A knife from a foiled Palestinian stabbing attack. Photo: StandWithUs.

A media watchdog blasted The New York Times on Wednesday for “continuing to downplay Palestinian terrorism, disregarding both the Jewish victims and the English language.”

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) was responding to the way a piece that appeared in Tuesday’s “newspaper of record” reported on the current wave of terrorism against Israelis.

The article in question, called “Anger in a Palestinian Town Feeds a Cycle of Violence,” does not mention the word “terrorism” in relation to two young Arabs who were killed while engaged in stabbing and rock attacks, referring to their activity instead as “resistance.”

“To describe the history of violence by residents of the town of Sa’ir merely as ‘resistance’ is to describe the act of plunging a knife into an Israeli civilian’s chest — an act perpetrated by a Sa’ir resident last October — as something readers are likely to associate with noble World War II partisans or fictional Jedi heroes,” senior CAMERA research analyst Gilead Ini told The Algemeiner.

“This outlandish abuse of language, meant to downplay Palestinian violence recalls The New York Times’ recent description of a butterfly knife wielded by a Palestinian attacker as a ‘Boy Scout’ knife.”

Contrasting this with the newspaper’s word choice when it comes to Israeli behavior, Ini said, “The New York Times hasn’t described rare acts of anti-Palestinian violence by Israeli extremists as ‘resistance.’ On the contrary, a recent article referred to a ‘Jewish terrorist’ network, even though the Times has not once used the phrase ‘Palestinian terrorist’ in reference to the current wave of stabbing attacks targeting Israeli men, women and children.”

Ini asked, “Why does the newspaper have such a hard time straightforwardly dealing with anti-Israel violence?”

He concluded: “Palestinian assailants should not be confused with Boy Scouts. Violent antisemitism should not be confused with resistance. And New York Times advocacy journalism should not be confused with the fair and impartial reporting readers expect.”