During the debate between Mr. Beinart and Professor Lax, the two clashed over whether Hamas’ actions should be described as terrorism. Beinart argues that the term terrorism is "racially loaded." However, terrorism has a clear, simple definition: it is the intentional use of violence or the threat of violence... to instill fear and achieve political, ideological, or social goals. Shouting down speakers to silence them, occupying buildings to force a policy change, or threatening regents' homes to pressure compliance—these all qualify as terrorism. In all honesty, we see terrorism on many college campuses.show more

That's right. Terrorism has a legal definition. It has nothing to do with race. The U.S. formally designates Hamas as a terrorist group, not Palestinians, so it is simply false to claim that is race-based. There are also imporant legal consequences to correctly defining a group as terrorists.

It’s been downright horrifying to see American universities fuel a domestic terrorist movement. I can’t believe how far protesters have crossed the line and how they were actively backed by faculty and administrators either through fecklessness or by design.

When they have no argument, they scream "racial bias". They are counting on the other person to back down, rather than being labeled the great sin of the left: a racist. Totally disingenuous and manipulative

The Universities are Breeding grounds for Terrorists

By saying “terrorism” is racial loaded is he trying to ague that this didn’t happen after America was attacked in 9/11?

Your definition is missing a primary component! It's the purposeful use of violence or threat of violence against CIVILIANS to achieve political or social goals.

Beinart shouldn’t be listened to. He adds nothing.

jfc

I'm constantly baffled by the willingness to let racists have important concepts. We shouldn't do that, racists suck!

It is so sad how deranged the pro-terrorism arguments are. Sad and scary.