(p.12). He shows how the Middle East as an example has been influenced and has influenced European economics, politics, and ideologies. The United States has also interfered in the region, politically, economically and militarily. Todays world, moreover, is densely interconnected (p.14). Therefore, he argues, if reform in needed in the Middle East (and many people there see this need) it is needed in Europe and the United States as well, since we cannot reform one civilization without interfering on the other, when the world is so interconnected. The problem of terrorism, therefore, has to be dealt with by changing structures not only in the Middle East (in his example) but also in reforms inside both Europe and the US, thus impacting positively their interventions in the region. Michael Walzer is analyzed by his definition of terrorism and his differentiation of terrorism and war. In Asads analysis, Walzers definition and differentiation of terrorism and war is done by affirming that terror must include the killing of innocents. This I compare to the U.S. legal definition of terrorism, because it is the same. Walzer also sees terrorism as illegal and immoral, and thus we can classify his thought as realist in the tradition of international relations theory, one of the circulating academic discourses on terrorism in the United States. In Walzer, Asad critiques the contradiction of liberal political culture towards violence: on the one hand, the states need to legitimize organized violence against a collective enemy (including civilians) and, on the other, the humanitarian desire to save human lives (p.16). Walzer proposes an extension of the battle against terror into immigrant communities as a priority, thus equating the work on terrorism with war per se, not attentive to politics as a needed arena for the work, which leads Asad to conclude that violence in liberal political culture is excluded from the arena of politics, only treated as war and through war. The language of terrorism is thus enmeshed within the values of liberal political culture and its self-acclaimed moral superiority. Israeli settlers are thus defenders of liberal democracy against backward Palestinian terrorists. Whenever the story is told, fair and balanced accounts are what are hoped for in liberalism. However, the defense of democracy against terrorism being the story told, balance and fairness have favored Israel in liberal accounts.For Walzer, there is unacceptable violence, within which terror has been put. However, there are times when the unacceptable becomes acceptable in order to defend oneself and ones community. His failure to understand how this very same logic can apply to Palestinians shows how the outright non-acceptance of their terror actions is a particular, partial political position (p.25). The use of the label terrorism as unacceptable violence thus disables any claim to fair and balanced accounts of Palestinian reality; rather, it invites open racist, prejudiced views. Terrorism for Asad participates of a field of discourse that is inextricably linked to how power is functioning today. He says, in response to liberal political culture: My argument, however, is directed against thinking of terrorism simply as an illegal and