A matter of opinion?

But the panel said the BBC should use "terrorism" to describe violence against civilians with the intention of causing terror for ideological objectives, "whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies".

"It seems clear that placing a bomb on a bus used by civilians intending death or injury in supposed furtherance of a cause is a terrorist act and no other expression conveys so tersely and accurately the elements involved."

- the Beeb on the report its governors commissioned on its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

That sounds good - but note the sting in the tail in the relevant recommendation from the report:-

b) the BBC is right to avoid terms which are a barrier to understanding, and should use words
which best express the desired meaning clearly and effectively. The term "terrorism" should
accordingly be used in respect of relevant events since it is the most accurate expression for
actions which involve violence against randomly selected civilians with the intention of causing
terror for ideological, including political or religious, objectives, whether perpetrated by state
or non-state agencies. While those immediately responsible for the actions might be described
as terrorists, the BBC is right to avoid so labelling organisations, except in attributed remarks;

I'm afraid that's the get-out which means that instead of reading this...

The PA has faced financial crisis since foreign aid was frozen after Hamas - responsible for terrorist attacks which have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians - won elections in January.

...we will go on reading this...

The PA has faced financial crisis since foreign aid was frozen after Hamas - regarded as a terrorist movement by the US and EU - won elections in January.