Terrorism: Agreeing on the Basics.

• Author: Falk, Ofir

A series of coordinated suicide bombings in Sri Lankan churches and luxury hotels, carried out by an Islamic organization on Easter Sunday, killing over 250 people was an appalling act of terrorism. Almost all would agree on that.

Was the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi also an act of terrorism? It was, if it was a deliberate act, motivated by religious or political objectives, as alleged by Turkish officials and others [i]. Moreover, if the slaying was intentionally orchestrated by the Saudi government, it was an act of state terrorism. That's basic. Or is it?

Today, after years of modern terrorism and counterterrorism, the international community still does not agree on a single definition of terrorism. Despite the daily threats posed to many states, the definition conundrum prevents an agreed classification that could better facilitate the fight against terrorism and thwart the public legitimacy that most terrorist organizations seek. When a problem is accurately and acceptably defined, it should be easier to solve.

Terrorism is an overly used term often heard in different discourses and contexts. It is used by the general public and in the course of academic, political, and legal debates, not to mention constantly referenced in the media. It may not be feasible to verse one universal definition for all discourses, but the term's key criteria can and should be agreed upon.

Terrorism has derogatory connotations with which few want to be associated. The more ambiguous the concept, however, the more it lends itself to opportunistic referrals and affords vehement condemnation across the geopolitical spectrum. Ironically, condemnation of terrorism can be heard from Washington to Teheran, without agreement on the meaning of the term or who should be held accountable for its chaos and carnage. Iranian leaders can send condolences to grieving Jewish families in Pittsburgh [ii] shortly after inciting to wipe the Jewish state off the map. [iii] Terrorism is "intolerable" when it hits us but too often deemed justified or at least "understandable" when it hits others. What can most states agree on, nevertheless? What is the world's common red line?

Definitions, Conceptualization and Perspectives

Alex Schmid, a forefather of terrorism studies, dissected the issue and presented 109 distinct definitions of terrorism and 22 different elements ascribed to terrorism in common use. [iv] A decade later, Walter Laqueur carried out a similar study, observing that it is generally agreed that terrorism involves violence or the threat of violence. [v] Two decades later, in the context of a wide-ranging Handbook on terrorism, Schmid and Easson compiled 260 different definitions, but were still unable to point to a universal consensus on one. [vi] Even within the United States there are different definitions given by different agencies. [vii]

One reason for the lack of agreement on defining terrorism is because the contextual meaning of the term has changed so frequently over the past two hundred years [viii]. Terrorism has deviated from its original focus of state-sponsored violence designed to induce fear and terror in the enemies of the French revolution, to describe the exact opposite: political violence directed against the state [ix]. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, prior to World War I, terrorism was often used to refer to anarchists and left-wing social revolutionaries. After World War II and the decline of the European empires, terrorism became linked with violent methods against colonial governments used by various anti-colonialist groups seeking self-determination.

Two issues have dominated the definition discussion in international law discussions: (i) whether states can commit acts of terrorism, and (ii) whether one can distinguish a terrorist from a freedom fighter struggling against an oppressive regime. [x]

States, Civilians and Non-Combatants

One of the most significant elements in the evolution of contemporary asymmetric conflicts, especially when studying sub-national groups or clandestine agents, is that the distinctions that may have once existed between terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and insurgency are now all but nonexistent in much of public discourse. [xi] In the past, terrorist organizations were usually of small size with limited strength; guerrillas were depicted as being able to control territory and exercise limited sovereignty over populations; while insurgency was often considered a more sophisticated and advanced form of warfare than was typically used by terrorists. [xii] Today, those distinctions, in common discourse, are all but obsolete. s[xiii]

It is my assertion that it is the choice of targets that can differentiate these forms of warfare. If the deliberate choice of targets in an attack are civilians, then it is a terrorist attack; and if an organization endorses attacks against civilians as part of its written or unwritten charter, then it is a terrorist organization. Anything else should be considered something else.

Terrorist organizations can have paramilitary or even advanced military capabilities and apply guerrilla tactics or carry out...