Opinion: We Need Change How We Talk About Terrorism. State Terrorism and the US in the Middle East

Who is a terrorist? Who defines terrorism? What are the implications of these definitions and how do they play a crucial role in international politics, particularly that of the United States and the Middle East?

Well, it depends who you ask.

The US Office of Justice states, “the FBI defines terrorism, domestic or international, as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Additionally, if you ask the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “As a minimum, terrorism involves the intimidation or coercion of populations or governments through the threat or perpetration of violence, causing death, serious injury or the taking of hostages. In reality, national definitions of terrorism remain largely left to the discretion of states, leading to varying interpretations in domestic counter-terrorism legislation. Ambiguous definitions of terrorism in some states have led to policies and practices that violate the fundamental freedoms of individuals and populations, and discriminate against particular groups.”

To me there is one thing strikingly similar between these two definitions in that both can be understood as something not committed by states themselves, but rather as an act against the state. While the OHCHR recognizes state violence as a result of weak interpretation of terrorism, it does not claim the state as an actor of terrorism, but rather says they sometimes violate fundamental freedoms. This is not shocking, however, as in international politics discourse there seems to be a conversation surrounding state terrorism that is actively avoided. Rarely it is mentioned and when it is, it’s never given the same respect and support as the state speaking out against civilian terrorism.

Furthermore if you ask academics, Dr Steve Hewitt, Senior Lecturer in American and Canadian Studies at the University of Birmingham would say state terrorism “is similar to non-state terrorism in that it involves politically or ideologically or religiously inspired acts of violence against individuals or groups outside of an armed conflict. The key difference is that agents of the state are carrying out the violence.”

Academic and expert in terrorism studies Andrew Silke states, “state violence is routinely far more lethal and destructive than the violence carried out by non-state actors…For some analysts, the campaigns of internal repression against their own citizens represent 'State Terrorism'. Many states have unquestionably engaged directly or indirectly in terroristic violence.”

Typically terrorism is thought of as a weapon of the weak, that it is used when other resources have been exhausted and in desperate attempts for political power. However, I believe that adopting this criteria not only gives excuse to perpetrators of violence but it also indirectly excuses states as potential actors. For example, bombings are typically thought of as acts of terrorism: the IRA bombings, Oklahoma City, Boston Marathon. Yet it is rarely called terrorism when the US government supplies “US-made Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) bombs used by the Israeli military in two deadly, unlawful air strikes on homes full of civilians in the occupied Gaza Strip, Amnesty International has found based on a new investigation into those strikes.”

These air strikes killed 43 civilians. Civilians have international protection under the Geneva Conventions, Human Rights Declarations, and many other international treaties. So why is there no justice for such violations and why is this not considered terrorism by a rogue state?

When the US bombed Cambodia under Johnson and Nixon, and 500,000 tons of bombs were dropped, and possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, how is that not considered terrorism?

Is it perhaps because Palestinian and Cambodian lives have been viewed as less than American and Israeli lives in the eyes of the states? Or is it perhaps US hegemony thats given Washington the confidence to impulsively act overseas at the price of international order?

We need to change the way we think and speak about terrorism. Certainly there are non-state terrorist actors and groups who target the government and states themselves. This is the terrorism everyone has been made aware of by Western media and political discourse. This does deserve attention and should be considered high priority, but the conversation cannot end here.

We must open dialogue on state terrorism and the harmful effects of US interventionism overseas, but particularly in the Middle East and wider Global South.

The cost of ignoring this conversation will be more innocent lives lost in proclaimed “wars” that we should not be fighting in or supplying, as our responsibility to protect human rights and lives everywhere.