[jameshilliard]

> What is the definition of a terrorist and why does the destruction and genocide in Gaza not fall under that term?

There is certainly no genocide in Gaza, the destruction is clearly the end result of a war started by Hamas. In fact Hamas did have genocidal intent in their attacks on Oct 7th but did not have the military capability to carry out that intent. Israel on the other hand clearly has that military capability but not the intent.

> Cite your sources when you define terrorism, please.

There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Obviously that cause problems. [0]

> Also, are you just patently unaware? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

It's a vague expression without a clear definition.

[0] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-49238-9_...

[handfuloflight]

"There is certainly no genocide in Gaza" -- you are directly contradicting a formal UN Commission of Inquiry finding from September 2025. This is not an opinion piece or a fringe report. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory concluded after a two-year investigation that Israel committed four of the five genocidal acts defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and that genocidal intent was established through direct statements from Israeli leadership including the Prime Minister, President, and Defence Minister. Your claim that Israel lacks genocidal intent is directly contradicted by the Commission's finding that genocidal intent was "the only reasonable inference" from both the statements of Israeli leadership and the pattern of conduct of Israeli forces. [0]

You said there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. So let me use the official definition from the United States government.

The US State Department definition under 22 USC 2656f(d) defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." [1]

The US domestic terrorism statute under 18 USC 2331(5) defines it as activities that "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." [2]

You say there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then said nothing to explain how you applied the term with such confidence to the Iranian government in your original post. By your own admission, you invoked a contested label selectively against one state while exempting another. That is a political preference dressed up as a principled argument, not anything of rigorous analysis.

Now apply that to Gaza. The same UN Commission found that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, deliberately destroyed healthcare and education infrastructure, imposed starvation conditions, and directly targeted children. That is premeditated. It is politically motivated. It is violence against noncombatants. By the U.S. government's definition, it fits.

On Greater Israel, calling it "vague" does not explain away the fact that sitting members of the current Israeli government have explicitly stated their intent to annex Palestinian territory.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said at a Jerusalem Day rally four days ago: "The time has come to finally erase the lines that separate Areas A, B, and C. The entire Land of Israel is ours." He also declared the war "must end with the expansion of the borders of the State of Israel" and called on Netanyahu to order the IDF to prepare for "full occupation of the Gaza Strip" and establish Israeli settlements there. [3]

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir stated from the Temple Mount: "Conquer all of Gaza, declare sovereignty over the entire Strip, eliminate every Hamas member, and encourage voluntary emigration. This is the only way." [4]

These are not fringe backbenchers. These are cabinet ministers in the current Israeli government. This is declared policy, not a vague expression.

You still have not answered why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.

[0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11... [3] https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-896309 [4] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/on-temple-mount...

[jameshilliard]

> The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory

The UN(which is itself a party that has perpetuated the conflict through mismanagement of the UNRWA) has essentially zero credibility in regard to anything involving Israel[0].

> You say there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then said nothing to explain how you applied the term with such confidence to the Iranian government in your original post.

The Iranian government is engaged in both direct and indirect terrorism throughout the region by virtually all commonly used definitions including the ones you listed. They have directly attacked virtually all countries in the region. They are driven by dangerous ideologies of Martyrdom and Jihad.

> The same UN Commission found that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, deliberately destroyed healthcare and education infrastructure, imposed starvation conditions, and directly targeted children. That is premeditated. It is politically motivated. It is violence against noncombatants. By the U.S. government's definition, it fits.

A highly biased UN commission claiming something doesn't actually make it true.[1] Israel does not have a policy of deliberately targeting civilians, although in a war there is often collateral damage. This is why properly analyzing intent is so important.

> These are not fringe backbenchers. These are cabinet ministers in the current Israeli government. This is declared policy, not a vague expression.

Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich are highly unpopular in Israel and have been largely excluded from making war related decisions, Israel has a parliamentary system of government which makes it easier for extremists to get elected than in a system of government like the United States, their statements should certainly not be taken as official Israeli government policy.

> You still have not answered why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Legally they are not a party to the NPT[2]. From a practical standpoint they are a small country facing existential threats to their existence so it's not surprising they would want to have nuclear weapons as a deterrence.

[0] https://unwatch.org/pillay-commission/

[1] https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/UN-Watch-Rebu...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...