« The sad plight of migrant domestic workers in Lebanon and the Middle East | Main | زياد رحباني - أنا مش كافر »
Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations?
By yaman | April 10, 2007
Pundits and propagandists alike often pose this question to those who dissent against current American and Israeli policies in the Middle East. For them, the dichotomy is simply one of “I support terrorism” or “I am against terrorism.” The slightest deviation from thought deemed acceptable by those coordinating policy results in such a question, even though it is often a non sequitur. In a political atmosphere where we are coerced into making binary decisions often, it might not be so surprising that one would be expected to join one of these camps accordingly. And yet it is important to realize that this is a false choice that disables us from recognizing the particularities of these groups and thus weakens our ability to make smart analyses of them and our interactions with them.
“Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations?” in today’s political parlance is a litmus test, and a litmus test only, that one is expected to answer in a vacuum within ten seconds or less. An answer that is longer than “yes” or “no” is taken to be a sign of weakness or an indication that the one being asked is “hiding” his or her “true” beliefs. My intent is not to attempt to define “terrorism” (a task that should be completed before asking the question let alone answering it) but to demonstrate its indefinability and hopefully to show what its function might be if not to describe. It is hard to proceed, though, without making a vague reference to what “terrorism” might be so I will opt for an explanation that addresses what is probably the most reprehensible component of any of the many definitions out there: violence against civilians.
1. What is “terrorism?”
2. What does “terrorism” do?
3. Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations?
On this point, I think few people disagree that violence against civilians is an illegitimate form of warfare. It would not be contentious to say that a suicide bombing in a cafe packed with civilians would be considered “violence against civilians” and thus “terrorism.” To be even more precise this would be an “act of terror” (I think this is different from, and more appropriate than, a “terrorist act”). And, if we use this definition, then it should also not be contentious to say that the Israeli airstrike of an apartment building, also packed with civilians, in Qana, Lebanon on July 30 2006 was also “violence against civilians” and thus “an act of terror” that led to the death of at least 29 civilians including 16 children.
The latter claim, however, turns out to be quite contentious. To moral apologists this bombing was a “tragic mistake” and to the unapologetic realists nothing but “collateral damage.” Tragic mistake or not, this was an act of violence against civilians. To refuse classifying this act as an “act of terror” implies that the definition of terrorism should be modified to include some consideration of intentionality; that is, if the perpetrating agent “intends” to kill civilians, then it is terrorism, but if the agent does not “intend” to kill civilians but to destroy a structure or a weapons depot, it is not terrorism. Furthermore, if the agent intends to destroy a building that he knows, either with certainty or by reasonable deduction, is populated by civilians, the act still does not fall under “terrorism” but under “collateral damage.” This last case is common but also strange because knowledge of unavoidable civilian deaths accompanies the decision to strike: an “intention” to kill civilians thus becomes an unavoidable and inseparable component of the decision to act. By this inseparability it should also fit under the initial definition of “terrorism.”
These cases, despite their nuances, are not the most interesting, and the arguments in favor of and against their classification as “acts of terror” could be developed further. However, to do so would ignore a larger framework of the political understanding of “terrorism” which encompasses, along with these cases, many more which are not as clear or easy to explain. Any definition of terrorism that is derived only from the cases above or ones similar to them is bound to be ill-equipped for considering other questions, not to mention totally ignorant of the way the word is commonly used today.
For example, the initial and most basic definition–which looks at violence against civilians–does not consider violence against military personnel, which has traditionally been considered an act of war or a legitimate act of violence between combatants. Militants attack militants. That has always been their role. In the context of the Middle East however (and probably others too), acts of violence against military targets and personnel have often been framed as “acts of terror” even when no civilians were harmed or threatened. For example, suicide bombings at military checkpoints in Palestine have often been termed “acts of terror.” The acts of violence in Iraq which target military personnel are also called “terrorism” (these are distinguished from acts of violence against Iraqi civilians). In some extreme cases attacks on structures, which hurt or kill no human beings, are also termed “terrorism.”
One could attempt to develop a definition of terrorism that is all-encompassing and compatible with all of these cases in their particularities. The problem, however is that this exercise would rest on the assumption that these cases can actually fit under the larger umbrella of something called “terrorism.” It is already apparent that the few cases mentioned above are different from each other in many ways and any definition of terrorism which attempts to include them all is, first of all, so expansive and inclusive so as to make the very term “terrorism” useless in analysis, and second of all, reductionist to the point of uselessness since presumably it would be difficult to conceive of an attack on an empty building as being as contemptible as an attack on a bus full of civilians (such as the 1975 massacre of 27 Palestinian civilians by Phalangist militants). Any definition of terrorism which includes all of these acts makes them indistinguishable from each other, even though it is clear that they are not all equivalent. By including everything, it begins to refer to nothing.
What I am trying to illustrate–and what is already well-known to many people–is that “terrorism” does not give any additional or unique information about the moral nature of an attack. Any act described as “terrorism” can be described with many other combinations of words that tell us more valuable information about the act itself: “violence against civilians,” “violence against militants,” etc. Some violence qualifies as “terrorism,” and some does not. Where the line is drawn says more about the observer than the actual act. “Terrorism” as a concept can never be defined in a useful and informative way.
Since “terrorism” is undefinable, it follows that the term cannot be used to describe. Without a definition, a word loses its descriptive value. That is, when applied to an individual, organization, or an act, it cannot offer any substantial information about that object. It cannot be used to characterize an object either. So, then, what does “terrorism” do if not describe?
Rather than perform a descriptive function, then, “terrorism” performs a prescriptive one. It does not tell us about an organization, but rather how to treat or react to one. This property might stem from the long-standing American policy (which has now been adopted by many governments around the world) that is stated as a refusal to engage “terrorists,” with each government deciding for itself what “terrorism” is. “We do not negotiate with terrorists,” even though it is well known that many of these groups have been engaged when it has been to the immediate advantage of the acting state. What has happened is that states have brought about the proliferation of “terrorists” simply by including more people under this term. The reason for this might be that it is easier to re-classify those actors as “terrorists” so that the same aforementioned punishment might be applied to them rather than try to develop an independent rationale that leads to the same or similar conclusion but based on different information that comes from the target rather than from “terrorism.” To classify an object as “terrorist” then inevitably and unavoidably dictates a policy of non-engagement.
For hawks today especially, bringing a group under the umbrella of “terrorism” is the equivalent of making their total annihilation legitimate. Such a strategy might make sense for a group like al-Qaeda which exists as a militant organization only. But for groups like Hamas and Hizballah, which enjoy a pervasive social presence as well as considerable political power, and are composed of militants as well as civilians and politicians, this strategy is not only unsound but inherently ineffective and unrealistic. Other tactics are more appropriate, not excluding an actual effort to address the grievances presented by those groups, grievances which often are not exclusive to the membership of that group but are representative of a wide cross-section of society. Such grievances remain legitimate regardless of any acts those groups might perform, and one might argue that such groups–if they are annihilated–will only resurface in one form or another if the same grievances remain.
Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations?
With all of this said it is finally appropriate to return to the original question: “Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations?”
It is undeniable that militants from both of these organizations have performed acts of violence against civilians, much in the same way that militants from armies and militias around the world have done and continue to do. These acts should be condemned across the board. At the same time, however, it is unwise to label any group, especially the ones named above, as “terrorist organizations” as long as that phrase retains the same prescriptive properties I outlined above. Besides implying that the sole purpose of each group’s existence is to perform “acts of terror,” it limits the various number of ways in which these groups can be interacted with.
This much, I think, is not in question, and yet this much of an admission is not enough. Instead the word “terrorism” must actually be used. It is not enough to say that these groups have targeted civilians. The reason this is so is precisely because of the prescriptive quality of this word–by calling them “terrorist groups” I would not be admitting that they have targeted civilians (since this is not up for debate, and I have explicitly said as much), but rather that they should not be engaged, cannot be engaged, and must be annihilated. In other words, they must be treated like “terrorists.”
This is why those who concede out of expedience that these groups are “terrorist” only to suggest a prescription that deviates from the norm are never taken seriously. Their argument is weak because the terminology they use is out of their control. Some have even resorted to questioning the classification of these groups as “terrorist.” Thus they lambast the “mis-use” of the application of the terrorist label and attempt to argue that a group is or is not “terrorist,” but they do not attempt to destroy the class altogether. If “terrorist” did not carry a punishment with it, such a re-classification would not be necessary; the re-classification is performed to avoid the standard punishment. In doing so, they demonstrate my point that the word “terrorist” is more about a response, a reaction, a punishment, than an observation or description.
This is not a call to appease those groups or to ignore their transgressions. To the contrary, that kind of behavior is a very significant concern even when it comes to diplomacy. What the appropriate strategy might be is beyond my purpose in writing this, not to mention beyond my grasp mentally; however, I think the answer lies in a re-conceptualization of the nature of those organizations, which requires first of all dropping the “terrorist” label. Refusing to deal with them altogether is a behavior that stems, I think, from a state-centric perspective, a perspective which seems to prevail, and which people tend to defend to the death, for few good reasons. That aside, I would suggest that because those groups contain non-militant elements, including civilians and politicians, they begin to operate in a way that resembles a state or some other kind of representative mini-society, even if they are not defined territorially. It might be wise to begin treating and thinking of them as such.
Topics: Comment |
April 10th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
[...] I’ve written a post on my blog responding to the often posed question: “Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations?” It touches on the various understandings of terrorism, argues that there is no such thing as terrorism, and presents a possible theory for what people are doing when they refer to terrorism. Finally, it offers a modest proposal regarding how Hamas and Hizballah should be dealt with in order to get past the current impasse imposed by the American and Israeli governments in the region. Bookmark this article: [...]
April 11th, 2007 at 4:33 am
While this was an interesting read, you didn’t really address the widespread concern about how dealing with groups using violence will only encourage them to continue to use the same towards political ends.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I do not think that that ‘concern’ is something that can be generalized–the selective application of the “we do not negotiate with terrorists” motto shows that these groups are treated on a case-by-case basis and without some overarching dogma. When and how they are treated depends on the circumstances–I am not saying that they should “always” be engaged, but that refusing to engage with them out of some generic terrorist formula is silly. By treating them on a case-by-case basis we have to pay attention to particulars.
Finally I don’t think it’s “violence towards political ends” that makes dealing with those groups so shaky. Violence is often used for political ends, including by states, and to exclude non-state actors so that they can be placed in a separate category I think is arbitrary. This is a problem of the same state-centric perspective which stems from ideas of sovereignty. The way the state treats those groups becomes more an issue of who is sovereign than who is right. By labeling Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups, I think the US is trying to maintain its sovereignty or dominance in the region by delegitimizing violence by those groups while accepting it by others (Israel, March 14, etc). (Of course the US is not the only one who uses this label and this is only one international perspective, but I think the same goal is visible wherever it is used, including by March 14 in Lebanon and Israel). This is what I mean when I say that the terrorist label is used prescriptively–it is a political label, and it is political because it seeks to make violence by one actor illegitimate while accepting the same kind of violence from another actor, so that there really is no such thing as “terrorism.”
April 11th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
How’s this for a definition of “terrorism”:
the use of some form of weapons or violence towards ends which are in opposition to whichever power structure happens to be dominant in the relevant time and place
This definition is descriptive. Under this definition, the following groups would all be “terrorist”:
Hamas
Hizbullah
Iraqi insurgent groups
IRA
ETA/Basque separatists
Syria
But then Israel, March 14, and US aerial bombardment of civilians are all not “terrorist.” Doesn’t it seem to match the meaning of the term in actual usage?
April 11th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Yes, you are incorporating the political reality of the term into its definition. And by this definition American revolutionaries, Zionist immigrant militias, and the American army at the time of Iraq’s invasion, are all “terrorist.”
April 12th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
tagged.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Your article is long and embellished with so many big words, but nevertheless useless..
I don’t think defining ‘terrorism’ is relevant in the case of Hizbollah and Hamas (note that there are micro differences between these two as well…) … a suicide bomber from Hamas is willing to go ahead with his mission and would not give a toss about what’s he going to be called after the mission is accomplished (i.e. he’s dead)..
While on the other hand a Marine officer in the American army (for the sake of argument) would still be answerable to his superiors and would still be subject to criticism, litigation and even impeachment had he failed to accomplish his missions without civilian losses…
April 16th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
I am sure the tortured of Abu Ghraib and the dead civilians of Haditha really care about the way their murderers and torturers were dealt with.
I don’t think what you’ve said is relevant, and of course, I disagree that we can simply ignore what ‘terrorism’ is when the word is thrown left and right.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
See, I am not suggesting that the Americans and the Brits don’t perpetrate things that are brutal and ugly. This is not my argument and your reference to Abu Ghuraib is again irrelevant.
I am talking about accountability. Militants are not answerable to anyone but their superiors, their morals are subordinates of their tenets. So even if the whole world agreed on a an explicit definition of terror, they are not going to abide by it if it is going to impede their contention.
While an army officer in the west (even the smallest intelligence informant for that matter) are prone to all kind of legal repercussions in case of preaching their own law. (remember Iran-Contra?)…of course, dirty things do happen but they are kept mute and covert…and they are conducted at the risk of garnering huge public apathy should they be disclosed…..
April 18th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Flatus, in terms of accountability I have to disagree with you. If we were talking about Al Qaeda, a global movement with no popular base you would be right. However, Hamas and Hizballah are popular movements empowered by popular local support. Losing local support would see them sidelined.
Yaman, interesting article with one major element missing in my opinion which is the relationship of these groups with their own states and their own states ability to confront and defend any aggression perpetuated upon it. Hamas and Hizballlah are both the products of Israeli occupation and oppression; They have both served as a buffer and blocker on Israeli actions on their respective people. Therefore, by that definition, they are acting as defenders of those people. That is very different to say Al Qaeda and whoever is planting all the car bombs in Iraq.
In respect to engaging with them, it is my belief that the West and Israel will never get any kind of peace if they do not. They can sign treaties with all the Kings and dictators they want but those treaties are only worth the regimes that signed them. Dealing with the the true representatives of the people in the ME, the people with the credibiity, is the only way to get a just and sustainable hudna. But of course the US/UK/Israel axis would rather remove all popular opposition in order to impose the peace they want.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
According to this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse
the people involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal were sentenced to a total of less than 26 years in prison, despite the large number of people who were given prison sentences.
There are many words that can be used to describe this situation, but “accountability” isn’t one of them.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Ziad, I agree with you that Hamas and Hizballah gained their popular support by filling a void–socially, politically, militarily–that the state failed to take care of sufficiently. It’s for those reasons that I said they were state-like and should be treated as such.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:06 am
Seems like the notion is becoming more widespread:
http://conflictsforum.org/2007/dancing-with-wolves-the-importance-of-talking-to-your-enemies/
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Yes, I agree with this. I think there was once an analysis of events or attacks defined as terrorist in one year in the 1990s- those that were so were all within a certain radius of US oil lines or something. I’m probably mis-remembering but it’s always stuck in my mind as an illustration. But I think the essence of the term terrorism today as a term used by the US (and pointed to, but in different terms, by military scholars) is that it is violence perpetrated by non-state actors. That is the beginning of a more interesting discussion, because there might be ways that one can analyze state versus non-state violence in a way that is less moralistic and bullshitty than the usual terrorism debate, which is as you noted, about violence by actors we like (or are in league with) versus those that we don’t.
Aside from that– I’m not so familiar with Hezbollah, but the impression I get of Hamas is that it would be usefully analyzed in terms of civil society organizations. I think it’s becoming less so, more part of the real political landscape, but I think it’s attraction in part is from its quality as a kind of grassroots civil society organization, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Looking at in that view also brings up some of the less fluffy sides of civ soc orgs– Shas in Israel probably gets support for similar reasons- belligerency + welfare (that’s putting it so uncharitably… perhaps “strength + communal aid”?).
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
It’s funny that someone above used the Marines as an example… I was thinking of them because a few months ago on Aljazeera there was an ad for some special, and this guy was booming “AAARE the X special forces JUST LIKE the Marines of the US??” His implication, obviously, was that the Marines are the height of terrorism and wondering if some Arab policeforce could be compared to them. I just remember it because the tone of voice about the Marines made me laugh– the exact tone that Fox uses to talk about Hamas or Hezbollah, like speaking Satan’s name. Anyway, it’s obvious and no one has contradicted it, but maybe it bears mentioning that populations in general might do well to consider the lines between legitimized and delegitimized violence. The lines are often depressingly familiar, and wouldn’t it be nice if everyone got out of their narrative a bit?
May 20th, 2007 at 4:55 am
First off, I am posting this without reading all of it, so I apologize if I am off base. I’ve got work tommorow morning and want to say something now.
Regardless of the definition of terrorist or terrorist organization, I think it is safe to say that a terrorist organization is an organization that supports terrorists, regardless of the other actions of the organization. The English language has an inherent problem with strict definitions because many words vary by locality, or even worse, are not clearly and unambiguously defined.
Back on track, Hamas and Hizballah both support individuals who use violence against civilians and soldiers in an attempt to further their political goals. By definition, terrorism “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion” (Merriem Websters). I personally feel that the aforementioned organizations do fit this criterea and would be considered terrorist organizations.
However, it must be noted that many other organizations also use “terror as a means of coercion” in order to accomplish there goals. A corporate example off the top of my head would be Wallmart. Wallmart has been accused of spying on and interefearing in the activies of any of its employee’s that are trying to unionize, so by this defintion, Wallmart would also be a terrorist organization. Wallmart just doens’t sit well with me as being a terrorist organization; I would have to say that to be a terrorist organization you would need to directly use terror as coercion to accomplish your primary mission. As a for-profit company, Wallmart’s primary mission is obviously to make money, and it does not directly use terror to do this.
My understanding of Hamas and Hizballah are that the organizations current primary mission is to simply make the lives of its members and those around it better, which it attempts to do through many different avenues. The simple question is then, how much of this is done directly though the use of terror, if any?
I rambled a bit much, I need to get some sleep.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Well, the problem with saying a terrorist organization is one that supports terrorists is that the definition is circular and then the question simply becomes who are terrorists/what is terror/what is terrorism. If you go by the Merriam Webster definition, then you have to wonder: are not Iraqi, Afghani, and Palestinian civiliians terrified by attacks by the US/Israeli militaries in their areas against “terrorists”?
June 20th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
[...] One might ask why the blogger did not fight the small claims lawsuit with an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The answer, according to the Student Press Law Center: “the judge dismissed Salahi’s anti-SLAPP motion as inappropriate for small claims court.” The blogger has set up a legal defense fund that you can access here. While I don’t agree with this particular blogger’s politics, this sure seems like an example of a SLAPP suit which should concern bloggers everywhere. [...]
July 11th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
(remember Iran-Contra?)
I remember that Oliver North’s bus was parked in front of where I work as he was speaking at the giant church next door on the first anniversary of 9/11.
I also remember that Elliot Abrahms is still working his magic on foriegn policy in this administration.
I often wonder if Richard Secord or Gen. Singlaub are watching over the opium fields of Afghanistan.
July 11th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Well, probably this reply is very late but I just came across this website. Anyways regarding Flatus argument about accountability and him saying “While an army officer in the west (even the smallest intelligence informant for that matter) are prone to all kind of legal repercussions in case of preaching their own law” . I advise him and everyone else to read this book Blackwater: the Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army by Jeremy Scahill. Scahill describes in details the role of private military contractors in Iraq, and that they are not liable for persecution on any action they do because they are not formal military forces and also they do not subject civil lays because they are not civilians, their ratio compared to formal military forces is 1:1 .All of this is documented and referenced. I strongly urge everyone to read this book .
July 12th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Dude good stuff. Props. As I began my quest for knowledge I started off with some right-winged sources which all mainly seem to support the idea of the new Palestinian government not being dealt with diplomatically due to the alibi that it is a “terrorist” organization. Like you said, all definitions seem to be used very subjectively in a nation’s own interests. Once you pointed out the inherent problems with the label you really destroy that argument.