Real Clear World‘s Greg Sclobete takes issue with a post I penned yesterday, in which I argued “the fact that some argue Israel “started it” shows moral blindness and ignorance of context.” Sclobete then falsely summarizes my argument by suggesting I said some terrorism is bad and other is good. But that was not the point of the post Sclobete selectively cites, nor is it even a fair reading of it. Rather, I list a litany of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish terrorism sponsored by Iran during the past two decades and exclaim that pundits who are jumping on the terrorism bandwagon now show their selectivity by having ignored for so long Iranian sponsorship of terrorism against Israel, Israelis, and Jews.
As for assassination, a tactic used to prevent a wider conflict or an existential challenge, I see nothing wrong with it nor, for that matter, does the Obama administration. Assassination does not violate international law; it is not terrorism.
The broader problem, however, is that there is simply no universally accepted definition of terrorism. As I noted in this paper on asymmetric threat concept, as of 1988 there were more than 100 definitions of terrorism in use in Western countries, and that number has only proliferated in the past quarter century.
So how to move beyond the very real problem of moral equivalence or a la carte terrorism definition? Perhaps it’s time for the United States to tie counter-terrorism assistance to an agreement by its partners on a universal definition of terrorism.
There will never be a recognized definition of terrorism for the same reason there is bias against Israel: the obvious definition–intentionally targetting civilians with violence to create terror for political purposes–would soundly condemn the Palestinians while exonorating the Israelis. And that outcome is absolutely forbidden in our crazy world. Hence, there either must be no definition, or it must be a definition that is actually biased against Israel.
Greg S. from RCW is precisely the reason I dont read RCW Compass Blog anymore. I could probably count on 1 hand the # of stories he has properly analyzed in the last 2 years. The guy doesnt really know what he is talking about on much of anything… Tunnel vision, and a lack of strategic perspective…combined with a raging case of isolationism…
The IAEA report last year that started this furore over Iran's nuclear program extensively detailed the links between the nuclear program and the Iranian military. n nIn fact, if I remember correctly, much of the "physics research" fell directly under the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. This would mean that Israel is not assassinating "civilians", but enemy combatants, therefore the argument is moot.
I can see where the distinction can get fuzzy, but clearly strapping on a bomb and detonating it while on a busload of children is terrorism and can be distinguished from assasination where an individual target of strategic relevance is attacked. So the assasinations of both Kennedy's and MLK would not be considered terrorism even though they are widely perceived as tragic events. The purpose of terrorism is to generate fear and thus influence future events where the purpose of assasination could be to get revenge, or prevent the actions of, or to gain noteriety at the expense of the targeted individual.