Terrorism Is not a New Phenomenon - Case Study Example

RUNNING HEAD: TERRORISM IS NOT A NEW PHENOMENON Terrorism is not a New Phenomenon Terrorism is not a New Phenomenon Ganor (2002) argues that, contrary to the belief held by many, in order to understand and effectively combat terrorism a definition of it becomes necessary. Opponents perceive that defining the word will give rise to 'loophole' within the international law system to allow countries to sponsor groups outright who can then legitimise their affiliation and align themselves with something other than the term 'terrorist'. Along these lines of thought Ganor (2002, p. 288) defines terrorism as "the deliberate use or the threat to use violence against civilians in order to attain political, ideological and religious aims." Tilly (2004, p. 5) expands the definition somewhat stating that terrorism is a "strategy as asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime." Both compare terrorism is a pseudo type 'army' outside the realm of the organised political regime in power within the geographical location of the group. The author contends that terrorism is not a new phenomenon. Depending upon the definition one chooses to adopt terrorism can be traced back to Biblical times. As long as there have been oppressed people within our culture there has been terrorism. Years of systematic repression coupled with feelings of hopelessness and a sense of unfairness prove to be compelling qualitites which lure one to find their voice. As human nature tends to bring together people with like mindsets, views and beliefs, the dynamic process within the group can often elevate people to do as a group what they would never conceive of doing individually, the mob mentality, if you will. It is a sense of security and allows for a level of autonomy. However, there are those within the group that rise even above this level of security and commit the ultimate act - suicide terrorism. The author contends that it is the suicide terrorist's aim in that last final act to speak out, a last final, chilling attempt to be heard. The voice, the sense of power and control they have been denied year after year, generation after generation - leads them to that last final attempt to find the voice that had been taken from them. To understand the root causes of terrorism it is necessary to look beyond the act and the person or people beneath - not with disdain or shock but with open eyes - only then will we truly begin to understand the dynamics of terrorism. Following a review of pertinent literature regarding the terrorist and terrorism a case study of a suicide bomber will be provided to put a name to the act, if in one small way to see that tragedy is truly on both sides of the terrorist act. Tilly (2004) explains the within the terrorist group the acts of violence with which we associate them are but a small part of the activity the group engages in. When an act of overt violence is launched against the groups 'adversary' the goal is not the immediate death that may occur, that is just a by product of the act. The motivation of the terrorist action: In addition to whatever harm it inflicts directly, it sends signals - signals that the target is vulnerable, that the perpetrators exist, and that the perpetrators have the capacity to strike again. The signals typically reach three different audiences: the targets themselves, potential allies of the perpetrators, and third parties that might cooperate with one or the other (Tilly, 2004, p. 9). Ruby (2002, pp. 15-16) asserts that "terrorism is a form of military action carried out by rational and well-functioning people who do not have access to conventional means and who have valid political motivation for resorting to violence." He further purports that this theory views terrorism and the terrorist who partakes in such behaviour as normal. Terrorism is a manifestation of political violence committed by those who do not have access to traditional military means to conduct more organized forms of political violence. Saper (1988) took this same stance stating that terrorist and non-terrorist behaviour develops in the same manner. Behaviour which supplies the most benefit to a person is the behaviour that will be most frequently repeated, in short, "it is largely a result of societal influences and unique learning experiences that form the foundation of functional character traits or behavioural tendencies" (Ruby, 2002, p. 16). The goal of the terrorist therefore is not to harm or kill, rather this is secondary. Their driving force and motivation is to achieve a political end. The act of terrorism is their means of achieving that end. "The ultimate objective of terrorist behavior is to create extreme fear in the minds of a public in order to force that public's government to change policies that the terrorists deem unjust" (Ruby, 2002, p. 25). Staub (2002) along the same lines notes that we all have basic needs that must be fulfilled. Even under the best of conditions, we, as humans, suffer frustrations during our various life events that frustrate achievement of these needs. The need for control, socialisation, feelings of security, and a sense of effectiveness are all needs which motivate people to join groups. Couple this with the societies and cultures in which reared and very divergent outcomes can result. "At times, whole societies or large groups in them may face deprivation and injustice that generate shared grievances and ideals, which can lead to violence that takes forms regarded by outsiders as terrorists" (Staub, 2002, p. 208). This evolutionary process usually begins with the dissatisfaction or perceived wrongs being manifested through non-violent means. However, as needs continue to be unfulfilled the group dynamics can lead to escalating means of violence to achieve their end. Staub (2002) also found that the wider the divide between groups within a culture the greater the likelihood for violence. Such groups and communities have developed ideologies that are rooted in devaluation, with the basic assumption that an ideology is a shared vision of the 'ideal' societal framework which in practice would improve one's lot in life. When evaluating Moghaddam's (2005) 'Staircase to Terrorism' it became apparent that many of the themes expressed in the literature mirror the conceptual notion he put forth. A recurrent theme found whilst reading is the mixed messages many cultures have regarding the United States. On the one hand to many living in repressed, poor nations the United States is the embodiment of hope, an almost unrealistic utopia of what they aspire to. It is not the United States, per se, it is but by chance; it represents power, prestige and wealth to many. It is however also a double edged sword. As the wealthiest most powerful nation currently many target the United States and other western industrialised nations for the same reasons others dream to go there. To the disenfranchised and repressed the U.S. represents the figurehead of all those years of repression and frustration; those years of anger and hatred are directed not at the U.S. specifically, but what it represents to them. - Domination and superiority. By attacking the most powerful. terrorists are sending a message, telling the world that they are not afraid to confront the giant. One of the main points Moghaddam (2005) addressed that has been repeated over and over in the literature on terrorism is the level of perceived deprivation felt by many terrorist organisations. As has been found, many terrorists have tended to be better educated and more economically advantaged than the majority of that group within their society. However, the author contends that as Moghaddam stated it is not necessarily actual deprivation that drives a man to extreme acts of terrorism; rather it is the perception of it. Many of the areas of the world that are 'breeding grounds' for terrorists are poor, third world or emerging nations where the group from which the terrorist emerges is part of a repressed group that has been marginalised even further. Additionally, generations tend to live with this severe oppression; it is neither new nor unique - terrorism is bred generation by generation as frustration and despair mount. These repressive conditions have, through their very nature, silenced at least outwardly any voice. The terrorist act in and of itself becomes the voice of the terrorist. A voice can be classified as an individual or a group's ability to express their desires and grievances to those in authority and its influence upon actions taken to correct their problems. People without a voice are often those who feel that they are unable to effectively control their own lives. They exist in every society and culture on the globe. From minority groups in the United States to Shiite Muslims in the Middle East, people with a limited voice are not difficult to find. However, it is only those who are under severe repression, either perceived or real, who turn to violence as a method of discourse. Not out of cowardice or even despair, these terrorists want to be heard. It is not a question of social status or education; it is an attempt, the final attempt, to speak out; in the only way they know how. This is their voice. This is the thing that may appear peculiar to people who see the human soul as the most supreme thing. They are incapable of understanding this because their cultural structure has no concepts such as self-sacrifice and honour. These concepts do not exist in some cultures and thus they find themselves, in the face of these models, in a state of denial, in a state of total denial they think that this is impossible, and therefore they begin to present idiotic and silly interpretations. (Sadeq, 2002, np) To understand the nature of terrorism one has to look past the act to the people behind them. We see the devastation left in their wake at times and try to comprehend and make sense of what we perceive to be senseless. We can not necessarily look through our eyes to understand the rationale of the terrorist because we can not comprehend it. Generations of people living under repressive governments with years of degradation, abuse and shame; how can western industrialised nations begin to understand it unless we are willing to shed our blinders and see the world as it is, not just our tiny little part of it, but see the hardships and sense of guilt and shame faced day in and day out by so many. In an attempt to more fully view the psyche of the terrorist and terrorism. The author submits that through analysing several individual terrorists a greater understanding of the phenomena would result. It is easy to forget that suicide terrorists are sons and brothers too. We attempt to de-personalise them perhaps because it makes it easier for us to blindly hate and despise them then; the very emotions that drive them to commit the very acts we condemn. Perhaps we need to find a way to give them their voice before they feel there is no other means to be heard than to speak out in that final deadly manner. Ismail Maasawabi, a name few apart from his circle of family and friends ever heard was a suicide terrorist. Growing up in Gaza City Ismail's life was like that of a thousand other children in that city. He grew up in a house with eight siblings and all seemed to have a normal childhood. Ismail loved animals and would spend hours sitting under the trees in the yard holding the family's pet cat and draw or investigate the bugs and insects he would find. He was so much like any little boy. His mother said he was shy as a child but a good boy. When time came for school, Ismail excelled, always getting good marks. He grew up in a religious family, devout Muslims and Ismail was proud of this cultural heritage. Life in the Gaza Strip is difficult for many. "As a community, Gaza is like few places on Earth. It is desperately poor, with a dearth of natural resources. About 923,000 of Gaza's Arabs are registered refugees, including many displaced by Israel's 1948 War of Independence. More than half live in eight United Nations-administered refugee "camps," a euphemism for slums, some of the most squalid and densely populated areas in the world" (Rowley, 2004, screen 1) But Ismail had it a little better than most of his peers. He had a loving family and his father worked hard in a glass shop to support his family. They had a somewhat modest second floor flat; although not spacious it always 'felt like home'. Ismail's parents had a dream for him. That dream looked like it would be coming to fruition when Ismail finished school and was accepted at the university. He was going to be an art teacher. Early in the morning that spring day June 22, 2001, Ismail's father while hurrying to finish breakfast and get to work, remembered that Ismail had finals at the university and took a few minutes to wish him luck. Ismail replied "Father, Inshallah [God willing], you will be happy. You will see a bigger certificate that will make you proud and the whole family proud.'" (Rowley, 2004, screen 1) No one thought much about his statement. It was a normal hectic morning trying to get eight children up and out of the house. That morning was probably not much different than a hundred mornings we have each experienced rushing to get everyone up and moving to their final destinations. This morning, however, was anything but typical. Later that morning while Basheer, Ismail's father, was walking down the street, he heard emanating from loudspeakers attached to the local mosque, "We give you good news. The virgins of paradise are happily receiving the new groom, the martyr Ismail Maasawabi," (Rowley, 2004) Ismail was dead. That morning instead of heading off to take his final exams at the university, this bright 22 year old, instead got into his car wired with explosives and drove not to class, but instead to a Jewish settlement on the West Bank where he detonated the explosives killing himself and two Israeli soldiers. What was it about Ismail that drove him to take his own life at the expense of others Why did this happen and how could his parents not see how their shy, devoted little son with so much promise in front of him would chose to give his life for what What made Ismail trade his school books in for a car full of explosives The Gaza Strip has had a long and tumultuous history. In recent history, Jewish settlers until 1929 had encampments in place, claiming that the area, since Biblical times, belonged to the Israelites. In 1929 fierce rioting broke out and the Jewish settlers were forced to leave Gaza. Since that time they have been at conflict with Palestine, each claiming the thin strip of land as their own. In 1947 the United Nations allotted the Gaza Strip "from Yavneh to Rafiah on the Egyptian border to be an Arab state" (Brief History, 2005, screen 1) Since that time control of the Gaza Strip has gone back and forth between Israel and Egypt, finally, in 1971 a peace accord was signed and some Jewish settlers began to move into sparsely populated settlements on Gaza. For nearly 10 years there was a semblance of peace on Gaza with both Jewish and Muslims living side by side. Tensions rose again with the death of an Israeli civilian with immediate reprisal by the Israeli government. In 1987 the Palestinian Authority gained control of the Gaza Strip and since that time other than brief moments, this war torn part of the world has known no peace. A generation has been born, and too often died, and has never seen what peace is. This is the life that Ismail grew up in. His parents were shocked to hear of his involvement with 'Hams', "the militant Islamic organization that has grown into the most popular political group in the Gaza Strip." (Rowley, 2004, screen 1) Ismail was not, his parents believed, a boy who could be enticed into a culture that elevated the killing of oneself as an act of a martyr. He was bright, funny and had so much to look forward to. "He lived in a world of poverty, despair and ignorance where myths are spun from the yarn of rumour, forming a cloak of conspiracy and distortion that blankets the Arab world and makes truth as elusive as peace." (Rowley, 2004, screen 1) Yet it was neither poverty nor ignorance that drove Ismail to choose to become a suicide bomber. What Ismail wanted was to be heard. Living for years in an oppressive state, he wanted to stand up and be noticed. Suicide bombers are not born; they are created both by themselves and social climate in which they live. Although it has happened, contrary to popular myth, these bombers are not forced to do what they do. Rather, they willingly embrace it. We are just beginning to unravel the mysteries surrounding why. We do know that Ismail "was smart, loyal and not all that different from many of his Gaza peers, a new generation chafing under a yoke of alienation and humiliation imposed by parties it sees as the villains--Israel and its ally, the United States." (Rowley, 2004) Ismail was a devout Muslim, but his final act was not that out of religious fervour. He grew up seeing all around him years of repression. Thousands of people forced to live in such crowded conditions it is unimaginable to most of us. One thing he did see day after day growing up were the pictures lined up and down the streets of the martyrs. He grew up in a society that had elevated those who fought back against the years of repression in a manner that gave them elevated status that somehow never seemed quite possible to achieve in the environment they were born into. Research into the typical suicide bomber shows that: 47% of the suicide bombers have an academic education and an additional 29% have at least a high school education. 83% of the suicide bombers are single. 64% of the suicide bombers are between the ages 18-23; most of the rest are under 30. 68% of the suicide bombers have come from the Gaza Strip.(Shuman, 2001) Not the image one would expect. These are otherwise typical young people. On the surface, no different than the others they live amongst. Yet, they are inexplicably drawn into this final horrific act. "Without exception, the suicide bombers have lived their lives on the receiving end of a system designed to trample their rights and crush every hope of a brighter future Confronted by a seemingly endless combination of death, destruction, restriction, harassment and humiliation, they conclude that ending life as a bomb - rather than having it ended by a bullet - endows them, even if only in their final moments, with a semblance of purpose and control previously considered out of reach."(Shuman, 2001, screen 1) Having briefly examined the psychology behind the terrorist act and the factor and influences which can lead one to commit the ultimate act, the author attempted to place a name with the deed. It is difficult to understand the motivations and culture which leads one to commit this final act, but perhaps seeing beyond the act itself, as reprehensible as it is, we can possibly understand the magnitude of oppression and years of cultural degradation and shame that could drive one to even consider this ultimate act - the final attempt at finding their voice. References "A brief history of the Gaza settlement." 2005. [online] Jewish Virtual Library. Availbable from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/gaza_settlements.html [Accessed 3 April 2006] BLUMBERG, H. H., 2002. 'Understanding and dealing with terrorism: a classification of some contributions from the behavioural and social sciences.' Journal of Peace Psychology, 8 (1), 3-16. GANOR, B., 2002. 'Defining terrorism: is one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter' Police Practice and Research, 3 (4), pp. 287-304. MOGHADDAM, F. M., 2005. 'The staircase to terrorism: a psychological exploration.' American Psychologist, 60 (2), 161-196. ROWLEY, S. H., 3 October 2004. [online]. "Killing in the name of God." Chicago Tribune. Newsday. Available from http://www.newsday.com/news/specials/chi-0410030437oct03,0,1822131.story [Accessed 3 April 2006] RUBY, C. L., 2002. 'Are terrorists mentally deranged' Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2 (1), 15-26 SADEQ, A., 2002. [online] "An interview with Prof. 'Adel Sadeq, head of the psychiatry faculty at 'Ein Shams University in Cairo on the psychological structure of suicide bombers." The Middle East Medical Research Institute. Available from http://www.memri.org/video/segment2_adelsadeq.html [Accessed 3April 2006] SAPER, B., 1988. 'On learning terrorism.' Terrorism, 11, 13-27. SCHUMAN, E., 2001. [online] 'What makes suicide bombers tick" Israel Insider. Available from http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/security/articles/sec_0049.htm [Accessed 3 April 2006] STAUB, E., 2002. 'Notes on terrorism: origins and prevention.' Journal of Peace Psychology, 8 (3), 207-214. TILLY, C., 2004. 'Terror, terrorism, terrorists.' Sociological Theory, 22 (1), 6-13. Read More