IMO, terrorism is the use or threat of violence against non-combatants as a substitute for civic participation with people who disagree. I don't feel compelled to draw distinctions between these acts of domestic terror, and to be honest, I would include more "random" mass shootings under that umbrella (nihilistic terrorism).
The Times says they don't typically review or edit posts once the blogs have been accepted, and so rather quickly responded by removing it. There seems to be a little bit of a tortured distinction here. The premise is essentially the same premise the Likud has been using for many years. Of course, Gordon seems to have made the semantic mistake of using the term "genocide". His logic and (outside of that term) rhetoric are very much in line with official Israeli propaganda. But he'll have to choose his words much more carefully if he wants to be involved in any official hasbara.
Rom, I agree that there is a matter of scale here, and we should certainly keep Syria in mind. But there is no major western power supporting the Syrian govt, no western media devoted to delivering regime talking points.
The United States people were criminally deceived into supporting the Iraq war, and we will rightly be paying for it for decades. It is no excuse (and those of us following Juan for the past decade can claim at least some level of I-told-you-so); it certainly doesn't mitigate the grave damage done to the civilian populations of Iraq. But recognizing this current political disaster in Gaza, which has potential to turn into a larger, US-Iraq type of historical military disaster, doesn't mean we've forgotten the suffering of Iraqis.
Israel still has explicit US support, both military and financial. Israel knows that this support is not currently conditional, and we are seeing the implications of that in real, human terms. It's important for America and the rest of the world to see what this support is buying.
I love the essay, but I'm not optimistic about the prospects of such a push, if the president cared to make it. The effects are simply too long-term, and we are not properly conditioned to care about incremental threats that far away. From a strictly political standpoint, it would probably be cast as a diversion, and an unsuccessful one at that. I'm all for urgent action, but I suspect the best and most effective things he can do at this point are going to be quiet and behind the scenes uses of executive power.
A few hints of racism here - first, it appears gang-related. Gangs are associated with ethnic (non-white) groups, and since often gang violence is concentrated on other gangs (predominantly non-white) there seems to be a lack of urgency to tackle it, at least outside of urban areas. NOLA has been cracking down on gang violence for a while - perhaps this event was some kind of "retribution", but that's just speculation. But media interest will only go so far as perceived media consumer interest goes, and the sad fact is that the suburbs don't really care about gang violence, as long as it stays in the city.
I also think the terror v. crime dichotomy hinges on some ethnic bias. We don't call the Mother's Day shooting a terrorist attack (even though it could fit the bill, if indeed it was some kind of retribution for police crackdowns) because it apparently has nothing to do with Islam. Our use of the word terrorism has evolved to the point where I think it's really that narrow in the minds of many.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Prof. Cole, what would be your foreign policy "dream team" for advising Senator Sanders as a candidate? Would you consider doing it yourself?
IMO, terrorism is the use or threat of violence against non-combatants as a substitute for civic participation with people who disagree. I don't feel compelled to draw distinctions between these acts of domestic terror, and to be honest, I would include more "random" mass shootings under that umbrella (nihilistic terrorism).
The Times says they don't typically review or edit posts once the blogs have been accepted, and so rather quickly responded by removing it. There seems to be a little bit of a tortured distinction here. The premise is essentially the same premise the Likud has been using for many years. Of course, Gordon seems to have made the semantic mistake of using the term "genocide". His logic and (outside of that term) rhetoric are very much in line with official Israeli propaganda. But he'll have to choose his words much more carefully if he wants to be involved in any official hasbara.
Rom, I agree that there is a matter of scale here, and we should certainly keep Syria in mind. But there is no major western power supporting the Syrian govt, no western media devoted to delivering regime talking points.
The United States people were criminally deceived into supporting the Iraq war, and we will rightly be paying for it for decades. It is no excuse (and those of us following Juan for the past decade can claim at least some level of I-told-you-so); it certainly doesn't mitigate the grave damage done to the civilian populations of Iraq. But recognizing this current political disaster in Gaza, which has potential to turn into a larger, US-Iraq type of historical military disaster, doesn't mean we've forgotten the suffering of Iraqis.
Israel still has explicit US support, both military and financial. Israel knows that this support is not currently conditional, and we are seeing the implications of that in real, human terms. It's important for America and the rest of the world to see what this support is buying.
link to humanizepalestine.com
I love the essay, but I'm not optimistic about the prospects of such a push, if the president cared to make it. The effects are simply too long-term, and we are not properly conditioned to care about incremental threats that far away. From a strictly political standpoint, it would probably be cast as a diversion, and an unsuccessful one at that. I'm all for urgent action, but I suspect the best and most effective things he can do at this point are going to be quiet and behind the scenes uses of executive power.
A few hints of racism here - first, it appears gang-related. Gangs are associated with ethnic (non-white) groups, and since often gang violence is concentrated on other gangs (predominantly non-white) there seems to be a lack of urgency to tackle it, at least outside of urban areas. NOLA has been cracking down on gang violence for a while - perhaps this event was some kind of "retribution", but that's just speculation. But media interest will only go so far as perceived media consumer interest goes, and the sad fact is that the suburbs don't really care about gang violence, as long as it stays in the city.
I also think the terror v. crime dichotomy hinges on some ethnic bias. We don't call the Mother's Day shooting a terrorist attack (even though it could fit the bill, if indeed it was some kind of retribution for police crackdowns) because it apparently has nothing to do with Islam. Our use of the word terrorism has evolved to the point where I think it's really that narrow in the minds of many.