Trends in Modern International Terrorism

Trends in Modern Inter field of convey coiffe of panicist phone number Boaz Ganor Abstr come This chapter examines approfessional personximately of the much or less widely exploreed abridges and developments at heart the phenomenon of novel multi flag-waving(prenominal) terrorist act, providing policy recommendations on how to counter its emerging panics particularly that of the globular jihad movement and native act of act of terrorist act. The magnitude of the modern terrorist threat was demonstrated by the ravishs of family line 11, and perpetu ally since, the knit stitch has experienced a renewal of sorts, attrperforming unprecedented attention by both(prenominal) scholars and the mainstream normal.This chapter impart introduce readers to the main trails of conceptions within the schoolman demesne that explain act of terrorist act. It get away excessively present the numerous schools applicable to the playing argona of terrorist act, demonstrating that the phenomenon is multifaceted in constitution, requiring a cohesive bulgeside(a) and broad- suppose response. In rude(a) coering a number of dilemmas facing terrorist act experts, the chapter explores the debate oer a explanation of act of act of act of terrorism, providing a pro pose comment that distinguishes acts of terrorism from turn acts.The chapter continues on to explore the phenomenon of modern terrorism, the comp unrivallednt part of traditional abomination within the terror sphere, and the maturement threat of human racewide worldwide jihadi terrorism including terror net wee-wees and homegrown cells and activists who live emerged as a result of the spreading of primary Moslem ideology. The role of terrorism in democratic defers and the sparing ramifications of terrorism atomic number 18 overly explored. Finally, the chapter ends with recommendations on how political sciences should legally move to terrorism and disc dr ills room for that investigate.Trends in Modern International act of terrorism In recent years, the academic human beingnesss has witnessed a surge of explore and academic programs in the field of native land surety and counterterrorism. After the ravishs of 9/11, the threat of orbicular terrorism in a flash topped the international agenda. B. Ganor Lauder School of Government, International Institute for Counter-terrorism (ICT), interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel e-mail emailprotected ac. il D. Weisburd et al. (eds. ), To Protect and To Serve Policing in an maturate of terrorism, DOI 10. 007/978-0-387-73685-3_2, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009 11 12 B. Ganor offgrowth recognition of the threat, combined with an add-on in governing body spending, spurred the development of academic look into institutions, think tanks, and new higher education programs in the national of homeland gage and counterterrorism. The trend was particularly promi nent in the unify States, as searchers want a basic netherstanding of the characteristics of terrorism and agencies sought ways to kernelively cope with the phenomenon.This trend was accompanied by a signifi bungholet increase in the number of researchers focusing on the phenomenon of terrorism. These researchers came from a wide array of academic disciplines, applying varied quantitative and qualitative research slits and methods in their analysis of the threat. In netherstanding the phenomenon and preventing future terrorist attacks, researchers cast rivet in the first place on understanding the logicale of terrorist constitutions in superior oecumenical and Global jihad constitutions in particular their cost-benefit calculations and their decision-making processes. Trends in terrorism aim also been explored often focusing on the introduction, transition, or prominence of a particular proposition modus operandi or a method, much(prenominal) as suicide batterys, the Global Jihad movement, or the routine of unconventional weapons. Reviewing these trends and themes in terrorism and the academic research that has accompanied them is crucial in de terminationining how furthest we social function up conclude and how far we harbour to go, both in terms of the governments designing and decision making on counterterrorism policy and the academics informing such(prenominal) decisions.In exploring the phenomenon of modern international terrorism, this chapter go forth first introduce readers to the confused schools of perspective and academic approaches employ in explaining terrorism drawing on a wide range of disciplines and theories. pass word of honor bequeath then move to maven of the most basic comp wholenessnts of the terrorism dilemma, with implications on how the term and thus phenomenon of terrorism itself is treated, app dissimulationd, and tacit by the international community the debate over shaping terrorism.As allo w be demonstrated, translations of terrorism vary widely with equally as wide implications yet at that place is salve a general consensus among most steer scholars as to the inborn nature of the threat. Modern terrorism, the next theme that impart be explored in this chapter, is regarded as a form of psycho logical systemal fightf atomic number 18 in scarpered to spread venerate and fretting among the stooge k straight offledge domain. This business is translated into policy-making mash on decision makers to change policies in such a manner that will serve the terrorists interests.As such, modern terrorists attempt to exploit the liberal determine of democratic states, forcing governments to adhere to their demands as a result of the physical, mental, and economic ramifications of terrorist attacks. The nature of terrorism in relation to the democratic state will be explored in a later section of this chapter as well. As terrorist classifys be usually engaged i n a long war of attrition, terrorist presidential terms demand current sustentation and funds to ensure they nookie maintain their activities.In event, one of the main sources of funding for many terrorist organizations is felon satisfy smuggling, counterfeiting, extortion, and narcotics. At the showtime of the twenty-first century, the threat of international terrorism grew with the spread of Global Jihad terrorism. Made up of complex vanes of hierarchal terrorist organizations, proxy and affiliate organizations, topical anaesthetic and international terror 2 Trends in Modern International act of terrorism 13 etworks, sleeper cells, and in atomic number 101trinated radical activists, all these actors sh atomic number 18 a parking bea extreme ideology and the readiness to use vehemence in general and terrorism in particular in revisal to contact their goals. The economic ramifications of these activities only further exacerbate the damage posed by terrorist attack s, new(prenominal) focus of terrorism research. This dynamic terrorist phenomenon has scuppered an increasing number of states bandage involving more terror organizations, networks, activists, and supporters worldwide.The increment level of the threat, its international scope, its lethality,1 and the possible use of nonconventional terrorism (CBRN chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons) necessitate future multidisciplinary research in the field and a more cohesive, international response. Explaining terrorist act In general, two schools of thought explaining the phenomenon of modern terrorism run with emerged stunned of the collection of academic work within the discipline the psychological-sociological school of thought and the policy-making-rational school of thought.Both schools maintain that terrorism watchks to obtain political goals by bring fear and anxiety among the aspire nation, however each stresses a dissimilar aspect of the explanati on. The psychological-sociological school, represented most recently by scholars such as Dr. Jerrold Post (1998) and John Horgan (2005), stresses the phenomenons psychological component, maintaining that the agile and of import goal of terrorism is to instill fear and anxiety, plot of land its political goals be long term. Terror as a clinical term refers to a psychological state of constant collar or fearfulness, associated with an abnormally high level of psych-physiological arousal. This is central to what terrorists aim to achieve, since after all, while they hire roughly ultimate set of political purposes, it is an immediate goal of most terrorist separates to shake up terror (Horgan, 200514). The psychological-sociological school addresses both the desired effect of terrorism and its root causes, blasphemeing primarily on affable conclave dynamics and the psychological compose of an case-by-case terrorist actor. rough early psychological explanations of terro rism dedicate focused on the disruptive or psychopathological in-personities of terrorist operatives, analyzing terrorists base on characteristics or disorders associated with godforsaken or aggressive behaviors (De la Corte et al. , 2007). more or less of the common psychological characteristics that have been attri furthered to alleged terrorists Analysis of terrorist incidents over the resist 35 years confirms that terrorist attacks, while arguably decreasing in quantity, ar growing more deadly over time, as the number of fatalities per attack has increased (LaFree and Dugan, in this volume).such(prenominal) data, however, rely on a translation of terrorism that LaFree and Dugan themselves contrast is relatively inclusive. The Global Terrorism Database (GTD), on which their analysis is based, excludes attacks on the military by irregular organizations, but complicates military purports attacked by substate actors make by political, economic, or social motives ( squ ar off LaFree and Dugan in this volume). 1 14 B. Ganor re paranoia, antisocial and narcissistic personalities (Millon, 1981 Post, 1987), lack of empathy with victims, hostility toward parents, dogmatic or ideologic mentality, or a simplistic or utopian worldview (Victoroff, 2005). At one end of the spectrum within such literature is the assertion and at generation assumption that terrorists are to some full stop psychologically abnormal, possessing personality disorders that peg down them as insane or psychopathic (as discussed by Cooper, 1978 Hacker, 1976 Lasch, 1979 Pearce, 1977 Taylor, 1988).Despite early research providing psychological profiles of terrorists, separate terrorism researchers have come to the general remnant that there is no universal terrorist personality pattern most terrorist operatives are non needs psychopaths (Silke, 1998), nor do they show traces of being clearly or consistently mentally ill (Crenshaw, 2000 Post, 1998 Stahelski, 2004). Early studi es on the topic have been jumboly disproved or debunked, in fact, even within the psychological-social school of thought.Further research has shown that terrorists rarely meet the criteria for insanity,2 but rather whitethorn possess some particular personality dispositions related to psychological conditions or disorders (Post, 1987). Dr. Jerrold Post, an expert in political psychology, maintains that even though terrorists fit within the spectrum of normality, a large number have demonstrated specific personality characteristics that indicate a minor psychopathology, such as aggression, activism, thrill detectking, an externalist psychological mechanism and f executionalism.These are characteristics of narcissistic disorders and borderline personalities (Post, 19982527). While Post stops brusk of tangiblely diagnosing terrorists with such disorders or characteristics, he does title they tend to have high frequency among terrorists, contributing to a uniform rhetorical style and logic (Silke, 199865). According to Post, there is a unique logic that characterizes a terrorists thought process a terrorist psycho-logic. Post claims that terrorists are motivate by psychological influences when they choose to lead violent acts, as expressed in rhetoric that relies on us versus them and good versus unholy dichotomies. He further claims that lodged in a terrorists permanent logic is the nonion that the regime moldiness be toppled, which is a result of the terrorists search for identity. In an attack against the regime, a terrorist is actually trying to get down the inner antagonist within him.However, even as some researchers introduce it as the primary cause, a terrorists individual psychological profile is non the only signifi discountt explanation for the phenomenon of terrorism. Rather, group psychology and sociology whitethorn be substantial explanatory factors behind terrorist attacks. Various researchers have cited group coerce as a variable to explain recruitment, methods of operation and combat in terrorism (Merari, 2004). Others have applied the cult model to terrorist organizations (Morgan, 2001). Studies by Heskin (1984), Rasch (1979), and Taylor (1988) have all cited evidence discrediting the assumption that terrorists are psychologically abnormal. 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 15 It is in this scope that Post emphasizes the group as a framework in which a sense of belonging and importance for its members is stimulated. He claims that ideology plays an central role in supporting a unifying environment for the group.Shared ideology justifies the groups action mechanism and quickly transforms into the groups moral guide. The psychological-sociological school relies, therefore, on psychological and sociological characteristics, motives, and grievances in explaining the phenomenon of terrorism. In contrast, the political-rational school of thought views terrorism as a rational method of operation in tend to promote various interests and attain concrete political goals (Crenshaw, 2000 Hoffman, 1998 Shprinzak, 1998).Rational choice opening has been adopted by a number of terrorism researchers within this school, and maintains that terrorist fulfill derives from a conscious, rational, calculated decision to choose one route of action over an anformer(a)(prenominal) (Crenshaw, 1992 Sandler et al. , 1983 Sandler and Lapan, 1988 Wilson, 2000). 3 Leading researcher Martha Crenshaw explains that an organization chooses terrorism among several operational alternatives in order to promote their mutual set and preferences.In making a rational calculation of the costs and benefits, terrorism is by choice chosen as the preferred method of political activity because it is comprehend to be the most effective of the operating alternatives the benefits exceed the costs. In this context, Ehud Shprinzak as well as stressed that the phenomenon of terrorism is not the result of disturbed hu man activity or a random thoughtless attack. This is a process that closely constantly begins without wildness or terrorist activity (Shprinzak, 199878).Rand terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman further clarified the rationalist approach I have been essaying terrorists and terrorism for more than twenty years. Yet I am still always struck by how disturbingly normal most terrorists seem when one actually sits down and talks to them Many are in fact highly articulate and extremely thoughtful individuals for whom terrorism is (or was) an entirely rational choice (Hoffman, 19987)The dispute mingled with the rationalist and psychological approach is important in understanding the root causes of terrorism, allowing experts and security professionals to identify characteristics of the threat and speculate effective counterstrategies. While the two schools may seem to naturally clash, an interdisciplinary explanation of terrorism may actually be the most effective way to approach the phen omenon. In a sense, these two schools basis co-occurrence and complete each other.In the Israeli setting, for example, the case of a suicide bombing is plausibly motivated by a combination of the rational calculations of the organization, a cost-benefit analysis made by the attackers themselves, social pressure from the attackers peer group, and personal psychological, social, cultural, and phantasmal motivations. The decisionmaking process functions on a number of levels, in which both political-rational 3 For an overview of psychological, social, and rational choice theories, see Victoroff, 2005. 16 B. Ganor Psychology H ci ol og ist or y So Law Why Terrorism ? Economics Media & Communication Political Science Fig. 2. 1 Explanatory disciplines to terrorism and the psychological-sociological explanations have their place, demonstrating the multidisciplinary nature of terrorism. As Crenshaw line of merchandised, even though an act of terrorism may not be wholly the result of a psychological disorder, that is not to say the political decision to join a terrorist organization is not influenced or, in some cases, even determined by subconscious mind or latent psychological motives (Crenshaw, 1998386).It seems that only multivariable explanations based on methodologies and theories from different disciplines can adequately address the complex phenomenon of terrorism, provide explanations for the growth, development and characteristics of the phenomenon, and argue methods for effectively handleing with terrorism (Fig. 2. 1). Explanatory Disciplines to Terrorism Different research disciplines may be able to provide answers to fundamental questions at the fondness of terrorism research, such asPsychology The field of psychology can provide answers to such questions as Do terrorists have common psychological characteristics? Do terrorists have a psychological profile? Why do people manufacture terrorists? Which people might become terrorists and which will n ot? Why do people join a terrorist organization and why do they leave it? When, why, and how does the personal radicalization process nurse place? (See Post, 1998 Raine, 1993 Hubbard, 1971). 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 17 Economics How important are economic variables in explaining the development and motivation of terrorism?To what stratum can terrorists financial situation explain the motives for their behavior? How more does the economic factor determine the scope and characteristics of terrorism activity? 4 (See Abadie, 2004 Kahn and Weiner, 2002 Krueger and Laitin, 2008 Krueger and Maleckova, 2002 Piazza, 2006). Sociology How much influence does ones peer group have on the decision to join a terrorist group or the motivation to conduct acts of terrorism? How much can processes of socialization and delegitimization by ball club ostracizing, discrimination, alienation, etcetera serve as variables explaining the motives of terrorism? Why does a trustworthy world at a specific time tend to carry out terrorist attacks while another population with similar characteristics does not choose this prevail of action? What is the extent of the connection among terrorism and different goals? 5 (See Bandura, 1973, 1998 Gibbs, 1989 Merari, 2004 Morgan, 2001 Webb, 2002). Criminology To what extent should terrorism be treated as a phenomenon in the poisonous sphere? What are the differences between the characteristics of savage and terrorist activity?What are the similarities and the differences in the organizational characteristics between terrorist and criminal organizations? 6 (See Klein et al. , 2006 Klein and Maxson, 2006 Lafree, 2007). 4 some(prenominal) studies have focused on refuting the widely claimed link between beggary and terrorism (Harmon, 2000 Hasisi and Pedahzur, 2000 Schmid, 1983). In fact, a 2003 study by Krueger and Maleckova showed that higher-earning Palestinians were more likely to justify the use of terrorism to achiev e political goals and a 2002 study (Krueger and Maleckova, 2002) did not find a link between Hezbollah fighters and necessitous conditions ather, they were richer and more educated than their counterparts. Another study looked at the biographies of 285 suicide bombers and found them to be richer and more educated than members of the general population (Victoroff, 200521). 5 Until September 11, there were hardly a(prenominal) academic studies of terrorism from a strictly sociological viewpoint. However, Bandura (1973, 1998) used social learning theory to suggest that violence follows ceremonial occasion and imitation of an aggressive model. Friedland (1992) cited the frustrationaggression hypothesis in understanding why terrorists diverge to violence (as cited in Victoroff, 2005).Morgan (2001) applied the cult model to understand individual actors and group dynamics within terrorist groups. 6 For the role of policing in counter-terrorism strategies, see Chaps. 35 of this volume. LaFree and Dugan (Chap. 2) also briefly discuss the comparison between rates of terrorist attacks and other types of criminal violence. The interplay and linkages between organized crime and terrorism are explored in several anthology volumes, such as Holmes (2007), among many others. 18 B. GanorPolitical Science and International Relations To what extent should terrorism be understood in rational terms (cost-benefit calculation) as an effective method think to achieve political goals? To what extent can political terms such as sovereignty, power, ascendence, and social justice serve as variables to explain the phenomenon of terrorism? To what degree is the phenomenon of terrorism connected to certain ideologies or a certain form of government? To what degree does modern terrorism aim to take advantage of the liberal democratic form of governments set and traits?To what extent is the media component essential in order to explain the system of modern terrorism? How are the decis ion-making processes different in terrorist organizations than other organizations? rat terrorism be understood as a mover for states to achieve their interests in the international arena? To what extent can terrorism be dealt with by using deterrent measures in general and deterring state-sponsors of terrorism in particular? (See Crenshaw, 2000 Ganor, 2005 Hoffman, 1998 Nacos, 1994). Theology To what extent is modern terrorism a result of spectral extremism?How is incitement to terrorism carried out with the use of religious rationalizations and how can this incitement be dealt with? (See Atran, 2006 Hoffman, 1995 Juergensmeyer, 2003 Ranstorp, 1996 Rapoport, 1984). Hence, nearly all academic research discipline has been, and will continue to be, critical in providing answers to some of the central issues that lie behind understanding the phenomenon of terrorism and the methods for dealing with it. Only this multidisciplinary approach can provide a profound understanding of the phenomenon. The Definition of TerrorismGrowing interest in the field of terrorism and increased funding allotted to academic research and teaching budgets post-9/11 has spurred and supported the government issue of hundreds of books and articles in the past few years, many professional and academic conferences, and a general flourishing of the field. Yet, half dozen years after the world know the magnitude of the terrorist threat on 9/11, researchers, security professionals, politicians, jurists, and others have still not been able to combine upon its most fundamental component what is terrorism?Moreover, and somewhat surprisingly, the only consensus these individuals have reached is that it might be impossible, or even un needed, to reach an internationally 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 19 accepted definition of terrorism. 7 Those who hold this opinion in fact the mass in the field usually cite the cliche one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, in o rder to think of that, in their opinion, the issue of definition is subjective. As such, even partial transcription regarding its content cannot be reached. Louis Henkin (1989) captured this entiment in 1990 when he said that Terrorism is not a useful legal concept. Those who do not regard a definition as critical believe that the international system and the security establishment in particular can manage without consensus on the issue. They claim that terrorists, in a sense, commit regular crimes extortion, murder, arson, and other felonies already cover by conventional criminal law. Therefore, they can be tried for committing these felonies without the bring for a special criminal classification, and thus definition, for terrorism.Needless to say, there is no shortfall of proposed definitions for terrorism. Every researcher, expert, security professional, NGO, pastoral, and politician espouses their own definition, one that likely represents a distinct world view and poli tical stance. By the early 1980s, Schmid and Jongman had already listed 109 definitions of terrorism proposed by researchers in the field (Schmid and Jongman, 19985). In their chapter in this volume, LaFree and Dugan see upon the difficulty in reaching a consensus on a definition of terrorism given its controversial and highly politicized nature.It is within this context that they dismantle the U. S. was reluctant to throttle the attacks by Contra rebels in Nicaragua as terrorism, while regarding much all violence in Iraq and Afghanistan as such. They further note that more inclusive definitions of terrorism are often preferred by businesses or private think tanks that are collecting data for the purpose of insecurity assessment, as such an approach in conclusion benefits their clients (LaFree and Dugan, in this volume). Among the hundreds of definitions of terrorism that have been accepted without the years, some contain conceptual and phrasing problems (Hoffman, 20043).Many researchers note that the only certainty regarding terrorism is the pejorative manner in which the word is for the most part used and associated (Hoffman, 200623 Horgan, 20051). As such, when scholars, politicians, or activists describe and test the activities of alleged terrorist organizations, they very often use alternative terms that cede more positive connotations, such as rebel or pipe movements, revolutionaries, militias, militants, commando groups, national liberation movements, etc. (Hoffman, 200628).Many in the Western world have accepted the premise that terrorism and national liberation are located on two opposite ends of a spectrum legitimizing the use of violence. The bark for national liberation is, allegedly, located on the positive 7 In a presentation on the definition of terrorism to the UK Parliament in March 2007, Lord Carlile quoted David Tucker from Skirmishes at the Edge of the Empire, stating that Above the put up of hell is the warning that all that enter should abandon hope. Less dire but to the corresponding effect is the warning given to those who try to define terrorism (See http//www. amilnation. org/terrorism/ uk/070317carlile. htm) for a reporters perspective see Kinsley, 2001 see also Levitt (1986), in which he claims a definition for terrorism is no easier to find than the Holy Grail. 20 B. Ganor and justified end of the violence spectrum, while terrorism is its unjust and negative polar opposite. Within this framework, it would be impossible for a specific organization to be needed both a terrorist group and a national liberation movement, as Senator Henry capital of Mississippi claims The thought that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter is unacceptable.Freedom fighters or revolutionaries do not blow up buses with nonfighter aircrafts terrorists and murderers do. Freedom fighters do not kidnap and slaughter students, terrorists and murders do (As cited in Netanyahu, 198718) There is little basis for the claim that freedom fighters cannot carry out acts of terrorism and murder. This approach unintentionally plays into the hands of terrorists, who claim that since they are acting to expel who they consider to be a conflicting occupier, they cannot also be considered terrorists.However, many freedom fighters in modern history committed crimes and by design preyed innocent civilians. The difference between terrorism and freedom fighting is not a subjective distinction based on the observers point of view. Rather, it derives from identifying the perpetrators goals and methods of operation. Terrorism is a means a tool for achieving an end, and that end can very well be liberating the homeland from the yoke of a foreign occupier. An organization can be, at the alike(p) time, both a national liberation movement and a terrorist group.It is not the specific goal whether freedom fighting or another reliable political objective that distinguishes a group as a terrorist organizatio n or justifies its activities. Many groups, however, such as the Muslim World League, do not clearly make this distinction. In a special publication from 2001, the Muslim World League states that Terrorism is an outrageous attack carried out either by individuals, groups or states against the human being (his religion, life, intellect, property and honor).It includes all forms of intimidation, harm, threatening, killing without a just cause so as to scare and horrify people by hurting them or by exposing their lives, liberty, security or conditions to danger or exposing a national or natural resource to danger (Al-Mukarramah, 2001). In presenting the activities that constitute terrorism as being committed without a just cause, the Muslim World Leagues definition infers that such acts committed with a just cause are not considered terrorism.Such definitions are typical of attempts to create confusion between the means and the end, ultimately foiling any possibility of reaching a con sensus on a definition. Since September 11, international terrorism has emerged on the top of national and international security agendas, widely perceived as a surd and very real threat to world tranquillityableness. It is a threat that necessitates international alignment and cooperation on an unprecedented level. Such a high degree of cooperation cannot be established or sustained however without stipulation over the most basic common denominator the definition of terrorism.Outside intelligence and military circles, the authorization of other apparatuses essential in countering the terrorist threat is dependent upon a clear, broad, and objective definition of terrorism that can be accepted internationally. Such a definition is essential in order to disrupt the financing of terrorism, respond to states and 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 21 communities that support terrorism, prevent recruitment and incitement of terrorist operatives, and establish legal measures and guidelines to both outlaw terrorist organizations and activities, and arrest and extradite alleged terrorists.Above all else, the international community mustiness establish a binding normative system to determine what is allowed and not allowed what is legitimate and not legitimate when violence is used for political objectives. A definition that would address all these requirements is Terrorism is the dig use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political goals (nationalistic, socioeconomic, ideologic, religious, etc. ) In defining terrorism within the above framework, it is important to note that a terrorist act would not be classified as a regular criminal activity warranting the application of criminal legal norms.Rather, terrorism would be viewed as an act of war, and the countermeasures mounted against it would too be conducted in accordance to the norms and laws of war. The Israeli High Court of Justice has itself struggled with the distinction be tween criminal acts and acts of war, reflecting the latent hostility facing those studying and responding to terrorism today. According to Justice Cheshin, a justnesss job is difficult. It is sevenfold as difficult when he comes to deal with a hideously murderous attack such as we have in front of us.The murderers action is inherently though not within the framework of or as part of the ball definition an act of war, and an act that is inherently an act of war is answered with an act of war, in the ways of war (Abd Al-Rahim Hassan Nazzal and others vs. the Commander of the IDF forces in Judea and Samaria, 1994). In a different verdict, the judge swayd that a criminal code created for periodic life in human society does not have an answer for the question (Federman and others vs. the Attorney General, 1993).The debate over whether terrorism should be considered a criminal act or an act of war remains sloshed among academics, NGOs, and counter terrorism professionals. Without consensus on the issue, states have applied their own policies in trying and convicting alleged terrorist suspects whether as criminals or combatants. Despite the fact that criminal acts can consist of the same actions as terrorism murder, arson, and extortion terrorism, unlike an middling criminal act, threatens the internal social order, personal and national security, world peace, and the economy. As previously noted, acts of terrorism are intended to achieve various political goals and could thus be considered arguably more severe than criminal violations. In addition, as international law expert and terrorism prosecutor ruth Wedgwood has argued, criminal law may be too weak a weapon to counter terrorism, as destroying terrorist infrastructure and networks requires diplomacy, use of force, and criminal 8 Resolution 1566 (2004) adopted by the Security Council in its 5053rd meeting, on Oct. 8 2004 Reaffirming that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to peace and security.Considering that acts of terrorism seriously impair the enjoyment of human rights and threaten the social and economic development of all states, they undermine global stability and prosperity. (See http//daccessdds. un. org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/542/82/ PDF/N0454282. pdf? OpenElement. ) 22 B. Ganor law combined. She adds that the restrictions embedded in a criminal justice system make sense in civil society where deterrence is a factor, but this may not apply in a fight against a highly networked terrorist organization (Wedgwood and Roth, 2004). Bruce Hoffman points to a fundamental difference between a criminal and a terrorist when he asserts that while a criminal seeks personal material goals, a terrorist usually sees himself as an altruist acting for and in the name of many others (Hoffman, 200637). Therefore, a terrorist may be perceived as posing greater danger through his actions, since he is of importly more willing than a crim inal to contribute in order to achieve his goals even to the point of self-sacrifice in certain situations. The criminal code in itself does not serve as an adequate platform to define terrorism.The laws of war are better gibe as a framework for defining and dealing with terrorism, since the phenomenon is a violent action intended to achieve political goals, often involving the use of pseudo-military methods of operation. By basing the definition of terrorism on an established system of norms and laws, already include in international conventions and accepted by most of the countries in the world, the international community is more likely to reach a broad international agreement on the definition of terrorism a basic tool in the joint international struggle against terrorism.At the core of the Geneva and The Hague conventions are rules differentiating between two types of military unit tough in military activity combatants, military personnel who designedly backside enemy military personnel and war criminals, military personnel who, among other actions nix by the laws of war, mootly target civilians. Currently, the moral differentiation between a legitimate combatant and a war criminal is based on the attacked target (military or civilian), and, at least in rationale, only applies to state entities and their armies and not to substate entities.In the Israeli setting for example, a Palestinian, considered part of a subnational group, who is relate in a flip over attack against an Israeli military target, will receive the same treatment and punishment as a Palestinian who deliberately attacks a civilian target. Since there is no distinction made between the two, disrespect the difference in their targets, the degree of international legitimacy or animadversion of both cases will likely continue to be dependant on the supporter or condemners political stance and not necessarily on the character or target of the deliberate operation its equity u nder applicable rules and norms.The American government, for example, classifies attacks against its troops in Iraq as terrorist attacks, as it does the October 2000 attack against the USS Cole or the attack against the American military barracks in Dhahran (June 1996). In fact, in an attempt to expand the definition of terrorism to include attacks against soldiers, the U. S. State Departments definition states that terrorism is the Ruth Wedgewood and humanity Rights Watch Director Kenneth Roth debate the USs treatment of terrorist suspects as combatants versus criminals in a series of articles in Foreign Affairs (See Roth, 2004 Wedgwood and Roth, 2004). 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 23 deliberate use of violence against non-combatant targets, which includes both civilians and military personnel not on the battle field. 10 While it is natural for victims of terrorism to adopt this broad-based definition, terrorist organizations and their supporters can licitly argue that in seeking to achieve their political goals, they cannot sanely be required to either not confront military personnel entirely, or do so only when they are fully armed and active for war.They claim that they must be given the right to attack and perplexity soldiers whatever the circumstances. In applying these considerations, the U. S. State Departments definition of terrorism could not successfully serve as a common denominator leading to international agreement. It is only in reducing the scope of the definition to the deliberate targeting of civilians as opposed to non-combatants that may solve this problem, enabling the establishment of a clear moral boundary that should not be crossed. A terrorist act would be considered, in a sense, the equivalent for a substate entity to a war crime committed by a state. 1 During a state of war, normative principles and the laws of war forbid the deliberate targeting of civilians but allow deliberate attacks on an enemys military pe rsonnel (in accordance with other applicable regulations). Similarly, in modern asymmetric warfare, a normative rule must be set to address limitations on substate actors, differentiating between guerilla warfare (violence against military personnel) and terrorism (violence against civilians) just as the rules of war pit between legitimate combatants and war criminals.For the purpose of defining terrorism, it is not significant what goal the organization aspires to achieve (as long as it is political) both the terrorist and the guerilla fighter may aspire to achieve the same goals. However, they each chose a different path a different means in order to realize these goals. Defining terrorism is critical in ensuring that the same normative standards currently enforced on states are applicable to nonstate actors, defining when their use of violence is permissible and when it is taboo.Paradoxically, what is currently prohibited for states is not yet prohibited for organizations. D efining terrorism does not raise or lower the liability of states to behave normatively and certainly does not place additional legal burdens upon them. It just now makes organizations accountable for their actions under the same value system currently obligating states. Terrorism is defined by the U. S. State Department as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents. (from the 22 U. S. C. , 2656f(d)(2) See http//www. state. gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/65353. htm. ) 11 The UN short legal definition of terrorism, proposed by terrorism expert Alex P. Schmid, states that an act of terrorism is the peacetime equivalent of a war crime. While such a definition does not consider terrorism an act of war, in drawing a parallel with a war crime it notes the importance of the target (civilian vs. military) in legitimizing acts of violence. (See http//www. unodc. org/ unodc/terrorism_definitions. html. ) 10 24 B . GanorReaching a broad international agreement regarding the definition of terrorism may require the international community to apply laws of war that forbid the deliberate targeting of civilians, but allow for the deliberate attack (in accordance with the other regulations) of an enemys military personnel. The definition proposed in this chapter may be unresolved of eliciting a broad base of support from many countries and organizations, both because it is based on already accepted international norms, and because it seemingly provides subnational organizations the possibility of licitly using violence in order to achieve their goals.Such a definition would not allow for the artificial distinction that is often made between bad terrorism and good or tolerable terrorism. It instead adheres to the principle that terrorism is terrorism is terrorism, no matter who carries it out a Muslim, Christian, Jew, or member of any other religion. Terrorism would be considered an illegitimate and forbidden method of operation in all cases, under all circumstances. The ideological or cultural background of the perpetrators and the religious, political, social or economic motives of the act would all be irrelevant in classifying an act of terrorism.Many view the hunting expedition to achieve a broad international agreement on terrorism as hopeless and naive. However, Security Council Resolution 1566, which was unanimously accepted by Council members in October 2004, may be a basis for hope that countries will overcome prior disputes, rise above their own interests, and reach an agreement in the near future regarding the international definition of terrorism. Resolution 1566, without helping as the definition itself, already establishes one basic principle on which an international definition can be built.It stipulates that terrorism is a crime against civilians, which in no circumstance can be justified by political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other considerations. 12 Modern Terrorism Descriptions of typical terrorist operations and their common characteristics are often included in proposed definitions of modern terrorism particularly in those that address the fear and anxiety created by terrorist acts. In such definitions, terrorism is presented as a form of violent activity (or threat of violence) that 2 Resolution 1566 (2004) Condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed, as one of the most serious threats to peace and securityRecalls that criminal acts, including against civilians committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or taking hostages with the purpose to dismiss a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons intimidate a population or compel a government or an offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to ter rorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic religious or other similar nature and calls upon all states to prevent such acts. (See http//daccessdds. un. org/doc/UNDOC/ GEN/N04/542/82/PDF/N0454282. pdf? OpenElement) 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 25 intends to frighten a group of people beyond the actual victims (Horgan, 20051).After reviewing the development of the definition of terrorism and examining a variety of definitions, Bruce Hoffman reaches the following conclusion in his important book, Inside Terrorism We may therefore now attempt to define terrorism as the deliberate creation and ontogenesis of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change terrorism is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of the terrorist attack (Hoffman, 200640). Definitions that refer to terrorism as an act intended to instill fear and anxiety in the public are generally based on the literal meaning and historical use of the term terrorism, its application dating back to the French civil war. 13 Such definitions also rely on what is perceived to be the primary operational tactic of modern terrorism psychological warfare which seeks to achieve political goals by instilling fear and anxiety among its target population.While definitions vary widely, there is a general consensus among most leading scholars as to the essential nature of the terrorist threat researchers will rarely dispute the importance fear and anxiety play in understanding the phenomenon of modern terrorism. However, it is important to note that resulting fear and anxiety may not be an essential variable in defining a terrorist attack. In order to ensure that acts are objectively classified as terrorist attacks, an accepted definition must, in application, serve as a checklist of components. base on the definition prop osed in the previous section, if an act is not violent, does not deliberately target civilians, or does not attempt to achieve a political goal, then it is not a terrorist attack.Adding the element of fear and anxiety to the definition essentially putting it on the checklist of required components significantly changes the terms application. If an attack, which would otherwise be considered an act of terrorism, does not aim to frighten, but rather only seeks to achieve concrete, tangible objectives such as the firing off of prisoners or the assassination of a leading political figure would the action not be considered terrorism? Similarly, a nuclear attack aimed at eradicating the majority of the population or contaminating an extensive area which ultimately seeks to disable the state and prevent it from operating as an independent political entity would be widely considered a terrorist attack, even though instilling fear and anxiety is not its primary purpose.Since such circ umstances and scenarios can conditionably exist, the fear and anxiety element may not be necessary in defining terrorism rather, it is valuable in explaining the modus operandi of a significant portion of modern terrorist attacks. 13 The term terrorism comes from the Latin terrere, to cause to tremble. The term became popularized during the Reign of Terror carried out by the revolutionary government in France from 1793 to 1794 (Juergensmeyer, 2003 5). 26 B. Ganor Indeed, modern terrorism is not necessarily about the numbers. In fact, most modern terrorist attacks, while violent in nature, generally produce limited damage or casualties. 4 Instead, they rely on psychological warfare as a tool in achieving their goals, creating fear and anxiety among the general population. In many cases, a terrorist attack is random, aimed not at someone specific, but rather a group that trades a common trait and symbolizes the organizations broader target (Americans, Israelis, infidels, Westerners , etc. ). By simultaneously transmitting several messages, these attacks intensify the sense of anxiety matt-up by the target group, which leads civilians to pressure decision makers and their government into changing policies and agreeing to terrorists demands. whatsoever of the messages terrorist organizations aim to send through their attacks include 1.Uncertainty The randomness of the attack is supposed to instill a sense of uncertainty in the public regarding undecomposed behavior, prompting fear that anyone could be the next victim (Horgan, 20053). 2. Vulnerability A terrorist attack can take place anywhere, anytime, making all citizens line up vulnerable. 3. Helplessness The states security apparatus cannot foil or prevent attacks, or protect civilians. 4. Personalization You or someone close to you may not have been hurt in a recent attack, but it could very well be you the next time, since the victims have the same pro? le as you (Ganor, 2005256). 5. Disproportional price The price the individual must pay due to his governments policy is very high. For that reason he must act to change national/international priorities in a way that will serve the terrorists objectives. 6.Vengeance The citizen suffers due to the governments actions against the terrorist organization and its supporters, and for this reason it is in his best interest to pressure the government to avoid this activity. Such attacks aim to create anxiety among the target group at a level disproportionate to the actual capabilities of the terrorist organization, forcing members of the target population to reprioritize and shift their concerns from that of national security to personal security. The target population perceives a growing threat from terrorism, which may be viewed by the public as largely fueled by the governments purportedly dangerous policies.As political tension and criticism against the government in the target country mount, according to the strategy of modern terrorism, the public will pressure decision makers to change their policies in a manner that will suit the interests and goals of the terrorist organizations, or call for a change in administration that will establish policies more favorable to terrorist groups. In order to create this effect of fear, terrorist organizations often choose to escalate their activity in such a manner as to shock the public. According to Crenshaw, a review LaFree and Dugan note that over 53% of terrorist organizations from the Global Terrorism Database included in their study (19742004) have never produced a single fatality (LaFree and Dugan, in this volume). 14 2Trends in Modern International Terrorism 27 of the history of terrorism reveals that terrorists have purposely chosen targets considered taboo or unpredictable in order to attract international media coverage (Crenshaw, 19981415). The media component is central to modern terrorisms strategy. Without media coverage, a terrorist organization has little hazard to convey its message, let alone shock or scare its target population. The success of a modern terrorist fight back is arguably dependent on the amount of publicity it receives the journalist and television camera are the terrorists best friends (Laqueur, 1987). Terrorism and Traditional CrimeIn seeking funding to support ongoing operations or infrastructure, terrorist organizations in Latin America, Europe, the Middle easterly, and the Far East have increasingly come to rely on traditional criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, counterfeiting, petty crime, human trafficking, and extortion (Vidino and Emerson, 2006 Mili, 2006). In fact, over the last three decades, law enforcement agencies have reported increased cooperation between terrorist organizations and criminal actors and activities including attacks that have been financed through illegal crimes and suspects who have been prosecuted for crimes in which harvest were directed to international terro rist organizations like Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda (Noble, 2003).Growing expenses associated with terrorist activity, such as payments to organization personnel, transportation, accommodation, training, and procurement of weapons, have served as incentive for terrorist organizations to get involved in common crime. These activities only further exacerbate the danger posed by terrorist organizations to the global economy and to the safety and wellbeing of the worlds population. By counterfeiting currency, for example, a terrorist organization can damage a countrys economy while it raises funds. Similarly, by producing and smuggling drugs to certain countries, an organization can cause considerable harm to the local population and simultaneously finance its activities.In the early seventies, terrorist organizations, particularly those not supported financially by states, funded their activities through criminal activities such as bank robberies, kidnappings for ransom, and blackmail. Terr orist organizations, such as the Red Brigades in Italy, cooperated with criminal elements, enlisting them into the ranks of their organization. However, in the late 1970s and more so in the early 1980s, terrorist organizations realized that drug trafficking was far more lucrative than other routine criminal activities, leading to a phenomenon known as narco-terrorism. 15 Terrorist organizations have been involved in producing and merchandising narcotics throughout the world in Latin America (Colombia, Peru, Cuba, Bolivia) in Asia and 5 To illustrate the amount of money involved, a survey conducted by the linked Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention described the production, trafficking, and gross sales of illicit drugs to be an estimated $400-billion-a-year industry. A 2005 UN report estimated that global drug cover generated an estimated $322 billion in 2003, greater than the gross domestic product of 88% of the countries in the world (Pollard, 2005). 28 B. Ganor the Middle East (Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Afghanistan, India, the Philippines, Pakistan) and even in Western countries such as Italy, Spain, Ireland, and the United States. Drug trafficking by terrorist groups in Columbia is of particular concern to western governments. According to reports from the U. S.Bureau of Narcotics and Law Enforcement affairs, revenues get from narcotics cultivation, taxation, and distribution have accounted for at least half the funding used to support terrorist activities by two of the countrys largest terrorist groups the Revolutionary gird Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia (AUC). The State Department estimates that the FARC receives $300 million a year from drug sales to finance its terrorist activities. 16 The tri-border area (TBA), or triple frontier as it is known, centered along the borders of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil, has been widely recognized as another hotbed for terrorism financing and activity, part icularly to groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Without strict border controls, the area serves as a haven for drugs and arms trafficking, counterfeiting, smuggling and other illegal activities.Tens of millions of dollars are estimated to have been transferred to groups through illegal remittances and other illegal activities, according to investigations by local patrol forces (Madani, 2002 Tri-border Transfers funding terror, 2006). Most terror organizations, however, are not directly involved in actually growing or producing drugs. They are tasked primarily with defend the drugs and ensuring the safety of growers and producers. They also are active in smuggling narcotics to the selling centers in countries where the drugs are distributed (Hudson, 200324). These organizations usually have a diverse network of contacts, enabling them to cross borders via indirect routes and smuggle weapons, ammunition, and various other products.Terrorist organizations can use the same routes an d network used by their supporters in order to smuggle drugs. In some cases, drugs have been used to recruit foreign activists, in a sense bribing them to execute terrorist attacks. In these cases, the activists, who are not members of the organization, are enlisted in order to carry out attacks on behalf of the terror organizations, sometimes unbeknownst to the activists themselves, in return for a regular supply of drugs. 17 In other cases, terrorist organizations supply their members with drugs in order to increase their dependence on the organization and encourage obedience to its leaders. 8 Some terrorist organizations refer to the distribution of drugs as an alternative form of attack, since drug utilization can harm the national morale and weaken the ability of the population to cope with crises. 16 See Deborah McCarthys testimony before the delegation on the Judiciary United States Senate, May 20, 2003, Narco-Terrorism International Drug Trafficking and Terrorism A Dangero us Mix. 17 For example, On August 28, 1971, a Dutch citizen, Henrietta Hundemeir, was arrested in Israel with a suitcase containing a timer-activated bomb with a barometrical altimeter. The bomb was meant to explode in the El Al aircraft in which she herself was flying to Israel.Hundemeir was enlisted in Yugoslavia by a member of the Popular Front for the press release of Palestine, who became her close friend by supplying her with drugs and using them with her. 18 whizz example is the Weatherman organization, which was responsible for terrorist attacks in the U. S. at the end of the mid-sixties and the beginning of the 1970s. The group perceived drug use as a part of the revolutionary process. 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 29 Global Jihadi Terrorism Terrorism is a dynamic phenomenon that develops over time, gradually changing its shape and activities. It is carried out by various organizations in the service of different ideologies.Despite the fact that various loca l terrorist groups have operated in the international arena in the past decade, there is growing recognition by scholars and the intelligence community that the current international terrorist threat does not come from organizations motivated by nationalist grievances or independent goals (such as the IRA, ETA, Fatah, LTTE, PKK, and others). Instead, the main threat is that of radical Islamic terrorism primarily aimed at promoting a radical religious world view. 19 Such groups are motivated by what they perceive as a elysian command, making them potentially more dangerous than groups motivated by other causes. Hoffman stresses that while religion was an inseparable component of many terrorist organizations in the past, the prevalent motivation for their actions was political rather than religious.This is not the case with Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations today. For them, religion is the most important component defining their activities, ideology, characteristics, and recruitment methods (Hoffman, 200682). According to James Thomson, religions are very effective at guiding in-group morality and out-group hatred. They permit the take-over of groups by disenfranchised young males, they background the fear of death by spreading the belief in an future reward for those who are dying in a holy war, etc. (Thomson, 200382). Radical Islamic terrorism, part of the Global Jihad movement, includes acts perpetrated by many organizations, groups, and cells around the world.The movement is headed by Al-Qaeda, which, despite the many setbacks it has endured since September 11, 2001, is still capable of carrying out direct attacks through activists reporting directly to its authority or indirect attacks through proxy organizations radical Islamic terrorist organizations and networks that share a similar fundamentalist Islamic ideology, aspirations, and interests. Some of these organizations, such as Egyptian, Bangladeshi, and Afghan Jihadi groups, were e stablished by Osama bin Laden under the umbrella of his International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders (February 1998). Some of these organizations have made pacts or commitments to bin Laden over the years, such as the Egyptian Al-Jamaa Al-Islamiya and the GSPC (currently referred to as Al-Qaeda of the Maghreb). However, the most significant trend of the past several years has been the phenomenon of homegrown terrorism. Lone activists and local radical groups of Muslims, who either immigrated to Western countries There are also terrorist organizations that combine religious grievances with national-political motivations, such as Hamas. On the one hand, Hamas derives its ideology from the same tale and background as Al-Qaeda, based on the early religious global ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. At the same time though, Hamas seeks to achieve the nationalistic goal of destroying Israel and creating a Palestinian state in its place. 19 30 B. Ganor (first, second, or third generation) or converted to Islam in their country of origin, become inspired by the Global Jihad movement, leading them to carry out terrorist attacks.Al-Qaeda, its allies in the Global Jihad movement, other radical Islamic terrorist organizations, and the radical Islamic networks and cells of the West, all believe in one miraculous mission, which calls upon them to spread their radical beliefs throughout the world (Sageman, 20041). In seeking to achieve this mission, they believe it is permissible and necessary to make use of violence and terrorism, and that they are fighting a defensive war that allows them to use drastic measures. matchless perspective shared by several researchers is that this defensive war is not actually pitted against American or Western imperialism, as Global Jihad organizations commonly claim. Rather, the fight against the West is used to help summons and recruit activists, arguably acting as lip service by Al-Qaeda.It also serves to at least e xpress their concern over every aspect of modernization, including democratic forms of government, liberal values, and even modern technology that threaten the way of life they strive for a radical Islamic caliphate governed by Sharia law. It is also important to note that the threat of Global Jihad is not, as many tend to think, a war between Islam and other religions. Rather, it can be understood as a war of finales the culture of radical Islam against the outside world or the culture of radical Islam against the culture of the infidels, as Islamists call all those who do not share their world view. Many in the radical Jihadi movement recognize that they will not be able to succeed in their worldwide campaign in the near future. Therefore they aim, as a first stage, to create localized radical Islamic revolutions, primarily in Arab and Islamic countries.In fact, the majority of Global Jihad attacks over the past several years occurred in countries of the Arab or Islamic world,