Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[Sultan]

I don’t disagree with any of what you say Sults (though my lecturer at university said if we used the term ‘one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter’ in our assignments then it would be an instant fail )

Hope you and the family had a nice Eid.

All good, mate. x

 

[Brown Toothpick]

Are we that naive to accept the views of Western governments always have to be correct and to take precedent over other opinions? I have seen the very enlightened nations change their minds on definitions of terrorists when it suits their narrative and agendas.

Some still hang on to that.. unbelievable. They take Israel's side by default because how can the mighty white west be the bad guys? It has to the be terrorist Arabs!

 

[The Corinthian]

I wouldn’t be surprised if this happens with other news organisations and is the reason for Israeli bias.

 

[Raoul]

Are we that naive to accept the views of Western governments always have to be correct and to take precedent over other opinions? I have seen the very enlightened nations change their minds on definitions of terrorists when it suits their narrative and agendas.

I don't think its a right or wrong issue as much as it is a simple realization that the power structure of the conflict is comprised exclusively of western governments, which means they are the only arbiters with any tangible ability to influence outcomes. The US and to a lesser extent the UK and large EU member states do have the ability collectively influence the direction of the conflict by way of their influence over Israel.

 

[Roane]

I wouldn’t be surprised if this happens with other news organisations and is the reason for Israeli bias.

I mentioned John Pilger before. He has done a couple of documentaries on Israel/Palestine.

His first was in 1977. The second in around 2002.

I forget the news organisation, but it was one of the big UK ones, where he had the director admit they were forced to report things a certain way. He also discovered call centres type building in Israel, tasked with bombarding anyone who didn't follow the narrative.

I can't remember which he said the following in, but it's relevant moreso today than ever:

"A huge bluff of the Israeli establishment is that any criticism of it's policies is antisemetism"

Edit: found this https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2002/sep/23/television.middleeastthemedia

 

[Smores]

Not sure anybody has said that.

The term terrorism is subject to much debate around its meaning and who it should apply to. I generally wouldn’t label states as terrorist, as I (rightly or wrongly) would reserve the term for non state actors committing acts of terror.

It's just a bit of a lazy headline term these days in my opinion. They're a militant group fighting for their country, calling them terrorists because they're not state actors (although are they not de facto?) feels rather obtuse.

My main concern with using that term is it massively devalues the legitimacy of the fight from one side. Any israeli victims become victims of intended terrorism where as IDF victims are just unfortunate civilian casualties. Yet the deaths are deaths and equally disgusting.

 

[Roane]

It's just a bit of a lazy headline term these days in my opinion. They're a militant group fighting for their country, calling them terrorists because they're not state actors (although are they not de facto?) feels rather obtuse.

My main concern with using that term is it massively devalues the legitimacy of the fight from one side. Any israeli victims become victims of intended terrorism where as IDF victims are just unfortunate civilian casualties. Yet the deaths are deaths and equally disgusting.

It's the MO of the news media due to pressure from Israel. It's a narrative that gets pushed to make one side look evil and the other the victims.

Someone posted a leaked memo above, from Israel, about what language to use, and we see this by some posters on here. Some may do say because of what they have read but some are clearly doing it as per the "instructions".

Here is a quote from 2002. Relevant today and specifically how current events started, by Israel but the focus has become Hamas

The selective use of language is striking, says the study. Words such as "murder", "atrocity" and "terrorism" are used almost exclusively in relation to Israeli deaths. The extent to which broadcasters assume the Israeli perspective, says Professor Greg Philo, "can be seen if the statements are reversed ... We did not find any [news] reports stating that 'The Palestinian attacks were in retaliation for the murder of those resisting the illegal Israeli occupation.'"

 

[The Original]

Depending on your views and which side takes your fancy most observers will tend to believe that an accepted definition of terrorism can't be agreed upon. The saying one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter comes up regularly in these debates. Obviously, there is a red line in my opinion for those to be definitely called terrorists who deliberately attack civilians.

Anyway, the founding fathers of Israel resorted to terrorism. The Zionist organisation Irgun was described as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations, British, and United States governments. The bombing by the Zionist terrorist group of British headquarters at the King David Hotel killed 91 people was one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century and was one of the factors the British left. Terrorism in parts helped form Israel.

Over the last few decades, Mandela was called a terrorist, Modi was barred from entering the UK, EU and USA whilst presiding in Gujarat during the massacre of over 1000 Muslims and is now the Prime Minister of India.

There is an objective definition of terrorism. Doesn't matter if the likes of Mandela get tainted by it despite their overwhelmingly positive images.

The defining feature of terrorism is not who you are or why you do what you do, it's how you do it. Specifically, by targeting civilians as a deliberate tactic of war in order to induce terror. It's really very basic.

 

[JPRouve]

There is an objective definition of terrorism. Doesn't matter if the likes of Mandela get tainted by it despite their overwhelmingly positive images.

The defining feature of terrorism is not who you are or why you do what you do, it's how you do it. Specifically, by targeting civilians as a deliberate tactic of war in order to induce terror. It's really very basic.

There are objective definitions of terrorism but there is a biased application of those definitions. The objective definition is quite unforgiving and actually includes most leading countries and in this particular case Israel.

 

[lefty_jakobz]

I wouldn’t be surprised if this happens with other news organisations and is the reason for Israeli bias.

During the 2014 attack the BBC if you remember was the only terrestrial channel not allowing the airing of the Gaza Appeal...guess what religion the editor in chief was back then? An israeli, who refused point blank to air the appeal.

The BBC used to be impartial, now like everything else it can be easily bought.

 

[hellhunter]

During the 2014 attack the BBC if you remember was the only terrestrial channel not allowing the airing of the Gaza Appeal...guess what religion the editor in chief was back then? An israeli, who refused point blank to air the appeal.

That's not a religion.

 

[Raoul]

I wouldn’t be surprised if this happens with other news organisations and is the reason for Israeli bias.

This would be consistent with the western framing of Hamas, where American audiences see the conflict as being between an allied nation state and a terrorist organization (whose numbers should be taken with a pinch of salt).

 

[Raoul]

There is an objective definition of terrorism. Doesn't matter if the likes of Mandela get tainted by it despite their overwhelmingly positive images.

The defining feature of terrorism is not who you are or why you do what you do, it's how you do it. Specifically, by targeting civilians as a deliberate tactic of war in order to induce terror. It's really very basic.

Terrorism has been notoriously hard to define. Even American agencies have had different definitions of it, so imagine how other countries who view terrorism from a completely different perspective will see it.

 

[The Original]

There are objective definitions of terrorism but there is a biased application of those definitions. The objective definition is quite unforgiving and actually includes most leading countries and in this particular case Israel.

Excellent point about how the objective definition might implicate most leading countries. I suppose they would argue that they don't deliberately target civilians and civilian deaths are an unfortunate collateral cost. I'm not sure that would be an acceptable argument.

 

[The Original]

Terrorism has been notoriously hard to define. Even American agencies have had different definitions of it, so imagine how other countries who view terrorism from a completely different perspective will see it.

I'm certain if we compare these varying definitions we will uncover a common thread at the core.

However what is most relevant is what international law considers terrorism. If you look at Article 2 (b) of the Convention fornthe Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism for example, you will see that the fundamental definition is essentially what I've said.

 

[2cents]

During the 2014 attack the BBC if you remember was the only terrestrial channel not allowing the airing of the Gaza Appeal...guess what religion the editor in chief was back then? An israeli, who refused point blank to air the appeal.

As noted above, ‘Israeli’ is not a religious identity. According to Wikipedia, the BBC’s editor in chief in 2014 was Tony Hall. I can find no reference to his religion anywhere online, not that it’s in any way relevant.

 

[Raoul]

I'm certain if we compare these varying definitions we will uncover a common thread at the core.

However what is most relevant is what international law considers terrorism. If you look at Article 2 (b) of the Convention fornthe Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism for example, you will see that the fundamental definition is essentially what I've said.

I would take the opposite view that the only bodies where definitions of terrorism actually means anything are those who can influence outcomes. The UN, in the absence of security council agreement, doesn't have any power or leverage to enforce anything, which renders it feckless in resolving major international conflicts. The same applies to every other international organization. The real power behind all of this are the the US, EU, Russia, and China, and for the purposes of the Israel-Palestine issue, its generally bilateral issue between the US and Israel. Therefore, the US framing of terrorism is what is going to drive the narrative on Hamas.

 

[JPRouve]

Excellent point about how the objective definition might implicate most leading countries. I suppose they would argue that they don't deliberately target civilians and civilian deaths are an unfortunate collateral cost. I'm not sure that would be an acceptable argument.

Targetting civilians isn't part of objective definitions, I seem to remember that you mentioned that earlier but that part is wrong and the google definition puts an emphasis on civilians it doesn't tell you that it's a prerequisite. The US and the FBI don't actually an objective case in favor of the US itself. Objective definitions are based on among other things the use of violence, intimidation or threats in an attempt to promote a goal whether it is political, social, religious or racial.

An objective definition includes most of the solutions that we, the caf humanists, have offered in this thread, whether we have explicitly articulated our threats toward Israel or Hamas if they don't agree with peace.

 

[The Original]

Targetting civilians isn't part of objective definitions, I seem to remember that you mentioned that earlier but that part is wrong and the google definition puts an emphasis on civilians it doesn't tell you that it's a prerequisite. The US and the FBI don't actually an objective case in favor of the US itself. Objective definitions are based on among other things the use of violence, intimidation or threats in an attempt to promote a goal whether it is political, social, religious or racial.

An objective definition includes most of the solutions that we, the caf humanists, have offered in this thread, whether we have explicitly articulated our threats toward Israel or Hamas if they don't agree with peace.

What's your source for objective definitions?

 

[Traub]

It's just a bit of a lazy headline term these days in my opinion. They're a militant group fighting for their country, calling them terrorists because they're not state actors (although are they not de facto?) feels rather obtuse.

My main concern with using that term is it massively devalues the legitimacy of the fight from one side. Any israeli victims become victims of intended terrorism where as IDF victims are just unfortunate civilian casualties. Yet the deaths are deaths and equally disgusting.

So do you think Hamas is not a terrorist organisation?

 

[JPRouve]

I would take the opposite view that the only bodies where definitions of terrorism actually means anything are those who can influence outcomes. The UN, in the absence of security council agreement, doesn't have any power or leverage to enforce anything, which renders it feckless in resolving major international conflicts. The same applies to every other international organization. The real power behind all of this are the the US, EU, Russia, and China, and for the purposes of the Israel-Palestine issue, its generally bilateral issue between the US and Israel. Therefore, the US framing of terrorism is what is going to drive the narrative on Hamas.

I feel that you are answering a different question. You are not addressing the point about what is terrorism but who is in charge? At the end of the day it doesn't matter what is or isn't terrorism, the only thing that matters is who agrees with your goals which is I believe the point that you are making.

 

[JPRouve]

What's your source for objective definitions?

An example would be the FBI definition, it's fairly objective but it's also amusingly unforgiving.

 

[The Original]

I would take the opposite view that the only bodies where definitions of terrorism actually means anything are those who can influence outcomes. The UN, in the absence of security council agreement, doesn't have any power or leverage to enforce anything, which renders it feckless in resolving major international conflicts. The same applies to every other international organization. The real power behind all of this are the the US, EU, Russia, and China, and for the purposes of the Israel-Palestine issue, its generally bilateral issue between the US and Israel. Therefore, the US framing of terrorism is what is going to drive the narrative on Hamas.

Okay... What would you say is the US position on terrorism at a foreign policy level, ignoring the supposed inter-agency discrepancies, and are you disagreeing with it?

 

[Raoul]

Okay... What would you say is the US position on terrorism at a foreign policy level, ignoring the supposed inter-agency discrepancies, and are you disagreeing with it?

The unwritten definition would be - "Any entity that uses violence to oppose our interests or those of our allies"

Given that the term Terrorism is basically just a pejorative, its meaning is going to shift according to the needs of those framing it. So in the US's case, it would define it in a way that vilifies an any entity that violently opposes its interests

 

[The Original]

An example would be the FBI definition, it's fairly objective but it's also amusingly unforgiving.

"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Actually, @Raoul, it seems the US agencies are agreed on this definition so there really isn't that much of a cloud as to what is considered terrorism.

See: https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/dcid3-22.pdf ; also https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/377363278.pdf

The US definition here above is in agreement with the International standards I referenced:

Anti-terrorism Financing Convention:

"Any other act (in addition to those mentioned in specific treaties) intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

2004 definition of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change:

"any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act”

Objectively, we can see that there are three elements.

1. The act of violence
2. The targeting of non-combatants
3. The existence of a political objective

My point is that the definition of terrorism, rather than being this vague term that is twisted to suit narratives, is actually pretty clear in terms of its elements and is consistent across the different jurisdictions, and the crucial distinction is the targeting of civilians. If you take this element out, then the acts described would simply be regular acts of war.

 

[Raoul]

"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Actually, @Raoul, it seems the US agencies are agreed on this definition so there really isn't that much of a cloud as to what is considered terrorism.

See: https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/dcid3-22.pdf ; also https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/377363278.pdf

The US definition here above is in agreement with the International standards I referenced:

Anti-terrorism Financing Convention:

"Any other act (in addition to those mentioned in specific treaties) intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

2004 definition of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change:

"any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act”

Objectively, we can see that there are three elements.

1. The act of violence
2. The targeting of non-combatants
3. The existence of a political objective

My point is that the definition of terrorism, rather than being this vague term that is twisted to suit narratives, is actually pretty clear in terms of its elements and is consistent across the different jurisdictions, and the crucial distinction is the targeting of civilians. If you take this element out, then the acts described would simply be regular acts of war.

The legal definition of the moment only exists to appease the policy of the moment. If the US policy on Israel for example, was to negotiate between Israel and Hamas then Hamas would be removed from the list (as a token of goodwill). This is why the term is best viewed as a pejorative device to vilify the opposing side than any sort of enforceable legal standard.

 

[JPRouve]

"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Actually, @Raoul, it seems the US agencies are agreed on this definition so there really isn't that much of a cloud as to what is considered terrorism.

See: https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/dcid3-22.pdf ; also https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/377363278.pdf

The US definition here above is in agreement with the International standards I referenced:

Anti-terrorism Financing Convention:

"Any other act (in addition to those mentioned in specific treaties) intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

2004 definition of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change:

"any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act”

Objectively, we can see that there are three elements.

1. The act of violence
2. The targeting of non-combatants
3. The existence of a political objective

My point is that the definition of terrorism, rather than being this vague term that is twisted to suit narratives, is actually pretty clear in terms of its elements and is consistent across the different jurisdictions, and the crucial distinction is the targeting of civilians. If you take this element out, then the acts described would simply be regular acts of war.

The crucial element isn't the targetting of civilians which is why the first definition only mentions noncombatants and the second both noncombatants and civilians. If you want a crucial distinction it will be between combatants and noncombatants but even then it gets complicated. Anyway the point I made is that the application of those objective definitions is biased, it depends entirely on who are the actors on each side of the table. What is a terrorist for a government can be a revolutionists for an other government.

 

[The Original]

The legal definition of the moment only exists to appease the policy of the moment. If the US policy on Israel for example, was to negotiate between Israel and Hamas then Hamas would be removed from the list (as a token of goodwill). This is why the term is best viewed as a pejorative device to vilify the opposing side than any sort of enforceable legal standard.

Can you demonstrate the truth of this?

For example, are there any instances of groups being removed from the list of terrorist organizations for the purposes of negotiations or other policy objectives?

 

[Raoul]

Can you demonstrate the truth of this?

For example, are there any instances of groups being removed from the list of terrorist organizations for the purposes of negotiations or other policy objectives?

The US just removed the Houthis from the terror list to advance Biden's new policy on Yemen.

 

[2cents]

Can you demonstrate the truth of this?

For example, are there any instances of groups being removed from the list of terrorist organizations for the purposes of negotiations or other policy objectives?

One perfect example would be the Iranian MEK -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran

 

[JPRouve]

Can you demonstrate the truth of this?

For example, are there any instances of groups being removed from the list of terrorist organizations for the purposes of negotiations or other policy objectives?

The Houthi in Yemen, you could even argue that it applied both ways? They were put on the list for political reasons and removed to help the peace process.

 

[The Original]

The crucial element isn't the targetting of civilians which is why the first definition only mentions noncombatants and the second both noncombatants and civilians. If you want a crucial distinction it will be between combatants and noncombatants but even then it gets complicated. Anyway the point I made is that the application of those objective definitions is biased, it depends entirely on who are the actors on each side of the table. What is a terrorist for a government can be a revolutionists for an other government.

You must note that civilians are subsumed under non-combatants so really once non-combatant is used, that covers everyone who is not participating in hostilities. I've called it the crucial distinction because I'm comparing this with regular warfare and this is the only distinction between legitimate war and terrorism.

Since these definitions are accepted internationally, any State that calls a group that intentionally targets non combatants for political objectives, anything other than terrorists is applying a definition of its own that would not be respected at the international level.

Point is, the objective definition does exist even if some actors might decide to adopt their own definitions.

 

[JPRouve]

You must note that civilians are subsumed under non-combatants so really once non-combatant is used, that covers everyone who is not participating in hostilities. I've called it the crucial distinction because I'm comparing this with regular warfare and this is the only distinction between legitimate war and terrorism.

Since these definitions are accepted internationally, any State that calls a group that intentionally targets non combatants for political objectives, anything other than terrorists is applying a definition of its own that would not be respected at the international level.

Point is, the objective definition does exist even if some actors might decide to adopt their own definitions.

But we both agree that objective definitions exist, I argued about the application of those definitions. I don't really see why you are trying to demonstrate the existence of objective defintions that we both agree exist.

 

[Roane]

Wouldn't US code, title 22 chapter 38 class Israel actions as terrorist?

Definitions aside it's the implementing and failure to accept your own definitions that becomes problematic.

 

[The Original]

One perfect example would be the Iranian MEK -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran

Does this group undertake violent activities? Will research them myself but perhaps you could help speed up the process

 

[The Original]

But we both agree that objective definitions exist, I argued about the application of those definitions. I don't really see why you are trying to demonstrate the existence of objective defintions that we both agree exist.

I've misunderstood you then

 

[The Original]

Wouldn't US code, title 22 chapter 38 class Israel actions as terrorist?

Definitions aside it's the implementing and failure to accept your own definitions that becomes problematic.

What does it say?

 

[JPRouve]

There are objective definitions of terrorism but there is a biased application of those definitions. The objective definition is quite unforgiving and actually includes most leading countries and in this particular case Israel.

I've misunderstood you then

You have.

 

[2cents]

Does this group undertake violent activities? Will research them myself but perhaps you could help speed up the process

Depends if you ask Washington or Tehran. Personally I believe they are still involved in clandestine operations inside Iran with the support of the US and Israel. These would include targeting regime figures - especially those involved in the Iranian nuclear program - and engaging in violent attacks on state institutions at times of mass protest.

 

[Roane]

What does it say?

Just off wiki

"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".