I begin this commentary by looking up the word terrorism.
One dictionary defines terrorism as follows:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Similarly, the U.S. military says terrorism is:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Practically speaking, however, terrorism is defined differently in everyday American life. Terrorism is synonymous with Muslim and Arab extremism, and affiliated persons, organizations and nations. The threats they pose are either real, perceived, or purely conjured up. The terrorist-as-enemy-of-America is like the bogeyman of Red Scare fame, ubiquitous yet elusive, and you can't quite put your finger on them because they're tricky. The definition of terrorism itself can serve as a political weapon--a form of terrorism itself, dare I say. Call someone a terrorist, or a communist or socialist or supporter thereof, and you delegitimize everything that person has to say. You marginalize everything that person represents.
In these days of extremism at home, we cling to a narrow, selective definition of terrorism, while ignoring blatant forms of terrorism in our own midst. In doing so, we can't see the forest for the trees.
A progressive voice for peace, Rabbi Michael Lerner, was almost certainly a victim of terrorism on the night of May 2 and early morning of May 3. Right-wing Zionists attacked his home and threatened his life. The attackers attached posters to his door and property with a strong glue. And the posters attacked Lerner personally, as well as liberals and progressives as being supporters of terrorism and "Islamo-fascism." They posted a bumper sticker which read "fight terror--support Israel" next to a caricature of Judge Goldstone, the South African jurist who issued a UN report on Israeli human rights violations during the military campaign in Gaza. The Goldstone report called on Israel to do an independent investigation into Operation Cast Lead, and punish those elements of the IDF who were responsible. The report was denounced by rightists in the U.S. and Israel as "anti-Semitic" and "pro-terror."
The crime against Rabbi Lerner came after a week of Lerner and his staff at Tikkun magazine receiving hate mail. These acts stemmed from Tikkun's announcement that if South African Zionists made good on their threat to prevent Judge Goldstone from attending his grandson's bar mitzvah, Lerner would hold the bar mitzvah in the Bay Area instead. Tikkun is presenting an award to Goldstone next year for his commitment to human rights in Israel, and apparently some people don't like that.
Although Lerner has received death threats and hate mail over the years, this recent attack is troubling because they targeted his home. "By linking Lerner to alleged terrorism, they provide for themselves and other extremists a 'right-wing justification' to use violence against Lerner, even though Lerner has been a prominent advocate of non-violence", Tikkun said in an official statement. Lerner speaks out against violence everywhere around the world, including Palestinian acts against Israelis. But when he and groups such as J Street advocate a pro-peace solution, they are branded as anti-Israel. This comes as a group of over 3,000 European Jews signed a petition criticizing Israeli settlement policies, and warning of the dangers of systematic support for the Israeli government.
Turning the page a bit, we are witnessing state-sponsored terrorism within our borders, most prominently coming from the state of Arizona. Arizona's legislature passed--and the governor signed into law--a bill which makes it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. The law allows police to stop anyone with a "reasonable suspicion" of being undocumented, and demand proof of citizenship. Those who cannot produce the documentation face arrest, a $2,500 fine, and 6 months in jail.
I submit that Arizona's anti-immigrant law is nothing more than Juan Crow racism, a codification of xenophobia, specifically designed to intimidate Latinos regardless of their citizenship status. Although its proponents will tell us it does not racially profile, the law is part of the mix that makes people with Spanish surnames feel unwelcome and unsafe, in an environment of heightened anti-Latino violence and discrimination. After all, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a hate group with ties to the eugenics movement and white supremacists, assisted in drafting the bill. An honest, vigorous debate on immigration and border security is one thing. Bad people passing a law with cruel intentions is another.
But Arizona did not stop there. They are banning ethnic studies in the schools, characterizing such programs as "ethnic chauvinism" and "high treason." Under the policy, schools will lose state funding if they offer courses that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." And the Arizona Department of Education is removing teachers with heavy accents.
Ethnic Studies were part of the civil rights movement--born in the late 1960s and early 1970s at a time of increased cultural awareness among people of color--to counter a Eurocentric perspective of history. State governments in Arizona and Texas feed into white extremist antipathy towards diversity by denigrating and eliminating people of color in their school curricula, "taking the country back" so to speak, via the textbooks.
A vibrant democracy should allow for differences of opinion, free from demonization and threats of violence against those who disagree. We may have differences of opinion with people, even those within our own family, but we don't resort to terrorist attacks against them.
David A. Love is the Executive Editor of BlackCommentator.com, and a contributor to The Progressive Media Project and theGrio. He is based in Philadelphia, and is a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Pennsylvania Law School. His blog is davidalove.com.
Follow David A. Love on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidalove
Sam Asher: Pro-Peace IS Pro-Israel
Dershowitz notes that many terrorist organizations hate Israel simply for its Jewish character. He is right, but the reality of the occupation is that it provides these terrorists a tool for recruitment and radicalization.
But, expanding those reprehensible actions to terrorism is a grave danger to civil liberties.
Making a death threat is a crime under different statutes. Damaging private property is a crime under different statutes.
Let's not expand the definition of terrorism. Expand it as you suggest, and soon we'll be on a slippery slope where we have a thought crime that saying anything bad about a government official would have us all--on the Left and the Right--labelled as terrorists.
What does "state sponsored terrorism" do to advance the cause of civil rights? Why bring up a fruitless argument when there are solid constitutional grounds to oppose the Arizona immigration law?
Why not save the "state sponsored terrorism," a dubious concept at best, for something that it might conceivably apply to in the future?
Well, wouldn't we all but before you talk about liberal apologist revisionist claptrap, lets look at what the Texas School Board did to history:
1. Removed References to Thomas Jefferson. And explain to your kid what they fluinked the American History exam that might have gotten them into Harvard)
2.Emphasize Religion as opposed to the concept of Separation of Church and State (once again, explain why you kid couldn't get into a good university because their education was found wanting)
3. "refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.â€" (Explain to your child why about not making a good college again)
4.According to The Dallas Morning News "high school students will learn about leading conservative groups from the 1980s and 1990s – but not about liberal or minority rights groups."
5.""Members voted to polish up references to the American 'free enterprise' economic system and removed most mentions of 'capitalism,' a word that board member Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, said has a negative connotation.""
6.Refusal to mention Tejanos also died at the Alamo
7.Emphasize this is a "Christian" nation.
What was that about liberal apologist revisionist claptrap?
Human rights are relevant to terrorism as concerns both its victims and its perpetrators. The concept of human rights was first expressed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which established "recognition of the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of whole members of the human family." in the course of their apprehension and prosecution.
With respect one another, respect one other rights followed Universal law; All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment..
The questioning about immigration status or citizenship can only be carried out under this law after a person has been stopped for traffic violations or committing a crime.
By the way....you said the state law, "Makes it a crime to be in the US illegally." Well freakin duh. It should be a crime to be in the US illegally. What should illegal acts merit? Hugs, cookies and lavish praise?
The author is still lying.
Its already a crime to be here under federal law. So I guess the whole US is a terrorist state? Further under federal law they have to have the documents.
I didn’t agree with the Goldstone Report, and I’m horrified and sorry to hear of the trouble Judge Goldstone and Rabbi Lerner were faced with. Whether their views are right or wrong they or their family should not have to face individual terror.
Regarding the recently passed law in Arizona, I agree with you wholeheartedly; that is State Sponsored Terrorism and I am appalled that 10 other States are vying to get in on this form of terror. This appears to be terrible time in American History where bigotry seems to be all the fashion. No longer is that small part of human nature (to fear what we don’t know or haven’t before experienced) to be overcome, but rather is glorified and encouraged.
The Arizona law is clearly Unconstitutional, and at least pedantic. The Federal Law makes it illegal for folks to be in this Country without proper documentation anyway. This is just a step backward for the whole nation. Arizona should not be out front of the Nation trying the lead us in anything. This is a dastardly law with a dastardly intent.
My question is this: How is the Federal Government allowing the Arizona schools to get away with the banning of ethnic studies? The way that policy is worded makes it sound like studying anything but ‘white’ America is treason. The Federal Government should be able to see past that wording to the real intent. Why hasn’t the ACLU gotten involved?
Compared to "terrorism." He's a "terrorist." How do we know that? He "associates" with people who attend a certain mosque that has sent money to Palestinians. Really? Through Unicef? Is that illegal to give money to Unicef? No, but still ..... That's the level of absurdity in today's discussion about "terrorism." Let's go back to crimes and the accused, which gives us some hope that we can be fair.
Anyone with half a brain can read what the law actually says. The officer has to, in the beginning have Probable Cause (P.C.) to even pull someone over or to detain them on the streets.
To my Liberal Progressive friends. What part of that don't you get?
Did you bother to read the law before deciding to school us on it?
Since the Arizona law also makes it a crime to be in the country illegally, punishable by fine and up to 6 months in jail, probable cause to a police officer has only to be that they believe the person to be an illegal immigrant and they can stop them... why??? Because Arizona made it a crime to be in the country illegally.
Ergo... police officers in Arizona need no justification to stop someone. Here's how it works. If I were a police officer and I just wanted to harass mexicans.. I could do it. I would simply stop them, because it is a CRIME to be in the state of Arizona illegally, arrest the person (regardless of whether or not they are illegally in the U.S.), and cause the indivdual a lot of headache and heartache... just because I could.
Unfortunately, you people on the right, unlike us "progressives" are incapable of complex thought and can't see the more sinister implications of a law like this.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2010/05/04/how-do-we-characterize-a-person-as-a-terrorist/
Excerpts from the "Confessions of a human bomb from Palestine":
"Those who listen to the enemy propaganda should ask themselves one question: what does it take to make an ordinary boy or girl into a human bomb? In a different life, in ordinary circumstances, all of us could have been quite ordinary boys and girls. Do not mistake the human bomb for anything other than an ordinary human being forced by circumstance to act in an extraordinary fashion.
"The value of any individual is not what is at issue; it is rather the value of our future as a people that must be supreme, overriding all other considerations in all of our hearts. What good is it to Palestine if any one of us prospers or survives if our people as a whole cease to exist? What good is the illusive freedom of one individual when the Palestinian people exist in conditions that are far worse than slavery? Unless we can act selflessly, for the good of the cause rather than pursuing individual goals and ambitions, our cause will fail.
see next:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/whoisfav.htm
Terrorism is a means to an end; It is used by the weak and the mighty -- individuals and governments alike -- for different reasons. War will not eradicate it, but fostering positive relationships will. It begins with listening.
Because the label of "terrorism" could be justifiably used in many many scenarios. The foreclosure crisis is an act of terrorism, for instance. Or the bank bailout was an act of terrorism because of the threat of "too big we'll fall on you" banks.
So...on second thought, and in conclusion, maybe we should expand the definition of "terrorism."