Sounds like the BBC’s explanation on their use of language regarding Hamas is relevant here:

John Simpson responded to the criticism in a post on X. “British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word ‘terrorist’, and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it,” he wrote.

"Calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.

“The BBC’s job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting.”

He said: “It’s about making sure that all audiences trust the information that we’re giving them, that they don’t think the BBC is coming at this from one side of the conflict as opposed to the other, and that we steer a course though this in very difficult circumstances in which our journalism can continue to be factual, accurate, impartial and truthful.”

The corporation’s editorial guidelines say the word “terrorist” can be “a barrier rather than an aid to understanding”.

They say: "We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.

"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as ‘bomber’, ‘attacker’, ‘gunman’, ‘kidnapper’, ‘insurgent’ and ‘militant’.

“We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.”

Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism. Now, if you use this standard, the Israeli government also uses violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism, therefore the Israeli government is also a terrorist organization. Would David Cameron be okay with the BBC maintaining their neutrality and describing both sides as terrorists?