The book of Ezekiel, chapter 38, mentions a prophecy from God that predicted a significant military attack against Israel in the latter days. This attack was said to happen after Israel had been restored to its homeland. According to the prophecy, the military attack would be carried out by the armies of six nations that existed during Ezekiel’s time. God named five of those nations in Ezekiel 38:5-6.
As predicted in the Bible, Israel has many proxy enemies in the Middle East. Still, the Islamic Republic of Iran is the primary cephalothorax, the head of the spider web and proxy master. The sophisticated attack on October 7th that Hamas launched against Israel on their holy day was undoubtedly orchestrated and coordinated by the fascist Iranian regime.
However, it cannot be ruled out that the recent attack on Israel was not unexpected. It is possible that the plan was to allow Hamas and the world to believe that they could invade Israel without any Israeli pre-emptive action. This would have forced Hamas to reveal all their cards. And that is precisely what happened, for Hamas had no other option.
As terrorist groups go, it has quite a résumé: Hamas has evolved into a multidomain warfighting group, operating on sea, air, land, underwater, and underground. Hamas has invested billions of dollars, provided by Gulf nations like Qatar, in constructing an extensive network of underground tunnels. This system is so vast that some Gazans are known to reside both above and below ground. Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields. Without innocent civilians, Hamas will not exist in Gaza. It deliberately targets innocent Israelis. The group does not care about the people they claim they are fighting for. Be it Tamil Tigers, al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Daesh, or Hamas, no civilians want to live under the dictatorship of these militants, but sometimes people have no choice.
It is worth noting that suppose the State of Israel and Jerusalem a holy land, and one should never equalize Hamas with Israel. In that case, Israel must live up to the standards of international humanitarian law and apply rules of engagement. As the American political scientist Joseph Nye (2008) – citing John Arquilla – emphasizes, winning in the information age is not only about having a stronger army but also a more compelling narrative.
To avoid civilian casualties, Israel could undertake many pre-emptive measures. As Israel rages its offensive in Gaza and tension escalates in the Middle East, the Israeli Defense Forces has a moral and legal obligation to protect Palestinian civilians, even when they targeted-killing Hamas leadership. Alternatively, if Egypt refuses to open a humanitarian corridor, Israel could take the initiative to create a safe zone for innocent Palestinian people. This step can demonstrate their compassion and earn the trust of the people. By doing so, Israel can win over the hearts and minds of the people while also weeding out the Hamas terrorists. It will also serve as an opportunity for Benjamin Netanyahu to showcase that he is a leader for the people rather than just a man of the people.
Applying rules of engagement in counterterrorism interests me because it relates to my personal experience. In 1993, at the age of 17, I wrote an argumentative essay for the official newspaper of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) while undergoing the movement’s intelligence tradecraft training at the Spy Tiger Academy. This essay resulted in my appointment as the naval intelligence officer of the LTTE. In the article, I criticized the organization’s massacre of Sinhalese civilians and emphasized the differences between terrorism and guerrilla warfare. I argued that while guerrilla fighters focus on military targets, terrorists intentionally target civilians. Therefore, any organization that targets civilians cannot be considered “freedom fighters,” even if they claim to be fighting for national liberation.
It was surprising that thirty years later while living in Canada, I will write a college paper arguing the textbook definition of terrorism: that any unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims is terrorism. I believe Hamas is a group of violent extremists, given their history of deliberately targeting civilians. The key takeaway I want to drive home is my experience writing for the LTTE newspaper, and my current views on terrorism have shaped my perspective on distinguishing between legitimate guerrilla warfare and terrorism. I believe that targeting civilians is never justified, regardless of the cause.
It is imperative to establish a brief understanding of terrorism. Terrorism, akin to ideologies such as communism, nazism, and fascism, is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, to pursue political aims (Cohen et al., 2018, p. 142).
It is also vital to understand how the media frame the narratives of terrorism. Thus it is crucial to define “framing,” which can be described as follows: “To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation for the item described.”(Entman, 1993, p. 52).
It is essential to recognize that the mainstream media’s definition of terrorism is fundamentally flawed. During the post-9/11 period, American-led NATO forces combated terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. In contrast, Russia and Iran sponsored Hezbollah and the Taliban. Similarly, Pakistan supported al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan to destabilize regional powers politically, economically, and militarily. The United States supported anti-Baathist groups in Iraq and Syria, while Russia supported opposition groups in the broader Middle Eastern region (Waldman, 2010, p. 11).
Today, we see Iran sponsoring Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihadists in Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen. Israel frames them as terrorists because these organizations target innocent Jews in Israel. This context highlights the complexity of defining terrorism, as what may be considered a terrorist group by one nation-state can be a legitimate entity for another; in other words, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter (Byman, 2023, p. 101).
If we view this dilemma through the preceding lens, contrary to the mainstream media’s narrative, the definition of terrorism must simply be considered by traditional counterterrorist orthodoxy. In other words, if Israel is deliberately targeting innocent Palestinian civilians or causing civilian casualties as collateral damage, then in both cases, it must be viewed through the lens of state terrorism, not war crimes, resulting in the adoption of specific narratives stemming from the media’s framing of terrorism. Therefore, Hamas and Israel are, regrettably, the two sides of the same coin.
Israel finds itself in a paradoxical situation. The traits that were previously viewed as advantageous, including the hawkish views of its far-right wing leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, may now impede its progress. It is uncertain whether a leader with a cult-like following and a hardline stance can effectively become a peacemaker in a democratic system. Based on his previous track record, such a transformation appears unlikely.
Featured Image: NINA IMAGES/Shutterstock
Works Cited
Byman, Daniel. “How to Think About State Sponsorship of Terrorism.” Survival (London), vol. 65, no. 4, 2023, pp. 101–22, https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2023.2239060.
Cohen, Shuki J., et al. “Al-Qaeda’s Propaganda Decoded: A Psycholinguistic System for Detecting Variations in Terrorism Ideology.” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 30, no. 1, 2018, pp. 142–71, https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2016.1165214.
Entman, Robert M. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of C01304. x.tion, vol. 43, no. 4, 1993, pp. 51–58, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
Nye, Joseph. S. (2008). Smart Power and the “War on Terror”. Institute for International Policy Studies, Asia-Pacific Review, Vol. 15, No. 1.
Waldman, Matt. The sun in the sky: the relationship between Pakistan’s ISI and Afghan insurgents. Harvard University, 2010.