Charter 3 Can terrorism ever be justified?

just tool of the weak

The concern of what is right and what is wrong

plays a great role in the life of the society, the use of the words like «acceptable», «unacceptable» (by politicians and diplomats) in order to conceal the uncertainty and vulnerability of judgments.

There is a practice to judge actions not only from right/wrong side, but also as «doing as everyone does».

is necessary to be consistent to make persuasive and confident

judgments on wrong and right.

The humanity needs to elaborate a general principle of right and wrong –literal, clear, specific, resistant to self-interest and self-deception.

and not self-defeating) to the end of getting and keeping

people out of bad lives, defined in terms of deprivation or frustration with respect to the great goods. Principle of Humanity judges actions, policies, structures by their consequences.

Principle of Humanity has nothing in common with the Principle of Utility or Greatest Happiness, as the first one is not abstract and prohibits victimization.

«the end justifies the means». It says: «the end and

the means justifies the means».

It has the deepest foundations in human nature as the principle intersects with Kant’s uninstructive imperative «treat each person never only as a means, but also as the end» and determines what truth moral principles and moral judgments can have.

than war, social and political in aim, illegal, and prima

facie wrong since it is indeed killing, maiming and destruction”. This definition include state terrorism. (Israeli state terrorism).
VS
Tamar Meisels: “Terrorism … is the intentional random murder of defenseless noncombatants, with the intent of instilling fear of moral danger within a civilian population as a strategy designed to advance political ends”.

(including item about

killing innocents)

Terrorism in intentionally killing innocents is not different from war.

Some terrorism is response to ethnic cleansing or another great violations of a people.

Terrorism that kills innocents and has the support of the Principle of Humanity is directed to the saving of other innocents and also innumerable other victims.

citizens, private citizens?

Innocents are persons not guilty of a crime

or offence, not responsible for an event yet suffering it, free from moral wrong. (innocents, innocent civilians, innocent noncombatants)

Civilians, noncombatants, citizens, and private citizens can instigate killings.

Conclusion: objection to terrorism must have to do with innocents rather than civilians, noncombatants, citizens, and private citizens.

not actively engaged in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Innocents are people

not themselves killing or wounding Palestinians.

Innocents = noncombatants

Those who instigate killers, pay for them, defend them, profit from them are not innocents.

The innocents are those who do not intentionally somehow take forward the project of neo-Zionism or choose to benefit from it when they could do otherwise. There are fewer innocents than is ordinarily supposed.

terrorism.
The definition of terrorism in terms of killing innocents depends

on the comparison with war.
There are several additions to the definition of terrorism:
1 terrorism kills innocents intentionally – thus is not thereby different from war
2 terrorism – is a response to ethnic cleansing or other violations
3 terrorism, that kills some innocents is directed to the saving of other innocents

War and terrorism: correlation of deaths of innocents?

three or four times as many.

There are victims of earlier

neo-Zionism - those, who were killed or harmed by ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Palestinians have been deprived by neo-Zionism of every human good.

What is neo-Zionism and anti-semetism?