Based even on a the short interchange among me, Delirium, Viajero, who I think I know pretty well by now -- plus OneVoice :-) ...

I would say that the key issue is whether a given act is "justified" or should be "condemned". Some people use the word "racism" to mean unjustifiable race discrimination (as when an evil majority exploits an innocent minority) -- as opposed to justifiable race discrimination (as when an exploited innocent minority gets extra goodies like preference in being hired for a job or admitted to a college (see affirmative action). Likewise, some people used the word "terrorism" to mean unjustifiable violence against civilians -- as opposed to justifiable violence against a "legitimate military target".

For the racism issue, it hinges on whether the discrimination is justified. For terrorism, it hinges on whether the violence is justified.

We Wikipedians need to step back far enough from these articles and discussions to be able to identify and distinguish our own opinions and judgments from those of others. In particular, we'll have to avoid assuming that any one of us is in touch with the Universal Standard of Judgment. (Okay, everyone but me, heh, heh :-)

No, even I have to do this: it's the promise we all make when we click that "Save page" button!

Uncle Ed

Original rant at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_co nflict_2004#The_Justification_Issue