This comes from a comment piece in the Guardian
What some would call terrorism, she would call a moral duty. She gives me her paper on the subject. “Why is the word ‘terrorist’ so readily applied to individuals or groups who use homemade bombs, but not to states using nuclear and other internationally proscribed weapons to ensure submission to the oppressor
Just try and forget this is about Israel and Palestine with all the prejudiced hangups that entails.
The abuse of the word terrorist immediately consigns all reasoning as to why and act occurred to the moral dustbin and the rights of whole peoples along with it, it justifies any retaliation.
Personally I regard any act of war as a terrorist action whether it be by a state or an individual. Then it comes down to what you mean by an act of war. At what point do terrorists become freedom fighters and then these same people become part of the national government and then call any who resist "terrorists".
From the article linked in the Guardian:
This distortion of the Palestinian resistance has clouded all reasonable dialogue. Many of our efforts to defy the arbitrary rules of the occupier are reflexively dismissed as “terrorism,” and we are always expected to apologize for and condemn Palestinian resistance despite the lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism, and the fact that the right to self-determination by armed struggle is permissible under the United Nations Charter’s Article 51, concerning self-defense.
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
So where did this
word originate
late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.
We all know where that lead through a long and bloody history to the France we have today. The foundation of Israel itself could be regarded as a terrorist action depending whether you were
British or Jewish at the time.
When used today as a pejorative the word terrorist is a coverall that justifies any retaliation by a state is just too simplistic and is designed to paint its target as somehow subhuman.
In my mind terrorist can be applied to anyone who by their action results in the fear of others, whether this is by a state, revolutionary group, or an oppressed people. More often it is a term used by the powerful to denigrate the weak and to justify the resulting carnage.
Without defining it as terrorism how on earth can you justify collateral damage and collective punishment [two horrible phrases that cover many horrors]?
There were many times in French history when any resistance was regarded as terrorism and collective punishment was meted out. If the French hadn't invented the word until after the War of Independence, I'm am sure the British would have called George Washington a terrorist. John Brown before the Civil war was accused of committing acts of terror, hence treason and was executed. Then a long and violent civil war achieved the same objective, freeing the slaves.
Sorry for the ramble, but the word terrorist is too easily applied to have much precise meaning and is usually used to justify any excessive retaliation by those who used it in the first place.