Terrorism and the Israel-Hamas War

After a year of warfare between Israel and Hamas, with casualties at around fifty thousand, both sides have been accused of "terrorism". In order to make any sense of these claims, a definition is required by which the claims can be evaluated, whether the terrorist actions have any justification, and what the international community can do about the loss of civilian life, especially in an environment of partisan realism.

There is no universal definition of "terrorism". However, a synthesis of various statements found in international law, the United Nations, academic experts etc, can be made as follows: Terrorism is the systematic use of intimidating violence against civilian non-combatants for the purpose of inducing political change. By "systematic" what is meant is that the terrorist actions are a planned, organised, deliberate, and strategic decision. By "intimidating violence" it is noted the purpose of terrorism is to intimidate the population and to create a climate of fear. By "non-combatants", the target is identified.

Another component that must be mentioned is that "terrorism" can occur by state or non-state actors. The US FBI, for example, defines terrorism as the "unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". In other words, the US state is excluding itself from being "terrorist" body. Such a claim is patently unjustifiable. States themselves have clearly engaged in terrorist acts against populations, and indeed some have become historically famous, such as the Reign of Terror (la Terreur) of the first French republic and the Great Terror (Большой террор) in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Yezhov.

Noting that State, non-State, and quasi-State groups can all engage in terrorism, an evaluation of actions can be applied to the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Whilst context for the conflict is important, it is necessary to narrow it down to the event that is seen as the "casus belli", that is, the October 7 2023 incursion by Hamas and other Palestinian groups into southern Israel. In this attack it is now estimated that 1,180 Israeli's were killed, including 797 civilians (including foreign nationals) and 379 security forces. Many countries and international spokespeople quickly denounced the action as an act of terrorism, but called for restraint.

The latter clearly fell on deaf ears. At the time of writing, over 40,000 Palestinians have been killed and over half of them women and children, identified by name. Nearly the entire population of the Gaza strip, some 2.3 million people, have been forcibly displaced. Almost needless to mention, most buildings have been destroyed or damaged, with schools and cultural centres being notable targets.

It should be clear by this effect that Israeli security forces have gone well beyond trying to apprehend those militants or defeat the military wing of Hamas and other groups that engaged in the October 7 attacks. As has been bluntly quipped, if a school shooter takes refuge in a school, you don't call an airstrike to level the building with the children and teachers inside, because if you do so, the effective target is not the school shooter, but the children and the teachers. In international law, this is given effect the principle of proportionality and the prohibition on collective punishment. The former is a prohibition on military actions that are "expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated", whereas the latter states "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited".

As legal and moral principles should be applied without political partisanship, it is evident that both Hamas and its allies, as the governing bodies of occupied Gaza, and the Israeli state, have both engaged in terrorist acts. Both have targetted civilian non-combatants in an organised manner with intimidating violence with a view to generate terror among the civilian population. However, to say that both sides in the conflict have engaged in terrorism does not mean that both carry equal moral culpability. In the grim calculus of civilian victims, the sheer and brutal numbers inform all those who care to listen to facts that Israeli terrorism is forty times worse than that of Hamas. These are objective facts, not subjective matters of intention or potential, but the actual number of innocent human beings that have been slaughtered for simply living in the wrong place.

The situation has become so bad that Israel has been accused of genocide with clear statements from Israeli officials indicating intent to destroy Gaza's population by outright destruction of the population and by making the region uninhabitable for Palestinians. The Israeli "total blockade" of Gaza has prevented the entry of food, water, medicine, fuel and electricity, contributing to starvation among the population. The South African government has initiated proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice, citing the Genocide Convention, and the case is ongoing. One thing is clear; when a State has sufficient power to engage in terrorism against a target population, the intent of genocide lurks closely behind.

Against the stupefying effects of mass media reporting and the common trivial apolitical distractions of empty-headed mass culture, there are those who take issue with the mass murder of innocent people, regardless of who they are. For those who have sufficient empathy to bear witness, there are the social media feeds of live "sousveillance" of the lifeless bodies of children killed by yet another airstrike supposedly against "militants". The imagery generates disgust and despair, from which avoidance is a cowardly response, whereas protest and engagement are righteous actions. Powerful world leaders in the Western world, who continue to provide Israel military and political support, seek to condemn or ban any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism, whilst Israel itself engages in the most violent collective murders against a Semitic people in recent history.

The principle of political realism is that States, without any concern or capacity for what is right, will engage in whatever actions are beneficial for that State. The State, in this sense, is an amoral, psychopathic (i.e., intrinsically) "legal person" where bilateral and multilateral agreements exist only for the provision of temporary mutual benefit between States. As individuals give loyalty to States (or religions, or ideology) over their shared humanity, they become sociopathic (i.e., environmentally-induced) actors. But States are not actors in their own right; they depend on individual action. We can be well aware that Israel, as a client-state of the US, will have that country's protection in any international legal sanction through its veto power in the UN Security Council; the United States has consistently used its veto to block full Palestinian membership to the United Nations.

Politicians in wealthy Western countries are generally conservative creatures. They depend on re-election and typically prefer it if there is not much disruption to their social system. Public opinion in this context matters; as early as January this year, Israel suffered a widespread loss of support around the globe because of its response. Bringing awareness through conversation, lobbying MPs, demonstrations, supporting the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, and ultimately action by trade unions are among effective actions that those in the most developed countries in the world can offer solidarity to those who are being subject to State-sponsored terrorism in Gaza. As the Israeli state lurches onwards in a terrorist war with no clear end-game, just constant violence, future generations will justly ask, just as they did after WWII; "what did you do when genocide was being committed?"