Q&A: A Terror Attack Against Soldiers Versus a Terror Attack Against Civilians
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
A Terror Attack Against Soldiers Versus a Terror Attack Against Civilians
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Is a terror attack against soldiers less severe than a terror attack against civilians? Is it even considered a terrorist act at all?
Best regards,
Answer
Yes, because without a declaration of war it is impossible to conduct hostile military actions. But this is a question of international law. Morally speaking, in my opinion the Palestinians are not in the right, and therefore this is terrorism. If in their view they are in the right, then according to their approach it is legitimate.
Discussion on Answer
Yes, it is a terrorist act. It is less severe than killing civilians.
The definition of terrorism that you brought here is of interest to researchers of warfare and security. I am dealing with a moral and normative question.
Which of the two questions were you answering “yes” to? And what is the answer to the second question?
Regarding what you said afterward, that from your perspective this is terrorism: I saw online that the definition of terrorism is the use of hostile acts against a certain population in order to instill fear in that population for the sake of achieving some political goal. Is harming soldiers also considered instilling fear in a certain population? Or since the civilians of that population feel safe as long as they are not identified as soldiers, there is no instilling of fear here.