The New York Times once wrote that Hamas founder Mahmoud Zahar, a qualified surgeon was asked in an interview his medical specialty:
“Thyroids: I’m very good at cutting throats,” Dr. Zahar said, drawing his forefinger across his neck as a rare smile spread across his face.
Another Hamas founder Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi was a certified physician before meeting his end in an Israeli targeted killing.
Does the fact that these two individuals are and were, respectively, qualified medical professionals, lessen their involvement as head of a vicious terrorist organization?
Of course not.
So why has a Financial Times headline chosen to focus on Fadi Mohammad al-Batsh’s profession in its coverage of his apparent assassination in Malaysia?
While it has not been confirmed or proven that Israel had any involvement, Hamas has made no secret that Batsh was a senior military commander.
Let’s repeat that: a senior military commander in a terrorist organization.
Batsh was clearly no peace activist. Instead, according to Israeli sources, he was an expert in drones and rocket technology. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what a senior Hamas commander could bring to the terror organization with such a skill set.
According to the Financial Times, however, Israel is accused of assassinating a “Palestinian lecturer.” The average reader probably associates this term with someone academic, cerebral, a teacher not a terrorist.
Headlines matter. So why then has the Financial Times sanitized a terrorist?
You can ask the FT yourself. Please send your considered comments to [email protected]
