This House would Classify Israel as a Terrorist State

This was our most intense debate yet. In the weeks leading up to the debate, even the title aroused passions and consternation. Several people found the title distastful These were some responses from some potential attendees :

I want to draw a distinction between provocative debate topics and personal attacks(person or state): the former is to be cherished, the latter to be avoided. It really isn't right, at any level, to make broad attacks on individuals or on individual states. - L

The title assumes that Israel's actions are on the level of terrorism and the question they ask is should that make it a terrorist state...the argument is not about policy, but about the legitmacy of Israel. - J

So, how did it turn out?

We had 14 people at the meeting, including 3 palestinians, and one lebanese. - Unfortunatly, despite our efforts to reach out to the Jewish community, through AIPAC, the Israeli consulate, JCC, and SFHillel, no Israelis joined this debate. This was a shame. At the outset, 10 people were in favor of the motion, 1 was undecided, 2 were against.

George and Jon kicked off the debate with two great opening speeches. The meat of the group discussion centered around the definition of "What is a Terrorist State." I've tried to summarize our discussion....

Is Israel a State?

Yes : Two members of the group argued that Israel was not even a state. Jon countered that regardless of it's creation or borders, the reality was that Israel was generally accepted as a state by most of the world. Group mostly concurred. Israel is a state.

Is there such thing as a terrorist state?

Is a terrorist state an oxymoron? Does statehood exempt a government from being labelled as terrorists? James : If Israel was not a state with a seat in the UN, would it's actions make it a terrorist organization? Keli observed : when states carry out terrorism, is it not just renamed as war? James countered : Who is Israel at war with? There are rules for war.

So, then, what is a terrorist (state)?

The group worked long and hard to come up with a definition of a terrorism... whether by an individual, collective, political organization, or state. Here goes...

Terrorism : Ongoing policies or pre-meditated actions to terrorize psychologically or physically civilians for political gain.

Eduardo : It's unfair to single Israel out as a terrorist state

Most of the group agreed and went further. Other states do qualify as terrorist states. Sudan in regards to it's support of the genocide in Darfur. Russia could possibly be accused of state terrorism in Chechnya. US expansion into the west during the 1800's could be classed as state terrorism. Eduardo pointed out that if we go that route, every state is a terrorist. Alex countered that we had identified only a handful. Few people would classify Switzerland as a terrorist state

Is a 'state sponsor of terrorism' the same as a terrorist state?

Yes. The Khartoum (Sudan) governments support of Janjaweed terrorism in the Darfur region would make them a terrorist state. Conciously funding groups to practice terrorism was the same as being a terrorist. [Hence, Is Iran a terrorist state? If Israel a terrorist state, does that make the US guilty by association - Ed]

Does Israel have a right to defend itself?

Issa : What does it have to defend? Stolen land? Stolen water? Why do they need F16's to bomb civilians? Who are they at war with? George contrasted Israeli reactions to terrorism to that of Spain and the UK with ETA & IRA

What point is there in labelling Israel as a "terrorist state"?

James : We are at war on terrorism. The US & Israel currently refuse to recognize Hamas, because we define them as terrorists. If we are at war on terrorism, it is only reasonable to assess whether claims that Israel is also a terrorist state bear any truth. "This house believes Israel is evil, beautiful, or has a right to exist," would all have been valid debates, but terrorism is a cornerstone of US foreign policy, and it's definition and application deserves to be clarified and applied to our friends as well as our enemies.

Does a country founded by terrorists make it one?

It was argued that because Israel grew out of terrorist organizations such as Lehi and Irgun, that Israel is a terrorist state. No. The US could not be considered a terrorist state because it was started by what the British would have referred to as 'terrorists.' Nelson Mandela & the IRA were other examples of former terrorist organizations that are now part of legitimate governments. Being labelled as a terrorist requires one to be actively engaged in 'ongoing' acts of terrorism.

So, Is Israel a Terrorist (state)?

Jon defended Israel. All governments can be exclusionary : He cited, the Chinese against the Uighurs; South African apartheid; Sudan; Serbia. That dosen't make them terrorists. Israel was facing legitimate security issues, and they were doing their best to handle them. Israel does not have a policy of wantingly killing innocents.

George summed up for the motion. He laid out the outstanding UN resolutions. He listed the huge numbers of civilians killed by Israeli forces. He listed the injustices of the palestinian people, and the hardships that they currently lived through. He highlighted that Israel was actively expanding settlements in the West Bank despite its obligations in the Oslo accords, resolution 242 and the 4th Geneva convention. In short, Israel was actively involved in ongoing policies designed to terrorize the palestinian people through violence and humiliation for the political gain. Therefore Israel is a terrorist state.

Motion Approved : 11-2 This House WOULD classify Israel as a Terrorist State

Comments

Eduardo
27 Apr 2007, 00:30

1) Dictionary's definition of Terrorism:

ter·ror·ism n
violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

2) From Wikipedia

State terrorism is a controversial term (see:State terrorism: Confines and definition), which means violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state[1]. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the international community considers the action justified or necessary, or whether the described act is carried out as part of an armed conflict. It has to be mentioned, that the opinion of the International community cannot be defined and determined with universal agreement. State terrorism, where applicable, may be directed toward the population or infrastructure of the state in question or towards the population of other states. Although attacks on non-combatant civilians may occur during a time of war, they are not usually considered terrorism, especially if these are attacks on the enemy's war fighting capacity (for example an industrial port). The terrorism may be carried out by the state's own forces, such as an army, police, state supported militias, or other organisations, where it is more usually called state sponsored terrorism.
Care should be taken to differentiate state terrorism from acts of violence carried out by government agents, which are not specified by government policy or past conduct. A murder carried out by a policeman, for example, is not state terrorism unless the government sanctioned the action by policy or conduct such as a pattern of attacks by state agents in the past that has gone unpunished, leading perpetrators to assume they act with impunity

State Terrorism: Confines and definition

Main article: Definition of terrorism
State terrorism, like terrorism, is controversial and there is no generally accepted definition. Often acts that critics describe as terror, supporters defend as legitimate defence against perceived threats. Generally, the definition of terrorism does not extend to states in direct and open military conflict, if the actions of their armed forces are within the laws of war.
The distinction between state and nonstate terror has been criticized as being morally relativist and as distracting from or justifying state terrorism perpetrated by favored states, typically those of wealthy and developed nations (Chomsky and Herman, 1979).The Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón views particular political systems as instances of state terrorism: "State terrorism is a political system whose rule of recognition permits and/or imposes a clandestine, unpredictable, and diffuse application, even regarding clearly innocent people, of coercive means prohibited by the proclaimed judicial ordinance."

Bibliographic details for "State terrorism"

IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information — citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research.

Page name: State terrorism
Author: Wikipedia contributors
Publisher: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
Date of last revision: 26 April 2007 21:55 UTC
Date retrieved: 27 April 2007 07:22 UTC
Permanent link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism&oldid=126245647
Page Version ID: 126245647
Please remember to check your manual of style, standards guide or instructor's guidelines for the exact syntax to suit your needs. For more detailed advice, see Citing Wikipedia.

jon
08 May 2007, 21:32

Cool page layout.

What's written below are some additional thoughts based on the commentary submitted so far.

"Is Israel a state?"
The issue of statehood is, in some ways, actually more interesting and complicated then may appear at first glance. Traditionally, there are four criteria that are applied by scholars to determine whether a nation constitute a state. (1) defined borders (2) permanent population (3) an 'effective' government and (4) capacity to engage in relations with other states (I have read some authors who would include additional features but that becomes more technical and my discussion would become tediously long). The first two criteria are considered to be the most important, the third slightly less so and the fourth a little less still. But these criteria raise difficult questions. Consider the first criteria, defined borders. Did Kuwait cease to be a state when it was annexed by Iraq in 1990? Or Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania when they were incorporated into the USSR? Or what about size? The state of Monaco has a territory of 1.5 square kilometers, should something this small be called a state? Consider the second criteria, permanent population. Does Nauru count as a state with a population of less than 8000 people? Or the Vatican with only 400 citizens and 800 residents? What about the third criteria, 'effective' government. If a nation is mired in a violent civil war with a government unable to function, should it be called a state? Some examples include Finland in 1917, Zaire in 1960 or perhaps Iraq today. And the last criteria, the capacity to engage in relations with other states. Liechtenstein has transferred part control of its foreign relations to Switzerland, should it be called a state? Did the establishment of the European Union terminate the statehood of its members or vest the Union with statehood? And of course there are the numerous protectorates around the world, vestiges of the colonial era. Are any of these places deserving of statehood? There is more to say about this still, but I think these examples serve to make my point.

"Is there such a thing as a terrorist state?"
This question, I think, is also very deserving of care. On the one hand, modern international law does not hold a state criminally responsible for the actions of it's government. Recall that at the end of WW2 neither the Nuremberg nor the Tokyo Military Tribunals decided the issue of state responsibility. They were purposed at resolving *personal* responsibility of government officials (a fairly novel idea at the time). Similiarly, the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda were intent on resolving criminal responsibility for members of the government and their allies, but not the governments themselves. The International Criminal Court only has jurisdiction to prosecute offenses against individuals, not against states. It wasn't until this year, in fact, that a state was ever in jeopardy of being found responsible for war crimes. The court involved was the International Court of Justice in a case between Serbia and Bosnia to do with several instances of mass killings and whether Serbia, as a state, could be held responsible for genocide under the Convention Against Genocide. So the issue of state responsibility for crimes of this sort is a very new idea, and not well broadly accepted among international legal scholars. On the other hand, historians seem to agree that Robespierre government of 1793-1794, in France, was a terrorist government. This period in France's history is referred to as "The Great Terror" and the word 'terror' actually took on its modern meaning at this time, as a result of the government's actions. So there seems to be at least one widely acknowledged example of a terrorist state, even if it existed more than two hundred years ago.

So should there be a 'terrorist state' category? This is the main issue. There is a sort of double standard in effect in international law whereby state a can commit very violent actions and yet not suffer the same criminal penalties that I and the reader would be liable. This double standard is very much related to the historical roots of international law and the Hobbesian environment in which the international order exists. As a matter of principle there is a fine debate to be had about whether it is fair to continue this sort of antiquated system since things have changed so much since 1640. As a matter of practice, however, it is not clear what the ramifications would be if a state, consider the Bosnia-Serbia example, was held criminally responsible. Should the state, and therefore the people, be compelled to make reparations? Should the military be disarmed? The government dismantled? The state abolished? I don't know the answer. In the past, when some of these penalties have been put into effect they have led to very serious and dire consequences.

BlopySnopsy
02 Oct 2008, 21:09

Where?
tell me pls LaurienGirvenqdv683@live.com

Dictutire
03 Oct 2008, 11:33

Hey!
Do you have secrets? ;)
pls write me
LaurienGirvenqdv683@live.com

EluthleDbeatt
06 Oct 2008, 05:26

<a href=http://yedda.com/people/2738616657185>mark anthony gay video
</a>
<a href=http://yedda.com/people/2739916854145>free long lesbian video
</a>
<a href=http://yedda.com/people/8621368791917>ass free fucking movie woman
</a>

Aderweheall
06 Oct 2008, 16:38

<a href=http://yedda.com/people/6277415011623>black eyed pea where is the love music video
</a>
<a href=http://yedda.com/people/5185197011366>adult videos and dvds
</a>
<a href=http://yedda.com/people/5181176418966>hardcore giant jiggly xxx
</a>
<a href=http://tetongravity.com/forums/member.php?u=22642>ambiguously gay duo video
</a>
<a href=http://yedda.com/people/1868199576812>asian online video chat
</a>

xfirstnamex
08 Nov 2008, 19:40

xtextx

Add Your Comment

*Name:
Email:
	Notify me about new comments on this page Hide my email
*Text: