Comments by "Jean" (@Jean-rg4sp) on "Palestine's "Right" To Resist Occupation u0026 The Huge Money Problem Of International Organisations." video.

I dispute Saul Takahashi's claim that "there is no international definition of terrorism and there never could be" (4:34). I am not a lawyer but I would recommend Saul check any reputable international law textbook. I suggest for example Law, J. and Martin E. A. (2009). Oxford dictionary of law. Oxford University Press for a definition: "terrorism n.The use or threat of violence for political, religious, or ideological ends." In the case of an occupied people's right to resist occupation by qualifying this definition by adding the words against civilians to read, the use or threat of violence against civilians ...
2
@knowledgeispower6726 In which case, Saul remains mistaken as the book you quote is stating that there is indeed a definition of terrorism, in fact several, which I suggested by qualifying the definition I myself quoted from the Oxford University Press edition. I would reject the notion in the Lewis book from which you quote which says terrorism can mean anything as "subjectively defined" in the context of a "particular society" such as, for example, a racist or apartheid state or by the police or people's court in such a state. Do you not see the danger of such a definition? I believe it is simpler than this when seen in the context of international law where rogue states cannot define terrorism to suit their own ideology.
1
@ExtraDryingTime No, I do not agree that the term terrorism can equally apply to war and it is not applied to war by anyone. Clearly what is implied in the Oxford book's definition is the use or threat of force by a group within a state and not belligerent diplomatic language between countries or war between countries. Once you add the target to be civilians, it can make a difference. In the case of war between countries then targeting civilians become war crimes. Targeting civilians within a country to advance the political ends of a group within that country is what is meant by terrorism. Your example of Nelson Mandela does not help illustrate your point about war being terrorism. He could have met the definition of being a terrorist if his organization, the ANC, had targeted civilians and not only police and military. Sure. Some terrorists do make a transition to politics rather than terrorism as a method of achieving their goals. This happened recently in the Northern Ireland.
1