Skip to main content
Of terrorists vs freedom fighters....



What Do You Mean, 'Terrorist'?



Jessica Stern, a lecturer on terrorism at Harvard and author of "The Ultimate Terrorists" (Harvard University, 1999), said there are clear political differences between how the civilized world handles an Arafat and a bin Laden, noting: "Arafat is an elected leader of what we hope will soon be a state." But she rejects the notion that terrorists can ever be "freedom fighters."



"To me, the definition of terrorism is deliberately targeting non-combatants with the aim of instilling fear," she said. "I don't think it's useful to focus on the perpetrator, because then it just becomes an epithet. It's a technique that can be used by nonstate actors, as well as states. I believe that when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, terrorizing the Japanese population was a very deliberate strategy."



SO what about Israeli reprisals that kill innocent Palestinian civilians? With rare exceptions, like Iraq, the United States government's official definitions of terrorist entities focus on organizations and individuals, not governments. Israel, as American officials often note, is a democracy accountable to the norms of international law. The practical effect is that only the Palestinians, who lack a state, are generally labeled terrorists.



Ms. Stern said a particularly unsettling aspect of the recent wave of suicide bombings in Israel is that they have not fit the more typical pattern of young, single men, usually poor, with little hope, but have included a bright young woman with, theoretically, everything to live for. "It's hard to say that these Palestinian bombers even have political objectives," she said. "It's almost nihilistic. It's almost a kind of epidemic, a cult of death that comes out of a sense of cultural humiliation."
The assertion that Arafat is an elected official aside (because I don't recall the election, and I never hear of any opposition to him within the Palestinian movement), it's interesting to see the journalist who wrote the article pretty much ignore what Stern said.You can see that where she states that terrorists deliberately target non-combatants in order to instill terror ("The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize." - Lenin). The writer then asks the rhetorical "So what about Israeli reprisals that kill innocent Palestinian civilians?"



The difference is subtle but essential. Israel does not target civilians, they aim at military targets. Without a doubt, civilians are killed (the classic and tragic illustration of "collateral damage"). They are not, however, the specific target. Unlike, say, someone blowing up a Seder dinner.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...

DVD: The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Awful. The film is an environmentalist wacko wet dream. No one else could like this thing. I’m trying to think of something positive and all I can come up with is how positively awful it is. The original The Day the Earth Stood Still is a science fiction masterpiece. In it, Klaatu comes to Earth with a simple message: Do what you want among yourselves and on your planet. But if you attempt to export your violent way to the stars, Gort and his friends will hit you with so many lefts you’ll beg for a right. (Gort being the cosmic version of Chuck Norris, you see.) The ultimate warning was that we needed to change our violent ways if we expected to be accepted among the stars. In this remake, the aliens are environmental busy-bodies who have bought into the entire notion that we puny little humans are capable of destroying the planet. Therefore, we must be eliminated so that the planet, for God knows what reason, can try again. To count the ways in which this film makes no sense ...

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...