💣
Terrorism and Counterterrorism
Reading Summaries + Lecture
Notes - Week 1-7
The summaries are mostly copied from the documents and not paraphrased. Do not
copy and paste from this document on the exam!!
Some notes:
Lecture 11 was given by a guest speaker, therefore it will not be material for the
exam. The corresponding readings will be.
The structure of a week is as follows:
Week number:
Readings for that lecture
Lecture notes
Etc.
Good luck on the final!! :)) You got thissss 😏
Terrorism and Counterterrorism Reading Summaries + Lecture Notes - Week 1-7 1
, Week 1
Boaz Ganor, ‘Defining terrorism: is one
man’s terrorist another man’s freedom
fighter?’, Police Practice and Research 3,
no. 4 (2002): 287-304.
Most researchers tend to believe that an objective and internationally accepted
definition of terrorism can never be agreed upon, after all: ‘‘one man’s terrorist is
another man’s freedom fighter’’.
The question of who is a terrorist, according to this school of thought, depends
entirely on the subjective outlook of the definer.
At the same time, there are others who say that a definition of terrorism is necessary,
but that such a definition must serve their own political ends.
States that sponsor terrorism are trying to persuade the international community to
define terrorism in such a way that the particular terror groups they sponsor would
be outside the definition.
Both these schools of thought are wrong; and both attitudes will make it impossible
to fight terrorism effectively.
An objective definition of terrorism is not only possible; it is also
indispensable to any serious attempt to combat terrorism. Lacking such a
definition, no coordinated fight against international terrorism can ever really get
anywhere.
A correct and objective definition of terrorism can be based upon accepted
international laws and principles regarding what behaviors are permitted in
conventional wars between nations.
Untitled 1
, These laws are set out in the Geneva and Hague Conventions, which in turn are
based upon the basic principle that the deliberate harming of soldiers during
wartime is a necessary evil, and thus permissible, whereas the deliberate
targeting of civilians is absolutely forbidden.
This normative principle relating to a state of war between two countries can be
extended without difficulty to a conflict between a nongovernmental organization
and a state.
This extended version would thus differentiate between guerrilla warfare and
terrorism.
It would designate as ‘Guerilla Warfare’ the ‘deliberate use of violence against
military and security personnel in order to attain political, ideological and
religious goals.’
‘Terrorism,’ on the other hand, would be defined as ‘the deliberate use or the
threat to use violence against civilians in order to attain political, ideological and
religious aims’.
What is important in these definitions is the differentiation between the goals and the
means used to achieve these goals.
The aims of terrorism and guerrilla warfare may well be identical; but they are
distinguished from each other by the means used – or more precisely, by the targets
of their operations.
Even if its declared ultimate goals are legitimate, an organization that deliberately
targets civilians is a terrorist organization.
The worldwide acceptance of the above definition of terrorism – and the adoption of
international legislation against terrorism and support for terrorism based upon this
definition – could bring about a change in the cost-benefit calculations of terrorist
organizations and their sponsors.
Should these organizations and their sponsors be made aware that the use of terror
will bring them more harm than good, they may opt to focus on guerrilla warfare
Untitled 2
, rather than on terrorism.
Without an objective and authoritative definition, accepted by all nations, the fight
against terrorism will always suffer from ‘cultural relativism.’
Terrorism or national liberation?
A rather widespread attempt to make all definitions of terrorism meaningless is to lump
together terrorist activities and the struggle to achieve national liberation.
The foreign and interior ministers of the Arab League reiterated this position at their
April 1998 meeting in Cairo. In a document entitled ‘Arab Strategy in the Struggle
against Terrorism,’ they emphasized that belligerent activities aimed at ‘liberation
and self determination’ are not in the category of terrorism, whereas hostile
activities against regimes or families of rulers will not be considered political attacks
but rather criminal assaults.
Here again we notice an attempt to justify the ‘means’ (terrorism) in terms of the
‘end’ (national liberation).
Surprisingly, many in the Western world have accepted the mistaken assumption that
terrorism and national liberation are two extremes in the scale of legitimate use of
violence.
The struggle for ‘national liberation’ would appear to be the positive and justified
end of this sequence, whereas terrorism is the negative and odious one.
It is impossible, according to this approach, for any organization to be both a terrorist
group and a movement for national liberation at the same time.
However, the claim that a freedom fighter cannot be involved in terrorism, murder
and indiscriminate killing is, of course, groundless.
A terrorist organization can also be a movement of national liberation, and the
concepts of ‘terrorist’ and ‘freedom fighter’ are not mutually contradictory.
Targeting ‘the innocent’?
Untitled 3
, Not only terrorists and their allies use the definition of terrorism to promote their own
goals and needs. Politicians in countries affected by terrorism at times make political
use of the definition of terrorism by attempting to emphasize its brutality.
One of the prevalent ways of illustrating the cruelty and inhumanity of terrorists is to
present them as harming ‘the innocent’.
But ‘innocent’ (as opposed to ‘civilian’) is a subjective concept, influenced by the
definer’s viewpoint, and therefore must not be the basis for a definition of terrorism.
Proposing a definition of terrorism
The definition proposed here states that terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat
to use, violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain
political aims.
This definition is based on three important elements:
1. The essence of the activity
So the use of, or threat to use, violence.
2. The aim of the activity is always political
The goal is to attain political objectives; changing the regime, changing the
people in power, changing social or economic policies, etc.
3. The targets of terrorism are civilians
The term ‘terrorism’ should not be ascribed to collateral damage to civilians
used as human shields or to cover military activity or installations, if such
damage is incurred in an attack originally aimed against a military target.
In order to achieve as wide an accord as possible, this definition must be founded on a
system of principles and laws of war, legislated and ratified in many countries.
In other words, in order to reach an accepted definition of terrorism, we must
extrapolate from the existing principles of conventional warfare (between
Untitled 4
, countries) to arrive at similar principles for nonconventional warfare (for our
purposes, a violent struggle between an organization and a state).
So,
Terrorism is ‘a violent struggle intentionally using, or threatening to use, violence
against civilians, in order to attain political aims,’
Guerrilla warfare is ‘a violent struggle using (or threatening to use) violence
against military targets, security forces, and the political leadership, in order to attain
political aims.’
Guerrilla warfare vs terrorism
Terrorism and guerrilla warfare often serve as alternative designations of the
same phenomenon.
The term ‘terrorism,’ however, has a far more negative connotation, seemingly
requiring one to take a stand, whereas the term ‘guerrilla warfare’ is perceived as
neutral and carries a more positive connotation.
One of the problems accompanying the use of the concept ‘guerrilla warfare’ stems
from its ambiguity.
This nebulousness is clear in differentiating between ‘guerrilla warfare’ and ‘guerrilla
war.’
‘Guerrilla war’ as a prolonged war of attrition, with progressively increasing
violence, blurred limits, a fluid line of contact, emphasizing the human factor.
‘Guerrilla warfare’ is a form of warfare by which the strategically weaker side
assumes the tactical offensive in selected forms, times and places.
Terrorism frequently appears in guerrilla war.
The proposed definition, as noted, distinguishes terrorism from guerrilla activity
according to the intended target of attack.
Untitled 5
, The definition states that if an attack deliberately targets civilians, then that attack
will be considered a terrorist attack, whereas, if it targets military or security
personnel then it will be considered a guerrilla attack. It all depends on who the
intended victims are.
This definition is not meant to differentiate between the types of perpetrating
organizations. Most organizations resorting to violence for the purpose of attaining
political aims have not refrained from harming civilians as well as military personnel.
The aims of terrorism and of guerrilla warfare
For the purpose of defining terrorism, the type of goal sought is irrelevant (so long as
the goal is political).
The terrorist and the guerrilla fighter may have the exact same aims, but they
choose different means to accomplish them.
Nonconventional war (between a state and an organization), may include both
terrorism and guerrilla activities on the background of different and unrelated aims.
So hiding behind the guise of national liberation does not release terrorists
from responsibility for their actions.
The organization must still act according to the rules of war, directing its activities
toward the conquest of military and security targets; in short, it must confine itself to
guerrilla activities.
When the organization breaks these rules and intentionally targets civilians, it
becomes a terrorist organization, according to objective measures, and not
according to the subjective perception of the definer.
Untitled 6
, Defining states’ involvement in terrorism
A lacuna still exists concerning the use of violence against civilians by organizations or
individuals on political grounds.
States can be involved in terrorism in various ways:
1. States supporting terrorism
States that support terrorist organizations, providing financial aid, ideological
support, military or operational assistance.
2. States operating terrorism
States that initiate, direct and perform terrorist activities through groups outside
their own institutions.
3. States perpetrating terrorism
States perpetrating terrorist acts abroad through their own official bodies –
members of its security forces or its intelligence services, or their direct agents.
Untitled 7
, In other words, states intentionally attacking civilians in other countries in order
to achieve political aims without declaring war.
Various countries have engaged in attacks against leading activists of terrorist
organizations and on such grounds, these countries have often been accused of
engaging in terrorism themselves.
But actions by a state against terrorist activists cannot be defined as
‘terrorism,’ even if only because the latter are not actually civilians.
The importance of defining terrorism
Developing an effective international strategy and international agreements against
terrorism requires agreement on what it is we are dealing with, in other words, we need
a definition of terrorism
Additionally, without answering the question of ‘what is terrorism,’ no responsibility
can be imposed on countries supporting terrorism, nor can steps be taken to
combat terrorist organizations and their allies.
The need for a definition of terrorism can be seen at almost every phase of contending
with terrorism:
1. Legislation and punishment
A definition of terrorism is necessary when legislating laws designed to ban
terrorism and assistance to terrorism, as well as when setting minimum
sentences for terrorists or confiscating their financial resources and supplies.
2. International cooperation
Internationally accepted definition of terrorism is required to strengthen
cooperation between countries in the struggle against terrorism, and to ensure
its effectiveness.
3. States sponsoring terrorism
It is impossible to contend effectively with terrorism without severing the close
tie between the terrorist organizations and the sponsoring states. This tie,
Untitled 8
, however, cannot be severed without agreeing on a broad definition of terrorism.
4. Offensive action
To ensure international support for states struggling against terrorism, and
perhaps even for a joint offensive, an internationally accepted definition of
terrorism is required that will distinguish freedom fighting (which enjoys a
measure of legitimacy among nations) from terrorist activity.
5. Attitudes toward the population supporting terrorism
Terrorist organizations often rely on the assistance of a sympathetic civilian
population. An effective instrument in the limitation of terrorist activity is to
undermine the ability of the organization to obtain support, assistance, and aid
from this population.
6. Normative scale
A definition that separates terrorism out from other violent actions will enable
the initiation of an international campaign designed to undermine the legitimacy
of terrorist organizations, curtail support for them, and galvanize a united
international front against them.
The attitude of terrorist organizations toward the
definition
The definition of terrorism does not require that the terrorist organizations themselves
accept it as such.
However, if properly applied, it could challenge organizations that are presently
involved in terrorism to abandon it so as to engage exclusively in guerrilla warfare.
Two ways in which it could pressure organizations to abandon terrorism are:
1. The moral consideration
Many terrorist organizations are troubled by the moral question bearing on their
right to harm civilians. Thus the moral dilemma does exist, and the opponents
of terrorism must intensify it.
2. The utilitarian consideration
Untitled 9
