Greetings.
State-sponsored terrorism is a 'legitimate' form of terrorism. (an ironical assessment in itself, unfortunately)
In academic terms, defining terrorism as part of political science teaching is near-impossible. The seminal works on this topic usually require upwards of 80 pages to reach barely satisfying definitions. (I am happy to provide the details to anyone curious enough to invest enough time to look them up in specialized academic libraries)
What you see in 'the dictionary' isn't relevant, as certain poli-sci terms are too intricate to understand easily, and are commonly misinterpreted or warped through propagandistic public perception. As an example, neither Vietnam nor the current Afghanistan conflict were 'wars', yet people are happy to use that term.
Feel free to scorn the academic stuffiness of it all; but please spend a few years of your life doing nothing but studying the political background of statecraft before doing so, simply so you know why I say what I say. I wouldn't dream of mocking an architectural engineer for proclaiming that a certain type of architecture is stupid or badly designed, either.
IDF soldiers do often shoot civilians, it's fairly simple. Travel to the region and live with the Palestinians for a while. I know several non-politically-aligned people who have, and the terror the Israelis impose on the Palestinians is palpable, violent, and real. Naturally, the Israelis do it for a very good reason: they are afraid themselves. The very existence of their state is at stake, and they believe that many Arabs would wipe them out at once, if given the chance. Thus, their response is radical and violent. I fully understand why the Israelis act they do; there is no giant conspiracy going on, it's very simple: the Palestinians have no rights, and they are routine oppressed and killed. The graphs shown, my earlier postings, etc., all demonstrate an aspect of that. If you still rely on the NYT and CNN to show you, wake up. Don't you remember the furor a month or so ago when Turner claimed the Israelis were using terrorist methods themselves? He had to instantly retract his claim, even though it was factually correct.
It's a bit like comparing the front pages of the NYT and WP with that of the UK papers during the height of the conflict in Afghanistan. The British papers kept showing dead civilians, dead Afghani children, innocent victims, etc. Compare that to the US media. It's not what you show, it's what you want to show.
If you feel like reading an in-depth article (in German, unfortunately) by the most respected German newsweekly, Der Spiegel, on how the Palestinians are being terrorized and killed, try <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,206718,00.html">this</a>. It's an article on how the
US Ambassador to Israel, Dan Kurtzer, is calling on Israel to stop the humanitarian disaster that is befalling the Palestinians. The article's in German, but surely that kind of stuff would receive the same sort of front-page attention in the US that it's receiving in Europe?
Surely?
The recent UN condemnations of much of Israel's behaviour, including the butchering of civilians, ought to be well-known and well-documented in the US media by now. Right?
Right?
9 dead Palestinian children are collateral damage, and will be treated as such by the US media, as part of the war on terrorism. 1 dead Israeli child, as part of a suicide bombing, is a national tragedy, and will be treated as such by the US media.
Some things sell, others don't.
I didn't respond to the earlier posting by dhamsaic, in which he advocated that the Palestinians ought to self-immolate rather than engage in suicide bombings. Sometimes the detachment and lack of awareness of local situations, and the related responses of uninvolved people is fairly disturbing.
Thus, let me be plain on a basic moral level: it is wrong for any non-state organisation to commit acts of terror against any state. But it is also reprehensible, and on a greater level, for any democratically elected state government to commit acts of terror against any group of people it can dominate at will. The problem is that a state is directly responsible for those under its jurisdiction; to abuse such power is to forfeit any right to claim that justice has been done, and to forfeit any right to just representation. To murder civilians in cold blood is wrong for individual and state alike; in the case of the state, wrongs above and beyond the simple murder have been committed.
Yes, wrong is wrong. But there are reasons why a serial killer will be locked up for longer than a 'simple' murderer. Think about that for a while.
Hamas is a fairly small terrorist organization. Their actions are reprehensible. They do not accurately represent the majority of the Palestinians. Their support increases depending on how radical the Israelis are, it's a vicious circle. The Israeli government
does represent the state of Israel, and all Israeli citizens within. Its actions are representative. Its actions are reprehensible. It's that simple.
And by the way:
I would be very interested to see one incident where an Israeli soldier was bored and shot an innocent Palestinian walking the streets - without being provoked. So let's see your sources. I want names.(dhamsaic)
Unfortunately, I can easily provide that:
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/07/59092.php
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/update_archives.htm
The recent event, in which civilians were out in a market, and an Israeli tank fired a warning shot into their midst, killing several, ought to be sufficient for you?
By the way - resorting to cheap racial slang in order to imply that the previous poster may have been racially motivated, or in order to get some sort of emotional reaction out of him, was pretty damn low, dhamsaic. (
Ah, yes. I see. It's okay to kill a couple of those dirty zionist kikes.) Your intention may have been that of irony, but it was fairly obvious flamebait.
Do you have to stoop to that, seeing how Israel is about to implement Apartheid-like laws regarding land ownership, etc, limiting it to Jews only?
X.
