It’s no secret or surprise that words incite violence. But it’s not the blunt slogans and explicit calls for the death of Jews, such as “globalize the intifada” and “from the river to the sea,” alone that kill Jews. It is the media’s and journalists’ intentional choice of words that hands the weapon over before the shot is fired.
In 1974, Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer conducted an experiment where participants watched short videos of car accidents and asked: “How fast were the cars going when they smashed/collided/bumped into each other?” The phrasing of the question influenced the witnesses’ testimonies. People who heard “smashed” estimated much higher speeds and even reported broken glass, though none was shown.
This isn’t just academic. It illustrates how language frames perception, colors memory and shapes reality.
The BBC and other major news agencies are no different. When they describe an attack as an “incident” or report that “some were left dead,” rather than say “killed,” while avoiding words like “killed by terrorists” or “murdered,” their choices are not innocent; they are deliberate. The difference between “died” and “killed” is not semantics; it is complicity.
Take the tragic attack at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester, England, on Oct. 2, where two Jews were killed and several other people were injured. Is it honest journalism to report “two dead,” while describing the perpetrator as “killed?” That’s exactly how the BBC, as it so often does, framed the incident.
These linguistic choices are not isolated. We’ve seen them repeatedly since the beginning of the war between Hamas and Israel: vague headlines, passive verbs and one-sided framing. The pattern recalls the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion in October 2023, when major outlets rushed to blame Israel before facts were known. By the time the truth emerged, the damage to Israel’s image and to Jewish safety worldwide was already done.
I have met some of these journalists, including ones from Spain and England, where many of my relatives live and where the prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, recently recognized a Palestinian state while failing to protect Jewish citizens. I confronted them about what I believe makes them complicit.
They explained to me that their choice of words is legal caution (i.e., “alleged”) or editorial policy (not labeling organizations as “terrorist”) or even because of a lack of access to information. But the reality is that every decision about when to write “killed” or “died” is intentional. Words are not strung together by accident. They carry purpose, and when lives are lost, these journalists bear part of the responsibility.
In the past year, thousands—if not hundreds of thousands—have been drawn into anti-Israel activism not by witnessing violence firsthand, but by the words they see and read. How issues and events are framed can be what influences hearts and minds.
In Judaism, we are taught that words can build worlds and destroy them. In Pirkei Avot, “The Ethics of the Fathers,” we learn: “With 10 utterances the world was created.” In contrast, in Proverbs it says: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.”
Jewish tradition teaches that speech is among the most powerful gifts from God. It is what distinguishes humans from animals. Jewish wisdom teaches that a speaker must tailor words such that what is clear to him will also be understood by the audience. A speaker must consider the listener’s perspective before speaking.
The media know their power. They know exactly how their audience will interpret their words. And those choices have led to countless deaths and injuries as antisemitism rages across the globe.
They paved the way for the deaths of Paul Kessler, a 69-year-old Jew struck in the head with a megaphone by an anti-Israel protester in California; Karen Diamond, an 82-year-old Jewish woman who was killed in Boulder, Colo., while taking part in a march for the hostages; and Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, murdered in Washington, D.C., by a man shouting, “Free Palestine,” and sadly others as well.
These perpetrators were not born with hatred; they were incited by it. The normalization of Jew-hatred began not on the streets but in the headlines.
