Bakary: While some of our views are beginning to converge, we still disagree on the fundamental meaning of terrorism. You equate almost everything under the sun to this phenomenon, whereas I define it differently. A bit of research to find the academically accepted version of this phenomenon unearthed the following: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby -- in contrast to assassination -- the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988). If the United Nations has defined terrorism as is above, how can you equate the slave trade, the holocaust or economic sanctions on Iraq as being equal to this phenomenon? Your misinterpretation of the term is dangerous because it indicates a clear aversion to the fact that what the Palestinian fringe groups with the complicity of the PLO led Arafat practice is the form of terrorism defined by a very authoritative body on this phenomenon while Israeli incursions in response to these ghastly acts are not a clear match. It also clearly highlights your misunderstanding of the issue at hand because without a clear understanding of the term you simply cannot make an objective judgement of the situation. This is one of my contentions with your reasoning here but of course, you are free to make choose your interpretation of this ghastly problem. However, one thing should be clear to all objective analyzers of this problem; i.e., there are clearly bad elements in this struggle who practice terrorism in it's classic sense and hence selfishly not only sacrifice the children of the innocent, but also put their own people in grave danger by 'inviting' the IDF to make incursions which end up humiliating and maiming innocent Palestinians. These incursions, regardless of consequence, are responses to attacks on innocent Israelis, and the only way these acts could have been categorized as above is if the objective of these incursions were expresssedly to target Palestinian citizens. But IDF's actions to this point clearly disprove this your theory. The IDF instead has targeted Palestinian Authority headquarters and the fringe groups involved in the planning and logistics of these ghastly deeds. Don't get me wrong, I disapprove of the side effects of the Jenin operation but to me it was a justified and reasonable incursion. Jenin has been a hotbed of Islamic militia for a long time. This makes it a logical place to attack & probe by virtue of it being the base of the suicide bomber and the planner. It is thus logical for the IDF to move on certain elements in this place. The article, Once Upon A Time In Jenin, clearly shows fighting in this place was intense. Booby trapped buildings and suicide bombers in Red Cross vans are indications of the type of fight this notoriously militant area put up against the IDF. Million dollar question is why would anyone even bother leaving their houses in the face of such a conflict? If anything this article shows the mission of the IDF was not to expressedly target civilians in Jenin. Most of the civilians perished due to the unfortunate side human casualties of war. This is not to say that there were no atrocities and I hope the UN investigators shed more light on this disputed issue, but fact is the mission was obviously not conducted to target innocent Palestinians and hence the departure from terrorism in this context. Before signing off, I would also like to take a look at Habib's piece yesterday which interestingly enough took time to explain what the Zionists are purportedly about. His piece expressedly took a swipe at the Zionists as if to they were behind this operation. But I refuse to subscribe to this view because Israel has a democratically elected government and parliament which consists of the whole range of political views from ultra moderates to hard core fundamentalists (Zionists). Therefore, to lay blame at the doorstep of Zionism and Zionists is a bit misguided. Furthermore, to view the Israeli State as one which is not respectful of the UN or the international community is off tangent, for after all, they are part of the UN and like most civilized countries they do abide by most rules of this body. Furthermore, his points about the Jews thinking they are superior to everyone borders on extreme prejudice. After all, doesn't Islam and all other religions preach the same? I still support the idea of a Palestinian State for this is long overdue but under the present conditions such a proposition is not feasible. The Palestinians should try to do something about the wicked people within their midst who preach hate and not love to their children. IMO, the Israelis have done a better job of raising their young ones. _Yus ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~