2 posts tagged “terrorism”

Change to your TV to any news channel and you're likely to find the media recounting the failed plot by Islamic militants to blow up ten airlines in mid-air. As the media does when it seizes upon a story, they give the impression that they are exploring every angle by positioning reporters at various airports whose sole purpose is to make the story 'more human' by interviewing people as they discard bottles of water, make up and lipgloss into trash cans just outside the security checkpoint. The reporter will then talk about how everyone is taking the new travel guidelines in stride followed by the inevitable soundbite: someone saying the increased restrictions are okay because "they make it safe to fly."

I've watched Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and BBC and the message is all the same: our government must be doing something right for catching these guys and reacting so quickly (nevermind that it was the Brits who did the footwork). I'll return to this point shortly, because it is the real meat of this post, but before I do I feel the need to comment on the politics of this situation.

This plot is further evidence that the terrorists we face are sophisticated, and constantly changing their tactics. On September the 11th, 2001, they used box cutters to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of innocent people. This time, we believe they planned to use liquid explosives to blow up planes in mid-air. In response, we've adjusted our security precautions by temporarily banning most liquids as carry-on items on planes. I know many of you will be traveling during this busy summer vacation season, and I ask for your patience, cooperation, and vigilance in the coming days. The inconveniences you will face are for your protection, and they will give us time to adjust our screening procedures to meet the current threat.

Yes, that's right, we're talking about 9/11 again. I know this shouldn't surprise anyone since the President mentions it at least once a week, but in my mind the dogma and rhetoric surrounding 9/11 is more than just the politicization (and subsequent political polarization) of a tragedy for the Republican party's gains, but a glaring invocation of the litany of failures this administration has racked up. Of course, that isn't the case according to President Bush: "Because of the measures we've taken to protect the American people, our Nation is safer than it was prior to September the 11th."

Everyone who isn't deaf has heard those words come out of the President's mouth, just as they've probably heard these:

Still, we must never make the mistake of thinking the danger of terrorism has passed. This week's experience reminds us of a hard fact: The terrorists have to succeed only once to achieve their goal of mass murder, while we have to succeed every time to stop them. Unfortunately, some have suggested recently that the terrorist threat is being used for partisan political advantage. We can have legitimate disagreements about the best way to fight the terrorists, yet there should be no disagreement about the dangers we face.

America is fighting a tough war against an enemy whose ruthlessness is clear for all to see. The terrorists attempt to bring down airplanes full of innocent men, women, and children. They kill civilians and American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they deliberately hide behind civilians in Lebanon. They are seeking to spread their totalitarian ideology. They're seeking to take over countries like Afghanistan and Iraq so they can establish safe havens from which to attack free nations. These killers need to know that America, Great Britain, and our allies are determined to defend ourselves and advance the cause of liberty. With patience, courage, and untiring resolve, we will defend our freedom, and we will win the war on terror.

[I wasn't going to copy the whole thing, but I believe I would be doing my point an injustice to leave out a single sentence of these two paragraphs]

Two things are occurring here.

First, examine the language. "We must never." There is an imperative there, implying something ominous is coming, and it does: terrorism. If there is any one word that will get at least half this country worked into a fervor, it is terrorism. But saying we must never forget terrorism looms is not yet fear-mongering, as it is indeed a fact [That the policies of this administration have only strengthened the recruiting tools of terrorist organizations, I am sure, escape the President]. It is the keywords in his statement that invoke fear: 'mass murder', 'kill civilians', 'spread their totalitarian ideology', 'take over countries', and 'attack free nations' all render images of fear, of an America always on the brink, held hostage by the vague threat of unseen militants lurking in every mosque. More important than Bush's use of fear-inspiring keywords however is the way he brings the people out of that daze of fear by switching immediately to the kind of language small town politicians use on the 4th of July: 'determined to defend ourselves and advance the cause of liberty', 'patience', 'courage', 'untiring resolve', 'defend our freedom', 'win the war on terror.' Notice how the fear-mongering is drawn out. It is first hinted at by invoking September 11th, then amplified with fearful keywords spanning much of the second paragraph until in two brief sentences the President can issue a masterful rhetoric coup, emphasizing 'classical' American ideals, those same ideals that are taught to every American child when they learn about Patrick Henry, George Washington, and the Alamo. Thus he assuages the fear he created, as though only through his policies the specter of terror can be defeated.

The second thing in the above paragraphs is even more subtle. By grimly rehashing 9/11 at the beginning of his speech, then triumphantly raising it as a benchmark event the nation's security is now cable of thwarting, he is implying his own administration's self-perceived sense of success at bolstering national security, while reminding his conservative supporters of the same. The real genius is was follows: "Unfortunately, some have suggested recently that the terrorist threat is being used for partisan political advantage. We can have legitimate disagreements about the best way to fight the terrorists, yet there should be no disagreement about the dangers we face." This at once strikes down those that charge the administration with complacency and casts the administration's opponents as, at best, the antagonists of developing a sound defense against terrorism, and at worst unwilling partners in crime with those who wish to hurt us. Combine this with the aforementioned fear-mongering and remember the Alamo gung-ho and the real message comes through: if you aren't with us, you're with them, the terrorists. There is, however, one problem with the President's speech.

America is no safer now than it was on or before September 11th because the complacency of the Bush Administration to act on their rhetoric about national security has pre-empted any meaningful changes. One such meaningful change would have been using our intelligence on known terrorist methods to create effective counter-measures against them. The current foiled plot is a perfect example.

According to the New York Times the current plot "mimicked a failed plot in the Philippines in 1995 financed by Osama bin Laden to blow up airplanes over the Pacific. That ended when the chemicals exploded at an apartment in Manila." Eleven years is plenty of time to create detection equipment and screeners for liquid explosives and their components, no matter how hard Homeland Security officials are saying they are to detect. Or are these liquid explosives really so difficult to search for?

9/11 has become the symbol of complacency for this nation. There is no reason people should not beable to bring liquids onto airplanes other than the failure of our government to act on information it already had. To invoke 9/11 now, in light of an effort that could have very easily been prevented even if there had been no investigation in place if the proper counter-measures were used, is to claim a victory when all there is is defeat. Americans should not sit by, quietly acquiesing their liquids to TSA personnel because it makes 'flying safe', they should be furious about the ineptitude of their government that has failed them once again, that has only given them one more reason to fear, and one more reason to surrender rights to the wolves that herd them with fear and assuage them with frivolous, patriotic rhetoric.

Despite an imminent cease-fire agreement between Israel and Lebanon and against the newly minted Security Council resolution, Israel continues its offensive against Lebanon and Hezbollah. Israel's brazen advance flies directly in the face of the language of the resolution, which demands "the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations." The resolution also calls for a total cessation of hostiles on the part of Hezbollah, begging the question: if Israel is allowed to continue its self-described 'defensive' actions, is it fair that Lebanon, and the only group fighting its occupation, must submit to wholesale slaughter without global support for their own defense? No.

As long as Israel pushes further into Lebanon, continues its aerial bombardment, and actively targets Hezbollah leadership there will be no end to the fighting. Logically, the new Israeli offensive pushing towards the Litani River after the passage of Security Council Resolution 1701 can only culminate in more civilian casualties and international animosity towards Israel. Why then make the push?

Israel's offensive actions have several consequences:

• Israel's claims that their attacks upon Lebanon are in self defense will become groundless. A two day major escalation before deciding whether or not to accept the terms of SCR 1701 will not end the rocket attacks on northern Israel, nor will it defeat Hezbollah. It will, however, cause more civilian deaths and further the destruction of Lebanese infrastructure.
• The escalation will only encourage the cycle of violence in Lebanon to continue, in what is eerily reminiscent to the 1982 conflict with Lebanon that spurred the creation of Hezbollah, and inevitably cause further delays to a cease-fire which will further alienate Israel from the diplomatic community.
• Hezbollah, even if it does disarm after the cease-fire, will be in a much stronger political position within Lebanon than it already is. This offensive will allow them to justify their claims of Israeli aggression against Lebanon, and cast it as an 11th hour attempt to strengthen Israel's hand at the negotiating table by occupying more land at the expense of more Lebanese lives

Which brings about the point: If this eleventh hour escalation will not serve Israel in any beneficial way is the conduct of the state of Israel in this war terrorist in nature?

The Problem of Defining Terrorism

In searching for a firm definition of terrorism to apply to this inquiry one thing has become abundantly clear: the definition of terrorism is largely a matter of perspective.

If one was to use Donald Rumsfeld's definition of terror: 

I think of the word as meaning an act whereby innocent people are involved and killed. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize people -- it's to alter behavior. I think of it as a situation where a group of people decide they want to terrorize a person or group or country and the way they do that is to attack innocent people and kill them

they would encounter countless problems. The United States would quickly find itself in the position of being one of history's worst terrorist states under the above definition, as would nearly every nation--with the possible exception of Liechtenstein. Therefore attacking the innocent cannot alone constitute an act of terrorism.

Rumsfeld does point to terrorism as an intent to alter behavior by targeting the innocent, but such a definition is still lacking and 'innocent' is itself vague.

According to the Public Broadcasting Service, [If anyone can actually find a real definition on the DoD website, I'll be impressed--I looked for hours] the Department of Defense officially defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." This definition is also vague on several points. Perspective again derails this better, yet still vague definition. The Taliban government of pre-9/11 Afghanistan viewed the actions of Al Qaeda as lawful, even if much of the rest of the world did not. And if a war is deemed lawful by the international community is a deliberate attack on the civilian population an act of terror? One need only look to My Lai for the answer. And what country in its past (and many in the present) has not threatened another nation during rounds of diplomatic hardball?

By far the best definition of terrorism to scrutinize Israel with is the thoroughly detailed academic definition provided by the United Nations:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought

 The above definition will be used in the determining whether Israel's actions are terrorism against the Lebanese people.

Methodology

For the purposes of this inquiry the following strict methodology will be applied:

1. Only events pertaining to the current conflict with Lebanon will be examined.
2. All specific incidents will be cited with links to the source and will only come from reputable sources (Which will include: Official United Nations documents, UNIFIL reports, official documents from the state of Lebanon and the state of Israel, verifiable comments by primary state actors, periodicals in which an account can be verified by two seperate periodicals, primary unaltered photographic evidence on weblogs belonging to those directly involved in the conflict, information from reputable human right's watch organizations)

Who Is Really Suffering?

The first question that must be asked is how exactly is Israel choosing its targets, and who suffers the most from their strikes: Hezbollah or the civilian population of Lebanon?

Israel has repeatedly stated its actions are in self-defense against Hezbollah, not the people of Lebanon, and that "it is no secret that Israel has no designs on Lebanese territory and does not wish to remain in Lebanon any longer than absolutely necessary." If Israel does as it says and indeed does not have designs on Lebanon then it would fail to meet the primary criteria necessary for it to be considered a terrorist state: the general population of Lebanon is not being used to indirectly attack Hezbollah.

The pamphlets Israel has recently dropped on Tyre as part of its psychological campaign against Hezbollah, however, indicate a willingness on the part of Israel to use the civilian population of Lebanon to indirectly damage Hezbollah:

 

"To all citizens south of the Litani River

Due to the terror activities being carried out against the State of Israel from within your villages and homes, the IDF is forced to respond immediately against these activities, even within your villages.

For your safety!!!

We call upon you to evacuate your villages and move north of the Litani River.

The State of Israel"

You can read all the pamphlets dropped by the IDF yourself.

 

The above is just one of many pamphlets dropped by Israel on villages and cities across Lebanon. Other notable passages against Hezbollah in the pamphlets being dropped are:

The IDF forces are not acting against the Lebanese people, but against the Hizbullah terrorists, and will continue to act as long as it deems necessary.

Do not allow Hizbullah elements to hold you as prisoners and use you as a human shield for the sake of foreign interests.

The IDF will escalate its operations, and will strike with great force the terrorist groups which are exploiting you as human shields...

Southern Lebanon is a combat zone. Hizbullah terrorists are operating in your area, and you are being exploited as "human shields", in order to camouflage their activities.

The rhetoric is consistent in placing the blame on civilian casaulties in Lebanon squarely on Hezbollah, absolving themselves completely. While it may seem the IDF has sincere intentions in warning the Lebanese to evacuate their homes and leave their lives as they knew behind to avoid being killed, the real object is the targetting of Hezbollah through the civilian population.

[I will not even begin to address the moral/ethical issues of these 'warning' pamphlets except to say that warning civilians to leave an area does not, nor will ever absolve the commanders who issued the orders to fire from war crimes, especially in this age when real-time battle-field intelligence is readily availible and would clearly indicate the presence of civilians. I will also not address the issue of Hezbollah using civilians as human shields. Neither side has the moral/ethical high ground in this conflict, and they never will.]

The logic of the IDF's propaganda attack on the civilian population is two-fold. First, in international circles it will allow them to make the claim that they took all the measures they could to avoid civilian casaulties, noting those who stay must be Hezbollah supporters (does this not make them anyless a civilian that an Israeli supporting the IDF?). Second, each and every time a civilian is killed or a piece of civilian infrastructure is destroyed by the IDF the elements within Lebanon who are already against Hezbollah will gain more support (in theory, reality proves the contrary). Logically, and from the IDF's perspective, this must make immense sense. They are fighting a well-entrenched guerrilla military whose tactics have evolved in direct response to the IDF's combat doctrine.

Nonetheless, the IDF is targetting the Lebanese as an instruct through which to attack Hezbollah.

The pamphlets only provide one facet of a multiple front attack on Hezbollah by civilian proxy. Notable in this conflict is the pressure applied to the civilian population in pockets of Lebanon (mostly in the south) were Hezbollah has amassed much of its popular support. This pressure is being applied through an almost total blockade of humanitarian aid to the region. A clear example of this is the destruction of a provisional bridge built across the Litani river to Tyre by Israeli air forces. The provisional bridge briefly allowed trucks with strictly humanitarian and medical supplies enter Tyre before the city was quickly cut off once more. The United Nations has also faced difficulty in moving aid into Lebanon, where one quarter of the population has been displaced by Israeli offensive actions, because "permission for UN convoys to southern Lebanon continues to be denied by the Israeli Defence Forces."

Israel, however, claims they are doing all they can to open humanitarian routes into Lebanon, and are fully cooperating with the United Nations. If the consistent reports from the U.N. and various other agencies and news media are accurate, the IDF is only cooperating with the U.N. insofar as it consistently informs the U.N. its requests to send in aid have been denied.

The denial of humanitarian aid is an act against the civilian population. Hezbollah will not benefit from it in any way, shape, or form. Its denial to the people of Lebanon makes it abundantly clear that they are a target of the hostilies. Coupled with the destruction of almost all of Lebanon's vital communications, travel, and power infrastructure the denial of humanitarian aid to the Lebanonese people is akin to laying a city underseige and starving its people out. One has only to observe the propanganda war already described and marry it to the constant refusal of the IDF to allow humanitarian aid to enter Lebanon and the nature of its second front against Hezbollah is unveiled: squeeze the civilian population until they begin to turn on Hezbollah.

Further evidence that Israel is directly targetting the civilian population of Lebanon can be inferred from the IDF's tactics in confronting Hezbollah on the battlefield in southern Lebanon. Qana is the case-in-point for this. Disregarding the findings of the United Nations investigation of the 1996 Israeli shelling of Qana, the latest incident provides more than ample proof that civilians are being targeted. Whether or not a rocket was fired from near where the building was is a moot point. Hezbollah is known to use timers that allow their fighters to easily reach a safe distance from Israeli bombs before the rocket will fire. The IDF is well aware of this and that any attack on the position will likely only destroy the launcher (which can be as simple as three sticks), not the Hezbollah fighters. Assuming that nearby buildings will be used by the Hezbollah fighters who fired the rockets is also illogical. Hezbollah guerrillas are well trained and all but the most complacent of them would choose to hide near the site of a rocket launch. Thus, if a launch is detected near homes, if the IDF had a real interest in avoiding civilian casaulties, they would not launch airstrikes against that site, let alone use 500lb-2,000lb high explosive bombs which assure the complete destruction of the area.

And Qana is but one of many examples. Israel is consistent in claiming it is targeting Hezbollah fighters with its airstrikes on major Lebanese population centers, but destroying entire blocks of Beirut for a few Hezbollah fighters exceeds any standard of acceptable collateral damage--unless, that is, that collateral damage serves a purpose. And again, that purpose is applying overwhelming pressure to the civilian population of Lebanon in an effort to turn their support away from Hezbollah.

Israel may be attacking Hezbollah with its ground forces in southern Lebanon, but its campaign of propaganda bearing pamphlets, constant airstrikes against population centers and critical infrastructure, and consistent denial of U.N. humanitarian aid are consistent with the definitions of what terrorism is. Israel is attacking the civilian population and using them as a second fron against Hezbollah, using propaganda and fear to turn the people of Lebanon against Hezbollah.

Will it work? No. Israel has used the same tactics before and those tactics gave birth to Hezbollah. One has to wonder how much hate these typical Israeli tactics have instilled in the Lebanese people, which was, until the bombs starting falling, one of Israel's best hopes for a moderate ally in the Middle East. When will they learn that fighting terror with terror can never work?

Note to reader: As I wrote this, I wanted to use logic and the set definition to determine whether or not Israel could be considered guilty of terrorism. Needless to say, not all documents are at my disposal and so I did have to follow a logical progression to connect certain concepts while also avoiding the moral/ethical side of this argument. Nor am I supporting Hezbollah. I firmly believe both Hezbollah and Israel are quite in the wrong, and the leadership and military commanders of both should have to face proper judgement.