3 ms·

Most journalists have never visited Israel (though I believe Gessen has). As far as who knows more, the base level facts are well-known: two ethnic groups both

Most journalists have never visited Israel (though I believe Gessen has). As far as who knows more, the base level facts are well-known: two ethnic groups both want a piece of land with lots of religious and cultural attachments; the weaker one engages in terrorism, while the stronger one engages in strict restrictions on the weaker population and kills more people than them. And if people know anything, they know that, and the difference in opinion is more about moral rules than a factual dispute. If anything, the people who know more than that tend to be less thoughtful about the conflict, able to recite lists the atrocities one side has committed against the other and obscure historical incidents to justify one side or another, without even making the smallest effort to comprehend why the other side does what it does. I can't say I've ever walked away better informed by reading one of the "well-informed" partisan screeds.

CMCDragonkai 2y ago
Back when I was studying IR in Uni, it used to be all about terrorism. In general states will always put a moral spin on terrorists. But terrorism is always the tool of the weaker party. In fact all forms of rebellion can be spun as terrorism. As the state gets to frame the debate. Even now people refer to state violence as state terrorism. I remember some authors arguing that terrorism label is more of a construct for emotional propaganda than anything useful for distinction. Violence is violence. Who we expect or accept to receive that violence is a matter of opinion and perspective.
- fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
  > In fact all forms of rebellion can be spun as terrorism. Sure. But not all forms of rebellion (or state violence) are terrorism. If rebels (or the state in question) are focused on attacking and killing enemy combatants, it's not really terrorism, while if they are focusing on indiscriminately targeting civilians, it is. Words have meaning. Not all violence is the same. EDIT: Even in the most violent of contexts (war), humans have collectively agreed that some forms of violence ("war crimes") are less acceptable than others; saying things like "violence is violence" could be seen as support to the "anything goes" approach to war (which I'm sure you don't support).

CMCDragonkai 2y ago

Back when I was studying IR in Uni, it used to be all about terrorism. In general states will always put a moral spin on terrorists. But terrorism is always the tool of the weaker party. In fact all forms of rebellion can be spun as terrorism. As the state gets to frame the debate. Even now people refer to state violence as state terrorism. I remember some authors arguing that terrorism label is more of a construct for emotional propaganda than anything useful for distinction. Violence is violence. Who we expect or accept to receive that violence is a matter of opinion and perspective.

fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
> In fact all forms of rebellion can be spun as terrorism. Sure. But not all forms of rebellion (or state violence) are terrorism. If rebels (or the state in question) are focused on attacking and killing enemy combatants, it's not really terrorism, while if they are focusing on indiscriminately targeting civilians, it is. Words have meaning. Not all violence is the same. EDIT: Even in the most violent of contexts (war), humans have collectively agreed that some forms of violence ("war crimes") are less acceptable than others; saying things like "violence is violence" could be seen as support to the "anything goes" approach to war (which I'm sure you don't support).