The PIRA and HAMAS

The PIRA and HAMAS

            Political and religious differences are often the causes for dispute. Opposing viewpoints from political or religious beliefs cause friction between parties trying to determine who may be right in any given confrontation. These types of disputes are not difficult to find throughout history. For example, some groups of people in Ireland and Palestine have both confronted with opposing parties in attempts to create a sovereign state for their people. In an attempt to push the agenda of their own people in a land that oppressed them, the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland created the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) and the Islamic people in Palestine created HAMAS. I believe in some cases terrorist groups can be negotiated with. Due to the different beliefs of each religion in each land (Catholicism and Islam), I do not believe HAMAS will find peace in Israel, like the PIRA did in Ireland.

            One of the main differences between the PIRA and HAMAS is the role religion plays in their ideological platforms. Members of the PIRA were predominately Catholic and religion bonded the PIRA together through their common spiritual ideologies. However, the acts of terror committed by the PIRA were not in the name of God, but for the people living in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, attacks on Protestant neighborhoods by the PIRA were not made so those people would convert to Catholicism, they were committed to show the discontent felt from the people in Northern Ireland. The political platform that the PIRA ran on was to unite the people of Northern Ireland and repel the oppression from Britain. Additionally, the PIRA was not fundamentally tied to Catholicism as seen through the Official IRA faction. The Official IRA was the Marxist version of the IRA that distanced itself from religion. The existence of the Official IRA further proves that the Irish Republican Army had bonds through religion but did not solely exist because of religious beliefs. The common religious beliefs of the members of the PIRA did not impede political compromise between Northern Ireland and Britain.

            In contrast, the ideology of HAMAS is defined in rigid religious positions. HAMAS’ stated position is to create an Islamist state based on Islamic law that governs over all of the land, not just the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel included. This radical version of Islam is not open to change or compromise. The political and religious views of HAMAS are one and the same, which makes change unlikely to happen. Furthermore, the opposing group in Israel, the PLO has been willing to compromise on a two-state solution, but due to the absolutist beliefs of HAMAS, there is no willingness to do so. Fundamentalist interpretations of religious texts are what makes the likelihood of peace between HAMAS and the PLO so unrealistic.

            The only way for HAMAS to gain its own state is if they accepted a two-state compromise with Israel and the PLO. However, due to their intrinsic ideological and religious views, Israel and Palestine will continue to commit acts of terror upon each other. Additionally, HAMAS refuses to recognize Israel’s right to even exist, in contrast, the IRA never questioned Britain’s legitimacy. The ideological differences in each terrorist group are what has made one group at peace, while keeping the other at war.

Blog Post # 2 PLO

The PLO: Reasonably Radical?

The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964 as a secular nationalist group. The PLO was originally led by Chairman Ahmad Shukeiri. From 1969 to 2004 Yasser Arafat and the Fatah faction led the group. The PLO’s current leader succeeded Arafat after his death and is referred to as Mahmoud Abbas or Abu Mazen. The PLO arose from a number of unique yet similarly minded movements. The group aims to unite Arab people in refuting Zionism. They also promote structured Pro-Palestine goals e.g. the creation of an official Palestinian state. Unlike the Pro-Palestine group HAMAS the PLO was recognized by the Arab League as a semi-legitimate representative of Palestinian desires. They were even allowed to sit in on United Nations Committees. According to the lecture the PLO gradually became the unofficial government of Palestine. Like HAMAS the PLO wants a single Islamic State, however, they are decidedly less religious and radical; this allows Westerners to more easily understand their goals.

The PLO and the OSLO Accords

After the OSLO Accords between the PLO and Israel of 1993 and 1995 the PLO was made the “Palestinian Authority” (Mar 21 lecture). The Accords established the foundation for a two state solution and recognized Palestinian self-determination and their right to eventually create a Palestinian State. However, this has yet to come to fruition as Israel’s political desires are often contradictory to those of the PLO. Many Pro-Palestinian groups consider the OSLO Accords as a failure because they did not officially establish the legitimacy of a Palestinian State.

Unfortunately, the PLO is often plagued by radicals who find their cooperative stance too soft. The Abu Nidal Group killed PLO representatives because they were more radical than the then ruling Fatah. HAMAS, translated as, the Islamic Resistance Movement states in Article 27 of its Charter that, “Secular thought is diametrically opposed to religious thought”. When compared to HAMAS the PLO is easier for a Westerner to understand, however, due to their cooperative tactics they may lose support from some of their own people. Western Civilians can more easily relate to the PLO’s goals to create a peaceful, stable state which promotes religious freedom (PLO Charter Article 16).

Radical yet Realistic

Whereas the group HAMAS is willing to combat the Zionist movement beyond their immediate territory (Article 22) the PLO seeks to engage Arab allies to oust Israel. Perhaps, this poses less of a threat to Western authority. The PLO’s willingness to work with the United Nations to negotiate potential solutions may also appeal to Western governments. Although not always democratic the PLO does engage in secular reasoning. Their entire Charter is not openly supported by Western nations like the United States, however, by engaging in the creation of a document it shows their commitment to their cause and their dedication to structured reasoning. That type of thought process is encouraged and rewarded by the West: think before you act. You cannot communicate with someone easily unless you speak the same language. By writing their belief that Palestine is the Arab homeland (PLO Charter, Article 1) and that people need to be raised in an Arab revolutionary manner (PLO Charter, Article 7) they effectively communicate their goals-even if they remain controversial. The West does not support the radical revolutionizing of people, or the use of violence, however, they would support the PLO’s articulation of their ideas.

The PLO’s focus on secular goals most likely pushes less radical Arabs away from their cause and towards a more religious group like HAMAS even though both the PLO and HAMAS recognize that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine” (PLO Charter, Article 9). The way they attempt to achieve their goals varies greatly because of religious reasoning. Whereas HAMAS justifies its actions through religious reasoning the PLO’s more relaxed and relative stance may not provide enough reasoning for people to rally behind it.

Algerian War of Independence

Grace Picariello
March 26, 2017

When France seized Algeria as a military colony, the citizens of Algeria had a right to be angry with France. To take away a country's sovereignty is not just. However, the way that the Algerians initiated the fight for independence from France ought to be considered a form of terrorism. The National Liberation Front, or FLN, was the non-state group that began the revolts demanding independence. They targeted and attacked civilians in an effort to gain support for the revolution. Furthermore, they moved on to attack urban areas in order to gain international attention for their cause. All of this violence led to a huge percentage of Algeria being forced to flee their homes to France in 1962. Since the National Liberation Front was a non-state group, targeting civilians with violence, and causing terror for political goals and personal interests, they ought to be regarded formally as a terrorist group.

It is important to note that the FLN was a subnational group and not the formal government of Algeria at the time. This is a key component to defining terrorism, as the United States State Department explains that an act of terrorism must be carried out by "subnational groups or clandestine agents" (US State Department). Furthermore, this non-state group was primarily targeting innocent civilians. They instilled so much terror in the population of Algeria, specifically the Muslim population, that over 900,000 of them were forced to flee to France in fear of the FLN's actions. In accordance with the State Department, again, a terrorist typically uses "violence...against noncombatant targets" (US State Department). Violence and the instillation of fear among civilian groups is probably the most decisive characteristic of terrorism. The FLN's actions against both French settlers and Algerians certainly fits this bill.

Another decisive characteristic that is vital to something being considered an act of terrorism or a terrorist group, is the presence or lack of political motivation. The actions carried out by the FLN were centered around a political motivation, this being independence from France's rule. While this is a noble cause, in my opinion, the way that the National Liberation Front decided to reach this goal was not ideal. While the United States did fight a long war with England in order to attain independence, there were never any noteworthy situations that could have been regarded as terrorist acts. The government of Algeria would have options when it comes to gaining independence that it certainly did not exhaust. Instead, a radical subnational group took over and used terror and senseless violence against noncombatant civilians. I would contend that a formal war between France and Algeria would have been a better option. While it would have possibly taken more lives and more time, there would be written rules that could not be broken and could have maybe led to less civilian casualties.

At the end of the day, although the Algerian National Liberation Front was fighting for a worthy cause, the way that they went about sparking the change was wrong and fits the description of terrorism. The group had a politically motivated cause. In order to achieve their goal of independence from France, they instilled terror among civilians. This tactic was used as a method of coercing support for Independence from civilians. However, it did quite the opposite as almost a million Algerians were so afraid of the FLN that they saw no other option than to flee the country. In this case, the National Liberation Front has all of the characteristics that a terrorist group usually would.

Works Cited

United States State Department

The FLN and Propaganda

Throughout history, propaganda has been one of the most effective forms of terrorism. It leads people to act irrationally and out of character by either scaring them or by “brainwashing” them. Propaganda is used both by state and Nonstate actors. Propaganda has started wars and caused genocides. It is a very powerful political tool that is difficult to regulate and control.

One example of the power of propaganda was during the Nigerian War for independence. Propaganda was used by the French government as well as the National Liberation Front, or the FLN. The French used propaganda in France to gain public support to use violence against the FLN in Algeria. They talked about the violence that the Algerians were using. This angered the citizens which influenced them to support the violence that France was using. The FLN also used propaganda and psychological warfare to fight the French. An example of their propaganda was a book called A Dying Colonialism. In the book, Frantz Fanon talks about the importance of the common Algerian war effort. “He explains how an entire family could be recruited to hide or care for FLN members,” (Davis, 2007). This shows how nationalism can be used as propaganda to try and influence people to fight the French.

Another example of the strength of propaganda was the Rwandan genocide. The genocide was against the Tutsis, by the Hutu population. About 800,000 Rwandans were killed during a 100-day period. “Though the genocide was planned by the ‘Hutu Power’ Government and executed by the military and armed militia groups, a large number of civilians were actively involved in the atrocities,” (Lower and Hauschildt, 2014). The power of the propaganda was so strong that civilians were killing their neighbors. “What made propaganda particularly effective was the simultaneous dehumanization of Tutsi and the legitimization of their extermination,” (Lower and Hauschildt, 2014). The propaganda was so effective by the government, that the Hutus began to see their neighbors as less than human.

Propaganda is still used today by state and Nonstate actors. One of the central examples of a state actor is North Korea. In North Korea, propaganda is used to, “propagate an official personality cult and to manufacture absolute obedience,” (2014). Even though that the goal is not to influence violence, propaganda is still a terror tactic. The government uses fear to scare the people into following in line and not creating any problems. The North Korean government also uses execution as a fear method to scare the people even more. This makes sure that people do not commit even small “crimes,” such as watching South Korean television. This keeps total control to the government because people are to scared to learn about the outside world and just follow what they are told b the government.

Another example of modern propaganda is terrorist groups such as ISIS and al Qaeda. When Abdul Razak Ali Artan attacked the students at Ohio State University, there is evidence that he was influenced by ISIS propaganda. This spreads the influence of the terrorist to any person with internet access. It can influence any one in the whole world, not just people living in the Middle East. Terrorist propaganda is becoming very effective in influencing lone wolf attacks, such as the mass shooting in Orlando. Any mad individual can now be influenced by terrorist organizations half way around the globe. Social media has become very effective in spreading propaganda, and makes it much more difficult for law enforcement to limit it due to the vastness of the internet.

Propaganda is a very effective political tool that can be used to influence large populations or individuals. It can be used to control a whole country or influence people around the world to commit acts of terror. Either way, the use of propaganda is a terror tactic that influences people in a negative way. Propaganda can turn everyday people into violent, hating attackers who are influenced by often false information and fear.

                                                                                                                                                

Davis, M. (2007). The FLN’s Strategy for Gaining an Independent

Algeria, 1954-1962. Retrieved March 26, 2017, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.211.2393&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Hauschildt, M. L. (2014, September 15). The Media as a Tool of War:

Propaganda in the Rwandan Genocide. Retrieved March 26, 2017, from http://www.hscentre.org/sub-saharan-africa/media-tool-war-propaganda-rwandan-genocide/

Memmott, M. (2014, February 17). U.N. Report Details North Korea's

'Crimes Against Humanity' Retrieved March 26, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2014/02/17/278461563/u-n-report-details-north-koreas-crimes-against-humanity

Blog Post #2 3/26: The Response to Terror

David Solomon

Professor Shirk

POL 357-B

26 March 2017

The Response to Terror

After studying the units pertaining to the Algerian War of Independence and the Arab conflict, I was able to draw on a similarity between two. In both cases, the governments involved (Israel & France ) had an unproportionate response to the terrorist groups’ actions against their states. What is meant by unproportionate response is that the actions taken by these governments to mitigate or curb the operations of the supposed terrorist groups were in many cases overly harsh and lethal. Although many would argue against this, the history behind both of these cases speaks for itself. Especially pertaining to the conflict in Israel, simply looking at the death tolls on both sides shows a glaring discrepancy. Ultimately, this unproportionate response observed in both instances was/is counterproductive because (1) it only perpetuated further conflict, and (2) France and Israel were/have been unsuccessful in stopping the efforts of the supposed terrorist groups.

The conflict between the FLN and the French government was sparked by the Setif Massacre of 1945 where 103 French settlers were killed by Algerian rebels. The massacre was the culmination of various factors playing into the increased tensions observed between native Algerians and their French colonial “oppressors.” Nevertheless, the response from the French government can arguably be seen as the use of state sponsored terrorism. In coalition with Algerian authorities, the French government created a state in which Algerian natives were purposefully sought after and persecuted against (Thomas 221). This type of action would persist for the next ten years and as a result inevitably create the FLN. Thomas C. Martin makes note of why native Algerians joined the FLN in his article, Violence in the Algerian War of Independence Terror, counter-terror, and compliance. He states:

For some, the lived experience of participating in the first anti-colonial rebellion of the post-World War II era- the Setif uprising of May 1945 -was pivotal. Others were radicalized by the ensuing French crackdown. Its severity was such that the Algerian death toll probably exceeded 7,000 civilian victims, possibly many more. Arguably, Setif's aftermath did more to radicalize the emerging generation of nationalist activists than the preceding wartime years. (Thomas 222)

The creation of the FLN marked the beginning of the Algerian War of Independence and the continual conflict between the French government and Algerian rebels. Labeled a terrorist group, the FLN was targeted against with great prejudice by the French government. As a result, thousands of innocent Algerian natives would be killed in the cross-fire. This strategy of fighting terror with terror employed by the French government had unsustaining results while at same time indirectly helping the FLN’s cause. By killing so many Algerian natives, the French government labelled itself as the bad guy, making it easier for the FLN to recruit and garner public support. In the long run the French would ultimately fail in controlling the FLN resulting in the withdrawal of French forces in Algeria. As we can see, the French government’s use of unproportionate response to FLN actions was counterproductive in preserving their colonial control over Algeria. In essence, by retaliating as harshly as they did they indirectly legitimized the FLN’s cause while at the same time weakening their own position of authority.

When looking at the Arab conflict concerning Israel and Palestine, Israel’s strategy to combat the PLO and Hamas has had a very similar result to that of the French government in Algeria. Although the conflict over Israel’s territorial claims in the past has been between her and her Arab neighbors, in more recent history it has been an internal conflict with the Palestinians. The reason I bring this up is to give context to the fact that throughout Israel’s existence, her military endeavors have always yielded greater casualties for her enemies than for herself. Israel’s military capabilities are far ahead many of the countries in the Middle-East. So when she is faced with fighting an internal conflict she is more than well-equipped to handle the situation in an aggressive military manner. This has been the case when dealing in response to various violent actions committed against her by the PLO and Hamas. Every time either of these two groups have lashed out against Israel and her authority, her response has been that of quick and of brute force.

During the first Intifada sparked by the PLO from 1987-1991, only 164 Israelis died in comparison to 1,000 Palestinian deaths. The second Intifada, this time started by Hamas, from 2000-2005 saw a more equal distribution in casualties with 1,000 Israelis killed in comparison to 3,000 Palestinians. However, this example still shows the military capabilities Israel has in terms of inflicting casualties against her enemies. In most recent history the 2014 Gaza Conflict, which saw Hamas using long range missiles to target civilian populations within Israel, the discrepancy in death tolls is a telling scene. With only 70 Israelis killed, Israel’s response resulted in the deaths of about 2,000 Palestinians. This continual use of her vastly superior military force to kill thousands of Palestinians in an attempt to curb the operations of these supposed terrorist groups, has only garnered them more support. Particularly with Hamas, Israel’s overtly retaliatory responses have strengthened its position within Palestine. As noted by Jonathan Schanzer in his article, The Challenge of Hamas to Fatah, “Hamas is able to kill two birds with one stone. By Attacking Israel, it boosts its popularity with Palestinians, and elicits an Israeli retaliation that, in most instances, damages the PA and possibly paves the way to Fatah’s disintegration. Given these tangible rewards for terror, Hamas has no reason to desist” (Schanzer).

Although Israel’s unproportionate responses to Palestinian uprisings are not the only reasons to the growth of groups such as the PLO and Hamas, they definitely have played a significant role. Similar to that of the French government, Israel is indirectly strengthening the cause these groups stand for by retaliating so harshly. Labeling themselves the bad guys, Israel alienates itself from the Palestinian communities within its own country thus laying the groundwork for groups such as the PLO and Hamas to exist in the first place. Ultimately, this has resulted in Israel being unsuccessful in relinquishing any sort of resistance by the Palestinians and perpetuating a never ending cycle of violent conflict that is still being seen today.

Bibliography

Schanzer, Jonathan. "The Challenge of Hamas to Fatah." Middle East Forum. Spring 2003. Accessed March 20, 2017. http://www.meforum.org/516/the-challenge-of-hamas-to-fatah.

Thomas, Martin C.,"Violence in the Algerian war of Independence", in The Routledge History of Terrorism ed. Randall D. Law. (Abington: Routledge, 02 Apr 2015 )