Northern Illinois University Professor Tomis Kapitan – specialist in his studies of international ethics of terrorism – visited the Boston College campus this past weekend to deliver a lecture entitled, “Terrorism and Self-Determination in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” The lecture was sponsored through the efforts of the Center of Christian and Jewish Learning.
Kapitan argued, “terrorism is one of the most enduring, highly-publicized and tragic features of this violence [between the Israelis and Palestinians]…and yet there is no concrete agreed-upon definition for the actual term itself.”
Following from this the professor posited his own definition, asserting that “it shall be defined here as deliberate, politically-motivated violence, or the threat of such, that is targeted towards civilians.” Although he admitted that coming to an accurate definition is the toughest aspect – and opens oneself to such intense criticism – he believed of course that the formulation is the most essential part.
“Terrorism is not a new phenomenon,” he informed his listeners. It is as ancient as the most primitive of human warfare…in fact, it ranges from being sanctioned and glorified in the Holy Scriptures to assuming an integral role in the emergence of the United States as a nation through the eradication of the Native Americans.”
Even though he conceded that the phenomenon of terrorism is by no means new, something else has emerged in the last few decades – that is, the “rhetoric of terrorism.”
Such rhetoric has been used as a tool in achieving political ends, as a means to both discredit and dehumanize another group. As Kapitan put it, “the rhetoric taints a group and places them on the outside of the boundaries concerning normal political and social behavior.”
Kapitan contended, “such a negative connotation effectively erases any incentive that the audience might have had of understanding the group in the first place…rather, it just serves to discourage questioning into the cause of this behavior.”
On the level of governments, this rhetoric “deflects attention away from their own [government] policies that might have caused the grievances that resulted in terrorist activities…governments are not being challenged in their use of violence.”
Far from fostering a peaceful resolution of the conflict, the rhetoric of terrorism just results in more and more conflict; indeed, it just fosters short-sighted belligerence and silences meaningful political debate.
Addressing the nation soon after the September 11th terrorist attacks, President Bush said, “we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” Several Gallup polls taken in the immediate aftermath revealed that an average of 68% of the polled respondents said that even if innocent civilians were killed, the United States should still attack these terrorist nations.
These statistics alarmed Kapitan. For those individuals who read George Orwell’s novel 1984, Kapitan provided the example of “doublethink” – the term used to refer to an individual holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
“On the one hand, we are rejecting the terrorist activities of the nations involved in the attacks since it involved the killing of innocent civilians,” the professor reasoned. “On the other hand, we are advocating that terrorism through our willingness – as indicated in the polls – to sacrifice our own innocents.”
All these uses of the rhetoric of terrorism have been manifested in the present crisis witnessed in the Middle East between the Israelis and Palestinians. Blame should not be attributed to just one group since this rhetoric and its accompanying terrorism has been reciprocated on both sides.
Kapitan said, “These groups just want self-determination over the same land…the question now is which people should get the right of self-determination in that region? Who should be the proper beneficiaries of that land?” However, there does not seem to be a simple solution to this dilemma, as it has just created great confusion in international law.
Kapitan concluded, “the principle of self-determination is not enough of a solution, but must be observed in order to prevent future violence.” All in attendance appeared to agree with this.
Related Articles:
- BC Professor Premieres Documentary at MFA Professor John Michalczyk recently introduced his documentary...
- BC Professor Awarded Grant for Creative Writing Recently, BC Professor Suzanne Matson of the...
