Trending Topics:

Why Israel wants us to say ‘terror’

on 35 Comments

Michael Lesher and I have both written articles challenging the ‘terror’ narrative regarding the recent truck-ramming of Israeli soldiers in East Jerusalem: Lesher in Times of Israel here and me on Mondoweiss here. From different angles, we were essentially suggesting that the rather uncritical label ‘terror’ does not seem to take into account the whole setting of an occupied person, targeting soldiers in occupied territory – which seems to rather squarely render it an act of resistance to occupation, not terror. We both noted that Netanyahu’s claims of ISIS connection are but dark hints with no visible factual grounds, apparently conjured for the purpose of posing this case as an “unprovoked” act of hate detached from the local reality of occupation and related to a global terror threat.   

As you may imagine, such challenging can attract heated debate and insults. Yesterday I was called a “*f-ing heartless idiot*” in comments, whereas Michael seems to be getting a whole lot more. I will not indulge too much in the comments such as “disgusting human being”, “demented buffoon”, “twisted mind”, “vile”, “sub-category of human”, “sick” and so on. These are Israeli or Israeli supporters, which seem to be extremely offended by our suggestions. It would appear that by questioning the whole label of ‘terror’, we’ve both touched a raw nerve. The question is what that nerve really is, and why it’s so offensive.

We’ve both made our points, and there’s no need to repeat them. Yet I would like to open this up even a bit further for even more critical thinking:

Both Michael and I, independently, have not even questioned the issue of whether this even was an attack in our respective articles. Such a question can definitely be asked – as it is possible that the ramming was caused by a loss of vehicle control, due to a whole range of reasons. For example, on the 18th of June, an Israeli Jewish driver suffered a heart attack at the wheel, and crashed into a Tel-Aviv café, killing two and injuring six (he later died). Immediately following the crash, bystanders pulled the unconscious driver from the car and began beating him, believing that he was a Palestinian who had driven into the restaurant on purpose, according to the restaurant owner’s wife.“The restaurant was filled with white dust. At first, I thought it was maybe a terror attack,” Shosha San told Israel’s Channel 10. “They thought that the driver was not a good person, they beat him,” she said. “He was unconscious.”

So, the Jewish Israeli driver was believed to be a “not good person”, and therefore was to be beaten, possibly to death, whilst he was unconscious. But later everyone realized he was a “good person”. So – no reason to worry guys, false alarm, just a sad case of a “good person” who had a heart attack (let’s not even consider that he might have been killed by those who beat him), no evildoers here, it’s all good.

But with Fadi al-Qanbar? Oh no, he backed the car after running the soldiers over. According to the testimony of the guide who shot at him (complaining of delayed response of soldiers and suggesting it was an “Azarya” effect), he understood that it was terror when the driver backed. No doubt there. Could it be possible that al-Qanbar lost control, and realizing that he had just plowed into dozens of soldiers who now surrounded him, he panicked, knowing that he might well be extra-judicially executed, as is often the case with perceived “bad people”? Some may say it is unlikely – but we will probably never know, because he was killed on the spot.

But such considerations are regarded so outlandish under the mainstream perception of ‘terror’. As I wrote earlier today to Michael Lesher: “I had chosen to not get into all these additional questions of ‘resonable doubt’, as the issue of reflexive ‘terror’ labelling was a mouthful in itself. In light of this apparently ‘radical’ challenging of narrative which we both undertake, it seemed to me that asking the additional questions would be counterproductive to the argument. I just chose to challenge what is the more glaring assumption – terror.”

Yet as one can easily see, even the challenging of ‘terror’ is extremely contentious and appears offensive to many. To challenge this assumption on reasonable grounds involving international law is often regarded semantic, pedantic, ‘heartless’ – even when we already assume that it was an attack. But to uncritically take the claims of Israeli leaders who also make loose conjectures tying this up to ISIS as facts, is supposed to be ‘sensitive’, ‘caring’. The world does not need to see the evidence for these claims, they are simply assumed to be true, and the issue of the (assumed) attack having targeted soldiers on occupied territory by an occupied Palestinian is apparently not significant. It’s terror, Israel said so. It would be so insensitive to challenge that. Let’s not take a chance – let’s condemn it. The US State Department says “there is absolutely no justification for these brutal and senseless attacks…of terrorism”. 

Indeed why bother with details? Condemn! Condemn! – and in the race to condemn we cannot await investigations that will clarify the motive. It appears safe to assume – as I wrote in June. 

That’s what Israel wants. It wants our sympathy, especially when the world doesn’t seem to be sympathizing enough with its expansionist goals. That’s why it wants the world to say ‘terror’, and it can’t go fast enough, whilst whitewashing its own terror, even the King David bombing many decades later, as Netanyahu did. When it’s Jewish Zionist terror, there’s no limit to how long we can stretch the ‘ambivalence’. But with Palestinian terror – it’s so reflexive, it takes us only a few seconds to establish it. We’re poised to do it, it’s already assumed – “terror”! Because they are simply “not good people”.

Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

35 Responses

  1. AddictionMyth on January 13, 2017, 1:07 pm

    It’s the same thing with drug use: if someone dies from an overdose, it could be suicide or even homicide or it could be the result of a mistaken belief in the drug’s purity. But reduce it all to “addiction” – ‘I just wanted to get high and oops I took one too many’, and then the solution is simple: crack down even further on drug use and require complete abstinence. In the same way if they can paint all these attacks as ‘terror’ then the only solution is to bomb ISIS in Syria or wherever they are ‘proven’ to have metastasized to. Which of course only escalates the cycle of violence – just as ‘addiction’ theology escalated deaths by overdose. Now the next step is to pathologize terror by discovering it is a ‘disease’. You laugh.

  2. John O on January 13, 2017, 1:19 pm


    Glad you mentioned the King David bombing. I was struck in the last few days, reading the obituaries to Clare Hollingworth, the British reporter who got the “scoop of the century” when she spotted German tanks massing on the Polish border in 1939. Before she started as a reporter for the Daily Telegraph, she had been signing visas to help get Jews to safety, and it is estimated she assisted between 2,000 and 3,000 to do so. Stationed in Palestine after the war, she was close to the King David Hotel when that bomb went off, which could have killed her.

  3. Citizen on January 13, 2017, 2:19 pm

    When Reinhard Heinrich was murdered by Czech underground by shooting into his open car, Germany said they were terrorists, and snuffed an entire village to teach those terrorists a lesson. Some things always work the same way, don’t they?

    • echinococcus on January 15, 2017, 4:16 am

      Not “always”, Citizen. It seems that the wholesale tarring of one’s any and all opponents with the “terrorist” brush really took off with the Nazi occupation propaganda and was continued almost seamlessly by their ideological twins the Zionist bandits –the latter mindlessly parroted by the West.

  4. HarryLaw on January 13, 2017, 2:36 pm

    The problem here is that many in the Israeli government do not think they are occupiers, they think the West Bank [Judea and Samaria] are sovereign Israeli territory, even when the Israeli Supreme court have on numerous occasions ruled that the West Bank is occupied territory.
    This is the crux of the matter, if it is not occupied territory then ipso facto it is an act of terrorism, or it is possible to argue that it is. If it is occupied territory [as every country in the World thinks it is] then it is not terrorism. The UN General assembly acknowledges this “among these legal forms of violence there is also the right to use force in the struggle for “liberation from colonial and foreign domination”. To quote United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:

    “2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;” (3)

    This justification for legitimate armed resistance has been specifically applied to the Palestinian struggle repeatedly. To quote General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

    3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …
    7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people”

    • johneill on January 13, 2017, 7:27 pm

      correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that the term ‘terrorism’ necessarily described violence against civilians, not soldiers.

      • Another Dave on January 14, 2017, 8:26 am

        It’s a fungable word, and has been since it was first used. The anarchists who killed one of the Czars of Russia were accused of terrorism. The Fenians who launched armed soldiers into Canada (and other incidents in the 19th century) were called terrorists too.

        Terrorists are those evil people who attack you. Whoever you are. Freedom Fighters do the same thing, but they’re on ‘your’ side.

      • YoniFalic on January 14, 2017, 10:22 am

        The gentile and Jewish members of Narodnaya Volya (organization that assassinated Alexander II) embraced the concept of terrorism as did Mark Nathanson (a Czarist Jewish exile), who was mentor to Vera Figner, who is usually described as non-Jewish but who was probably of Cantonist descent.

        The Anarchists used political assassination as their asymmetrical weapon of terror. After wounding a brutally oppressive Russian Police Commander in 1878, Vera Zasulich [associated with Nihilists and socialist revolutionary Kievan Insurgents — later a Menshevik leader] proclaimed that she was a “terrorist, not a killer”. The Anarchists believed assassinating government officials, industrialists and heads of state would create chaos, which would lead to the end of social institutions and oppression.

        As an historian I consider Zionist terrorism to be a direct descendant of the gentile & Jewish anarchist terrorism of the Czarist Empire. Zionist terrorism today is state-sponsored (just as Soviet terrorism — another direct descendant — was).

        Because Palestinian resistance is a response to Zionist terrorism and genocide, it is a sort of collateral descendant of Czarist anarchist terrorism.

        Because I consider the Zionist conglomeration to be outlaw under international anti-genocide law and its members (and under some circumstances its international supporters) to be liable to summary execution, I am not sure that a Zio invader legally has standing to be a victim of terrorism.

      • Mooser on January 14, 2017, 12:46 pm

        “Because I consider the Zionist conglomeration to be outlaw under international anti-genocide law and its members (and under some circumstances its international supporters) to be liable to summary execution,”

        “Yoni” isn’t that a little well, strict? Most of those involved have committed crimes which are usually punished with fines, and/or imprisonment, or even judicial supervision. In many cases expulsion might be best.

      • echinococcus on January 14, 2017, 1:45 pm


        It takes two to expel.
        Especially when the party of the other part is convinced he’s holding an ass’ jawbone or the temple columns.

      • YoniFalic on January 14, 2017, 2:23 pm

        It’s my understanding of the proper usage of outlaw in the context of an ongoing genocide in international anti-genocide law.

        Also, you have misunderstanding of situation.

        My grandfather was Zio invader whom committed mass-murder in 47-8.

        My father did not have the level of indoctrination that I experience. He shirked service.

        I was proud to become soldier and murdered unarmed men, women, and children under orders during Cast Lead.

        Young people serve upon high school graduation so that they can get bloody before their frontal lobe is fully developed. It prevents development of ethical sense.

        I am different because I have exceptional memory. Every morning I wake up as I am killing a woman with a baby in her arms. I don’t have merely broken ethical sense. I have a broken mind that is held together by SSRIs.

        Israel has now created three generations of (Pavlovian) reflexive murderers who think they are acting rightly.

        When I write outlaws, I mean outlaws. Otherwise, you might have to use stronger terms like spree or serial killers, which I consider inappropriate except in certain special cases.

        Palis and the international community can be merciful, but we all have to understand the nature and scope of the problem that Israel represents.

      • YoniFalic on January 14, 2017, 6:12 pm

        Gideon Levy has a good article, but I consider it somewhat white-washy because the missions are often far more disgusting.

        The soldiers Moms most of whom have been indoctrinated ideologically since birth know exactly what their sons do.

        My Mom grew up outside Israel and was somewhat skeptical of Zionist beliefs and claims. She was not particularly happy when my sister and I did our IDF service.

      • RoHa on January 14, 2017, 8:26 pm

        “Every morning I wake up as I am killing a woman with a baby in her arms…”

        When I was twenty, the Australian Government offered me an all-expenses-paid trip to Vietnam. I declined. (With some difficulty. They were damned insistent about it.)

        Your post confirms my belief that I made the right decision, if only for prudential reasons. Bleak thoughts do , sometimes, oppress me in the small hours, but no such memories as yours.

        I applaud your current courage in carrying on.

      • MHughes976 on January 15, 2017, 9:25 am

        Well,Yoni, I echo RoHa’s applause. I once knew a veteran of the Royal Navy in WW2 who slowly revealed among friends that he considered himself a war criminal because of a massacre in which he had taken part. He was tormented in his dreams. Yet he was or had become, I still think, a good person. You have achieved more than he did both by breaking out of an iron ring of indoctrination from educational and military sources, far more than most of us have ever done, and by going in public with your new moral insights, which is a way of making such amends as you can. However, I think that Israelis, being human, still have some rights.

      • YoniFalic on January 15, 2017, 10:33 am

        I am probably as ethically challenged as any other bloodied IDF soldier and now reflexively view pre-Cast Lead me and other Israelis as monsters whereas in high school I saw us completely just in our treatment of Palestinians.

        When I describe Israelis as outlaws, I mechanically apply legal logic and definitions.

        My heart is as broken as my mind, but to be honest I believe the same was true before Cast Lead because they had been ruined by indoctrination in Israeli education and culture.

      • MHughes976 on January 15, 2017, 12:22 pm

        In reply to Yoni’s ‘mechanical application’ (you’re entitled to a less unflattering word) and to remarks by ros elsewhere – Jeff McMahan, now Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford, wrote an article a few years ago in the Loyola Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, in which he argues with no ifs or buts that members, military or civilian, of an organisation enforcing an unjust occupation can be attacked without injustice (so I think without ‘terrorism’) by any of those occupied. He mentions Palestine as something he clearly regards as an example of unjust occupation but restricts the Palestinian right of resistance by suggesting, in line with much Just War theory, that it is too unlikely to improve the situation of the occupied people. His statement of the sheer nastiness of unjust occupation is good, I think. His example of just occupation, while admitting its many faults. is Germany 45.

    • Jonathan Ofir on January 14, 2017, 3:22 am

      HarryLaw – it gets even worse, because Israel doesn’t even consider East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank, and there are several other areas like this. I wrote about this a week ago – this is what fools many. In Barak’s alleged ‘generous offer’ in 2000 he wasn’t really oferring 91%. That number didn’t include those ‘additional areas’ already annexed – so it was actually 86%, but it wasn’t even that. Here’s what I wrote:

      How many percentages of the West Bank did Barak actually offer Arafat in 2000? Figures were circulating in mainstream media of a 96% ‘generous offer’ at the time.

      Even the more critical appraisals were sometimes based in this idea.
      In the Guardian newspaper on 14 April 2001, diplomatic editor Ewen MacAskill wrote: “The Israelis portrayed it as the Palestinians receiving 96% of the West Bank. But the figure is misleading. The Israelis did not include parts of the West Bank they had already appropriated.”

      He had a point about the misrepresentation. But it was also a misrepresentation of a misrepresentation. It turns out that even by the Israeli definition it wasn’t 96 but 91%. But it wasn’t really 91% either. And what were those “appropriated areas”?

      I found a rather precise answer in Jeremy Pressman, International Security, vol 28, no. 2, Fall 2003 Visions in Collision, What Happened in Camp David and Taba, Harvard,

      “Three factors made Israel’s territorial offer less forthcoming than it initially appeared. First, the 91 percent land offer was based on the Israeli defnition of the West Bank, but this differs by approximately 5 percentage points from the Palestinian defnition. Palestinians use a total area of 5,854 square kilometers. Israel, however, omits the area known as No Man’s Land (50 sq. km near Latrun), post-1967 East Jerusalem (, and the territorial waters Dead Sea (195 sq. km), which reduces the total to 5,538 sq. km. Thus, an Israeli offer of 91 percent (of 5,538 sq. km) of the West Bank translates into only 86 percent from the Palestinian perspective.

      Second, at Camp David, key details related to the exchange of land were left unresolved. In principle, both Israel and the Palestinians agreed to land swaps whereby the Palestinians would get some territory from pre-1967 Israel in exchange for Israeli annexation of some land in the West Bank. In practice, Israel offered only the equivalent of 1 percent of the West Bank in exchange for its annexation of 9 percent. Nor could the Israelis and Palestinians agree on the territory that should be included in the land swaps. At Camp David, the Palestinians rejected the Halutza Sand region (78 sq. km) alongside the Gaza Strip, in part because they claimed that it was inferior in quality to the West Bank land they would be giving up to Israel.

      Third, the Israeli territorial offer at Camp David was noncontiguous, breaking the West Bank into two, if not three, separate areas. At a minimum, as Barak has since confirmed, the Israeli offer broke the West Bank into two parts: “The Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory except for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem through from [the Israeli settlement of] Maale Adumim to the Jordan River.” The Palestinian negotiators and others have alleged that Israel included a second east-west salient in the northern West Bank (through the Israeli settlement of Ariel). If true, the salient through Ariel would have cut the West Bank portion of the Palestinian state into three pieces. Thus, at Camp David, the total Palestinian land share of the West Bank would have been closer to 77 percent for the first six to twenty-one years. Israel planned to annex 9 percent of West Bank territory while giving the Palestinians the equivalent of 1 percent from pre-1967 Israel. Israel proposed retaining control of 10 percent or more of the Jordan Valley and did not include roughly 5 percent annexation in the total (e.g., Latrun and parts of East Jerusalem).”

      I would dare add a comment to Pressman’s otherwise useful analysis, that the 86% is not a “Palestinian perspective”. It’s just a fact. Those areas were outside 1949 ceasefire lines – period. As well, the additional nearly 10% that were to be ‘temporarily’ under Israeli control for some 6 to 21 years – if to judge by what happened with Oslo accords and Israeli failure to implement withdrawals from ‘temporarily controlled areas’ (to be completed before 2000), this would not have boded well. The Palestinians would have had good reason to believe that this was but a means to get away with more.

      Israel’s foreign minister under Barak, Shlomo Ben Ami, has himself regarded Israel’s security claim over the Jordan Valley as ‘mythical’, and I would thus summarize and say that Barak was not generous, he was disseminating myths, happily picked up by mainstream media. Yet the impression of ‘Palestinian rejectionism’ has been the goal of these myths, and that impression is hard to dispel, because many people just remember the slogans.

      • irishmoses on January 14, 2017, 12:43 pm

        I recently came across a good article describing the negotiations between Olmert and the Palestinians (2008). Much of the same arguments above apply to these later discussions. The key breaking point for the Palestinians was Olmert’s refusal to give up Ariel and a couple of the larger settlement blocks that would make an Palestinian “state” laughable. If Mexico were to offerr us 99 percent of the US but the missing 1 percent was NYC, Washington, DC, and LA, I suspect we would refuse (well, maybe not LA).

      • Maghlawatan on January 14, 2017, 1:33 pm

        A better comparison would be the US with no access to NYC, LA, Miami,DC, Chicago and Seattle and the line of states that includes the Dakotas to Mexico off limits so the country is cut in 2.

      • MHughes976 on January 14, 2017, 7:29 pm

        But no territory was ever offered on a sovereign basis, as far as I know. There was demilitarisation, incomplete control of frontiers and of foreign policy – no alliances, no improvement of the position in the future. Even the right to negotiate was to be negotiated away. The settlement blocs were symbols of subordination rather than the essence of it.

  5. oldgeezer on January 13, 2017, 9:06 pm

    We are dealing with a virulent and violent politicL ideology and people.

    Those people (zionists) think they have the right to decide which of the basic unoversal human rights Palestinian may enjoy. Granting those rights is their perogative andntheirs alone. Anyone who doesn’t agree and tries to remedy the situation is an antisemite or self hating Jew.

    Even Israeli minorities, while granted the majority of basic rights, are not entitled to the full set of rights enjoyed by Jewish citizens.

    Clearly no one of that deviant mindset is about to recognize the right to resist their oppression, colonisation or ethnic cleansing.

    Ergo it must be terrorism for a civilian to employ violence against zionist will.

    Obviously Israel has a great need to hide the reasons that generate Palestinian violence. And just as great a need to convince the world that they are a of some common struggle.

    The world is waking up by degrees and are horrified by the evil acts of that nation.

    It was not terrorism. It was resistance. I feel for the families but they should look to those responsible. The GoI and the barbaric violent zionists. The same folks that their kids were indoctrinated to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity on behalf of.

    • rosross on January 15, 2017, 1:39 am

      We are dealing with bigotry of the worst kind in Zionist Israel, where members of Judaism are held to be superior to all others, and in the case of inconvenient groups like the Palestinians, not just inferior but subhuman.

  6. JLewisDickerson on January 14, 2017, 12:33 am

    RE: [Israel] wants the world to say ‘terror’, and it can’t go fast enough, whilst whitewashing its own terror, even the King David bombing many decades later, as Netanyahu did. When it’s Jewish Zionist terror, there’s no limit to how long we can stretch the ‘ambivalence’. But with Palestinian terror – it’s so reflexive, it takes us only a few seconds to establish it. We’re poised to do it, it’s already assumed – “terror”! Because they are simply “not good people”. ~ Jonathan Ofir

    SEE: “Notes on Nationalism”, by George Orwell, 1945

    [EXCERPTS] . . . All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians [summary, extra-judicial executions – J.L.D.] — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. . .

    . . . The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. And those who are loudest in denouncing the German concentration camps are often quite unaware, or only very dimly aware, that there are also concentration camps in Russia. Huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English russophiles. Many English people have heard almost nothing about the extermination of German and Polish Jews during the present war. Their own antisemitism has caused this vast crime to bounce off their consciousness. In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind. . .

    SOURCE (“Notes on Nationalism”, by George Orwell, 1945) –

  7. Ossinev on January 14, 2017, 9:28 am

    “correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that the term ‘terrorism’ necessarily described violence against civilians, not soldiers”

    I believe that conventionally there are varying and various definitions of”terrorism” as applied by normal sane politicians in normal sane countries/states. The general theme does lean towards the concept of attacking innocent civilians in pursuit of political goals. As you are no doubt aware Zioland is not a normal country or a normal state. For example their in house Zio propaganda team bless them have recently discovered a host of new forms of terror which the rest of the world simply wasn`t aware of ( nb strictly as practiced against their beloved , eternally threatened , eternally victimised , eternally singled out colony )viz “diplomatic terrorism , “economic terrorism” , “cultural terrorism” etc etc yawn yawn. My use of the words “Zioland” and “colony” as opposed to country state probably constitute “verbal” terrorism – I am surprised that it is something which they have not accused poor old John Kerry of perpetrating recently when he floated thye dreaded “apartheid” word in his speeches.

    Zios know best I suppose because would you Adam and Eve it they have never ever never ever committed acts of terrorism against anyone anywhere anyhow since Abraham wandered on to centre stage – wholly justifiable self defence pre-emptive or otherwise , yes , freedom fighting , yes , resistance to oppression , yes , but terrorism no absolutely not. It`s against their religion don`t you know. Only Goys are capable of terrorism.

    • irishmoses on January 14, 2017, 12:33 pm

      The Irish, who invented modern terrorism, found the civilian distinction less than compelling. They burned the mansions of British landowners and the Dublin docks and warehouses used to transport their stolen booty (Irish products and resources) back to Mother England.

      Who’s more guilty a settler living in a Jews-only settlement built on stolen Palestinian land or the poor IDF conscript forced to guard the settlement during his enlistment period? Some civilians are truly innocent bystanders, collateral damage as they say, but that applies to military acts from both sides.

      Good article, brilliant discussion.

    • rosross on January 15, 2017, 1:38 am

      I doubt that violence toward an occupying army could ever be described as terrorism, except by the occupiers. No doubt the Germans and Japanese considered violence toward them from the people they occupied to be terrorism. One man or woman’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.

  8. Hemlockroid on January 14, 2017, 12:13 pm

    Yeah, fact that deceased were uniformed I found
    ‘terror’ label odd. And how many more feet east until the ‘t’ label is dropped? The huge CBS radio station in LA gave Bibi’ s guess that driver was inspired by ISIS was announced in news broadcast NO QUESTIONS ASKED. My daily newspaper in Santa Barbara is not publishing letters-to-editor about Balfour Declaration as owner sponsers free- speech events at Reagan Ranch Center.

    • rosross on January 15, 2017, 1:36 am

      My understanding is that IS or ISIS or ISIL still allows the oil to flow to ISrael. Curious and curioser.

      • Maghlawatan on January 15, 2017, 6:41 am

        Israel gets moat of its oil from Azerbaijan

  9. ClairePhillips54 on January 14, 2017, 5:32 pm

    Did anybody else see the video and the heroic actions taken by the group of IDF solders closer to the camera when the truck plows through their comrades?

    • echinococcus on January 15, 2017, 3:55 am

      What were they doing on other people’s land?
      Your profile says: “fierce supporter of Palestinians rights since 1967” –does that include the most basic right of resisting any occupier by any means available, including armed struggle?

      • Mooser on January 15, 2017, 3:49 pm

        “What were they doing on other people’s land?”

        “Echin” , she is noting the fact that the IDF cadets ran away.

  10. rosross on January 15, 2017, 1:34 am

    When it comes to Israel it is a given that anything said will be propaganda and probably a lie as well.

    When it comes to Israel it is a given that non-Jews commit evil and Jews do not.

    Whatever the truth of the story, it is unlikely to be told.

  11. Ossinev on January 15, 2017, 6:49 am


    I assume you mean this one:

    Yes it looks like a mass stampede (carefully clutching weapons) to get away from their injured/dying colleagues on the ground. Even the ones nearest the camera and distant from the coach are sprinting away. Very brave and most moral.

  12. shaun patrick on January 16, 2017, 11:16 pm

    I thought for many years that one of the worst legacies of George Bush junior was to brand those who disagree with America/Israel as terrorists and to keep emphasizing it. This label which Israel uses at every possible opportunity is their excuse for carrying out massive human rights violations against Palestinians. Its used by Israel to defend its killing, theft of land not to mention the blockade of Gaza which of course is governed by terrorists. In fact the whole brutal occupation of Palestine is contingent on the so called free world buying into Israels terrorist narrative

Leave a Reply