[Dan Halberstein]

Mark,

Oh dear indeed! Okay, let's get the matter out of the way.

I contend that terrorism is particularly bad, but is not engaged in by Israel. You contend that terrorism has multiple definitions, and is engaged in by Israel.

Two implications spring from this:

1) If it can be shown that "terrorism" is particularly bad, and that "terrorism" is engaged in by Israel, that defines Israel as a terrorist state, and one that therefore deserves to be put on a level with Hezbollah or whatever other "bad guy" one chooses (short of perpetrators of genocide, or some other crime we can agree is worse than terrorism -- if indeed we agree that genocide is very, very bad.) I will stipulate that "very bad" must be a comparative term, not the description of the behavior of any nation-state acting in defense of her territory.

2) If it can be shown that "terrorism" is not particularly bad, and is engaged in by Israel, we can successfully strike it off the list of terms that have meaning in the context of this discussion, replacing it with the much more lengthy and cumbersome phrase "ideologically or genocidally motivated intentional murder of civilians" (Except for the unwieldiness, I might yield the point and go for that at the outset. At least the term would not be so abused in the course of discussion.)

So, definition by definition:

1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Israel's violence is against Hezbollah, a group of armed combatants operating from Lebanon. To make Israel's acts terrorism, violence or threat of violence by an armed force against an armed force must be considered an attack "against the state or the public."

Terrorism becomes a superset of war. (That is, all war is terrorism, but not all terrorism is war.)
If all armed conflict is terrorism, the term could certainly have some use, but only because other actions are also terrorism. But terrorism can not be classed as worse than war in any given case. So this definition -- if we take "the state" to mean actions taken in self defense, against armed forces operating from another state's territory -- yields a very nebulous terrorism. Opposition to this terrorism is simply an expanded pacifism, in which the only legitimate response is inaction, unless one considers the terrorism of self-defense justified (as opposed to the unjustified terrorism of aggression). In the current context, one must be a pacifist to not be a "terrorist sympathizer."

I think it more likely that the reference does not refer to an attack on an armed force resident in another state.

So either:
A. Terrorism is bad, just not any worse than a war of self-defense, or
B. Terrorism is, in fact, a worse behavior, and Israel is not engaged in it.

this is followed by the second definition, below:

terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

I think this definition is the one you believe matches my own definition, since it specifies "civilians." I'll leave it alone.

Merriamwebster.com:
The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

For this to apply to the current Israeli action, it is necessary to establish that Israel is attempting to coerce Lebanon through terror. Israel's stated objectives do not have anything to do with coercing Lebanese action, although Lebanon has not taken the action required by her own obligations. Israel is, rather, taking those actions instead. Hezbollah, by contrast, specifies genocidal aims; one could make the argument that Hezbollah is not trying to terrorize, but is unsuccessfully attempting genocide (i.e., that they really believe they will destroy every Israeli and the state of Israel, and they don't care whether that instills terror). Again, I do not think the distinction is useful here, but we can allow the possibility that Hezbollah should be called Genocidists instead of Terrorists.

But let us take the cynical view of Israel's actions. Let us say Israel was tired of Lebanon allowing attacks against civilians, and reasoned that Lebanon would only act if "terrorized" into it by a heavyhanded Israeli action.

What would a "systematic use of terror" look like? Certainly not an avoidance of civilian casualties.I would be more terrified if more of my countrymen died, than fewer. Certainly not the targeting of items such as explosives caches and rocket launchers. Not the targeting of some, but not all infrastructure, based on military considerations such as re-equipping of enemy combatants. These look more to me like the acts of a nation engaged in conventional warfare. Again I stress that War is not desireable or fine and dandy. That is why you have to have good reasons to go to war. It is, however, less bad than terrorism.

I do not believe a country "systematically using terror as a means of coercion" goes out of its way to avoid negative outcomes to a populace. A "systematic use of terror" is distinct from "a terrified reaction to the legitimate actions of an armed force in self-defense."

If, however, it can be proven that most Israeli actions had no military purpose, such as destroying arms, killing combatants, or re-arming Hezbollah, then "systematically using terror" becomes a more likely definition of Israel's actions.

So: either
A. Israel means to strike terror into Lebanon, but mistakenly identified mainly military targets, which makes it look like Israel is fighting against Hezbollah, or
[b]B. Israel means to strike Hezbollah, and misses sometimes.

"A." seems pretty unlikely to me, so I'll await any proof that Israel is not targeting Hezbollah and Hezbollah facilities, arms, resupply routes, etc. I provisionally reject this as the primary goal of the Israeli action, but, not being a telepathic, cannot do so conclusively. "B.", however, jibes much better with the known facts.

MSN Encarta:
Political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes.

This is a definition of another term entirely. I'll spare us all the verbiage.

Thefreedictionary.com:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

This has the same limitation of the first definition. To recap - if we take this definition to include the actions of a nation in self-defense, against militarily significant targets, self-defense is a form of terrorism. Again:
A. Either Terrorism isn't bad, or
B. Israel is not engaging in Terrorism.

Bartleby.com:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

See above. Since "civilian" makes no appearance in these definitions, they apply equally well to any armed conflict.

CHAMBERS: An organised system of intimidation, esp. for political ends.

Since we specify an organized system, it must be established that the aim is intimidation. We have not established the state of mind of Israeli leaders.

This definition also applies to armed forces as well as civilians, of course. But since many of these definitions of "Terrorism" can be read to include defensive wars, this is not surprising.

OXFORD: (terrorist): One who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or community.
"Terror" is the key in this one. Governing by threatening jail time or even execution for criminal acts is universal. I do not consider government inherently Terrorist because a potential terrorist is "terrified" of jail time. Again, Israel does not aim to "govern" Lebanon, or coerce the government of Lebanon, but to protect Israel. This requires actions the government of Lebanon has been unable or unwilling to take, despite her international obligations to do so.

Conclusion: Unless it is shown that Israel is not taking actions against Hezbollah, etc., but is intentionally inspires terror throughout the country to coerce Lebanon into proper self-government, this does not apply to Israeli actions in Lebanon.

WEBSTERS: Systematic use of terror, esp. as a means of coercion.

See above.

Only one of the seven dictionaries above sees fit to specify the word civilian, and then only as a secondary definition. Like it or not, many of the main definitions could apply to Israeli government 'terrorism' with no stretch of the imagination. So I hold by my assertion, that the word 'terrorism' as used by you and Bush and many other politicians has about as much credibility as 'freedom', democracy', 'evil empire' etc.

I disagree, Mark. I think if anything I use a more precise definition than those you recount here, and which you read broadly enough to include a war of self-defense.

The exercise of saying "nut uh, you're the terrorist!" to a nation defending herself from Terrorism, can certainly find support from a broad reading of dictionary definitions.

However, the broad reading of these definitions most often simply conflates Terrorism with Conventional War. The only distinguishing feature goes to the state of mind of perpetrators and victims; to read these definitions usefully, we have to divine this state of mind as represented by their respective actions.

From my point of view, it is a stretch of the imagination to define actions against an armed force which has taken action against your nation as terrorism.

Finally (at last!) "the state," "persons or the state," etc., can indeed include an armed force resident in another nation. But that reading makes "terrorism" of any armed response to an armed assault. I respectfully submit that these definitions are not written to include responses to acts of war.

So, if we can agree on the definition offered -- which is also one of the definitions you're using -- and we can continue to use the term. Otherwise we'll have to come up with something else, as a practical matter, since I have no need to use the term as a cudgel to deride non-specific activities. I would like to use it precisely. But if one of these broadly read definitions of "Terrorism" makes it basically okay and widely practiced (except by pacifists,) I have no desire to grace the despicable actions of those who specifically and intentionally target non-combatants with that term.

Thanks,

Dan