Terrorism is rarely clearly defined. For example, Merriam-Webster defines it simply as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. This is so vague, it is practically useless. Similarly, the definition in al-islam is too complex and debatable to be too useful. Other definitions fail because they are too specific or too politically self-serving.
Thus, I wanted to suggest a simple and neutral alternative. Naturally, my definition is not universally accepted, is controversial, and will not please everyone. But I believe it can give a specific context for discussions.
| Terrorism | The intentional targeting of non-combatants. |
|---|
Intent is crucial. By my definition, unintended civilian deaths are not terrorist. Incidentally, my definition of terrorism is almost exactly that War Crimes (see below).
I do not condone these activities that I would not classify as terrorist. Although civilian casualties are especially deplorable, one should always remember that soldiers and politicians are human beings, too.
Similar to the Rules of War set out in the Geneva Convention, my definition of terrorism is a dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate means, not between legitimate and illegitimate ends. The latter is strongly subject to political views. This is the main advantage of my definition: it can draw a distinction between "freedom fighting" and "terrorism," without requiring a judgment about which cause is just and which cause is unjust.
As do all useful and simple definitions, my terrorism definition has gray zones. For example, the targeting of one combatant like Hamas' Salah Shehadeh in a civilian surrounding, which cost the lives of about a dozen civilian non-combatants may or may not be considered terrorist. Or the assassination of Jewish settler inside the West Bank and Gaza, many of whom have a status in between combatant and noncombatants may or may not be considered terrorist.
Please reuse without any copyright restrictions. Links and references to this as an original source are appreciated.
As far as I understand, Islam is the only religion that has a specific distinction between non-combatant deaths and combatant deaths. (Remember, that Islam is the most modern of the 3 Western monotheistic faiths; and that the 5 books of Moses gloat over genocidal extermination of the old inhabitants of Palestine.) In this sense, my definition is closest in spirit to Islamic definitions, though it is non-denominational.
From google, search for non-combatants and Islam:
The four schools of Islamic law expressly forbid the harming of noncombatants. These include women, children, monks and hermits, the aged, blind and insane. In the most authoritative collection of Hadith, the Sahih al-Bukhari (The Book of Jihad, chapters 147-147, Hadiths 257-258), Muhammad expressly disapproves and then forbids the slaying of women and children. "A woman was found killed during one of the Apostle of God’s battles, so the Apostle of God forbade the killing of women and children." This message is found in a number of authoritative collections and has been formalized in the legal literature. Islam also expressly forbids suicide, the punishment for which is eternal reenactment of the act and revisitation of the pain. Sahih al-Bukhari (K. Jana’iz 82:445-446) has the following on the authority of the Prophet: "Whoever commits suicide with a piece of iron will be punished with the same piece of iron in Hell. Whoever commits suicide by throttling shall keep on throttling himself in Hell [forever], and whoever commits suicide by stabbing shall keep on stabbing himself in Hell [forever]."
(From Islamctr.org:
The concept of Jihad (which means striving) has been widely misunderstood in
the West and is incorrectly translated as “Holy War” (no war is
holy). Jihad refers to striving for excellence on several levels. The first
two involve personal and individual spiritual and intellectual efforts to
become a better Muslim. The second addresses efforts to improve society. The
third and last level involves self-defense or fighting against
oppression. Even on the battlefield, Islam teaches that civilians, women,
children, noncombatants and religious figures are not to be harmed. Islam
makes clear that there is no compulsion in religion (i.e. people cannot be
converted by force or coercion).
Personally, I cannot fathom that anyone would welcome or celebrate the deaths of innocent bystanders no matter how much grave injustice and harm they themselves have endured.
I find it ironic that there are more extremist Islamic groups nowadays that are deliberately ignoring the non-combatant commandments than groups of other faiths. This is not just in their treatment of non-believers, but even in their treatment of Muslims of other sects.
The Jews that survived the death camps—and this includes my own father—did not (and had no right to) gloat over the Allied bombing of Dresden, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians died. Yes, it was a war crime.
I am shocked when I see Palestinians celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center or suicide attack of buses; when I see Shia or Sunni in Iraq gloating over the ethnic cleansing and murders of innocent human beings from other communities. No, regardless of how much injustice they have sufferent themselves, this is not just not condonable, it is not even understandable.
Personally, I cannot fathom why the religious authorities of all faiths in Iraq—Ayatollah al-Sistani in particular—do not come out every day to condemn the violence by members of their own groups. These clerics should be out on the pulpit every day jointly with clerics of other faiths and condemn what is happening. In my opinion, clerics who do not do this have lost their moral authority.
Personally, I also think it is high time for Sunni, Shia, Palestinian (or other) communities not to shelter or defend terrorists due to tribal or community loyalties, but to denounce them. When this will happen, the terrorists will have nowhere to hide. More importantly, I firmly believe that when this happens, it will quickly put an end to mistrust of these communities by other communities.
As I was updating this in July 2008, Israel freed Samir Quantar. Quantar had killed a 4-year-old girl in cold blood, and not by accident. Under no distress, he put his gun deliberately to a 4-year-old girl and pulled the trigger. He never expressed regret and vowed to continue now that he is free. I had wished that the end of this paragraph would have been my outrage over Quantar's prison release. (Indeed, I wish there had been a death penalty then.) Unfortunately, there is even worse. I cannot understand that such a murderer would receive a hero's welcome by tens of thousands of Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon—no matter how much ill the state of Israel may have done. In the interest of humanity, I hope that Israel and the rest of the civilized world will never compromise with such people.
In my perspective, there is little to debate about the fact that Israel violates human rights. It does. The only aspect that can be a matter for debate whether it is for good reason (fear of survival and suppression of terror) or for bad reasons (ideology of holy land manifest destiny beliefs). I am offended that Arabs are second-class citizens in Israel (or that Jews are second-class citizens in Arab countries). I am a firm believer that the establishment of a Palestinian state and self-determination is a just cause. (The same logic applies to Tibet or any other culturally different group that overwhelmingly would prefer to be separate in a free and fair election. Heck, if Bavaria wanted to split from Germany, or Rhode Island wanted to split from the United States, I see no reason not to let them. Kudos to the Czechs and Slovakians, who allowed this to happen peacefully.)
Yet, however bad Israel's treatment of the Palestinian population is, it is outright humane compared to what is happening in Sudan, Iraq, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, and other countries. Of course, one does not excuse the other. However, I am offended when the United Nations (or Arab countries or individuals) speak up only about one country, Israel, and ignore the others. At best, this is naive; at worst, it is antisemitic. When will Iran and the Arab League condemn the regime in Sudan and work as hard against what they do in Darfur as they work against Israel? When they do, they will earn their right to speak up against Israel, too. (And I am saying this not because I want them to shut up, but because I want them to speak out against all!)
Until then, support good causes. Some of my favorite ones are