3 ms·
Based on that definition alone, the occupation of the West Bank and the discrimination against its original people breaks international law, is enforced by viol
by jhanschoo 1y ago
Based on that definition alone, the occupation of the West Bank and the discrimination against its original people breaks international law, is enforced by violence and intimidation against civilians, and from the unlawful settlement in it, seems to be in service of the political Zionist aim of settling the region, let alone Gaza.
- parineum 1y agoTraffic laws are enforced by violence and intimidation.
- ithkuil 1y agoIf any form of coercion and prevarication is labeled terrorism we then lack a word to describe the act of plowing through a crowd with a truck or planting a bomb in an everyday place with the intention of instilling terror in the population. Those acts are different from military occupation or apartheid or genocide. It's not a judgement of value. It's a description of a method. My point is that the word "terrorism" transcended the description of a technique for reaching certain goals, to a general blanket term used to describe "pure evil" and so people started to use it to describe very bad things even if they are not technically terrorism
- jhanschoo 1y agoMake no mistake, occupiers can and frequently will use terror tactics. They don't plow through a crowd with a truck or plant a bomb in an everyday place because they don't need to do that to instill terror, those are tactics of the weak. No, they disappear the people around you, with the same aim, and from a position of power. Which is the greater terror? A truck that detonated downtown or knowing a relative that got killed, locked up, or tortured? Apartheid and genocide are worse terrors than that, and by a stronger oppressor. Many Palestinians in the West Bank have to pass through military checkpoints daily just to go about their daily lives, and at every point, one wonders if it is on that day that their life goes sideways.
- ithkuil 1y agoDon't get me wrong. I'm not trying to diminish the suffering of people who have to live through this degrading and stressful experience. I just think the word terrorism used to describe the action of (usually militarily weaker) insurgent actors trying to destabilize a society is not the same as using the word terrorism used to describe the intentional oppression by a state (using military and police) towards a minority. We have "repression","oppression", "persecution", "subjugation". Why do we need to use the word "terrorism" there? I suspect it has to do with the fact the word "terrorism" has been abused by american right wing after 9/11 to just describe "any muslim" and "any evil" and there has been appetite ever since to have some retribution and use this term back to label the west (and israel as its proxy). Again, I'm not trying to defend the actions of israel against the palestinian population of the west bank in particular, but I find that "repression","oppression", "persecution", "subjugation" are already strong words enough and we don't need to strip the word "terrorism" from its specific meaning.
- jhanschoo 1y agoI really don't think there is a definition of terrorism that is sufficiently satisfying and also faithful to its etymology. The definition that most people have in mind is probably what just mentioned earlier: how similar is it to the examples of irregulars "setting bombs in public infrastructure", "suicide trucks", and "suicide bombers". But as the dictionary definition betrays, the ambiguity due to etymology exists, and is frequently exploited as a rhetorical technique by people using the word.
- bigyabai 1y agoAs is the illegal annexation of the Golan Heights. Are you seeing the problem, yet?