It’s always been interesting to see how terrorism – or who the terrorists are, rather – is defined. In any conflict the victor or the stronger party gets to set the definitions, as it’s always been. Agreeing on an internationally acceptable definition of the term, however, turns out to be an impossible task, but I think it’s safe to say that any actions intended to instigate or, over long stretches of time, resulting in fear, qualify for the expression.
However, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, as we’ve seen throughout most of our recent history. For instance, I’m intrigued by the rhetoric used in the current Middle East conflict, especially seeing as Israeli authorities themselves are based on what was once considered a terrorist organisation:
Irgun (Hebrew: [omitted Hebrew lettering] shorthand for HaIrgun HaTzva’i HaLe’umi BeEretz Yisra’el, [omitted Hebrew lettering], “National Military Organization in the Land of Israel”) was a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948. It was established as a militant offshoot of the earlier and larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah (Hebrew: “The Defense”, [omitted Hebrew lettering]). For reasons of secrecy, people often referred to the Irgun, during that time, as Haganah Bet (Hebrew: literally “Defense ‘B’ ” or “Second Defense”, [omitted Hebrew lettering]), or alternatively as Haganah Ha’leumit ([omitted Hebrew lettering]) or Ha’ma’amad ([omitted Hebrew lettering]). In present-day Israel, Irgun is commonly referred to as Etzel ([omitted Hebrew lettering]), an acronym of the Hebrew initials.
The Irgun was the armed expression of the nascent ideology of Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky. He expressed this ideology as “every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state”.[1] Over time the focus of their actions shifted from the Palestinian Arabs to the British.[citation needed]
But here’s the interesting part:
Some of the better-known attacks by Irgun were the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre (accomplished together with the Stern Gang) on 9 April 1948. In the West, Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper,[2][3], The Times (of London) [4][5], the British Broadcasting Corporation [6], the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry[7], and prominent world and Jewish figures, such as Winston Churchill[8], Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, and many others.[9] Irgun attacks prompted a formal declaration from the World Zionist Congress in 1946, which strongly condemned “the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare”.[10]
In fact, Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin (1977–1983), whom I suspect most of my readers will remember, attracted some attention once elected, due to his terrorist background – from just Irgun.
Israel's PM Menachem Begin and foreign minister Moshe Dayan, both former terrorist, disembarking an aircraft in America, 1978 (Wikipedia).
You will of course recognise his eye-patched friend Dayan, the very symbol of Israeli military heroism, whose merits contained numerous operations qualifying for the term terrorism.
The thing about Irgun and Haganah is that, even though they no longer formally exist, their methods and philosophy have prevailed, institutionalised as governmental bodies (the IDF, Mossad and so on), which is to say that Israeli terrorism has moved from an informal to a formal platform, as killing innocent Palestinians (now that the British are gone) remains its chief purpose.
It could be argued that the Israeli state in that respect is no different from the Al-Qaeda, even if it claims to fight (what it defines as) terrorism. No different from their own Nazi enemies, in fact. I suppose you could say that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.
At any rate, to think that Hamas is the only terrorist organisation (which undoubtedly they are) in the region, would be jumping to premature conclusions.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful of his innocent victims, but I thought it best to end the dismal subject on a lighter note, as I seem to remember humorists making references to Cole Porter’s “Begin the Beguine” on Begin’s inauguration (here performed by Artie Shaw):
Top photo: Osama bin Laden, founder of Al-Qaeda.
Late edit: I noticed today (Tuesday 13 January) that the Norwegian daily Dagbladet.no has picked up on this, too (in Norwegian, of course) – although in a much more thorough manner, as one would expect from a newspaper.
