As I write this column, the cycle of violence continues. In Gaza, in Arras and in Brussels. And in the Netherlands? There I get calls from serious people with the nervous question whether ‘we should call this terrorism, or whether it would be better to talk about fighters’. Well. It is a sincere question, which expresses compassion and involvement in the violence in Israel, but also nervousness about one’s own attitude. Am I doing it right, am I in the right camp?
The fact that we can ask that question and discuss it at length is first and foremost a luxury. But it is a luxury that comes with responsibility. So I will answer the question for you, in two ways. Academically and personally-psychologically.
First the academic answer. In first-year lectures on terrorism and counter-terrorism, it is standard practice to start by emphasizing the fact that terrorism is a controversial concept. Like so many other -isms, how something is defined depends on the power of interpretation. Are they heroes or murderers? Terrorists or freedom fighters? Usually the incumbent power determines the definition. In such a situation it is therefore important that you be careful not to become a party yourself as a de facto outsider. Especially in an academic or pedagogical setting, it is good to enjoy the luxury of businesslikeness. Pretending that you are secretly fighting along and having to choose sides is as misplaced as it is presumptuous towards the suffering of others.
Listening well
So, from a distance, it is better to be careful not to take sides and, on the definition issue, focus on what the academic consensus is as well as on what the rules of the (international) legal order are in the area where you are working, insofar as that is an open democracy. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization in most manuals. The Netherlands and the EU, among others, have also classified the movement as terrorist. This has to do with the third, substantively decisive reason for designating an organization or group as terrorist, namely by listening carefully to what the leaders themselves say about their willingness to use terrorist violence. Hamas was founded in 1987, when Fatah had explicitly renounced the use of terrorist violence in the 1970s and Hamas decided to continue the armed struggle, including carrying out attacks on non-military targets. Of course, Hamas also fights for the freedom of the Palestinian people and provides all kinds of social services to that people – just like the IRA, ETA, FARC and Fatah did before. One person’s terrorist can easily be another’s freedom fighter. The moment Hamas surrenders its weapons and chooses to govern and negotiate, we will drop the adjective terrorist, just as happened with those other organizations. But for now it is not that difficult to classify Hamas as terrorist.
Order under pressure
Why do some people feel uncomfortable about that? Which brings me to the second, more psychological part of my answer. That has to do with balance. In times of tension and uncertainty, order is under pressure, politically, militarily or morally. The Austrian psychologist Fritz Heider (Vienna, 1896) experienced the collapse of such an order himself and wrote the famous book about it in 1958 (together with Beatrice Wright). The psychology of interpersonal relations.
According to Heider, people want to build a consistent, accurate and understandable picture of the world around them. When conflicts disrupt order and their own emotions further pollute the picture, people want to restore balance as quickly as possible, because that imbalance feels bad. They will suppress the atrocities in their own camp, nuances and other ambivalent insights in favor of an unambiguous, morally clear picture. It goes like this, for example: ‘I stand up for the oppressed and am against colonialism. Israel oppresses the Palestinians. US supports Israel. Hamas stands up for the Palestinians. Ergo: I am against Israel and the US, and for Hamas, no matter what.’
Kees van den Bos explains in his important book Treat each other fairly shows that consistency is so important for people who want to believe in law and justice that it can be at the expense of factuality and nuance. That explains why idealistic people start to condone Hamas, or no longer dare to label the organization as terrorist for fear of being seen as morally wrong.
In short, thank God there have been no fatalities in this war. But the balance has been lost. The attacks were horrific and the fate of the Palestinians remains horrific. No amount of ‘yes but’ or ‘context’ attempts can right that balance. So let’s not try that. Rather than trying to impose our moral consistency on others, we should bear our own suffering from the imbalance of inconsistent violence in silence and show compassion for victims on both sides.
Beatrice de Graaf is professor of history of international relations in Utrecht.