Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

109 definitions of 'terrorism'

The World Summit on Counter Terrorism in Herzliya, through the eyes of the only person in the room who has sat down with the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

By Paula Schmitt

Panelists at the World Summit on Counter Terrorism in Herzelia, September 2013 (photo: Paula Schmitt)

One type of person you can be sure to find at a conference on counter-terrorism is terrorists. I just attended a four-day long counter-terrorism masturbathon in Israel and the place was full of them. They don’t call themselves that, of course, they like to be called counter-terrorists. Tomato, tomah-to. I couldn’t care less for semantics, but if that’s your thing you may want to attend the next ICT’s World Summit in Herzliya.

In this year’s edition, one panel was called “Defining Terrorism – A Fundamental Counter-Terrorist Measure,” and among the panelists was a member of a so-called “Jewish Diplomatic Corps’ Task Force on the Definition of Terrorism.” The official count is at 109 definitions of the word – I kid you not. Yet among all those versions of terrorism, my favorite one was not even close to making an appearance at the conference. It’s alleged to have been penned by Peter Ustinov, and it’s a masterpiece on the taxonomy of power:

Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is terrorism of the rich.

You’d think those counter-terrrrrorrrrists should have more relevant things to do, but do not belittle the exercise – determining what terrorism is (and what it isn’t) is extremely important. By properly defining it, The Definer makes sure his own extrajudicial assassinations, occupation, torture and killing of civilians are not included in the category. It’s a tricky thing: on one hand the definition cannot be so broad to include The Definer, but on the other it should be broad enough to include as many perpetrators as possible – the more you seem to be attacked, the better. There are great returns on terrorism for those claiming to be fighting it. For one, it allows the government an incredibly large margin of (il)legal maneuvers, repression and surveillance, while it also increases foreign aid and allows for a lot of unsupervised budget earmarking. But the biggest reward yet is that terrorism helps garner that most precious and elusive of assets – the sympathy of public opinion. When it comes to being a victim of terror, a few lives will go a long way. Even the ex-director of Mossad I interviewed agreed that PR is crucial for their survival. More on that later).

The list of this year’s speakers seemed to gather the crème de la crème of counter-terrorism – or the crap de la crap of morality, depending how you see it. In journalistic terms, it was a dream. I was particularly interested on all the intelligence and security agents, including two former heads of the Mossad and one from the Shin Bet. But I was just not sure the organizers were going to allow me to participate.

I lived in the Middle East for a long time, and covered the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon, a period when my TV network got several complaints from idiots accusing me of being an anti-Semite. I am also the only Latin American journalist to have interviewed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary general. Throughout the Middle East, that interview has served me as my little badge certifying to the average paranoid that I could not possibly be a Mossad agent (though the very paranoid ones would think I was simply the best agent ever. You just never win with those people.) It is, indeed, quite a feat not to become a paranoiac here. This corner of the world is where Burroughs’ designation really applies: “A paranoid is someone who knows what’s going on.” So, I feared that in Israel that same badge would perhaps have the opposite effect – it would probably indicate I had dangerous connections.

Thus, it was with great surprise, and then some suspicion, that I received ICT’s email accepting my request to attend the conference. Okay, I thought, so they didn’t think that having interviewed Nasrallah made me a sympathizer or a Hezbollah agent. But what about my novel? I’ve written a book, Eudemonia, about a female journalist who defends the morality of assassination and dreams of killing the CEO of Bechtel with her stockings and the chairman of Goldman Sachs with a paperknife. She then starts to seriously entertain the idea of murdering one of her interviewees, and eventually focuses on giving a taste of war to the would-never-be-veteran and war-monger Duck Chainy, the vice-president of the Pale House. She also believes the State of Israel is a bonafide motivation for acts of terror. How could they accept my registration with that background?

But alas, I should have known better: my novel is widely unread. And as it turned out, having interviewed Israel’s Number One Enemy didn’t make me unwanted – it actually gave me quite a clout. Those Mossad guys have a real hard-on for Hassan. Instead of my having to run after them, it was the Mossad, and the Israel Police who kept coming after me — to offer me interviews, they said.

Don’t get me wrong – I’d love to have an interview with a high-level Mossad official, and indeed I had one, with former director Shabtai Shavit. But I was pretty sure the questions I wanted to ask would never be answered. Not without some sodium pentothal. I’ve had a list of questions for the agency for many years: Was it the Mossad who killed Elie Hobeika in a car bomb in Beirut before he could testify against Ariel Sharon in Belgium? Was it the Mossad who shot dead Michael Nassar less than two months later in Brazil, killing him and his wife before Nassar could take part in the same Belgium trial? Did the Mossad kill Jorg Heider? I also wanted to know if Ben Zygier knew something about the Bali Bombings (Zygier is the Mossad agent who allegedly committed suicide in a high-security jail in Israel, and whose family has just been paid $1 million to drop any ideas of a lawsuit.) I also would like to ask about some of the false-flag operations we know of, from the Lavon Affair to the USS Liberty.

Damn right I had questions. But I wouldn’t waste them on answers I knew would never go beyond utter silence or a categorical “no.” I had to posit ideological, philosophical problems that could perhaps allow for the possibility that things may not, after all, be so clearly cut. And I think I was getting there, until, to use an appropriate metaphor, my car swerved in the curve.

Former Head of Mossad Shabtai Shavit speaks at the ICT’s World Summit on Counter Terrorism, Herzelia 2013 (photo: Paula Schmitt)

I waited for the plenary session to end. Shabtai Shavit was the first to speak, and he chose to leave the stage right after his turn. But he sat in the audience and courteously waited for everyone else to speak, included retired U.S. general John Abizaid. Like that, he managed to avoid photos and questions, while still being present. He didn’t manage to avoid me, though. Reminding him of his promise the previous day, we walked to the empty restaurant of the Israel Air Force House, where the conference had just taken place.

As I prepared my digital recorder and my phone, Shavit told me the interview could not be recorded. I was shocked. He noticed. I said that was going to be very difficult. He was adamant. I insisted: “If I record, it is safer for you, too. That way you can guarantee I will quote you verbatim”. But that was precisely his problem. He didn’t want his answers registered. “Ok, then” I said. “But if you don’t like it afterwards, it will be your word against mine.”

You’ve said there should be two prerequisites for proper counter-terrorism: certainty of guilt and no collateral damage. So, is counter-terrorism what Israel is actually doing?

I said that in a certain context. Certainly Israel keeps that in mind. We are the most humane country in the world. The constraints we are putting on ourselves… I don’t know of any other country with the same constraints.

Morality. You said yesterday that you would be left as the only moral country on earth. What do you mean by that?

I said that we are fighting an asymmetrical struggle between those who have zero moral considerations and those who don’t stop adding constraint after constraint [to deal with] the bad guys.

Terrorism is said to be the outcome of a very simple formula: motivation plus operational capability. If that is the case, isn’t Israel’s occupation a big cause of terrorism?

The occupation of what, whom? More than half of the Israeli people accept the two-state solution. There’s real willingness to give back the territory based on the ’67 borders.

But what about the illegal settlements? How do you explain them?

I don’t have an explanation for it. I personally accept two states based on ’67 borders and I accept that because I consider myself a moral person ready to accept the other. I am prepared to share with the other, but I expect reciprocity.

What would you say to the theory that the big problem is not, in fact, between Muslims, Christians and Jews, but between extremists and moderates? Wouldn’t you say you perhaps have more in common with a moderate Muslim than you have with a haredi Jew?

I disagree with that statement because I am Jewish and a haredi is a Jewish and Judaism is our common religion. I can argue with his translation of Judaism but he is Jewish. I will never appreciate a Muslim more than a haredi Jew.

Is there such a thing as being an ex-agent? Do you see any difference in how much you can say now and how much you could say before?

I am the sole judge of what I speak. But I was born a very weak speaker. I never regretted something I didn’t say, but the opposite, though… More than once did I regret something I said.

Is not having the interview recorded a way you have of keeping ‘plausible deniability’?

I’ve been burned more than once for recorded interviews.

What do you think is the main difference between someone who kills from the safety of his cockpit and a man who uses his own body to kill other people? We know that both of them – army soldier and suicide-bomber – kill civilians. [He interrupts me before I finish]

Look, I’ve never been in the position of a fighter pilot. Let me rephrase the question for you: what’s the difference between a suicide-bomber and a guy who pushed a drone button? The difference is that a suicide bomber sanctifies death, trying to kill as many civilians without any… he sanctifies death according to his religion. Suicide-bombers kill civilians on purpose.

Peter Ustinov is supposed to have said that “terrorism is war of the poor, and war is terrorism of the rich.” Why do you believe you are entitled to fight a perceived threat with death? By the same token, isn’t their retaliation legitimate? Jewish terrorists bombed the King David Hotel and this has been celebrated… [He interrupts]

I don’t agree with that statement. You cannot distinguish how people are killed? I propose you go learn the history of the Jewish people since the 19th century. We made compromises. We were ready to give, to coexist. Each time when such compromise was proposed to the other side, they refused.

Do you think PR is important? Do you think it matters?

I believe in PR. I am not a PR person, but we don’t have another choice, PR is one of the pillars of our existence.

So, considering this, would you say that every time there is a suicide attack on Israeli civilians, does that make Israel look better on the international stage? I mean, could this — [He interrupts me, holds my hand and says, slowly and without inflection:]

I think you’re going down a slippery slope now. Let’s stop this. How long are you staying here?

“Two more weeks,” I say. “Why? Are you going to assassinate me?”

He stares at me, livid.

“I’m kidding,” I say. “Or am I? Am I kidding?”

“I have never assassinated a beautiful lady,” he answers, a smile showing on his face for the first and last time.

____________

Paula Schmitt (@schmittpaula) is a Brazilian journalist, Middle East correspondent, author of the non-fiction, Advertised to Death – Lebanese Poster-Boys, and the novel Eudemonia.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. Kolumn9

      You must have been in the Middle East too long. It made you brain go mush with conspiracy theories. You forgot to ask about the Israeli killer sharks in the Red Sea and about the Israeli spy birds in Turkey and Sudan.

      Reply to Comment
      • paula

        I like you. You’re funny.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Aaron Gross

      A former presidential speechwriter has said that politicians actually like “challenging,” “gotcha” reporters like this. He was talking about press conferences, but it’s also relevant here to a lesser extent. When a politician is getting truly uncomfortable questions at a press conference, he can always turn to the ideological, “challenging” reporter to get a question that he can easily answer. That is, with an answer like, “I propose you go learn the history of the Jewish people since the 19th century. We made compromises.”

      The most difficult, challenging questions are those that get a real, substantive admission from the interviewee. Of course there was nothing like that here. The whole point of the interview is the “questions,” not the answers. It could have been conducted just as well by the journalist talking to herself.

      Ideologues will read this interview and say, “She showed him!” or “He showed her!”, depending on their ideology. I’m less strongly ideological; I think that terrorism is sometimes justified, but not always, and that much counter-terrorism, but not all, is immoral. I’d be interesting in some of the real problems of terrorism and counter-terrorism. So, for me there was nothing here.

      Reply to Comment
    3. This is one of the most amateuristic, simplistic and shallow pieces of “journalism” I have had the misfortune of reading. The Writer had a rare opportunity to ask an a Mossad ex-director some good questions but chose to waste it for her cheeky arrogant gags.

      Reply to Comment
      • Jeffrey

        Guy what questions would you have asked? I think they were brilliant questions . Amateur ? Mossad is as moral as Bernie Madoff

        Reply to Comment
      • Rosa

        Your words are fenomenal, and you asked what everyone wants to understand. Bravo!

        Reply to Comment
    4. Danny

      I doubt you’ll be allowed to attend this conference, or any other Israeli conference ever again.

      However, that shouldn’t matter because your observations from this year’s conference were absolutely priceless and effectively expose the Israeli defense establishment for what it is – a front for unapologetic state-sponsored terrorism (“we are the most humane country in the world, and if you argue otherwise, you’re an anti-semite!”).

      Speaking of the devil, your little interview with Shavit was also very instructive, and a stark reminder that terrorists come in many garbs – some wear turbans while others wear expensive suits.

      Reply to Comment
      • Arieh

        Interesting attitude.

        You seem to admit that the turbaned ones CAN be described as terrorists.

        But the ones who take them on and fight them are ALSO terrorists according to you.

        There are only two ways that those whom you describe as wearing pin stripe suits can avoid your condemnation:

        1. if they willing to fight with both hands tied behind their backs and behave like the war against terrorists is just a country club contest between gentlemen.

        2. Or even better, if they ignore the terrorists and terrorism.

        Reply to Comment
    5. Average American

      Most average Americans are very tired of these “world conferences” that are hosted and controlled by nobody but Israel. The purpose of these conferences is to define things and then hold those definitions over the head of leaders of the actual “world”. It’s just like the Nuremberg Trials, hosted and controlled by pre-Israelis in a mockery of legal procedures and rights, for the purpose of defining things and events to their own advantage.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Priceless. “pre-Israelis”. He is not an anti-Semite. He just doesn’t like “pre-Israelis”.

        Reply to Comment
        • Average American

          Most average Americans are also very tired of attempts to deflect facts by using the politically motivated, worn out, catch all term you used in your reply. I won’t repeat the term. It is a slur, a smear, an insult.

          Reply to Comment
          • Marcos

            Ah, but you exposed up yourself as one. Either that, or your are really really suck as choosing analogies. If the shoe fits kiddo – wear it

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            As one? As one what? As one person with eyes and ears and mind of his own? As one person who can look at what’s happening in the world in a factual manner? Very tired of people who ignore the facts and go immediately to the tactic of a worn out insult.

            Reply to Comment
    6. Shmuel

      “Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is terrorism of the rich.”

      That’s it? There is no other war than the war between rich and poor? And there are no other considerations about who is right or wrong?

      According to ideologues like you Paula, all you have to be is POOR and you are automatically right.

      So this is how it is for you: “Everyone knows that all Joooooooos are filthy rich”

      AND

      “All Arabs are very poor”

      Let’s just pretend that Arabs don’t have all of North Africa and most of the Middle East with vast oil wealth with which they can and have blackmailed the rest of the world. And let’s also pretend that Israel does NOT own only about 0.1% of the land-mass that Arabs own.

      If we ccan convince ourselves (and others) of all that, then it is only a small step from there for people like you Paula to pretend that the Arabs are 100% right and that the Jews are 100% wrong. Because in your simple world, Paula, there is no other morality and there are no in between answers. So you let yourself ask such stupid questions from better people than yourself. I say better because they are adult and although physically you too may be an adult, mentally you never grew up.

      I can only feel pity for the likes of you Paula!

      Reply to Comment
    7. Pavlos

      Great to see a publication willing to run such a piece, kudos to 972, and to Ms. Schmitt. And a good interview, albeit brief. “The most humane country in the world” – what shutzpah!

      Reply to Comment
      • Ilonj

        Yawn …

        The usual fawning lap dogs feel obligated to pay homage to an amoral immature Ms Schmitt.

        :)

        Reply to Comment
    8. I applaud the author that she was able to attend the conference and interview Shavit. I shudder at the thought of conferences such as the one Paula attended being held in Israel. Israel has proven that they can not be trusted to have weapons. They should be disarmed and men like Shavit tried for crimes against humanity. … I am not saying that Israel is the only country and men like Shavit the one men that should be tried. Simply, Israel is just another one of the middle eastern countries that have proven their government and military do not have the moral authority to wage war.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >…do not have the moral authority to wage war.

        Wow.
        So now we have people divided into those who have moral authority to kill others and those who don’t.

        And who and on what basis has the moral authority to determine those who have the moral authority to wage wars?

        p.s. from IWPS website:

        “…the occupied al-Naqab desert”

        The brain-damaged folk at IWPS does not seem to know that the Negev desert was designated to be part of Israel by the Partition Plan, thus it can not be considered “occupied”

        Reply to Comment
    9. Louise

      “I just attended a four-day long counter-terrorism masturbathon in Israel” Brilliant stuff. Glad the magazine had the balls to publish this, very insightful.

      Reply to Comment
    10. Ayman Bushri

      Nice piece, nice magazine… Stimulating challenge

      Reply to Comment
    11. Johnw

      Talking about mastrubathons, this piece of thrash is one.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Marcos

      Interesting piece to publish during the fund drive. While I do not agree with the political opinions of most of what is published here, I applaud and admire the passion and even talent of many writers. It is nonsense like this, however, that reinforces that most of this falls under the “useful idiot” umbrella. I know not to seek objectivity in a blog, but this piece is cumbersome

      Reply to Comment
    13. anana

      too short.Lady has some ovijones. Last sentence doesnt bode well for non beautiful ladies..

      Reply to Comment
    14. JohnW

      “So, considering this, would you say that every time there is a suicide attack on Israeli civilians, does that make Israel look better on the international stage? I mean, could this — [He interrupts me, holds my hand and says, slowly and without inflection:]”

      The above is just one example of the mastrubathon that this so called journalist is engaging in.

      What next? Is she going to claim that Israel secretly organizes the terrorism against itself for PR reasons? She is a vindictive malicious snide excuse for something which is definitely not journalism.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Journalism? Of course not. The girl is pathological liar.

        http://paulaschmitt.blogspot.co.il/2008/03/this-is-rough-translation-of-my-article.html

        “Gays and lesbians have here a freedom that one cannot see anywhere else in the Middle East”

        Yeah. Israel is not in the Middle East.

        “Hezbollah as the only militia in Lebanon allowed by the government to keep its weapons.”

        As a matter of fact, Lebanese government does not allow Hizbullah to keep its weapons.

        Reply to Comment
        • I agree with you, Trespasse, that phrase is wrong and should be corrected. I had meant to write “Gays and lesbians have here a freedom that one cannot see anywhere else in the the Arab world.”
          It’s an honest mistake. I will correct it.

          Reply to Comment
        • Trespasse, I suggest you learn how to read. I went back to my text and realised that the bit you corrected me on was not said by me, but by the interviewee (that’s what these signs ” ” indicate. They are called quotation marks). Thanks for making the main difference between you and me very clear: I thought I was wrong, and went straight to correct my mistake. You were indeed wrong, and yet never suspected it. Have a nice life hiding your own Easter eggs (and not finding them. What fun it must be to be you).

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            ” I thought I was wrong, and went straight to correct my mistake.”

            Very commendable lady. Now maybe you would like to correct the following mistake of yours too?

            You equate those who fight terrorism with terrorists themselves.

            You do that because the anti-terrorists too are guilty of killing innocents and everyone knows that is immoral, right?

            But only thinking people know that to use the words “moral” and “war” in the same sentence is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a moral war. War itself is immoral.

            Does that then make terrorists and those who fight them equally immoral? Only simple minded people would claim that.

            Here is the difference between them:

            Terrorists deliberately murder innocents. That is their intent. To shock and to terrorise. Those who fight terrorists, kill innocents too. Not because they want to but because it is unavoidable in war. All wars! Show me a war where this was not so?! All they can do, is to try and minimise the deaths of innocents. But not at all cost and not at the expense of it’s own innocents who would die in even greater numbers at the hands of terrorists if Israel would allow itself to fight an ineffective war on terrorists. That’s what Israel DOES. And that’s why there is a difference between Israel and the terrorists.

            So which one are you Paula? Are you simple minded and don’t realise the difference between those who force WAR (terrorists) and have to be fought to a standstill by the governments like Israel whose duty it is to protect their citizens? OR do you just refuse to admit your mistake?

            Reply to Comment
    15. jeffrey

      When Paula Schmitt asked Shavit. Wouldn’t you say you perhaps have more in common with a moderate Muslim than you have with a haredi Jew? on the topic of extremism .Shavit. replied I will never appreciate a Muslim more than a haredi Jew.WOW.What about us Jews That cringe every time we hear about Israeli Jews be it secular,Orthodox,or Reform doing crimes against humanity on a daily basis against the Palestinians .I would choose any person over these people.Im sure most,or i at least hope most Jews feel the way I do.Paula we need more Journalist like you Thank you +972 Magazine articles like this one gives me hope

      Reply to Comment
      • Benji

        “WOW.What about us Jews That cringe”

        You do plenty of cringe for all of us. We don’t need to cringe more.

        Crimes against humanity? Yes it is a crime for Jews to defend themselves. You are a good Ghetto Jew, your masters taught you well to cringe and feel guilty.

        Reply to Comment
        • Jeffrey

          Ghetto Jew? Oh how does a Jew defend himself from taking a Palestinian family ,who has lived their for 4 generations out of their home ,and on to the streets ? Answer with a bunch of goose stepping IDF soldiers pointing their Uzi at crying children . Mocking them as if the were Warsaw ghetto jews!

          Reply to Comment
    16. Dynamelle

      I respect and praise the courage of both the author and the magazine to write and choose to publish an opinion, that has power, cojones, and is beautifully written.
      May they remain protected from any kind of terrorism.

      Reply to Comment
    17. The Trespasser

      I’ve tried to find the infamous interview with Nasrallah, but it is not googlable.

      It is not available anywhere online, is it?

      Reply to Comment
      • I posted it here:
        http://paulaschmitt.blogspot.com

        I don’t have access to the original in English right now, so you’ll have to get the help of Google translator.

        Reply to Comment
      • Average American

        Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear the other side of the story as told by Nasrallah. We have certainly heard one side of the story in our American newspapers and televisions as told by Netanyahu and Bennett. By the way, it is relevant to note that Nasrallah is ethnically native (Lebanese), while Netanyahu and Bennett are ethnically foreign (Russian). Matter of fact, almost all Israeli ministers since its inception have been ethnically foreign (Russian and Polish) and have changed their last names to try to sound local.

        Reply to Comment
    18. Nathan Yelling-More

      972 is to be commended for publishing this interview, and enduring what I am certain will continue to be a barrage of ad hominem attacks upon Ms. Schmitt. I can find only a few comments, at best (and only upon a charitable reading) that actually give reasons or justifications for their criticism of the article. The rest seem only to express the commenter’s wish that they had not read it, preferring instead that the article and those of its type never appear before them again. (As if this one magically, one surmises, or by force, worked its way across their perceptual field.)

      I hope 927 continues to publish thought-provoking articles and interviews, from any perspective, and encourages critical, serious thought in its comments section.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        “I can find only a few comments, at best (and only upon a charitable reading) that actually give reasons or justifications for their criticism of the article.”

        You are guilty of your own accusation.

        Read again what a number of us wrote. We gave reasons why we are critical of the article. Yet you just dismiss what we said without reason.

        Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        Not to mention that the author herself is guilty of snide innuendoes and bitchy comments in her article, against those whom she is trying to discredit.

        … and she is not half as funny or as witty as she thinks. Just pathetic.

        There! That was a bit of an ad hominem attack on her. Not quite, but sort of. I just took pity on you and decided to help you justify YOUR silly post.

        Reply to Comment
        • Nathan Yelling-More

          Didn’t take much to provoke something nasty like this from yet another commenter. My general, rather uncontroversial point is proven.

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “point is proven.”

            Only if you ignore my other posts.

            But then again, that wasn’t YOUR intent. You are much more comfortable with YOUR OWN accusations without providing reasons to back them up.

            Reply to Comment
    19. Hiam Odds

      Very witty and very courageous article. Excellent analysis and deep knowledge of the Middle East. Well done, Paula. Would love to meet you one day

      Reply to Comment
    20. Tzutzik

      “Very witty”

      More like half witty as in half wit.

      Reply to Comment
    21. I want to express my praise for the courage, cleverness and anaylitic and progressive spirit of journalist Paula and the magazine, that are assumind heavy risks to uncover the real face of antiterrorism. Despite the “conventional” terrorism can not be regarded a constructive way of fighting, and most of their targets are non guilty people, there is no doubt that the motivation of Middle West and somewhere else terrorismo is the long agression and harrasment of underdeveloped countries by americans, their allies and the puppet dictatorships in those contries. What is authentic terrorism, is a desperate defensive, irracional and mystical reaction from opressed people, which, certainly, will give up if they were not provoked. AS N. Chomsky said: “If you hate terrorism, then DO NOT HELP IT”

      Reply to Comment
    22. Tzutzik

      “What is authentic terrorism, is a desperate defensive, irracional and mystical reaction from opressed people, which, certainly, will give up if they were not provoked”

      Yea like in Kenya? Stop making excuses for evil!

      Reply to Comment
    23. Jwizard

      That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything.

      Reply to Comment
    24. Tanya Mango

      Very well written and very interesting. The interview with ex-director of the Mossad was captivating. It’s amazing how their tactics are justifiable while those same tactics used by their victims are terroristic. Would love to see more articles by Paula.

      Reply to Comment
    25. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel