(Amy
Zalman received her Ph.D. from the Department of Middle Eastern
Studies at New York University.)
Texts
Reviewed Bruce
Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1998).
Joseba Zulaika
and William A. Douglass, Terror and Taboo: The Follies, Fables
and Faces of Terrorism (New York: Routledge, 1996).
Meredith Turshen
and Clotilde Twagiramariya, eds., What Women Do in Wartime: Gender
and Conflict in Africa (London: Zed Books, 1998).
Suha Sabbagh,
ed., Palestinian Women of Gaza and the West Bank (Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press, 1998).
Yahya Yakhlif,
A Lake Beyond the Wind, M. Jayyusi and C. Tingley, trans.
(Interlink Books, 1999).
Yusuf al-Qaid,
War in the Land of Egypt, O. Kenney, L. Kenney, and C. Tingley,
trans. (Interlink Books, 1998).
Esther Raizen,
ed. and trans., No Rattling of Sabers: An Anthology of Israeli
War Poetry (Austin: Center for Middle East Studies at the University
of Texas, 1995).
Guerrilla
warfare. Revolution. Resistance. Terrorism, counter-terrorism, peacekeeping.
Like contemporary wars themselves, the multiple and contradictory
descriptions of violent political conflict elide conventional warfares
clear designation of combatants and innocent victims. Whereas national
armies once marched off to a marked battlefield, combatants on todays
battlefields pack the tools of their trade with them, turning everyone
into a potential target. Organized political violence now engages
civilians to an unprecedented extent, raising vexing questions about
how to distinguish combatants from victims, and who has the right
to make the distinction.
Activists,
academics, novelists and poets have all appraised the consequences
of this decentralized warfare. Motivated by the need to remedy the
harm inflicted in wars with multiple protagonists and civilian victims,
the works examined here ask how the existing international political
order should respond to violence instigated by non-state actors.
Should the system of nation-states modeled on Western democracies
be strengthened, and warfare regulated by international conventions?
Or are Western nation-states, which foster decentralized warfare
by perpetrating inequalities among nations, the real problem?
The answers,
like the conflicts they address, are not simple. Bruce Hoffmans
Inside Terrorism and Joseba Zulaika and William Douglass
Terror and Taboo express polemical views on the form of political
violence they label terrorism. Hoffman, former director of terrorism
research at the RAND Corporation, offers a cogent history of the
development of terrorist tactics since the French Revolution. Relying
largely on the texts of terrorists, who he calls "violent intellectuals,"
Hoffman clarifies how those who resort to violence to effect political
change are motivated by reason and idealism. But Hoffmans
outline of the challenges facing counter-terrorism aims to do more
than prevent civilian harm. Terrorism, he tacitly claims, threatens
an ideal political order in which war is only fought according to
internationally agreed-upon rules. No matter how legitimate the
claims of terrorists, as non-state actors they always operate outside
the rule of law; their crimes are therefore difficult to prosecute.
Hoffman calls for a qualitative distinction between war fought between
state armies and terrorism, since only the former -- at least in
theory -- is bound by rules protecting civilians from attack, and
by other restraints. This otherwise reasoned logic exempts Western
democracies from critical examination, as if, because they originated
the system that produced international rules of war, they could
not sponsor or perpetrate illegitimate violence themselves.
Anthropologists
Zulaika and Douglass begin their critique of "terrorism discourse"
with Hoffmans easy acceptance of the Western prerogative to
define terrorism. In their view, political violence exists, but
"terrorism" is foremost a contemporary way of representing
political violence. Above all, television shapes violent events
into narrative fictions called "terrorism." Further, policy
careers devoted to the study of terrorism, such as Hoffmans,
serve to reify certain violent political activism as terrorism.
The greatest danger of "terrorism discourse" and its consequent
influence upon policy, the authors contend, is that it masks the
larger problem of state-sponsored violence and the daily militarism
of Western society. The authors use anthropological concepts such
as "taboo" and "play" to explain the degree
to which the efficacy of terrorism is symbolic. In their view, once
we recognize that the danger of terrorism is a function of our perception
of its existence as a category of violence, we can redirect our
resources away from counter-terrorist measures to combating threats
like nuclear destruction.
So, Hoffman
argues that we should combat the effects of violent political terror
to protect the evolving international order. Zulaika and Douglass
would rather attack the militarism inherent in that same order.
Unfortunately, Zulaika and Douglass veil their most pointed arguments
in layers of analogy and metaphor -- such as in an extended rumination
on innocence, randomness and guilt with reference to Blake, or the
story of Abraham and Isaac and Kierkegaards reading thereof.
Two books
addressing civil war and resistance movements in the Third World
present more nuanced debates over the role of Western democracies,
and the United States in particular, in combating political violence
in other parts of the world. Palestine and African nations have
complicated relationships to Western states that have fostered internecine
violence in the guise of universalist values. Turshens introduction
to What Women Do in Wartime pinpoints both the military-minded
West and weak state structures in Africa as the primary contributors
to African civil wars. Her critique of Western militarism includes
the imperative to unmask the indirect forms of warfare waged by
Western states and international corporations on the underdeveloped
world. At the same time, she reminds that an augmented state structure
and the preservation of a basic framework of universal human rights
in African nations are crucial if victims of political violence
are to be protected. Turshen points out the near impossibility of
enforcing humanitarian and human rights laws when abuses are perpetrated
by non-state actors, or when the state does not function (or has
not subscribed to the Geneva Conventions).
Enforcing human
rights is especially crucial for women, who are subject to unique
forms of violence, primarily rape, that have only recently been
recognized as political crimes during war. What Turshen calls "privatized"
violence -- war carried out in villages and homes -- draws women
into conflict in new ways. The use of light weaponry like assault
rifles often enables the penetration of homes, making the threat
to women considerable. Since these patriarchal societies enforce
collective control of womens sexuality, rape can be an instrument
of war against society as a whole. For this reason, women in societies
with strict visions of womens responsibility for "sexual"
activity suffer long after the initial trauma of rape. In Turshens
book, womens repeated reports of rape -- as a political instrument,
as a reward expected by soldiers, as an incoherent act that accompanies
war -- are a repulsive testament to the failure of the international
community to provide for womens basic rights.
The excellent
collection of essays in Palestinian Women of the West Bank and
Gaza, edited by Suha Sabbagh, repeatedly calls attention to
the victimhood of Palestinian women subjected to both sexual violence
by Israeli soldiers and patriarchal backlash in their own communities.
It also testifies, however, to the transformation of sexual violation
from shameful to heroic during the intifada. As the essays
consistently show, the decentralized nature of the Palestinian uprising
contributed to raising womens political consciousness. When
their private space became a battleground, and their children soldiers
in an unofficial war waged on their local streets, women themselves
began to enter previously male-dominated public space. While at
first they went into the streets of Gaza and the West Bank to protect
their children, many eventually joined them in throwing stones.
Galvanized and politicized, they demonstrated for womens rights
and formed womens work committees in which they connected
feminist goals and national aims in new and creative ways.
The works
above consistently attack the desire of the globalized media to
simplify complex conflict into an easily digestible story. As an
antidote to facile journalism, one might turn to literary treatments
of political violence that embrace the complexities and ironies
of conflict. Sabbaghs collection contains a section about
culture during the intifada, including a comprehensive essay
by Ilham Abu Ghazaleh about gender in intifada poetry. A
recent translation of Palestinian author Yahya Yakhlifs novel,
A Lake Beyond the Wind, details the making of an army in
the absence of a state. It tells the story of men who voluntarily
join the Arab Liberation Army on the eve of the 1948 war, and of
the emotions -- from national pride to masculine bravura -- that
sustain them. Also worthy of mention is the recently translated
novel, War in the Land of Egypt, a bitter comedy of errors
which recounts what happens when the son of an Egyptian umdas
watchman is sent to the front in the 1973 war in place of the umdas
conscripted son. Although its subject is a conventional war, it
pithily reminds us that even war fought by the rules is frequently
rife with the very inequalities it claims to combat. Finally, No
Rattling of Sabers: An Anthology of Israeli War Poetry recounts
the Israeli Jewish experience of battle through the eyes of poets,
civilians and soldiers. Natan Zachs 1982 poem about the urge
to quantify the victims of war reminds us how the language of political
conflict is intertwined with our understanding of wars most
tragic consequences:
the
desire to be precise
Is no less
human than the desire to kill, to rape, to crush, and to
exterminate
Your enemy,
your opponent, your next door neighbor, the suspicious stranger,
or just
Morocco
serves as the backdrop for such Hollywood blockbusters as Gladiator,
Black Hawk Down and Body of Lies. The country’s breathtaking
landscapes and gritty urban neighbourhoods are the perfect setting
for Hollywood’s imagination.
Unbeknown
to most filmgoers, however, is that Morocco is embroiled in one of
Africa’s oldest conflicts - the dispute over Western
Sahara. This month the UN Security Council is expected to take up the
dispute once more, providing US President Barack Obama with an opportunity
to assert genuine leadership in resolving this conflict. But there’s
no sign that the new administration is paying adequate attention. Full
Story>>
Shortly
before assuming office, President Barack Obama was handed a missive
signed by such Washington luminaries as ex-national security advisers
Zbigniew Brezezinski and Brent Scowcroft, urging him to “explore
the possibility” of direct contact with Hamas. One month after
he entered the White House, Obama received an epistle from Ahmad Yousef,
a Gaza-based spokesman for the Islamist movement, making the same recommendation. “There
can be no peace without Hamas,” Yousef told the New York Times
when asked about the letter's contents. “We congratulated Mr.
Obama on his presidency and reminded him that he should live up to
his promise to bring real change to the region.”
There
is no word, as yet, on how the foreign policy doyens' message was
received, but Yousef's occasioned a huffy US rebuke of the UN Relief
Works Agency, whose top official in Gaza, Karen Abu Zayd, passed the
letter to Sen. John Kerry while he was visiting the devastated territory
in mid-February. Even a single sealed envelope, it seems, creates the
appearance that the Obama administration is breaking with the US vow,
enunciated first under President George W. Bush, not to speak with
Hamas until it agrees to renounce violence, abide by previous Palestinian
agreements with Israel and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Full
Story>>
It
has been quite a week. For the first time, the international community
indicted a sitting president of a sovereign state. Omar al-Bashir
of Sudan stands accused by the International Criminal Court in The
Hague of "crimes against humanity and war crimes" committed
in the course of the Khartoum regime's brutal suppression of the
revolt in the country's far western province of Darfur. Having indicted
two other figures associated with the regime in 2007, ICC prosecutor
Luis Moreno Ocampo began building a case against the man at the top,
and on Wednesday, the court issued a warrant for Bashir's arrest.
Full Story>>
Speaking
to his people on January 18, hours after Hamas responded to Israel’s
unilateral suspension of hostilities with a conditional ceasefire
of its own, the deposed Palestinian Authority prime minister Ismail
Haniyeh devoted several passages of his prepared text to the subject
of Palestinian national reconciliation. For perhaps the first time
since Hamas’s June 2007 seizure of power in the Gaza Strip,
an Islamist leader broached the topic of healing the Palestinian divide
without mentioning Mahmoud Abbas by name.
At
a press conference the following day convened by Abu Ubaida, the
spokesperson of the Martyr Izz al Din al Qassam Brigades, the Hamas
military wing, the movement went one step further. “The Resistance”,
Abu Ubaida intoned, “is the legitimate representative of the
Palestinian people”. Full Story>>
Three
weeks after the war on Gaza, Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire
but refused to terminate its so-called defensive operations. In response,
Hamas declared a ceasefire for one week, until the withdrawal of
Israeli troops has been completed. For many in the West, the ceasefire
might seem like an occasion to celebrate, for the cessation of military
hostilities on both sides will perhaps renew the peace process. But
there are reasons to be critical of this ceasefire, since it continues
the situation in which Israel acts unilaterally. What we are actually
witnessing is a new phase of the catastrophe in Gaza. While the characteristics
of this phase are not yet known, Israel's violence has become ever
more evident. And perhaps this is why Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
did not mention the word "peace" once in the speech he gave
to announce the ceasefire. The "peace process" might soon
be revealed as the other side of the coin to war -- its continuation
by other means -- that simultaneously feeds it. Full Story>>
Bob
Woodward’s four books chronicling the wars of President
George W. Bush are sensitive barometers of conventional wisdom in Washington.
Whereas the first volume, published in 2002 at the height of the self-righteous
nationalism gripping the capital after the September 11, 2001 attacks,
hailed Bush’s self-confidence in acting to protect the homeland,
the 2008 installment depicts the same man as cocksure and incurious.
This much is not news. More educational are Woodward’s hints
about the worldviews that will outlast this unpopular administration,
embedded in the organs of the national security state. Full
Story>>
The
Egyptian regime has once again succeeded in stifling freedom of speech,
this time not in Egypt, but in the US. Earlier this month, an Egyptian
court convicted a prominent Egyptian-American activist for his outspoken
criticism of the regime’s poor human
rights record in American public fora. The court accused Saad Eddin
Ibrahim, of "tarnishing Egypt's image" abroad. The conviction
referred primarily to writings he published in the foreign press; most
notably among them an August 2007 op-ed in the Washington Post in which
he criticized Egypt's human rights record and questioned the reasons
behind US aid to Egypt. Full
Story>>
Militant
Islam is under global scrutiny for clues to conditions that foster
its rise, and to strategies for reversing that growth. But the key
is not in Islamic doctrine, US foreign policy or formal ties to various
nations, as many analysts have asserted. It lies at the community
level, with clan and local leaders. Full
Story>>
Kurdish
parties have become kingmakers in Baghdad , and they know it. As
no federal government can work without them, they are pulling every
available political lever to expand the territory and resources they
control, trying to build the foundation of an independent Kurdish state.
But even more than territory, they need security. If everyone acts
quickly and wisely, that understanding could help resolve one of the
Iraq war’s thorniest issues. Full
Story>>
The
debate over the war in Iraq follows a yellowing script: The minute
someone suggests that the US move to withdraw its troops, war supporters
cry “Havoc!”
True to form, when no less a figure than Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki stated he wants a timeline for a US pullout, John McCain
summoned the specter of dire consequences. “I’ve always
said we’ll come home with honor and with victory and not through
a set timetable,” McCain said. In his major foreign policy speech
on July 15, Barack Obama affirmed his support for a withdrawal timetable,
adding that the US must “get out as carefully as we were careless
getting in.” Obama’s position is the correct one, but he,
like many other war critics, has done too little to counter the refrain
that withdrawal is simply
“cutting and running,” a recipe for disaster. Full
Story>>