Reply #98: It does seem we may be getting closer to . .

[msmcghee]

. . understanding where our most fundamental differences lie. In this post I will focus on your concerns about my use of the admittedly loaded term "terrorist".

You say, " . . people use it to indicate violence towards a political end they disapprove of, in the hopes of getting the audience to share their disapproval without much thought, since it is generally agreed that, whatever it might mean, it is a bad thing, and to be universally deplored."

What you say is true enough although that was not my purpose in using the term. Certainly you don't mean to say that that is the only reason people use it.

The problem is that any thread here can reliably produce dozens of posts - all implying some moral equivalence between Israel and those who attack Israel. This results in a framing of the conflict that greatly relieves the Palestinians of responsibility for their actions.

Such posts imply that these are two parties each pursuing perhaps understandable goals in an honorable way so as to minimize the death and suffering of innocents - and that each side should be given respect for those efforts so that we can simply look objectively at the grievances on each side to determine some fair resolution.

Indeed, when seen through that prism, it seems that Israel is occupying Palestinian land and the Palestinians are resisting. What could be simpler? If Israel leaves Palestinian land then the world will be right again.

But that completely leaves out the most significant and central element of that conflict - the element that many of Israel's opponents would like to obscure. The Palestinians, as represented by any of several militant organization over the years, has continuously stated that their actual intention is not to have sovereignty to the West Bank and Gaza. It is to rid all the Mideast of Jews.

Lest anyone mistake these declarations for hyperbole, the totality of their actions has indelibly driven the point home. They have refused on more than one occasion to accept sovereignty over those territories - because in their own words, such acceptance would require them to acknowledge the legal existence of Israel.

For another proof, if sovereignty of Gaza and the West bank were their actual goals, the last thing they would do is use those territories to launch terrorist attacks against Israel. Such attacks virtually demand that Israel establish a permanent police force in those territories along with the fences, walls and check points - and the seething hatred of Israel that those are bound to produce.

In addition, as Mr. pelser so effectively points out, Israel has removed itself from Palestinian (and Lebanese) territory more than once only to be rewarded with stronger and more vicious (terrorist) attacks on Israeli citizens.

The Palestinians have chosen as their primary means of ridding the ME of Jews - to indiscriminately attack Israeli civilians with the intent to kill as many as possible. This is not an occasional rogue action - it is their stated policy that they have embraced, pursued and celebrated, waxing and waning in intensity, for sixty years.

That is the definition of terrorism. Loaded or not, it can be applied to the Palestinians' actions (and those Arab states who occasionally join the fray on their behalf) without reservation. To fail to acknowledge the reality of terrorism as their primary means of waging conflict - is to mischaracterize the actual nature of the conflict.

Further, it is my belief, that if the Palestinians did not have as their goal the elimination of Jews from the ME, and if they did not embrace terrorism as their weapon of choice in achieving that goal - that the IDF would not be in the West Bank today and that Palestine would probably be a fairly prosperous Arab state living in peace with its neighbors.

It seems to me that sometimes loaded terms are needed to describe loaded tactics and loaded motivations.

Nonetheless, I want to be sensitive to your concerns and I will try not to use the term terrorist or terrorism unless the context of my statement absolutely calls for it. But when I do, you will know that I am not trying to attach an emotional label that others will judge without consideration of that context. I will be trying to attach an accurate definition that is necessary to the discussion.

(Thanks for the great discussion. I'll need some more time to consider the rest of your post.)