1. William F.

Buckley begins his introduction of Benjamin Netanyahu by discussing his

brother’s role in Operation Entebbe. Please do a cursory search of that event, what took
place?
a. How do you think this might have contributed to Benjamin Netanyahu’s career?
2. Buckley quotes Netanyahu’s definition of terrorism as violence “against innocent people,
or non-agents of the state”. Netanyahu also wrote that Israel could never considered
terrorists by that definition. Is Netanyahu’s elaboration (4:50-6:46) satisfactory?
a. How does he rhetorically exonerate Israel of claims of terrorist action in Deir
Yassin or the King David Hotel? (Refresh your memory of them by looking them
up!)
b. Please do a cursory reading about the bombing of Dresden, perhaps one of the
most infamous bombing raids committed by the Allies during WWII. Could this
have been mentioned to complicate their understanding of terrorism? Why is it
not?
3. What is the problem with the definition of terrorism offered by the Saudi ambassador,
Mr. Burudi?
a. How is Netanyahu’s definition different?
4. Why is Claude de Kemoularia defending the United Nations’ record on the issue of
condemning terrorism? Why does Buckley quip, “Libya voted for it also?” at 10:07?
How does the United Nations often organize committees in ways that leave it open to
criticism?
a. Netanyahu insists that the Big Seven (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
UK, US) agreed in Tokyo that “nothing justifies terrorism.” How is this different
than Burudi’s statement?
5. Claude de Kemoularia describes an example in South Africa of a militant against
apartheid. Buckley and Netanyahu ask de Kemoularia that, if he agrees terrorism has no
excuse, “why discuss the grievance?” Buckley connects this to Sirhan Sirhan (the
Palestinian assassin of Robert Kennedy) who committed his act of terror in 1968 due to
frustration with American policy in the Middle East. What does this exchange reveal
about the difficulty regarding the debate surrounding terrorism?
6. Netanyahu struggles with the Beirut bombing because American soldiers were there on a
peacekeeping mission. Is this terrorism under Netanyahu’s definition? Why is this
difficult to define?
7. Why is “publicity through terrorism” a unique characteristic of international terrorism?
What is the purpose, in de Kemoularia’s view?
a. By the time of the interview, 4,000 people had died from terrorist acts. What does
de Kemoularia believe is the primary effect of terrorism, beyond death? How does
Buckley also calibrate the effects of terrorism? (26:00-28:15)
8. Netanyahu proposes that nations adopt a “no concessions policy”. What does Netanyahu
mean by this?
a. (Aside: if anyone is curious about the case Netanyahu and Buckley mention in
29:25, please see the Jibril Agreement.)
9. What are some of de Kemoularia’s criticisms of the US bombing of Libya in 1986
(retaliation for the 1986 West Berlin discotheque bombing, where American servicemen
spent time and two died)? What is the tension between France and America for this
action?
10. Michael Kinsley asks about the King David Hotel, asserting that the Irgun knew that
civilians would likely die and therefore should be held responsible for their actions. What
is Netanyahu’s response?
a. How does Netanyahu insist that Israel approaches contemporary Israeli guerrilla
fighters?
11. What is the debate regarding the assassination of political figures (using Ghaddafi,
specifically, as the example)? Each man approaches this question differently. What do
each say?