Terrorism Between Politics and Language

Israeli indiscriminate bombing of the Gaza Strip coupled with Israeli officials' incendiary comments leaves little doubt in designating the actions of the IDF in Gaza as acts of terrorism.

The end of the twentieth century witnessed the breakout of several unforeseen yet decisive events on the world stage: the Iranian Revolution 1979, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan 1979-1989, and the collapse of the Soviet Union 1991. However, the beginning of the twenty-first century saw the emergence of a relatively unfamiliar phenomenon: Terrorism. As al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden, declared holy war on the US and its allies, his operations against civilian and military targets started to be labelled by news channels and Western media outlets as “terrorist attacks.” Furthermore, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center later globalized the concept, and its derivative term, counterterrorism. Today, terrorism and counterterrorism are ubiquitous political concepts, used everywhere, quite often, by democratic governments, monarchs, and even dictators.

No Consensus

As a political term, terrorism saw a surge in its global usage by the end of the Cold War. In the English scientific literature, the term experienced a rise during the decade between 1965-1975, remained relatively stable during the eighties, and went on to become prevalent during the nineties onward. Even though the aforementioned data relates solely to the academic realm of the concept, only a fool would think that global events, dictated by and, indeed, the results of government policies, do not cross with and impact academia.

The Utilization of the term 'terrorism' in English Scientific Literature since the 19th Century

Despite the term’s noticeable usage in international relations, however, the fact remains that a universal agreement on a single definition is still absent. As the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) stated, “national definitions of terrorism remain largely left to the discretion of States, leading to varying interpretations in domestic counter-terrorism legislation.” One of the reasons for that is the realist notion of anarchy. The numerous international organizations that emerged at the end of World War Two and the Cold War, as well as the ensuing treaties and conventions that were signed, could not conceal the fact that at the end of the day, nation-states are still the major sovereign players in global politics. Accordingly, each party will peruse the kind of agenda and policies that serve their national interests and delegitimize those of their adversaries, including using the label “terrorism.” Throughout the first decade of the 21st century, for example, the word ‘terrorism’ was largely used against Middle Eastern governments that had anti-Western, anti-American overtones, such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Qaddafi’s Libya, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Iran’s religious dictatorship (to this very day). In addition, Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the havoc that was wrecked on the population, and the annexation of the country’s eastern provinces prompted the European Union to designate Russia as a “state sponsor of terrorism and as a state that “uses means of terrorism”.”

In this anarchic and self-help system that we live in, the endeavour of finding a rational identification of the term has grown to be more elusive. Is terrorism a state act? Or is it a nonstate/individual one? Is it confined within a country’s borders or is it an interstate transgression? How is it different from war? WHAT IS TERRORISM?

Eclectic Opinions

When one looks up the definition of ‘terrorism’ on the famous search engine ‘Google’, the following sentence, from Oxford Languages, appears: “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” This definition would be feeble at best for any person with the slightest deductive skills. Whether through diplomatic seclusion, economic sanctions, or military operations, ‘the pursuit of political aims’ via a variety of means, including military ones, seems to be a common policy trait among nation-states in the egoistic pursuit of their national interests. If the end goal of terrorism is simply to achieve political goals, then all governments are de facto terrorist organizations. More importantly, still, is the usage of the term ‘unlawful’ concerning the use of violence/force. The insinuation here is the absence of a ‘legal cloak’ under which the use of violence would be deemed justified or legal. However, the notion of ‘legality’ is built on two pillars: a) a codified array of abiding rules and regulations that sanction or prohibit actions and policies, and b) a central authority that legislates and enforces those laws equally. The definition of ‘terrorism’ as ‘the unlawful use of violence’, therefore, is groundless, as it completely lacks the second pillar and resides on an elusive first one. International treaties, conventions, and accords are signed and enforced by/on some states but not others, meanwhile, the absence of a universal government that ratifies and upholds international treaties renders the latter to be nothing more than words on paper, with no genuine abiding legality. Consequently, as the notion of legality seems to have little to no validity beyond the borders of the nation-state, the aforementioned definition fails to accurately highlight the parameters of what constitutes a terrorist act.

Members of the Palestinian militant group, Hamas. A group that is designated as a terrorist group by the EU and US, yet as a resistance movement by many Islamic and Arab countries.

Similarly, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provides a rather tenuous explanation as to what the term might entail. Like the definition put forward by Google, the FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use or threatened use of violence committed against persons/property to coerce a GOV, the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Likewise, the OHCHR postulates that terrorism “involves the intimidation or coercion of populations or governments through the threat or perpetration of violence, causing death, serious injury or the taking of hostages.” As such, in addition to the invalidity of the previously mentioned arguments of ‘lawfulness’ and ‘the pursuit of political objectives,’ the latest definitions also fail to adequately establish the identity of the perpetrator and in limiting the status of the presumed victim. As one dives deeper and deeper into the linguistic abyss, the cloudiness of the term appears to get more resilient. As people tend to define themselves by what they are not, in an attempt to distance themselves from those who are different, perhaps words can follow a similar rationale in the hope of reaching a more insightful and robust definition.

What Is, What Is Not

Historically, ‘war’ immeasurably antedates ‘terrorism’, both as a practice and a term. Since time immemorial, people and societies declared ‘war’ on each other; through the use of military force, they invaded, pillaged, and occupied each other as well as enslaved one another’s populations. Nowhere was the term ‘terrorism’ in its current usage ever mentioned as a phenomenon in the history books. Nowadays, thanks to its long historical record, ‘war’ has a much clearer definition. Oxford Languages defines ‘war’ as a “state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.” This definition, as facile as it might be, seems to put forward three of the four corners of the act: ‘who,’ ‘what,’ and ‘whom,’ with ‘why’ being the only missing factor. Finally, the UN Charter of 1945 defines war as “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,” providing only the ‘what’ and ‘whom,’ while neglecting the ‘who’ and ‘why.’

By examining each definition of ‘war’ separately and investigating each definition of ‘terrorism’ rationally, the lines that separate the two concepts seem to get less blurry, allowing us to clarify our views on the events that seem to fall under either of these phenomena. Subsequently, we arrived at and propose the following definitions for both concepts of ‘war’ and ‘terrorism’:

1. Terrorism is the deliberate act of targeting civilian assets and installations by a militant entity via the use of violence/force in pursuit of political agenda.

2. War is a state of armed conflict between two militant/political entities to achieve political goals and the furtherance of one’s national interests.

In addition:

a. In pursuit of academic impartiality, a belief was formed during the process of investigation that, terrorism, unlike ‘war,’ is an ‘act,’ a ‘practice’ and not a political phenomenon. By making this conclusion, we remove any attempt to politicize the concept by competing governments or the latter’s effort to limit the term only to the actions of non-state actors.

b. Due to the former assertion, we see that nonstate actors should cease being labelled as ‘terrorist organizations,’ a prejudicially politicized term, and instead as ‘militant entities,’ an objective and rational designation.