Wednesday Morning Rant Musing

Over the past month of conflict in Israel (and recently the wider region), there has been much disagreement - some of it quite passionate - about nomenclature. What is Hamas? What should those who do violence in Hamas' name be called? Israel prefers "terrorist." The American press - worth little, though very powerful - seems to prefer "militant" or "fighter." The Biden Administration so far has little consistency other than not liking the "T-word." Hamas itself calls them "martyrs."

There are other possible words. There's "soldier" - disliked by many or most because of its implication of certain legitimacy, standard of action and rights. There's also "criminal" - perhaps too vague and generalist a term. "Guerrilla" is also a legitimate contender. What is the distinction, and when does one become the other? Where is the line between "criminal act" and "terrorist act" and "act of war?"

It matters because it in part determines the response. Traditionally, criminal acts are punished by the legal system and acts of war are punished by the military. One results in fines, jail time, individual execution, etc. and the other results in larger-scale combat of one form or another. Different rules, methods and standards apply. One does not respond to crime with war, nor to war with a criminal code and prosecutors.

But what about coordinated and widespread violent acts of non-state actors? What about such acts that come from pseudo-state actors? The concept of "terrorism" comes from not wanting to try to classify these and similar scenarios into prior definitions. Classifying it as crime - which it can be and often is - may not permit an adequate response. Classifying it as war - which it can be and often is - requires an expensive, disruptive, potentially unpopular and always lethal response. "Terrorism" is an attempt to square the circle.

The concept of "terrorism" is also a useful legal construct for other reasons. War - at least in the west - implies rules. Rules about who you kill and who you don't kill, what weapons you use and don't use, who is a combatant and who isn't, etc. Those rules form for the basis for western war, but what happens when they aren't followed by the other party? Defining the engagement as a "war" could hobble the response in a similar way that defining the engagement as a "police action" would.

But when does the shift happen? At what point do "terrorist actions" become "acts of war?" Is Lebanon dealing with terrorist violence because of Hezbollah, or is it dealing with a civil war? So, too, with Hamas and Israel. Is this terrorism, or is it a foreign invasion? Is a semi-regularized force operating under the auspices of the de facto (and, in the case of Gaza, de jure) government - however barbaric and indiscriminate - a terrorist group or an army? Why one and not the other?

These lines are muddy. The distinctions are unclear, yet the distinctions are important. I don't know where the lines are between these definitions, but as irregular conflicts increase in scale and frequency, those lines matter because they will, in part, shape what is deemed an "acceptable response" when those conflicts break out.

posted by Joe Mannix at 11:00 AM

| Access Comments