of Euro-Western andEuro-Westernizing, individualistic, egotistical societies allows people toremain somehow comfortable in their morally superior, arrogant position. This position is in many ways one ofself-annihilation, for it invites terrorism, as we see today in theIsrael-Palestine conflict, where terror is made into a justification for moreState repression, and so more terror, instead of the liberation of occupiedPalestinian lands. The pathologizationof the other can become violence to the self. Robin Morgan does not stand up to her ownassertion that:Noserious attempt to find a definition [for terrorism] can be made in a vacuum,in the absence of social, political, national, and cultural context. Nor can it be made in the absence ofhistorical context. If only.ExpertKnowledge: Challenge to the Moralistic Assumptions on Terrorism, or New Frameof Terrorism as a Natural Phenomenon?...In ConclusionThistext had as a main objective to expose a cultural difficulty in differentiatingunderstanding from legitimation with regards to the fact of terrorism. In part, this may be due to the violence ofterrorist acts themselves, and certainly these escape any total understanding,which would render them transparent. However, I hope to have shown that this is not the case in the dominantapproaches to the subject, academic or State motivated, and that in order toexplain why terrorism and terrorists are considered as flaws in a human natureby those power brokers, a cultural discourse has to be analyzed. In this work, we have seen that in order forsocial change to happen in the direction of peace and cultural understanding,terrorism and terrorists must be historicized, and much effort needs to gotowards unmaking or deconstructing the discourses that dominate in the West,which place these historical, cultural, political acts in a foundation (humannature, or an interiority) which is created by these same discourses, withterrible consequences. After one startsthe task of historicizing, one thing becomes obvious: the difficulty in differentiatingState terror from non-State terror. Andthis comes about as a necessity, since terrorism in all of its forms isdespicable. However, State terrorism haslived through unlabeled and legitimized. On the other hand, non-State terror has been conspicuously studied,labeled, through a language that finds its causes as pre-determined, in a humannature or interiority. Clearly, humannature in this dominant discourse is only a gene or spiritual pool from whichan individual can be determined to be a terrorist or not. This makes us assume that this discourseneeds an outside for its completion, and this is the outside of history,politics, culture, etc. Moreover, ifthis discourse assumes the importance of this outside, when it assures usthat terrorism needs to be understood in historical context, then what assuresit that human nature or interiority has any relevance to an understanding ofterrorism and terrorists? My answer isthat the dominant discourse on terrorism and terrorists in the Western worldhas a cultural dimension and shows this exactly when it tries to explain theissues as a problem of humanity having to deal with its ills, which is avery legitimated story in the West. Inthis way, terrorism is never a particular reaction to a particular problem, buta universal reaction to an unbalance in human nature. It is as if the problem is always totallyunderstood and controllable. Theoutside then,