A Response from An Expert on Terrorist Activities:

By Dr. Stephen Gale

Professor Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania

There seems to be some concern about how to categorize the killings at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh on October 28, 2018. Many media sources, for example, have been using the generic label “hate crime” as a description for the action. The FBI apparently agrees with the “hate crime” — or, at least it seems to be following up on the investigation as if it were a “hate crime”. And, judging at least by the little that has been made public about the shooter from his record on the social media, he certainly appears to hate Jews — and has hated them for quite some time.

The problem with this label is that it puts a man who consciously set out to kill Jews — and then succeeded in killing eleven — in the same category as those who spray paint swastikas on synagogue walls. To say the very least, there seems to be a major disconnect here: whatever we may think of those who paint swastikas on synagogues, there’s no doubt that there’s a big difference between someone whose choice of weapon is a can of spray paint and one whose choice is a weapon is designed to really kill.

Both the spray-painter and the shooter are motivated by some level of “hate.” But as with all emotions, “hate” comes in different flavors and different degrees. Imagining how the shooter thinks takes a very different sort of imagining.

Whatever else we may think about the attack on Tree of Life Synagogue, it certainly required more than the sort of motivation that precipitates spray painting. If nothing else, a shooter has to be prepared either to die in the action or to be apprehended, tried, and convicted of a pretty serious crime. The shooter is obviously prepared to put a great deal on the line. In other similar cases, we’ve seen that the motivation goes beyond those immediately targeted, beyond one synagogue. It’s about a need to make the entire society aware of the “horrors” caused by some group — and about the need to begin changing society to follow through with what the shooter has begun.

There’s no doubt that what happened at the Tree of Life Synagogue was a “hate crime”. But far more than this, it was an act of terrorism, an action designed to have Americans seriously question whether Jews are capable of being part of American society — or whether they are and always will be outsiders. As with Timothy McVeigh’s attack in Oklahoma City, the killings in Pittsburgh were meant to represent more than the place of one synagogue in one city. By putting everything on the line, the shooter was calling for a complete change in America’s perspective on the position of Jews in American society.

As with crime in general, the actions are about individuals — about the need for more money personally or the need to have the world recognize your personal feelings about a group. But the actions at Tree of Life Synagogue were more than just personal. The killings were also intended to initiate changes with respect to how Jews are regarded as part of American society.

Terrorism may be defined as actions that are likely to bring about substantial political and social changes. In many cases, the actions may simply involve threats rather than actually engaging. In this case, Tree of Life is certainly an anti-semitic act of terrorism.