Raze

That’s the point, if the government because authoritarian and ban enough Americans with guns could have the option of outlasting them with guerrilla tactics

It matters because ceding the linguistic ground is the same as ceding land in a war, it is another layer of the battle, a more sophisticated and more important layer. If your enemy defines the narrative, you already lost .

That’s the point. They just use it to label whatever they want to apply power through linguistic manipulation. There are actual precise balanced definitions of crimes under international law but t governments delegitimize it for their own ends because they don’t want to be held to fair standards. So accepting their terrorism labels is just enabling them.

This is the definition of terrorism Where in there is there anything that would apply to suicide bombers that wouldn’t apply to countless US and Israeli operations. Right now the US is blockading Cuba and blockading and bombing Iran, both countries that did not attack it before they did that (making it unlawful aggression), for the stated reason of tormenting the people to achieve political goals. The only reason it’s not considering terrorism is because the US is doing it. If Al Qaeda did this exactly to the US they would be called terrorism. Its literally the same concept of misuse of definitions and lack of precision / double standards far leftists do for social causes, but being done by governments. If the judicial system charged people like this it would be considered an obviously corrupt kangaroo court. Imagine if the only people who get charged with murder were people they didn’t like and if someone they liked committed murder it’s not considered as bad and called something else.

That’s exactly the problem. That’s why terrorism isn’t considered an actual definition in international law. It ends up just meaning what those in power say it is. A suicide bomber blowing up a cafe for the stated aim of causing terror for political aim is called terrorism and used to justify force. The US or Israel drone striking an apartment or blockading a city for the stated aim of “pressure” is called justified. In both cases it’s aggression to cause terror mostly on civilians to force goals. But because one side has more power and a suit and tie we are expected to accept it and accept whatever they say in response to the other side. The US and Israel literally call direct attacks on their occupying soldiers terrorism, meanwhile they can try to starve people and engage in illegal occupation which international law recognizes is as bad or worse as anything they’d define as terror because it has the same justifications and causes the same harm.

That’s arbitrary then. If we use the definition of terrorism equally the US and Israel objectively do more.

Planes are hijacked to get hostages. Israel keeps plenty of civilians prisoner as bargaining chips. Effectively it’s the same, except a state is responsible for one.

If they were around today they would be called terrorists and the media would be discussing how it justifies killing more of them and taking more of their land

They would regularly raid settlements and slash children actually.

That’s not the case if it is a large enough majority, see how the US public turned against apartheid South Africa and eventually pressured big businesses and government to do the same. Also the National Security establishment wants to pivot to Asia so it doesn’t benefit from this. Even israel lobbyists in the US like Mark Dubowitz who are embedded in the government are also warning about it and calling for plans to stop it https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/israel-must-prepare-for-the-possibility-of-financial-warfare/

The UK just sanctioned settlements and nearly a majority of democrats in congress backed a resolution calling to end arm sales to Israel out of fear of their voters as pro Israel democrats are losing primaries right and left. This would only accelerate if Israel continues unpopular actions and as the israel critical youth becomes a larger majority and israel supportive older people become a smaller minority.

It doesn’t have to stop. They just have to say it will be stopped, or even partially stopped, if they don’t listen. This would disempower fanatics in Israel as the public would see their future economic prosperity would be in jeopardy if they continue to be allowed to act unabated.

1) The terror that caused the war on terror happened because of US support for Israel, israel never actually helped with that, their most significant assistance was joining the US in helping Syrian rebels topple Assad and some rebel groups were closer to the terror than Assad, Jake Sullivan himself said the US was on the same side as Al Qaeda. Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Syria had nothing to do with Al Qaeda terror on the US, yet the war on terror took that direction targeting them because it served israel or US hegemony in some form. There is no rational reason for the US to be at war with Iran other than Iran has issues with Israel. Iran has proposed peace deals repeatedly and has only ever directly used force in response to attacks. The US also can’t long term keep attacking it otherwise we’d have economic consequences due to its ability to attack trade and energy infrastructure. The future for US power is in Asia, Israel constantly dragging the US to the Middle East harmed the empire. 2) Young people already soured on israel and don’t have the same pro-Israel news sources, so even if that happens I don’t think it’ll have the same effect. Even if it does long term it will just delay the same trend which already occurred, the US public support for israel after 9/11 was huge but it still ended up turning away after two decades. 3) Without US or European trade Israel would be economically devastated. If the US and Europe start sanctioning them over specific actions related to Palestine it would not be economically feasible to continue it. Israel is a highly economically stratified society with a large amount of debt. It would go the way of Rhodesia if it weren’t for the large amount of international cooperation, and the wealthy segment of the Israeli public wouldn’t accept that, they’d be forced to either vote against it or leave.

The moment the US or Europe gives them the slightest actual pushback they immediately relent historically. They simply can’t sustain what they’re doing unless the US and Europe lets it slide.

Once the boomers aren’t a significant block anymore, it’ll be literally a 80 - 20 issue in the US and Europe. Literally all that has to happen is the US stops vetoing at the UN and Europe follows international law. Let alone if the US starts following it which democrat voters are pushing for now.