Many liberals refer to Yigal Amir, the murderer of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, as a “terrorist” because, as Dr. Hoffman notes, it suits their political agenda against national religious Jews. He was a murderer. If he was a terrorist, so are John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald.
Last year’s murders of three yeshiva youth were members of Hamas, a terrorist organization as defined by the United States.
The murderers of abu Khdeir were acting on their own. They may or may not have been trying to coerce or intimidate a civilian population and influence the Israeli government.
More probable, they were murderers who wanted to revenge the deaths of three Jews, without any plans or intentions to beyond that.
If “terror” means any violent act against a Jew because he is a Jew, or an Arab because he is an Arab, or a homosexual because he is a homosexual, then the man and two minors who burned abu Khdeir to death are terrorists, and their victim’s name must be included among those who are terror victims.
The use of the word “terror” today is so loose that it is beginning to lose meaning. On the other hand, the fear of major news outlets to use “terror” when reporting on Hezbollah and Hamas is frightening.
In the case of abu Khdeir, his name on the plaque of terror victims may be technically correct but seems morally wrong. More simply stated, it may be kosher, but it stinks.
More interesting is his family’s reaction to the news that his son’s name is on the plaque.
His father said:
My son is gone, my son was burned and we were burned with him. I want justice and not honor. What good is it going to do me if they carve his name in stone?
Sometimes, there really is no difference between Jews and Arabs in Israel, especially when it comes to blood that is spilled like water.
Abu Khdeir’s father added, “What good is it going to do me if they carve his name in stone?”
Thousands of families who have lost their children and parents to terrorists would same the same thing.