UN Relief Chief Martin Griffiths told a representative from Sky News on Wednesday that he did not consider Hamas to be a terrorist group.
Asked about the feasibility of Israel’s military goal to eliminate Hamas and disallow the terrorist group from having any governing say in Gaza, Griffiths responded “Hamas is not a terrorist group for us, as you know, it is a political movement. But, I think it is very very difficult to dislodge these groups without a negotiated solution; which includes their aspirations.
“I cannot think of an example offhand of a place where a victory through warfare has succeeded against a well-entrenched group, terrorist or otherwise.”
By your definition there is no such thing as a “terrorist movement”. Outside of lone Wolf insane people, no terrorists objective is to create terror purely for terrorsnsake. Terrorism is the tool they use to pursue their objectives. It’s right there in the definition of terrorism.
The IRA bombings of London were because they wanted the UK to leave northern Ireland, Al Quieda orchestrated September 11th to scare Americans out of supporting their agenda in the middle east. The US nukes in japan were to force Japan’s surrender in world war 2. Every major act of terrorism has a specific goal. Hamas is no different, their goal is to destroy the state of Israel. Israel being invaders, terrorists, thieves etc doesn’t change that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Well, by that established-powers created definition every single act of war meant to cower civilians or other states is terrorism unless in committed in one’s own homeland (this latter exception because governments can make sure it’s “lawful” where they are soverign, but their law does not extend outside their borders)
By your very own statement (unproven, I might add) that an organization that commits acts of terrorism per that definition is a “terrorist movement”, then the US is a “terrorist movement”, as is Israel and for example just about every nation that invaded Iraq (as there was no UN mandate, hence it wasn’t lawful and a lot of actions done there were definitelly “use of violence and intimidation” for the most definitelly “political” aim of changing the government there).
Interestingly enough by your definition what Nazi Germany did to the Jews inside its own borders was not terrorism, because it was “lawful” in Germany at the time.
More in general there is no such thing as “State Terrorism” by that definition because they’re the ones who have the power in the country where they are using terrorism against their own people for political ends because - guess what?! - they make the laws so it’s lawful hence per that definition not terrorism.
Oh, and Hamas’ attack against the kibutzes in Israel might very well not be terrorism by that definition because the land were it happenned is contested hence it might very well be that the sovereignty over that land is not Israel’s but Palestinian, so it might very well be totally lawful what Hamas did because Hamas makes the laws over there.
(I mean, if by that definition Hamas’ actions on the 7th might or not be terrorism depending on where exactly are the UN recognized borders, that has got to be a shit definition for “terrorism”)
That’s the flaw in that carefully crafted definition of “terrorism” meant to exclude nation states using the carte blanche for those in power which is “lawfull”: in a situation were an occupying power is in somebody else’s nation, their actions there are not lawful because they’re not the ones who are entitled to make the laws there and, converselly, if Hamas goes on a rampage on Israeli occupied Palestinian land it’s not terrorism because it’s “lawful” because the laws of the State Of Israel do not officially apply there.
I mean, I’m perfectly happy if the hypocrisy is dropped and, alongside Hamas, everybody starts designating the State of Israel as Terrorists (which they are per your own definition) and Anti-Terrorism legislation is enforced against them and their supporters. Also seing Bush and Tony Blair rot in jail for the “terrorism” committed in Iraq by people under their orders would be great.
There are international laws, however unenforced, that so called terrorist states regularly violate.
I think the intent was to target factories which are considered part of the military establishment, but probably.
Is that even in question? Obviously indiscriminat bombing of a civilian population to drive them to migrate as refugees is terrorism.
When the USA invaded Iraq everyone around me was calling the US a terrorist state and there were mass protests in my country, Australia, at the our governments choice to be complicit in that. I would say that western countries tend to use more targeted attacks so they don’t usually meet their own definition of terrorist, but the USA nuclear bombs example as an example of terrorism is far from the only case.
I guess when Australia. Soldier Ben Roberts-Smith was found to be guilty of specific war crimes in Afghanistan they didn’t use the blanket term “terrorism”, but the guy is clearly a terrorist despite being a white Westerner.
What do mean unproven? I’ve quoted the dictionary definition from Google. You’re welcome to define terrorism however you want, but the most widely used definition, per most English language dictionaries, is to the effect of the use of violence against civilians or other non combatants to further political or social change.
What the Nazis did is why we now have the Geneva convention and international laws around human rights. While those laws may not have existed at the time, plenty of Germans were tried and found guilty of them afterwards.
Most of what follows you seem to be arguing on what I consider to be the mistaken belief that there is no such thing as international law.
Israel as it exists right now is a terrorist state. I’m not stating that meaning I, in any way, agree with those who are calling for the obliteration of the state of Israel, but prior to Oct 7 the authorities were clearly selectively enforcing laws that allowed for violence and other acts of terror against Palestinians, both by the state itself and by private citizens. They clearly have been acting in violation of international law for a long time.
You never made a case about “terrorist movement” you only went after your own strawman, “terrorism” (as in, the action) - which I hadn’t disputed - and you did so by using a dictionary definition (not a legal one) of a word which is mainly propaganda, hence why per that definition it’s so easy to tag just about any violent action commited by those not in power as “terrorism” - pretty much all revolutions in history against oppressing dictatorships even if mainly peaceful are terrorism by that definition if at any one point “intimidation” was used.
As I pointed, that definition is so bad that Hamas’ actions in the 7th might not have been “terrorism” because it was not commited inside Israel’s UN recognized territory but rather in occupied territory, so it’s not Israel’s law that applies there but rather the law done by that very same Hamas, so their actions were not “unlawful”, hence per that definition were not terrorism.
After all this the point I originally made about “terrorist movement” remains untouched because you never actually provided an alternative definition for what makes something an “movement” about a certain activity.
If we’re going by dictionary definition then a movement is “a series of organized activities working toward an objective” so for Hamas to be a “terrorist movement” it’s objective as an organisation would have to be terror, which does not seem to be the case, but to be an “insurgency movement” its objective would have to be expelling an occupying power, which is most definitelly their objective.
This is the point I was making.
PS: by the way, this whole discussion did made me think properly about all this (so cheers for promoting it!) and I’m starting to think that per the dictionary definition there is no such thing as a “terrorist movement” simply because no group has terror itself as an objective, even though plenty use terror as means to their objective. Since “terrorist movement” is one of those expressions coined way back in the day by politicians justifying their own use of violence, it shouldn’t be surprising that in logic terms it’s bullshit.
Yeah I guess I instinctively defaulted to terrorism because, like you say, “terrorist movement” is a kind of nonsense combination of words