A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Mobius Follow Up on Terrorism

In response to my post on Tuesday explaining the distinction between Jewish militant actions before the formation of Israel and Palestinian terror, Mobius asked this question on his blog:

Here's a question Joe: Nearly every Israeli citizen is either a reserve soldier, an active soldier, a future soldier, or a retired soldier. Can a wholly militarized society be considered either innocent, or civilian?

While some who commented on Mobius' site appeared to be offended by the question, I don't mind it, and responded there as follows:

Mobius,

If someone is not acting in a military capacity, then they are not a military target and an attack on them is terrorism. That someone is a former soldier or a future soldier is moot; attacking them is an attack on them personally, not on an occupation, and not on the state they defended. This applies not only to Israel, but to the Palestinians, to the British, and any conflict. So, if, say, the Irgun had killed an 18 year old Brit who the next day was to go off to Palestine as a soldier for the Mandate's military occupation, that would be terrorism.

Similarly, if yesterday's Palestinian suicide bombing north of Jerusalem (which killed two Palestinians and wounded six border policemen) had been aimed at the border policemen instead of civilians in Jerusalem (the intended target), that would not be terror, since the border police are acting in a military capacity (in this case to heroically stop a suicide bomber from killing civilians in Jerusalem). However, it would be (1) an act of war, which Israel has a right to respond to with military force and (2) a breach of Oslo, under which the Palestinians agreed to permanently end what it called "the armed struggle."
posted on 8/12/2004