The Moral Compass: Are the PKK, HAMAS, and Irgun Terrorists?

Following the string of attacks on the Turkish military by the PKK, the Turkish government was quick to remind themselves and the world that the PKK is a terrorist organization. At the same time Erdogan and other like-minded leaders in the Middle-East label HAMAS and Hezbollah “political resistance groups”. America has labeled all three groups “terrorist”, while Israel labels HAMAS and Hezbollah, and now the IHH terrorists it does not the PKK.

So is there is one universal way to define terror, if only to generate a moral compass?

Political Definition:

It is obvious that all the name calling by these governments is simple political expedience. America is allied with both Turkey and Israel, and so it terms Hezbollah, HAMAS, and the PKK terrorist. While Turkey, who is allied with both HAMAS and Hezbollah, calls them legitimate political resistance groups; but the PKK… THEY are terrorists. Israel labeling the IHH terrorist, only recently, is equally difficult to explain except politically (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-adds-ihh-to-terror-watch-list-1.296629). Politics are inherently partisan and patently self-serving therefore it can simply not serve as a universal metric for defining terror.

One Man's Terrorist… Perspective:

This definition was made famous in part by Al Jazeera director general Wadah Khanafar (see Youtube clip minute 47 http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/07/al_jazeera_dire/) who argues that terror is a matter of one’s point of view –one man’s terrorist is another's freedom fighter; and thereby justifying Al Jazeera’s extensive coverage of Bin Laden and co.

The justification perspective, as Khanfar correctly observed, is inherently subjective and therefore cannot be universalized. Furthermore, one potential reason Khanfar and people like him, argue this perspective is to force us into labeling everyone terrorist or nobody a terrorist. This results in the obfuscation (note the precise definition) of any moral compass by placing the perpetrator and the defender in the same box, by way of various justifications. Its sole purpose is to cloud the moral compass.

Intentions vs. Results:

This perspective offers more depth and substance.

On one hand a terrorist could be anyone who deliberately acts in way that causes terror. Therefore any purposeful action that RESULTS in terror, even if it is not intended to terrorize, could be termed a terrorist act.

Or

The act itself must be done in a way that is INTENDED to cause terror.

The practical difference (hava amena, for my Talmud-oriented friends) between these two theoretical definitions can be understood from the following, familiar, “ hypothetical”: A country goes to war with its enemy and attacks a school (after warning civilians with phone calls and fliers to avoid people launching rockets) that is being used to fire rockets.

Based on the results definition that act can be termed terrorist, because it caused terror, even if it was clearly not intended to do so. Based on the intention definition, the act was not inherently meant to cause terror but rather to respond to terror. The fact that civilians become terrorized because the location happens to be a school is not in itself sufficient reason to term it an act of terror.

However even this distinction is problematic, because any individual could claim that they did not intend to terrorize but to attack the enemy. I.e. we can never really judge intent (for more perspective on intention vs. result please see posts http://factoru.blogspot.com/2009/12/unifying-factor-understanding-goldstone.html, and http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/01/haiti-intentions-vs-results.html).

The axiom that one cannot judge intent, is compounded by context -the nature of terror and the confusion it creates. Not only can the perpetrator lie about their true intent, but they may actually believe that their act is not intended to terrorize but to wage a legitimate war. Either way, intent alone cannot serve as the defining element.

Civilians vs. Militants Perspective:

This approach seeks to identify the target of an act using evidence of target-location and stated intent.

Going back to our hypothetical. Let us say that the one shooting from the school is asked where his rocket is supposed to land, and he responds around a given town filled with civilians. The soldier firing at the school is asked who are you firing at? The soldier answers at the man firing the rocket, militants.

Thus the target of the attack is an objective distinction. He is targeting civilians, he is targeting militants. The first is a terrorist the second is not.

Three points and their counterpoints:

1.Some will respond that this is the only weapon the “militants” have, using imprecise weapons aimed at civilians.

So that means that they are not intending to terrorize civilians?!

2.Their weapons are less accurate and do not cause many casualties

But they CAN kill, and therefore they DO terrorize.

3.Many of those people in that town are reserve soldiers, have children in the army, or give moral support to their family members in the army i.e. they are not civilians?

Where do you draw the line? Your logic justifies killing the tax payer who pays for the army and the baby who motivates their parent to be an effective soldier.

CONCLUSIONS:

Many do not want to accept this definition; because a moral compass gets in the way of political expediency. Recently, the PKK targeted military personal and the Irgun, even in the oft cited and condemned attack on the King David hotel (which then served as British Mandates Command Center- was preceded by an ignored call to the hotel warning them 25-27 minutes prior to the explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing), only targeted military personal/installations. Likewise labeling the IHH "terrorist" does not serve the purpose of moral clarity -on the contrary it further justifies hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is enabled by lack of moral clarity, and is a standard tool used against Israel. Why should Israel do the same?

Either way one thing is clear HAMAS/Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah and a myriad of other groups do not make a distinction. Instead they primarily target civilians because their aims are not to defeat the enemy but to terrorize anyone connected to their opponent. That makes them terrorists.