Open letter accuses BBC board member of having a conflict of interest on Gaza

That definition of Terrorism would make Israel a terrorist state.

I guess it's hard to define words. Surely terrorism has this vague meaning of doing very evil and violent things.

But a picked up a random dictionary and it says: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims".

I struggle to understand what political aim Israel is pursuing when using unlawful violence and intimidation.

If you believe that Israel is performing a genocide what is the point of explicitly instilling more fear in the victims? Just sadism? I genuinely don't understand what advantage would Israel have in employing terror tactics against Palestinians. Is the idea that they do so in order to make them even more angry so they can justify their genocide? Is that the argument? Or am I not giving the same meaning to the word "terrorism" as you do?

I don't want to argue about which side is on the right side or whatnot; I found that this kind of conversation is is highly unproductive online. But I am interested in understanding how words have changed their meaning over time. Is terrorist now just a synonym for "murdering civilians"?

As a point of fact, at least one “flour massacre” does exist: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_Massacre

Here is a news article where the IDF is quoted directly, admitting that troops opened fire on “dozens of people” at that location at that time: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/08/middleeast/gaza-flour-mas...

I appreciate the synchronicity between your username and words being hard to define! If only I had the spare time to pick up such a difficult conlang.

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.

Sadism for some, sure. For most IDF personnel I guess it’s more about “operational expediency”: if the population is terrified they’ll listen to your evacuation orders and show up to your aid distribution/killing fields on time. Finding terrorists one by one is hard work; tossing a bomb on a whole building is quicker and safer.

Terror is just a tool in the end.

Traffic laws are enforced by violence and intimidation.

If 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

Political aims that come to mind:

- settlement and expulsion of Palestinians (think the bulldozer tactics)

- a testing ground for weapons: Israel routinely uses footage and draws evidence about how they’ve battle tested their weapons and tech they’re selling in the West Bank. There’s a book about this: https://www.versobooks.com/products/2684-the-palestine-labor...

Anyway I think there’s probably more goals I can think of but these might be enough for now. Makes me too sad otherwise.

As is the illegal annexation of the Golan Heights.

Are you seeing the problem, yet?

War sucks and soldiers don't want to die. As true today as it has been since forever. My grandfather a Marine in the Pacific used to call in flamethrowers instead of going in after Japanese soldiers in bunkers. Helped burn people alive. Was a burden he carried the rest of his life. War sucks. It sucks young men are put in these situations making these kinds of calls.

Make 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.

Don'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.

I 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.