Some of the news websites are saying that Israel security services have found and killed (in a firefight) the suspected terrorist who shot Yehuda Glick last night.
I don't understand the headline, and I assume it is the attempt at politically correctness of the relevant media that caused them to write it like that.
If the guy is only a suspected terrorist, he should not have been killed. If he was killed "unintentionally", as a result of resisting arrest and starting a firefight, that should be pointed out. The headlines makes it sound like he was killed because of his involvment, but he was only suspected. Suspected terrorists should not be killed, though I don't have a problem with actual terrorists being killed.
If he was the terrorist, and he was positively identified and there were eyewitnesses to the shooting so I'll go out on a limb and say that the identification was relatively easy, he should not be called a suspected terrorist. He was a terrorist.
So was he a terrorist or a suspected terrorist? was he killed because of what he did, because of what he was suspected to have done, or because he started a firefight?
It might only be semantics, but the story needs to be told correctly.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
