Why is the term terrorism fraught with emotion when applied to Israel and Palestine?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

If the word "terrorism" is pejorative around the world, it is even more fraught with emotion when applied to Israel and Palestine. Israelis tend to associate the origin of modern terrorism with the rise of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its leader Yasser Arafat (1929–2004). The conventional narrative is that Palestinians began using terrorist attacks against Israel when it became evident that Arab conventional forces could not defeat the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The PLO was composed of many diverse violent extremists, and it fractured into a variety of Palestinian terrorist groups. Hezbollah became part of the equation after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the IDF's subsequent treatment of Lebanese Shi'ites. The other dominant terrorist group, Hamas, arose in a rebellion in the late 1980s. Several smaller groups, such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, operate in alliance with the two dominant groups. All groups murder innocent defenseless people because they are not strong enough to fight Israel's military. Move to the other side of the argument, and the logic is quite different. Terrorism did not originate with Palestinians? it began with two Zionist organizations in the 1930s—the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the more militant Stern Gang. The future Israelis abandoned terrorism only when they turned to conventional fighting in Israel's War of Independence (1948–1949). From this perspective, Israelis use terrorism as a tool for repression. Proponents of this argument point to Israel's everyday
treatment of Palestinians and the massive casualties inflicted by the better armed IDF. Organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah have military wings to resist the IDF, but their main focus is health, social welfare, and education. Israel's continued expansion into Palestinian territories is made possible by the IDF. As casualties mount, the differences between the two perspectives grow heated. There are calmer voices, but it is difficult to hear rational positions. Hardliners on both sides control the debate. For example, Hamas will not abandon its charter, a document calling for the elimination of the state of Israel. Similarly, expansionists in Israel advocate for removing Palestinians from their homes and replacing them with Israeli settlers. It is difficult to hear the voice of reason in such an environment.