It is literally, by definition, terrorism in this case. What you meant to say, if you put any thought into your position, is that terrorism isn't always bad. A significant weaker force using gorilla tactics and politics to fight a stronger force is the only hope they have to succeed. No one can expect Palestine to resist using conventional warfare.

Terrorism is a tool. The US engages in terrorism constantly. The police enforce their rule (in the US) by using terrorism. Just about every government uses terrorism. It's just only ok (as decided by the elites) when it's state sanctioned and by a stronger force against a weaker one.

[–] FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

By definition by who? Can Hamas have saying in that too?

I define it as counter terrorism, since its against the terrorist occupation of palestine by settlers

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago

"Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims." I believe every definition of terrorism will be similar. Nothing about that definition has anything to do with morality though. Terrorism can be acceptable. It's only people who have bought into the mainstream ideas that think terrorism is always wrong. I would say you need to re-evaluate your ideals if you think Hamas can be correct but terrorism must be bad. One of those does not follow from the other. Terrorism can be used for good, and there's no reason to think otherwise.

And sure, terrorism can be used to defeat terrorism. You can have counter-terrorist terrorists. I would personally argue they always are, and I think it'd be difficult to argue against that.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Terrorizing military targets is completely different from terrorizing civilians. Civilian terrorism has never been an effective tool for the people doing the terrorism. It has always resulted in a huge backlash that basically destroys whatever movement it's working for.