ‘claim’ that ‘Hamas and hospital staff deny.’ …
VOA was established on the eve of World War II. In its first broadcast on Feb. 1, 1942, VOA promised, ‘We shall tell you the truth … today and daily from now on.’ This vow was made when the U.S. was at war with Nazi barbarism. Eight decades later, the West is at war with another group of genocidal antisemites, and one of America’s information arms is taking the wrong side.
"an editor at Voice of America offered some lexical guidance in a staff-wide email: Avoid calling the perpetrators “terrorists"
— Justin Edwards (@WolvesWin2022) November 29, 2023
Sounds right.
Left wingers are the supporters of Hamas.
Voice Of America Aids Hamas By Refusing To Call Them Terrorists. House cleaning of this agency is long overdue. https://t.co/u2uPFAn5Hh
— Michele Schiesser (@MicheleSchiesse) November 27, 2023
@POTUS @WhiteHouse @RepJamesComer @SenSchumer @SenateGOP @HouseGOP Please fix this and hold people at VOA responsible for their lack of moral clarity. Such people shouldn't be the voice of VOA. https://t.co/Uo5iN6cgMz
— Peter Burman (@PJB613) November 23, 2023
This is what needs to happen, but it can’t happen at this time without a great deal of cooperation from many powerful Democrats. So, we aren’t exactly holding our breath.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member