A More Reasonable Approach To Terrorism
On the day before the University of Alberta is set to host George Galloway, an apologist for all manners of Palestinian terrorism against Israel – as well as a mouthpiece for the state that funds it – the U of A was host to Amos Guiora, an individual offering a far more balanced and reasonable approach to the issue of terrorism.
A professor at the University of Utah, Guiora is kept busy teaching criminal law, global perspectives on counter-terrorism, religion and terrorism, and national security law.
When not at home at the U of U, Guiora shares the expertise acquired over years of service with the Israeli Defence Force – in which he served as Judge Advocate for the Navy and Home Front Command, as well as Commander of the IDF school of military law, and legal advisor to the Gaza Strip -- with students abroad.
The subject of Guiora’s lecture was very simple: whose rights should be protected? Giora explained that his answer is wrapped up in the topic of how state actors interact with non-state actors, and in the topic of the powers, rights and obligations of each.
Moreover, Guiora insisted that this issue characterizes the conflicts in the world today.
"Conflict today increasingly -- not predominantly, but perhaps in the future predominantly -- is tension between the state actor and the non-state actor," Guiora explained.
Contrasted to state actors – which should require little explanation – Guiora described non-state actors as largely free of even the most basic constraints that bind states, and are in many regards protected by the state.
"The non-state actor is a slightly more amorphous, vague entity which does not have responsibilities or obligations, but does seem to have certain self-exercising rights," he explained.
According to Guiora – who has the experience to know – the most dangerous non-state actors are those who practice terrorism.
“Terrorism is an act by an individual or a group intended to advance a cause,” Guiora said. ”He kills innocent people, he harms innocent people, he causes property damage to innocent people, he intimidates people."
Guiora further maintained that the key factor defining a terrorist is that they consider innocent people to be legitimate targets.
For Guiora, this presents a key quandary to the state.
"I would argue that the primary responsibility of the state actor is to protect the innocent civilian," he announced.
From that point, the key problem becomes "to what extent can the state protect the innocent civilians against the non-state actor?" Guiora says. "What are the means that can be used to protect the state actor? What are the limits of state power? When can state power be used? When can full state power be used? Who is a legitimate target? How do you define who is a legtimiate target? When can you act against a legitimate target?"
Guiora noted that these are concerns that non-state actors aren’t presented with. The state is confronted with constraints both in the form of operational limitations, but also laws – both domestic and international.
By contrast, terrorists, as non-state actors, are presented only with operational limitations, many of which are self-imposed. In Guiora’s mind the greatest constraints placed upon them are the philosophical operational constraints they place upon themselves; the internal decisions regarding how they will conduct their terrorist campaigns.
This presents the state with a predicament: they can make the rules, but terrorists always play by their own.
This is especially the case when dealing with religious extremists.
Guiora (who has experience dealing with Jewish and Palestinian terrorists alike) recounted that, when working in counter-terrorism, he was told to simply dispense with the question of why terrorists do what they do. This only made the question more appealing to him.
More often than not, Guiora received the same answer: religious extremism.
"A religious extremist actor is the following: he or she, in order to bring glory unto God, is willing to commit an act of violence,” Guiora explained. “The reason why they are willing to act is because they have been directly incited by faith."
Because so many states protect religious freedom, Guiora noted that the state is confronted with a key problem.
"What measures can the state impose on extremist religious faith leaders?" Guiora asked. He made it clear that he believes there must be some.
Guiora pointed to the 1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Yigal Amir, the man who killed Rabin, was a Jewish religious extremist who judged Rabin to be din Rodef – a “pursuer” who must be killed in order to prevent the murder of an innocent.
Rabin had signed the Oslo Accords, which called for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. Amir objected, citing the West Bank as part of the Jewish biblical heritage. In order to try to prevent the handover of the West Bank, he killed Rabin.
Guiora pointed to the 1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Yigal Amir, the man who killed Rabin, was a Jewish religious extremist.
Rabin had signed the Oslo Accords, which called for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. Amir objected, citing the West Bank as part of the Jewish biblical heritage. In order to try to prevent the handover of the West Bank, he killed Rabin.
Amir had been incited by an extremist Rabbi -- who had emmigrated to Israel to Canada -- who had declared Rabin to be din Rodef. Under Orthodox Talmudic law a Rodef is a “pursuer” who is determined to murder an innocent, and so must be killed before they can achieve their grisly objective. Guiora contacted the Rabbi – whom he did not name, but noted had immigrated to Israel from Canada – to ask him about his incitement of violence. The Rabbi insisted that he was not responsible, but wished that he had been.
Guiora was stunned, but nearly as much as when he examined the case of a Florida pastor who incited violence against abortion doctors. When one of the pastor’s congregants acted on the pastor’s calls to violence, the triggerman was convicted but the pastor was left alone.
"For political purposes, the state decided not to prosecute,” Guiora fumed. “I consider this to be very troubling because it indicated to me that the state is unwilling to accept the fact that religious extremism poses an extraordinary threat. The threat is the inciter, not the incited."
Because the United States values religious freedom so highly, it’s difficult for law enforcement and intelligence to secure the power to monitor religious communities (at the very least, for Christian religious communities).
In particular, religious extremists have often enjoyed the protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
However, when religious extremists incite violence, this places freedom of speech and religion at odds with what he considers a simple and fundamental human right: that innocent people have the right to live.
"Innocent people have the right to live, and the state has the responsibility to protect them from incited violence,” Guiora insisted.
"If the non-state actor is engaged in endangering specific individuals, but is also engaged in non-specific endangerment, does the state have the obligation, under very specific conditions, to limit the rights of non-state actors?” Guiora asked. “The answer to that must be a resounding 'yes'."
The question that remains – for which there are surely no easy answers – is precisely what these limits should be.
Certainly, the state cannot embrace the mode of the terrorist non-state actor, recognizing no constraints other than those it chooses to place upon itself and acknowledge. The state must remember that protecting the freedoms of innocents is just as important as protecting their lives.
It isn’t by any means an easy balance to strike, even in the mind of Amos Guiora, whose opinion has been shaped, and could have been hardened, by years of experience in counter-terror.
If only Guiora had the drawing power of George Galloway’s invective, western society would be well on its way to a more reasoned debate on the matter.
Patrick Ross is a Contributing Writer for The Propagandist
