The implication of “cease fire”?

Once again, the Palestinian lobby is winning the war of world opinion through the skillful use of language. Throughout the past few days the MSM insists on referring to the situation in Israel as a mutual cease fire. I take umbrage at this characterization. To my understanding, Israel has never had a policy of aggression towards Palestinians. As such, this is not a change in the Israeli stance. When the IDF kills a Palestinian terrorist they are not killing a Palestinian who happens to be a terrorist. They are killing a terrorist who happens to be a Palestinian. If I was to become a terrorist, and I went to Israel with the intention of committing an atrocity, I would hope that Israel would take action against me. In my scenario, the fact that I am an American would have little relevance and Israel’s hunting me down would not be an aggression against America. Instead it would be a defensive measure against terrorism. That being said, am I to understand that the IDF is going to stop hunting terrorists? Is this what is meant by cease fire? If so, then this is a very dark day in the war on terror. If this is not the case (and I am hopeful that it is not), then the distinction must be made in a clear and concise way. Israel’s policy of allowing the Palestinian leadership to rewrite history in order to save face is an insult to all those that bravely fight in the war on terror as well as to those that have fallen as victims in that war. Functionally, this policy of public relations appeasement will result in the same way that all appeasement policies do… in failure.