Terrorism and International Response

0 Comment

In an Israeli Newspaper Ha’aretz, Nissan Horowitz wrote: Terrorism – it’s all in the eyes of the beholder. He argues over the fact that if the attack on the twin towers can be regarded as terrorism, then why the bombing in a Kabul’s hospital can’t be considered as one According to a truism, it is believed that, terrorist, in the eyes of one, is a freedom fighter in the eyes of another. Or considering the Israeli/Palestine case, those, whom the Israelis consider as terrorists, are for the Palestinians, martyrs.
One might wonder if to call rebels, insurrectionists, mercenaries, activists, guerillas, militants, dissenters, freedom fighters, etc, all these as terrorists Or perhaps the very concept holds an absolute slot. (Terrorism guide, n.p., 2008) Whatever reasons that lie behind this enigma, are indeed not inexplicable. From a particular group, ‘a terrorist takes birth when he senses unfairness or discrimination perceived by the very group he belongs to, therefore he becomes the hero for that entire group, be it a small anarchist cell, or a whole tribe, or class, nation, religion etc. For his struggle, he is applauded by those in solidarity with him, but highly condemned as terrorists by those unsympathetic to the strong aims of that struggle.’ (Weiss, pp. 11+, 2002)
The U.N. has certainly strived to give terrorism a proper definition, and so have all the international lawyers. Nonetheless, it has, in all its forms and manifestations, been, by far, condemned no matter whosoever commits it, where they do, and for what purpose. (Secretary General, n.p., 2006) The diction for terrorism which confines to a particular method of conducting violence can be censured irrespective of the circumstances.
‘This nonexistence of a proper agreed definition carries weight for a number of reasons, which involve its blocking the prospect of bringing up terrorist acts, that of genocide or other war crimes, to an international court. and leaving individual countries unbound to outlaw actions which, maybe for their own political expediency, they choose to categorize as terrorism. Therefore, it is crucial to define the problem.’ (Terrorism guide, n.p., 2008)
Official Definitions
Various views have been recognized on the definition and interpretation of terrorism, for which the definition of ‘aggression’ may also be considered. (Crozier, pp.28, 1986) The definitions of terrorism are particularly acutely perceptive, indeed because they tend to set limits over the range of legitimate responses to them. (Norgren, pp. 4, 2003) A broad definition, accepted by the US State Department, was put forward by the US Central Intelligence Agency. They were of the view that some individuals and groups intimidate or use violence for political purposes, whether favoring or opposing the establishment of governmental authority. When these actions are aimed at shocking, stunning, or threatening a target group wider than the immediate victims, (Ramos, n.p., 2007) it comes under terrorism. James Adams, in his composition ‘financing of terror’, has put forward another definition that defines a terrorist as an individual, follower or supporter of a group that intends to attain political ends using violent means. These violent means are often at the expense of casualties to harmless, nave