|
Editorial
Stop
splitting hairs on "Terrorism"
Ammar Abdulhamid
December 27, 2004
Many people around the world today seek to differentiate between what they
call "freedom fighters" and those described as terrorists. They argue that
such differentiation, which is most often applied to Iraq and the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, is necessary in order to grant legitimacy to
those fighting for their freedom or the independence of their homeland
against an oppressor or a foreign occupier, especially when the reality of
occupation is recognized internationally, perhaps through relevant UN
resolutions.
The problem with this argument, however, is that it tends to grant blind
sanction for any acts perpetrated by the so-called freedom fighters, even
when these are directed against civilian targets, or when they reveal
callous disregard for the possibility of provoking civilian casualties.
Historically, freedom fighters have never been overly sensitive to the
possibility that their actions might kill or wound civilians. However,
public concern for civilian victims, especially when incurred as a result of
guerrilla warfare or suicide bombings, has grown immensely during the last
15-20 years as a result of progress in media coverage and the highly
sensationalist nature of the visual media. Although, one can make a case
that media coverage is often biased in this regard, the point remains the
same: Current world opinion has little tolerance or sympathy for acts that
are increasingly perceived as terrorist in nature.
However, what room for maneuver does this leave for true freedom fighters in
the world? It all depends on their intended audience really.
If the goal of a particular group is to generate enough international
sympathy for its cause, in the hope that this will translate into increasing
pressure on occupiers to end their occupation, then, obviously a change in
tactics becomes necessary if the audience confuses legitimate resistance and
terrorism. Indeed, nonviolence is today the only viable alternative for
groups that still defer to world opinion, and who still think that
international support is necessary for the achievement of their objectives.
If, on the other hand, their purpose is to exact some sort of retribution or
achieve a balance of terror with the perceived oppressor (or garner public
support within certain groups where a show of brutality is seen as a
justification of one's faith and a source of empowerment), then maximizing
the number of civilian casualties on the other side is the real obsession of
so-called freedom fighters. In that context, recourse to the use of weapons
of mass destruction, if they are available, becomes all too real.
That's why groups like Al-Qaeda and those engaged in the Iraqi insurgency,
for instance, seem to have made their choice. But the issue remains
unresolved when it comes to considering many, if not most, of the liberation
struggles around the world.
Take Palestinian militant groups for instance. The Palestine Liberation
Organization's support for attacks against Israeli targets has waxed and
waned since the beginning of the post-Madrid peace process, depending on the
perceived progress, or lack thereof, in the ongoing negotiations with
Israel. The PLO's policy in this regard, therefore, is no longer purely
ideological, as it was prior to the Oslo Accords; it is, in fact, more
pragmatic in nature - even if we have to place moral considerations aside
for a moment to say this.
However, so long as groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad continue to
dictate the nature of the current intifada, and so long as the validity of
their methods is not seriously and publicly challenged by Palestinian
officials and intellectuals, Palestinian popular opinion will continue to be
in favor of the Islamists, especially now that Yasser Arafat's long era as
the national symbol of Palestinian liberation has finally come to an end.
Unless a shift in the resistance paradigm is implemented by whatever new
Palestinian leaders emerge in the coming months, the Palestinians are bound
to lose whatever little international support and sympathy they have managed
to acquire over the years. Add to this the fact that George W. Bush's
re-election will likely mark a continuation of the adamant American support
for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's policies, perhaps for years to
come.
Earlier this week, while on a visit to Beirut, the new PLO leader Mahmoud
Abbas announced that the Palestinians had put an end to their armed
struggle. It remains to be seen what comes of this. However, if the
Palestinians were to continue to rely on suicide attacks in their struggle
for independence, this would be tantamount to national suicide. Such an
option, which was always ill advised and reprehensible, is now also no
longer viable.
The passing of Arafat, whose attitude toward suicide bombings was always
pragmatic (and amoral) anyway, should be taken advantage of to permanently
mark the end of the violence option and the beginning of a nonviolent,
all-inclusive national struggle for independence. A new Palestinian approach
requires engagement between all the concerned parties and it leaves no room
for the disastrous unilateral policies of a few.
Ammar Abdulhamid is currently a visiting fellow at the Saban Center for
Middle Eastern Studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He is a
Syrian novelist and social analyst based in Damascus, and is the coordinator
of the Tharwa Project, a program that seeks to bring greater awareness of
the living conditions of minority groups in the Arab world.
|
