Responses to "Maybe the conflict needs more religion?"

1. David Zarnett
   February 05, 2006

   Hi,

   I agree that this initiative is quite interesting but unfortunately it is not totally unique. Effi Eitam of the National Religous Party once mentioned that Israel would be more accepting into the Muslim Middle East if it was more religous. Much of the terrorist ideology that influences Hamas, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. is rooted in anti-imperialism that abhors Western values, something Israel represents, as it is a sign of domination and exploitation. Perhaps, these two individuals have hit the nail on the head (but maybe not).
2. dave
   February 06, 2006

   I disagree with the premise of your statement that “terrorist ideology influences Hamas, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.” which seems to flirt with racism. The “etc.” is vague and unclear and hints at including all Arabs under an umbrella of “terrorist ideology” that is patently false.

   In any case, you contradict it by saying that it is a response to “anti-imperialism,” which is true. Palestinian resistance groups are influenced by the desire to be a liberated people, not to be “terrorists.” Resisting imperialism is legitimate and not a “terrorist ideology.”

   In the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that the article is written in, the Muslim Brotherhood does not play a role. I may be reaing too much into your comment though…

   Fatah entered the political sphere, self-moderated and achieved a few gains although they were more than offset by the losses brought about by poor leadership, increased Israeli repression, and rampant corruption. Now that Hamas has entered the political sphere, I think it too will self-moderate to an extent. It will certainly work to clean up the P.A. and that’s a positive step forward.
3. David Zarnett
   February 06, 2006

   The term anti-imperialist terrorism is not a contradiction but rather an academic term used to describe certain groups influenced by a certain ideology that drives them to commit terrorist acts. It is like nationalist terrorism (which also seeks liberation) and socialist (revolutionary) terrorism that seeks another type of liberation. My use of the word terrorism in that sense is in no way racist. Unfortunately, many are timid to use the term terrorist as it is very problematic and controversial.

   A definition of terrorism alludes us all, but I simply used it because all the groups I have mentioned above have used violence for political ends. Now, does this mean that any violence used for political ends is terroristic? Probably not, as it would weaken the use of the word, but in the case of Hamas and Fatah, regardless of their ideology and intentions, they are terrorist groups who have killed innocent civilians (whether they view them as innocent or civilians is another matter) to pursue their goals. What distinguishes them as terrorist is that it was there express desire to kill civilians – whatever the causes or context does not matter in determining whether they are terrorist or not.
4. dave
   February 06, 2006

   You didn’t say “anti-imperialist terrorism.” You said “terrorist ideology that influences Hamas, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.” Again, you seem to paint all groups with the same brush. In the cases of the three you offered, Hamas and Fatah have long been at odds over virtually every aspect of the conflict; violence, tactics, the role of Islam, and on and on. [EDIT]: Also, Hamas broke away from the MB which then moved into politics in Egypt just as Hamas is now doing in Palestine.

   There is a good definition of terrorism actually. It’s the one the U.S. government uses:

   Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

   But according to your reply, Palestinians “desire” to kill civilians, while Israelis (I take it because of the total ommision of them from your two comments) do not. I think Israel’s policies and actions directed toward the Palestinians fulfill the above definition. [EDIT]: Terrorism isn’t an “ideology,” it’s a tactic.

   Maybe I’m reading you wrong, but I think you’re parsing words and throwing off the responsibility that Israel has as the primary perpetrator of violence in this conflict.
5. David Zarnett
   February 06, 2006

   I agree these radical (radical is not pejorative here) groups differ in many ways. Again my point is that they all share deep ideological convictions – see my posts entitled “Theories of Terrorism” or “Anti-Imperialist Terrorism.” You are only partially right that terrorism is a tactic. Sometimes the use of terrorism is an end in itself due to a host of psychological components.

   I have never mentioned anything about the Palestinians desire to kill civilians. I did say that the terrorists have an inclination to kill what we define as civilians. Why would you lump my use of the term ‘terrorist’ with the term ‘Palestinian’? You wil agree not all Palestinians are terrorists.

   There is no meaning in the fact that I have not discussed Israeli actions. I am assuming this comment comes from a certain political agenda you hold – and that’s fair. But my initial intention was to point out that perhaps the terrorism we see today is a result of Israel being western and secular which does not bode well for integration into Middle Eastern society.

   There are many problems with the definition of terrorism you provide. First, there is no global consensus on what terrorism means, in fact there is no consensus among Federal agencies in the US on how to word a proper definition of terrorism. Second, what does ‘unlawful’ mean? If we assume the Iraq war is unlawful because it was not given international approval and violated the sovereignty of Iraq that than war, by the US’s own definition, is terrorist. Furthermore, this definition also assumes that the American War of Independence was terrorist because it used illegal force against loyalists to “intimidate or coerce [the British] government.” Third, what is a proper definition of civilian? The U.S. state department uses the term non-combatant which for them means even a soldier who is not on duty or is not at the time armed.

   This hopefully shows that there is no one definition of terrorism, in fact there are no good definitions of terrorism either simply because it is such a politically loaded term that is now subjective to the political leanings of the person using the term.
6. dave
   February 08, 2006

   You are right to say that not all Palestinians are terrorists and I think you will find many instances of my stating the same thing here on my site. My concern came from your lumping together of Hamas, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood and “etc” in your original comment. Fatah is a secular movement and it and Hamas have long seen each other as far less than partners. It seemed a blanket statement about all Palestinian resistance groups and I disagree with that.

   Additionally, I find the term you used, “terrorist ideology” so vague as to be without use. Especially since you contend that there is no good or useful definition of “terrorism” anywhere in the world, ascribing an undefined ideology to all resistance groups in Palestine serves ony to lump them all together in some sort of “otherness” that their undefined ideology prevents us from dealing with.

   Finally, I totally disagree that we can’t come up witha decent definition of “terrorism.” In fact, I think the one I quoted from the U.S. government is pretty clear. It describes acts which are punishable as opposed to thoughts, which should not be. i think you are correct that this definition describes the actions of the U.S. government (or proto-government) that you listed above. So? Governments can’t be “terrorists?” The Israeli government is busy declaring the proto-Palestinian govenrment just that way right now. So to is Iran being labeled (or re-labeled) “terrorist” at the moment.

   I think that your line of reasoning is dangerous because it is far too broad. Even though you are attempting to be more specific, you are being much more vague. Anyway, I will look at the stuff you mentioned on your site and maybe that will clarify things.

Leave a Response