Please Stop the Bombing

 Please Stop the Bombing

    The other day I took a telephone call from an unknown number. I am very ready to be hostile to unknown callers, resembling in that respect my father. I managed an "Hello" in my driest, coolest, voice with a faint interrogative upturn at the end. However, a pleasantly cultured voice told me that he was phoning on behalf of humanity; "Humanity & Inclusion" in fact, whose appeal on Facebook I had recently signed. 

    "Been going since the eighties, in a quiet way", he told me. 

    Well (I thought to myself), it is a rather un-arresting title; a 'catch-all'. As though they had founded the charity before they had thought of the cause they were going to espouse. 

    "Why were you opposed to the bombing of civilians?" he asked me. 
    "I regard the bombing of non-combatant civilians as a war-crime, prohibited by Protocol I (1977) of the Geneva Conventions", I explained,  "Though, if Hamas deliberately mixes their combatants among innocent civilians, they are as guilty as the Israelis. However, that does not make the bombing legal." 

    "And I want nothing to do with such brutality and criminality" I added. 

    Of course, it cost me a year's worth of donations to Humanity & Inclusion. But it was a worthwhile phone call, as it has clarified my mind on the matter. 

    I do protest. I would not want to be a citizen of a brutal, criminal and inhumane country. 

Terrorism

Terrorism

My Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1973) defines Terrorism as:

"Terrorism (te.roriz'm). 1795.  A system of terror. 1. Government by intimidation; the system of the 'Terror' (1793-4); see prec. 2. gen. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized 1798." 

The term was invented by the French, and arose in the context of the French Revolution. 

My Collins English Dictionary (Millennium edition, 1998) has:

"terrorism (‘terǝ,rizəm) n 1 systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal. 2 the act of terrorizing. 3 the state of being terrorized. "

After the 11th September 2001 attack on the twin-towers of the World Trade Centre in New York the USA took up the word in a big way. But they found it necessary to narrow the definition to exclude their own governmental actions. Wikipedia is helpful here as they have a long article on "Terrorism". In that there is reference to the Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute page on Title 22 Chapter 38 of the US Code, (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f) and their definition of terrorism:

"The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".

I think the crux of the criminal act of terrorism is fourfold:  (1) intimidation, for (2) purposes of control by means of acts of (3) violence against (4) noncombatant targets. I do not see that the size, or the political standing, of the perpetrator affects the criminality. 

The terrorism is extra annoying if the perpetrator is small; extra damaging if the perpetrator is large.

It is hard to see how the State of Israel (and also the USA, UK, etc.) can avoid the charge of being a Terrorist Organisation.

(Please tell me if you think I am wrong: Cawstein@gmail.com.)