[IMC] Terrorism and Endless War - http://publici.ucimc.org/?p=51967

[Hayley Nagelberg]

Hello,
I am a student at the University of Illinois and also work with an organization named CAEMRA - the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.  I have been attempting to get in contact with the Public I for a matter of weeks now and have received absolutely no response.  I found the article “Terrorism and Endless War” to contain many flaws of facts and be incredibly biased.  I have submitted a response I wish to have uploaded to the site, so that visitors can see the perspective in the piece is not the only option.  It is truly unprofessional that I have not received a response to my submissions, even to acknowledge confirmation.  I ask you upload my response promptly, so that I do not have to take my article elsewhere.
Hayley Nagelberg
HMNagelberg at gmail.com <mailto:HMNagelberg at gmail.com>

Response:
In her post, “Terrorism and Endless War,” Susan Shoemaker rightly observes that “Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve political ends.  Terrorism can be used by both non-state and state actors.”   However, she then claims that non-state terrorism is about one group tricking another into overreacting. Terrorism is not, as insinuated, a game of reverse psychology; it is the blatant act of instilling fear in another group in order to promote one’s own agenda. 

 

Shoemaker points to events in Palestine in the 1940s to support her erroneous thesis about terrorism.  During WWII, Jews emigrated in vast numbers from Europe to the British-controlled Mandatory Palestine.  Tensions escalated between these Jews and the British authorities due to immigration restrictions. Jewish paramilitary groups such as the Irgun, Lehi and Haganah began working together to counter this fierce entry control.  The Irgun and Lehi together attacked the Kind David Hotel. It was then months after this occurrence that Winston Churchill called for the land to be given to the United Nations.

 

Britain had been in a quandary about the Palestine Mandate due to the massive waves of immigration and the vast toll that WWII had taken on British resources. Britain had been attempting to work out a peace and land agreement with the Arabs and the Jews, however, the Arabs refused to accept any plan that was not a fully unified Palestine.  Shoemaker writes, “if the British had not overreacted to the terrorism, the Zionist rebels would have lost.”  First of all, calling the people who had fled persecution to find a new home ‘rebels’ is mistaken and aggressive.  And insinuating they could have ‘lost’ means that Shoemaker believes the right of the Jewish People to have a safe home of their own is in fact not a right at all but something to be won in a competition of sorts.  The British decision to turn to the UN to resolve the conflict over this land was not simply because of the bombing of the King David Hotel or to strong a response to violence; it was also an attempt to find a peaceful solution to a volatile situation.

 

When addressing the concept of violence and the Islamic State, this author demonstrates clear bias in justifying atrocious acts of terror against both Israel and America and condemning any retribution to such acts of dread as being the catalyst for more acts.  Shoemaker contends that when Western countries are hurt, their supporters call it terrorism, but when those countries hurt others, we wrongly excuse it in the name of defense. When a nation defends itself from inhumane acts of hate, defense must be understood and sanctioned.  Shoemaker quotes a line saying, “Yes, what Islamic State did was cruder. But morally it was the same.”  There is no moral equivalence between the violent acts of a radical organization and acts of self-defense.  Shoemaker’s failure to make this distinction reflects a pernicious double standard that should not be tolerated.

 

In Shoemaker’s worldview, the problem with the attack in San Bernardino, for example, was not the inhumanity of the act, but the U.S. reaction.  The American response is correlated with “xenophobia, right-wing extremism, and hate crimes, spurred by constant corporate media coverage of terrorism as an ‘existential threat’, which it is not.” She says that more U.S. boots on the ground is exactly what ISIS wants.  She overlooks completely the hateful ideology that radical Islamists are taught as toddlers, the despicable acts of horror that they perpetrate on their own people as well as on Western cultures throughout the world, and the inherent right of sovereign nations to fight back.

 

In criticizing Israel for flying warplanes into Gaza, Shoemaker fails to mention the thousands of rockets sent out from Gaza and aimed at civilians in Israel who have mere seconds to run for shelter.  Israeli warplanes do not randomly blow up homes.  The overwhelming evidence is that Israel drops leaflets in Gaza warning of impending attacks at particular locations.  Israel texts people living in the immediate vicinity of these spots to take cover elsewhere.  And Israel sends warning shots that do not kill but provide even more warning that a confrontation is coming.  Hamas, the terrorist organization that runs Gaza, demands that their people stand on the roofs of these targeted buildings so that they are used as human shields.  They know that the Israeli military is the most moral military in the world and takes all measures possible to avoid civilian casualties.  In fact, some say that Israel has taken such extraordinary precautions that other countries may, inappropriately, be held to similar standards in other conflicts. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/attorneys-at-war/article/964911)

 

The uneducated and uniformed blame the West for vile acts of terrorism.  Terrorists who are intent on committing brutal acts of death and destruction should be prepared for a serious, fair and vigorous response.

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/imc/attachments/20160308/c3c0e93d/attachment.html>