What Is Terrorism?

TruthNews Commentary, April 5, 2002

The 57-member Organization of Islamic Conference meeting in Malaysia issued a statement Monday condemning what it called "state terrorism" exercised by Israel and reaffirming the continuing support of Islamic states for the Palestinian people and for Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad had opened the three-day conference by calling for an agreement that any attack on civilians be labeled an act of terror. He said that such acts include the September 11 attacks in the United States, the suicide bomb attacks by Palestinians, and similar attacks by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. His speech was rejected by the delegates who said Palestinian suicide bombers should not be considered terrorists because they are fighting "state terrorism."

The statement issued by the Islamic Conference commits the cardinal sin of justifying the means based on the ends. In other words, suicide bombings of civilians are justified because Muslims don't like Israel, and since terrorism is bad, suicide bombings are not terrorism. This leads to the axiom, as some one else put it, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

But terrorism is a means, not an end, and can't be redefined based on the end. In the west, we reject terrorism, even for righteous causes. Which brings us to the question, what is terrorism? We can draw one definition from U.S. law. As contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d), Congress defined terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

The operative terms here are "premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatants." A combatant is essentially equivalent to a soldier, so a noncombatant is anyone who is not a soldier. However, in its annual report on terrorism issued on April 30, 2001, the State Department expanded this definition of noncombatant by stating, "For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty. We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere."

Although one could quibble with the exact definition, it's clear that terrorism is not defined based on its objective but rather on its nature. Deliberate killing of civilians is terrorism. However, we should note that the definition also contains the words "by subnational groups or clandestine agents." This conforms to our general perceptions of what terrorism is -- not all murders are acts of terrorism. Murders carried out for material gain and mass murders by dictators to quell dissent, although foul and immoral, are not acts of terrorism. But when Libyan agents blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, this was clearly an act of terrorism, a premeditated, politically motivated act of violence perpetrated against a noncombatant target by clandestine agents.

We should also distinguish between the words "terrorism," "terror," and "terrorize." Israeli author Gershom Gorenberg accused George W. Bush of "sloppy thinking" when Bush said in reference to Iraq, "If you develop weapons of mass destruction that you want to terrorize the world, you'll be held accountable." Gorenberg meant that weapons of mass destruction should not be characterized as terrorism. We agree. However, we should note that the words terror and terrorize have everyday use in English that do not refer to terrorism. In contrast, the words terrorism and terrorist were coined specifically to refer to premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatants and have no other meaning.

Weapons of mass destruction are referred to as weapons of terror because they often have insufficient accuracy to have military utility but can be used to terrorize the civilian population. This does not mean that the wielder of the missiles is a terrorist, although if he shoots them at civilian targets, he's a war criminal. Thus, when Bush refers to weapons of mass destruction that will be used to terrorize the world, he is simply using another meaning of the word terrorize. As another example, U.S. forces in the war against terrorism said that they were going to "terrorize the terrorists." Did this mean that the U.S. forces were going to commit acts of terrorism and deliberately target innocent civilians? No, simply that they were going the cause the terrorists to feel fear by bombing and killing them.

This brings us to the Israeli actions against the Palestinians. The Islamic Conference accuses the Israeli government of committing "state terrorism." What have the Israelis done to earn this accusation? Well, in response to Palestinian attacks against civilians, the Israelis have killed Palestinian terrorists, invaded and blockaded Palestinian towns, and bombed the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure. None of this qualifies as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatants by clandestine agents." Premeditated, yes. Politically motivated, yes. Violence, yes. Clandestine agents, occasionally. But against noncombatants? No. Occasionally, Palestinian noncombatants have died (usually because the terrorists were hiding among them), but this was never deliberate and thus not premeditated.

It's clear that the Islamic Conference applies a different definition to terrorism than that applied in the U.S. So let's make the question simpler: Is premeditated violence against noncombatants ever justified? The short answer is no, but let's explore this more fully.

We will begin our exploration by looking first to the Bible and the Just War Theory. The sixth commandment (of the Ten Commandments) says, "Thou shalt not kill." But after giving this commandment, God told the Israelites on numerous occasions to go to war and kill their enemies. Did God want the Israelites to break the sixth commandment? After all, he never told them to have another god before Him, to build a graven image, to take the name of the Lord in vain, to break the Sabbath, to dishonor their fathers or mothers, to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness, or to covet. So why would he tell them to break the sixth commandment? The answer is that the sixth commandment means simply, Thou shalt not murder (and some translations render it this way), and the actions that God told the Israelites to take against their enemies was not murder. But how do we distinguish between justified killing and murder? Killing in self-defense can be justified, but how about killing in war?

To answer this question, the Christian world has developed over the last 2000 years certain principles by which we judge whether killing war is justified. The principles include both conditions that must be in place in order to justify the waging of war (we call these principles Jus Ad Bellem), as well as principles for conducting the war (Jus In Bello). The Jus Ad Bellem principles, first advanced in the 4th century by Augustine and later codified by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, include the requirements that the war be waged by a sovereign (i.e., no private wars), for a just cause, and for the advancement of good or avoidance of evil.

The Jus In Bello principles, which evolved in the 16th and 17th centuries, include requirements for proportionality (the good to be achieved must outweigh the destruction expected), noncombatant immunity, and the honoring of international treaties and conventions. Thus, no matter what the righteousness of the cause (Jus Ad Bellem), the war must also honor the Jus In Bello principles or the war will not be just. The Jus In Bello principles prohibit the deliberate targeting of civilians, whether for an evil or a righteous cause. Such acts are therefore murder and a violation of the sixth commandment.

This Jus In Bello concept has been embodied in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the protection of civilians in time of war. The convention defines a noncombatant as "persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause." Regarding these noncombatants, the convention prohibits the convention signatories from committing murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, torture, taking of hostages, humiliating and degrading treatment, and execution without trial.

Israel as well as most of the members of the Organization of Islamic Conference are signatories to the Fourth Geneva Convention (the Palestinian Authority is not a sovereign government and is thus not a signatory to the convention). Israel's Arab neighbors have regularly accused Israel of violating the Geneva Convention in its treatment of the Palestinians in the disputed territories. However, these countries are quite ready to abandon the spirit of the Geneva Convention to advocate the killing of civilians by Palestinians in order to resist the Israeli "occupation."

The meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference in Malaysia was originally called to dispel perceptions equating Islam with terrorism after the September 11th attacks on the United States. However, from the debate and resulting resolution condemning Israel, it's clear that Muslims and the western world do not share the same values concerning terrorism. The logic applied by the Islamic Conference to justify Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians is the same logic applied by Osama Bin Laden to justify attacking American civilians - the end justifies the means. The only reason the Arab governments are supporting us in fighting Bin Laden is that Bin Laden wants to overthrow these Arab governments.

Americans know what terrorism is - any man on the street, if he thought about it, would give a definition similar to that in U.S. law, "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." The Islamic Conference wants to redefine terrorism so that they can continue to support the murder of civilians. But so long as Islam justifies and applauds the killing of noncombatants for what they see as a righteous cause, Muslims will continue to be equated with terrorism.

More TruthNews