Definitions are tricky, I admit, but it seems to me that "terrorism" is not the right word to use when a recognized sovereign nation engages in acts of war to obtain a military objective, even if that nation engages in repulsive and destructive measures that one might condemn as heartily as one condemns "terrorism." That is, a nation may do something as bad as terrorism, in theory, but that doesn't make it terrorism as I feel the word is used. What's striking about Hezbollah is that its actions take place desptie the Lebanese government -- Hezbollah has ties to the government, but the government did not (as far as we know) order Hezbollah to attack Israel. It's a para-military organization. Just as Hamas, before it was elected, would act despite the condemnation of the legitimate Palestinian authority. The reason I draw the distinction is that nations and governments are, at least in theory, subject to international accountability and international law, and at least enjoy some sort of imprimatur of an entire nation of people, but terrorist groups can number in the mere hundreds, represent no one but themselves (however much other people may approve or disapprove from the sidelines), and yet they claim for themselves the moral authority of nations and they tembroil nations in conflict and affect the overall state of the world. It should be that anytime a few dozen people get together with some dynamite, they can affect world politics, let alone kill people.
|
Hybrid Mode
