In 1985 Pollard passed on satellite pictures that were used by Israel in its bombing of PLO headquarters in Tunis (see here, from CIA's official Assessment of the Pollard Espionage Case). At the time, one US official called it an act of #terrorism! THREAD
https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/iscap/pdf/2007-010-doc1.pdf

The raid killed around 60 people, mostly civilians. On a visit to Tunisia a few weeks later, under Secretary of State John Whitehead used the term "terrorism" to refer to ("deplore") the bombing. That did not go well for him ....

These are the (graphic, terrifying) words used by Kapeliouk as he described the aftermath of the bombing in the pages of Yediot Ahronot at the time:

US Senators were outraged that Whitehead could suggest that Israel's bombing of Tunis was an act of terrorism (when it was clearly, to them, a justified use of force v the real terrorists, ie the Palestinians.)
And so Whitehead APOLOGIZED for his remark in a Letter to the Senate

Israel's bombing of Tunis was condemned by countless nations around the world. In fact, as the UN Security Council debated the issue several member states insisted not only that this bombing was a violation of international law but also that it clearly amounted to state terrorism

The death & destruction were such that the US, in a very unusual move, decided NOT to veto the resolution condemning Israel, and simply abstained. The conditions for this US abstention? That the final resolution make NO reference to state terrorism NOR to civilian casualties

Meanwhile Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, insisted that the bombing WAS justified &, confirming extent to which Israel's position was outside the rest of the international consensus, put forth the following (& insanely broad) understanding of proportionality

All of this is described in much more detail in this article of mine on academia: https://academia.edu/24207548/Compartmentalization_contexts_of_speech_and_the_Israeli_origins_of_the_American_discourse_on_terrorism_
And in my PhD dissertation here: https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00764900/document

Since then we have learned a LOT about the use of #terrorism by Israel, specifically on role played by senior officers in car bombing in Lebanon in early 1980s.

The main rule has NOT changed however: in US discourse, Israel is only the VICTIM of terrorism, NEVER its perpetrator

About the direct, personal role that Eitan, Dagan, Sharon played in the FLLF terrorist car bombing campaign that killed hundreds of civilians in Lebanon in 1980s, and total silence of US media about these revelations, see: https://twitter.com/RBrulin/status/1331610105515798528?s=20

To my knowledge, Whitehead was the last US official to use the term "terrorism" to refer to a use of force by Israel. And as we saw, he was immediately forced by US senators to apologize. This was over 35 years ago.

This is why the FLLF case is so important:
In this case, Israeli officers used car bombs against purely civilian targets, ie acts that undeniably fit any definition of terrorism, as opposed to the bombing of Tunis by Israel's air force, which is a bit trickier definitionally

And yet, EVEN in a clearcut case like the FLLF, the US media & US elected officials have remained (for 3 years now) completely SILENT. US allies simply cannot engage in "terrorism," evidence be damned. "Terrorism" is only something that "our enemies" do.

All of this matters of course because it is PRECISELY in the name of fighting the "evil terrorists" that "we" have been using force all over the world for so many decades, in ways that are often profoundly illegal, immoral & counterproductive. See: https://twitter.com/RBrulin/status/1333406919118249984?s=20

We must find a way out of this deadly cycle. Only way we will do so is by ending silence about "our" (US, ISR, France etc) "terrorism" & by realizing that the DISCOURSE on "T" (& on our uses of force v "T") is pure ideology & profoundly destructive: https://twitter.com/RBrulin/status/1212948096931565569?s=20 END

Note: the point about the US decision to abstain vs use its veto at the UNSC in 1985 is crucial here. Very often, students of the UN limit their analyses to the text of actual UNSC resolutions, ie resolutions that DID pass. And so they never see any mention of "state terrorism"

When you study actual record of the debates on various uses of force by Israel (or South Africa or the US, eg in Nicaragua) you realize that a majority of member states argued for decades that "our" uses of force often amount to state terrorism & should be condemned as such

Of course, the actual texts of the resolutions that DO get passed never reflect such positions because of the existence of the US veto (or, as in the Tunis case, because such positions get deleted in order to get the US to simply abstain)