Hizbullah and the Deconstruction of Terrorism

Cameron Lee

Mr. Bowman

Eng. 101 Sec 114

25 April 2008

Hizbullah and the Deconstruction of Terrorism

I remember the day somewhat clearly. I was performing my morning ritual of watching ESPN and getting ready for school, an event that my mother always dreaded because I would get lost in a sports highlight and miss the bus. On this day, the sports highlights were interrupted by some sort of news emergency, which was something that I had never seen happen during my morning ritual. The news anchor used language that was new to me. Words like hijack, Middle East, Islam, and terrorism were absent from my vocabulary. September 11, 2001 was my informal introduction to Islam and terrorism, as I am sure was true for many people at my adolescent age of 13. As I grew older, I learned that my initial connections and perceptions of Islam and terrorism going hand in hand were incorrect. Though this learning curve is high in our society, I believe drawing the distinction between Islam and terrorism is important because the effects of failing to separate these two terms are felt throughout the world. If a line is not drawn between Islam and terrorism, human rights go out the window when an Islamic group challenges a dominant group for political, social, cultural, or economic control. Even if the individual does not practice Islam, having the label of “terrorist” is enough to justify using torture to extract useful information from the individual. One such Islamic group, Hizbullah, fought Israel for legitimate reasons in the past; and because of these conflicts, Israel and America have branded Hizbullah with the “terrorist” label. However, Hizbullah is not an Islamic terrorist group, but they have been labeled as terrorists such because of their Islamic beliefs and behavior. Secondly, Islam has not been a constant in terrorism, but rather a modern variable. Furthermore, in order to understand why Hizbullah is not a terrorist group and why Islam cannot be synonymous with terrorism, the term terrorism must be defined.

Before one labels a group as terrorist, it is important to understand what terrorism is. Terrorism is a dynamic and fluid term that can be defined in many different ways, with each characterization involving different aspects or variables based on the times or the definer’s experiences with terrorism. US law and the CIA define terrorism as, “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Title 22, Chapter 38, Ð'§2656f). Unfortunately, this definition fails to acknowledge that there is more than just political terrorism, which makes the definition incomplete. Social terrorism, religious terrorism, and state sponsored terrorism are examples of terrorism. The media further attribute to the ambiguity of the definition of terrorism. As shown in the cartoon, “Noms De Guerre,” by Cox and Forkum, the media have a very important role in the perception of terrorism because they can report a group as rebels, militants, or activists. Cox and Forkum demonstrate that governments do not hold all of the power when labeling a group as terrorist. Along with the media, scholars and historians have their own view of what the word means. Scholar Walter Laqueur plainly defines terrorism as, “the use of covert violence by a group for political ends” (A History of Terrorism 79). Despite the conciseness, Laqueur, like our government, fails to take other motivations for terrorist activities into consideration. In addition, he does not consider the acts of terrorism that are committed by single persons, not a group. According to his definition, Bin Laden, McVeigh, and Kaczynski are not terrorists. Laqueur’s definition is inefficient in its intention to materialize the concept of terrorism. In a more specific and intricate manner than Laqueur, military historian Caleb Carr identifies terrorism as, “the contemporary name given to, and the modern permutation of, warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable” (The Lessons of Terror 6). Carr’s definition addresses the many aspects of terrorism, but he is not the one making accusations against Hizbullah; his definition will not be the definition used in this paper. Hizbullah’s activities will be analyzed under the definition constructed by the US government because the United States government is the main entity that labels Hizbullah as a terrorist organization.

The United States’ Department of State lists Hizbullah as a foreign terrorist organization, but several scholars and authors disagree. One of these academics, Neil Sammonds, argues in his article, “Within the Meaning of the Definition,” that Hizbullah is not a terrorist organization. Sammonds’ uses a UN mandate to justify the actions of Hizbullah: “peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination to struggle to this end [of self determination] and to seek and receive support in accordance with the Charter and other principles of international law” (48). Take notice of the term, “foreign occupation” in the mandate because Israel’s occupation of parts of southern Lebanon has been at the root of Hizbullah’s actions in the region. During the Lebanese Civil War and the Six-Day War, Israel invaded and captured pieces of land belonging to Lebanon. Despite a UN mandate calling for Israel to withdraw to an internationally determined border, Israel did not. Because Israel refused to recognize the international border, Hizbullah forced Israeli troops to withdraw from Lebanon using guerilla tactics in 2000 and again in 2006 (“Hassan Nasrallah”). The behavior of Hizbullah, as stated by the UN mandate mentioned earlier, is completely legitimate, not terroristic, because of Israel’s illegal occupation of Lebanese territory. Sammonds indirectly claims that the Israeli government is a terrorist faction, not Hizbullah. An important section the US government’s definition of terrorism mentions “violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets,” demonstrates that civilian casualties are one way to quantify terrorism. In the most recent conflict over land and prisoners, Israel was responsible for over 1000 civilian deaths (Ghattas).