Comments on: ‘Crying terrorism’: Israel’s political use cheapens the term

By: Kolumn9

Kolumn9 — Tue, 01 May 2012 06:53:56 +0000

No idea how my statement was interpreted as saying that all Palestinians are terrorists or that only Palestinians are terrorists. You guys really need more logic and reading comprehension skills and the context is rather specific to Israeli PR. I basically said there are sufficient numbers of Palestinian attacks against civilians (aka classic terrorism) that for PR purposes it is possible to not have to resort to coming up with stupid new ways to use the ‘terrorism’ label.

By: David T.

David T. — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:23:44 +0000

I have another one for you: “cultural terror”. (Shuki Weiss, Israeli concert promoter while struggling with the increasing Israel boycott of foreign artists.)

By: Japya

Japya — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:51:15 +0000

In a situation where an attitude towards Israel and Israelis based on objective evaluation and analysis does not exist, where the whole world is always prepared to blame Israel and Israelis for everything, your attempt, Lora, to limit the legitimate usage of the word terrorism to only openly barbaric manifestations of it, objectively does not serve any other purpose than alleviating the terrorists’ moral responsibility, „cheapening« the significance of their crimes in the world’s mind. It is not for nothing that the criminals’ state of mind, what they want to achieve is one of the most important qualifying elements of the crime. Do not help to get the perpetrators off the hook.

By: caden

caden — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:11:03 +0000

No, there are plenty of other Moslem terrorists who aren’t palestinian

By: aristeides

aristeides — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:14:18 +0000

Kolumn isn’t saying that all Palestinians are terrorists, although he may believe this, he’s saying that ONLY Palestinians are terrorists. He wants to define terrorism in terms of Palestinians. Which is to say, he’s totally full of it.

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:49:35 +0000

State generalization of the word “terror” is an attempt to preclude debate on what the generalization covers. “Terror” becomes anything which harms Israeli policy, in any manner, including labels applied to State acts. We are to conform or shut up. Once, to criticize the Crown was treason. Istraeli policy is regressing to the Middle Ages on this.
.
Kolumn9, do you actually think every Palestinian thinks alike? They are all terrorists?

By: Kolumn9

Kolumn9 — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:29:34 +0000

Hmm. I actually agree with an article on 972mag. This feels weird. Am I sick?
.

More seriously, I agree. Often the way the word terrorism is used is problematic and makes me cringe. It is way too overused and really should be reserved for the Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians. There is enough of that to go around to paint the Palestinians as terrorists so there really is no reason to cheapen the term.
.

I take issue with lumping ‘lawfare’ into this article. It is a perfectly valid description of the Palestinian resort to various international courts as means of aggressive diplomacy. As a term it also seems to be a fairly effective means of dismissing such cases.

By: RichardL

RichardL — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:15:06 +0000

Lara
Your hyper-links give plenty of use of the word but I could find no definition in them. Was that your point?

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:53:47 +0000

“instilling in innocent people genuine terror for the lives and safety of themselves and loved ones”

Terror is the most vague word possible. The definition is impossible: who is innocent? Aren’t we all sinners? So it is extended to something a bit more reasonable, and extended again, and again. Driving at highly excessive speed can cause genuine fear, haranguing on a sidewalk “Repent! The End is Near” is aimed to instill fear etc.

At its inception, “terror” and “terrorism” were somewhat technical terms without any moral connotation. Terrorist were good, bad and “we do not care about them”. In Central America bad terrorists were opposed with good military massacres and good death squads but there were also good terrorists, Contras. In those time talking about “legal terrorism” or “bicycle terrorism” would be pointless. But 9/11 “changed everything”, USA noticed that terror is bad, so making some faint noises in material support of terrorism can now lead to 15 years in prison, or more if broadcast across state lines or something. That required a heavy redefinion of “terrorism” and “material” etc.

By: aristeides

aristeides — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:39:45 +0000

More victimizing tears. All about the terror that poor, innocent Israelis suffer, and none about the terror they inflict, daily, on the occupied population.