Hezbollah: Terrorism or Resistance? By Kevork Elmassian

21 Feb

 Hezbollah: Terrorism or Resistance? 

                                                                      

 

 Introduction

A research about Terrorism and Resistance needs careful examination of each term, both terms need conceptualization to draw lines of differences between both terms. After the process of conceptualization an application is needed on Hezbollah the “Party of God” to decide whether Hezbollah is a terrorist organization or a legitimate resistance.

The terms terrorism and resistance have been debated in the media and are major source of uncertainty amongst academics and the general public[1]. Defining these terms are embedded in the people and nations philosophy, experience, culture, etc[2]  and the distinction between terrorism, guerilla warfare, and terrorism is often blurry. During my research about terrorism, I found innumerable definitions. However, Brian Jenkins a world renowned expert on terrorism gave a simplistic definition of terrorism by saying “Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm – in a word, to terrorize – and thereby bring about some social or political change.” [3]

Walter Laqueur an American historian and political commentator added to Jenkins’s definition the requirement of targeting “innocent people”. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also defined terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”[4].

On the other hand, the concept of resistance also used by critical theorists and its idea or assumption underlying the concept is that every day practices and behaviors are political, and thus can be expected to have political implications or outcomes.[5] Scholars have used the term resistance to describe a wide variety of actions and behaviors at all levels of human social life (individual, collective, and institutional) and in a number of different settings, including political systems, entertainment and literature.[6] It also includes military acts of self-defense like the right to resist an aggressor, defend ones territorial integrity, etc[7]. The UN General Assembly resolution on 29 November, 1978, guarantied the right to use force in a struggle for “the liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;” as quoted in[8].

Hezbollah emerged in 1982 as a Shiite political and military group resisting the Israeli invasion of south Lebanon. Its roots go back to the 1950s and 1960s Shiite awakening in Lebanon. Hezbollah was influenced by the Iraqi Hizb al-Da’wa resistance movement in 1957, also influenced by Imam Musa Sadr, Imam Khomeini and the Iranian revolution in 1979. The party has MPs and ministers in the Lebanese government and headed by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.[9]

Hezbollah is an active organization in Lebanon, and a major provider of social services, operating schools, hospitals, and agricultural services for thousands of Lebanese Shiites.[10]

Hezbollah fighters’ main aim is to liberate the Lebanese occupied territories (Shaba Farms); to force the Israelis out of south Lebanon and to stop the Israeli violations of the Lebanese sovereignty on daily bases. However, Hezbollah succeeded to push the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from South Lebanon in 2000[11]. Moreover, in July war 2006, although the Israeli forces caused huge damage in the Lebanese infrastructure, Hezbollah succeeded to resist the IDF troops for 33 days until the UN Security Council imposed 1701 resolution which ended the hostilities and the forced the Israeli troops out of the Lebanese territories (except Shaba Farms).

  Literature Review

Dr. Hillel Avihai modified some accepted definitions and characteristics of terrorism; he emphasized on the structure of the Israeli society with regard to the reserve army and whether the reserve is considered civilians or soldiers.[12] This structure raised some questions regarding the well-accepted definitions of terrorism or a terrorist, especially in regard to the distinction between a civilian and a soldier, a distinction which makes, inter alia the difference between a terrorist and guerrilla fighter.[13]

A lot of issues and problems surrounded the conceptualization of terrorism and resistance.[14] The review and synthesize the diverse literatures that invoke the concept of resistance illuminates both core elements common to most uses of the concept and two central dimensions on which these uses vary: the questions of whether resistance must be recognized by others and whether it must be intentional.[15] These two articles are very important in the conceptualization of “Terrorism” and “Resistance” which serves the purpose of the research; to draw clear lines that differentiate terrorism from resistance.

Judith Harik a twenty years lecturer at AUB has achieved a comprehensive and highly detailed history of Hezbollah. The main goal of the book is to determine whether Hezbollah is a legitimate resistance fighting the Israeli aggressor, as many in the Arab world believe, or simply a terrorist organization as listed by the United States and other European states[16]. Ran HaCohen challenged the mainstream opinion in the US which considers Hezbollah as terrorist organization. He presented the factors which gives Hezbollah the right to use armed violence against Israel for many reasons like the Israeli occupation of Shaba Farms, and the Israeli daily violations to the sovereignty of Lebanon[17].

   Conceptualizing Terrorism

 Walter Laqueur argued in 1977 that “a comprehensive definition of terrorism does not exist nor will it be found in the foreseeable future.[18]” However, some deeper study may reveal some pragmatic understanding regarding the term “Terrorism”.

The terms terrorism is exhausted in the media and is a source of uncertainty amongst the media, the general public, and critical academics[19]. It is one of the most widely discussed issues of the contemporary world, but also it is one of the least understood and always reflects ideological and political bias[20]. In the contemporary politics, we can see that one’s terrorist is others freedom fighter and vice versa. Thus, in order to remove the uncertainty regarding the term terrorism, a careful examination and conceptualization is needed for the purpose of my study.

Terrorism defined by the British Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1976 by “the use of violence for political end including use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear.”[21] The US State Department defined terrorism as: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience”[22] For purposes of this definition, the term noncombatant is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty.[23]

The United States Military Academy also defined Terrorism by “The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”[24]

According to the American sociological review, terrorism is illegal violence or violence directed against human or nonhuman objects. But this definition needs five conditions to be true:

1-      The violence was undertaken or ordered with a view to altering or maintaining at least one putative norm in at least one particular territorial unit or population

2-      Had secretive, furtive, and clandestine features that were expected by the participants to conceal their identity and their location.

3-      To not undertaken or ordered to further the permanent defense of some area.

4-      Was not conventional warfare because of their concealed identity and concealed future location, the participants perceived themselves in ass less vulnerable to conventional military action

5-      Was perceived by the participants as contributing to the goal of inculcating fear in persons other than the immediate target of the actual or threatened violence or by publicizing some cause.[25]

We can see from the definitions that although there is a consensus about violence as a necessary feature of terrorism, there is another related issue. Many observers often suggest that only humans can be targets of violence, but other observers identified examples of destruction or damage of nonhuman objects like buildings, animals, crops, etc as terrorism. Moreover terrorists have another goal which is to inculcate fear within humans.[26]

Another question is raised regarding terrorism, is Terrorism necessarily a crime?

Most historians, officials and journalists who label and action as “Terrorism” they evidently regard the action as illegal or criminal act[27]. Whether the terrorist chooses to identify himself with military terminology or with civilian imagery, he is a criminal in both spheres. If the terrorist claims that he is justified in using such violence as a military combatant, he is a de facto war criminal under international law and the military justice systems of most nations[28].

On the hand, Alex Schmid an internationally renowned Dutch scholar in Terrorism Studies and former Officer-in-Charge of the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the United Nations, offered a list of 109 definitions in the period between

1936 to 1981, and tried to make a typology by focusing on the frequencies of definitional elements[29]:

Table 1

 

As shown in the above table, the highest frequency was related to ‘violence and force’ (83.5%); victim-target differentiation was graded with (37.5% ).The efficiency of Schmid’s typology was tested by Schmid himself, asking whether the above list contains all the elements necessary for a good definition, and his honest answer was: “probably no”[30]

At the end, it is obvious from the above definitions, explanations and typology that Terrorism isdeliberately targeted against civilians and non combatants. On the other hand, any armed attack against military infrastructure is considered as guerrilla warfare, which is the major and critical difference between a ‘freedom fighter’ and a ‘terrorist’. Terrorists deliberately aim at civilians. They target non -combatant objects, therefore they cannot be considered to be freedom fighters[31].

Conceptualization of Resistance

 

First of all, there is little consensus on the definition of resistance, As Rose Weitz wrote in 2001 “the term resistance remains loosely de-fined, allowing some scholars to see it almost everywhere and others almost nowhere.[32]”

The most commonly studied mode of resistance is physical, where the resisters’ use their bodies or other material objects. “Resistance” also refers to social movements such as protests and “contentious politics”; therefore, many activities traditionally associated with these phenomena, such as marches, sit-in, and the formation of organizations fall into this category. Other acts of physical resistance include behaviors as dramatic as violence.[33]

Many critical theorists argue that where there is oppression or inequity, there will inevitably be resistance against the oppression[34]. This is exactly what the UN General Assembly asserted in its 29 November, 1978 resolution by legalizing the resistance and use of armed violence for “liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;”[35] Thus, oppression is a necessary precondition or prerequisite for resistance.[36]

Another central issue for understanding resistance is the intent. Here there should be a behavior which is intended as a challenge, this can indeed be seen as an act of resistance, regardless of the effect on others. Impact, should also be recognized as a central aspect of the conceptualization of resistance. If resistance involves the weakening of dominant ideological systems that would seem to be clear evidence for resistance.[37]

However, there are seven kinds of resistance, and it is useful to think of resistance in terms of distinct types as presented in (Table 2). The typology addresses the central issues involved in disagreements about resistance-recognition and intent-and also explains the fact that there are three distinct groups (actors, their targets, and interested observers, including researchers) who might judge an act to be resistance[38].

  

 

Table 2

 

It is important to examine the first two kinds of resistance for the purpose of our research. Overt resistance is the behavior which is visible and recognized by both targets and observers as resistance. Moreover there is a consensus over this category and virtually most scholars agree that acts of this type are classified as resistance.[39]

There is less agreement on the covert resistance. It includes the acts that are intentionally unnoticed (and, therefore, unpunished) by their targets, although they are recognized as resistance by other, culturally aware observers[40].

  Terrorism vs. Resistance!

Europeans often celebrate the French Resistance, praising those who had the courage to resist those who occupied them, even when that resistance resulted in the death of German soldiers.[41] However, the term resistance is not applied on the organizations and individuals who resisted the American occupation in Iraq, or the Israeli occupation in Palestine and Lebanon. This is due to the politicization of the term resistance and terrorism.

Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:

1- It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.

2- It is political, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.

3- It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.

4- It is carried out by sub-national groups—not by the army of a country.[42]

Thus, Terrorists choose targets and actions to maximize the psychological effect on a society or government .Their goal is to create a situation in which a government will change its policies to avoid further bloodshed or disruption. And they plan their acts to get as much media exposure as possible.[43]

Brian Jenkins, a decorated Vietnam vet and author of “International Terrorism: A New Mode of Conflict,” argued that “What sets terrorism apart from other violence is this: terrorism consists of acts carried out in a dramatic way to attract publicity and create an atmosphere of alarm that goes far beyond the actual victims. Indeed, the identity of the victims is often secondary or irrelevant to the terrorists who aim their violence at the people watching. This distinction between actual victims and a target audience is the hallmark of terrorism and separates it from other modes of armed conflict.” Resistance on the other hand is not a theater. It may conduct violence discourse by whatever irregular/asymmetric/guerilla means are available to it. It fights for what it believes is the good of its country. [44]

Joe Cochran presented a different argument by saying “The vast majority of attacks against U.S. and Iraqi security forces are perpetrated by former members of Saddam Hussein’s regime and Sunnis fearful of being politically marginalized by the Kurds and majority Shiites. Then there are the foreign Muslims coming into Iraq to wage jihad against the United States and its allies, primarily through suicide bombings.” Cochrane sees the former group as resistors to the occupation. The latter, he sees as terrorists.[45] The justification for armed Resistance assured in the General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

(3)  Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle.

(7) Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people[46]

 Hezbollah (Party of God)

Hezbollah the “Party of God” is on the annual terrorist list published by the United States. However, many critical observers argued that Hezbollah has the right to conduct violence discourse against Israel by referring to legal precedents and international conventions. [47]

Since Israel’s withdrawal from South Lebanon, Hezbollah is pretty much following the rules of good neighborliness; it is Israel that breaches them. Hezbollah has been concentrating on two kinds of actions: anti-aircraft fire against the Israeli warplanes that regularly breach Lebanon’s sovereignty, flying over the entire country from south to north. In addition, a limited fighting against the Israeli forces occupying the Shaba Farms[48]. In addition to this, Hezbollah didn’t fire any missiles or rockets on Israel during the times of ceasefire.

Now who is the aggressor here, who is the terrorist? Sending warplanes across the border is the most obvious violation of sovereignty. No country on earth would tolerate that. Consequently, Hezbollah’s ineffective anti-aircraft are totally legitimate and justified act of self-defense.[49]

The Shaba Farms, which is situated in the foothills of Har Dov at the point where the borders of Israel, Lebanon and Syria converge, used to be part of the French Mandate in Syria and Lebanon. In May 2000, following Israel’s withdrawal from south Lebanon, the UN ruled that Shaba was part of the Golan Heights, and was therefore Syrian rather than Lebanese[50]. On the other hand, Hezbollah claims that Shaba farms are occupied Lebanese territories. Syria, for its part, says it has given it to Lebanon.[51] Anyway, all parties agree that Shaba is indeed occupied by Israel. Consequently, violent resistance to occupying forces is indeed legally legitimate; it does not matter who carries it out. (Otherwise, the liberation of the Netherlands in World War II should have been left exclusively to Dutch forces, etc. obviously absurd.)[52]

Jewish-American linguist Noam Chomsky, who has been a vocal critic of many of Hezbollah’s positions, agrees the previous argument and believes that Hezbollah “has the right” to fight the Israeli aggression.[53] Chomsky said “I think Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and persuasive argument that they should be in the hands of Hezbollah (the arms) as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there is plenty of background reasons for that. So until, I think his position reporting it correctly and it seems to me reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region, the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated there has to be a deterrent, and the Lebanese army can’t be a deterrent.”[54]

On the other hand, the Israelis are arguing that Hezbollah has fired almost 2,000 missiles into Israel in 2006, killing more than 50 Israelis and forcing almost one million into air raid shelters[55]. Consequently, Hezbollah is targeting the Israeli civilians and terrorizing the Israelis instead of targeting the IDF. However, this argument is not accurate because in Israel it is compulsory for all citizens to serve in the army, and most Israeli citizens have to serve as soldiers in the army reserves for many years even after the demobilization from the military service. Thus, the element of ‘non-combatants’ or ‘at the time of event’ should be tested each case separately and thus, we can’t generalize it on Hezbollah’s military operations.[56]

Finally, in an interview with Israel’s former Commander of Military Intelligence, General Shlomo Gazit said that “the problem lies at our door” and continued saying “Hezbollah did observe the ‘rules of the game for a long period’. We [first] bombed and shelled many targets in Lebanon, including some far to the north. Only then Hezbollah retaliate by shelling some Israeli localities – with no causalities”[57]

Gazit’s remarks indicate that Hezbollah attacks are perceived by the Israeli military leaders as a massage to the Israeli military establishment, not the Israeli civilians, that ‘rule breaking’ would not be tolerated. Moreover, in order to distance themselves from the terrorist label, Hezbollah adopted what is called tactics of guerrilla warfare.[58] The US Air Force defined guerrilla warfare by “A group of irregular, predominantly indigenous personal organized along military lines to conduct military and paramilitary operations in enemy-held, hostile, or denied territory”[59]

Christopher Harmon, an expert in terrorism argued that under severe repression there is nothing immoral about forming a guerilla of resistance. He continued his argument by saying the guerilla army is not reliant on terrorism.[60] Moreover, guerilla army displays some visible identification (battle dress), at least at time of using the weapon. Hezbollah’s fighters wear army uniforms (camouflaged) like any other army.[61]

  Conclusion

The Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak once said “When we entered Lebanon, there was no Hezbollah; it was our presence there that created Hezbollah.”[62] This statement is very important because Barak is simply saying that the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories until 2000 was the main reason for Hezbollah’s emergence and its violent discourse against Israel. However, some might argue that Israel withdrew its military forces from South Lebanon in 2000 and thus Hezbollah should hand over its weapons to the Lebanese army. This argument is inaccurate because Israel is still occupying the Shaba Farms; a land considered Syrian territory by the UN but the Syrians consider it a Lebanese. Consequently, armed resistance to the Israeli occupying forces is legal under international law regardless who carries it out.

Moreover, Hezbollah is overt resistance organization, they have their offices, leadership, flag, goals, and visible identification dress which distinguishes them from terrorists. They don’t launch missiles or rockets on Israel and respected the ceasefire. It is Israel who is violating the Lebanese sovereignty almost every day which forces Hezbollah to target the Israeli warplanes by their air defense systems.

In addition, the argument of the Israeli officials that during the time of war Hezbollah is launching hundreds of rockets, thus, injuring or killing Israeli civilians’ needs careful examination, each case independently, because it is well known that in Israeli most Israelis serve in the military and they are as the Israeli second chief of staff, Yigael Yadin described them “A civilian [Israeli] is a soldier in an annual vacation of eleven months”[63]

Finally, considering the facts and definitions presented above, it is clear to any academic observer that Hezbollah’s objectives and tactics is compatible to those of guerrilla fighters operating in or near occupied territories. In that respect, the military goal of Hezbollah is to remove the Israeli forces from the occupied territories and retrieve the Shaba Farms with armed resistance.[64] These points are the major reasons of defense and support to Hezbollah as resistance organization operating in Southern part of Lebanon to liberate the Lebanese national territories, and to respond to the Israeli violations and aggressions in the light of the absence of a strong Lebanese army.

    Notes

 

[1] Al-Jazeera, “Perspectives on Terrorism, Resistance and Radicalization”,  (Al-Jazeera center for studies 2010), http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/EXERES/D7B9B6FC-F28C-46F5-B1BD-9FB4245A462D.htm

[2] Walter Laqueur, “The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the arms of mass destruction”,  (Oxford University y Press, 1999), p.46

[3] Charles W. Kegley, “International Terrorism: The Other World War, the New Global Terrorism: Characteristics, Causes, and Controls” (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003), p.16.

[4] Pamala Griset, Sue Mahan, “Terrorism in Perspective”, (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003), P.Xiii

[5] Susan M. Shaw, “Conceptualizing  Resistance: Towards a Framework For

Understanding  Leisure as Political Practice”, (University of Waterloo, 1999), http://lin.ca/Uploads/cclr9/CCLR9_64.pdf

[6] Jocelyn A. Hollander, Rachel L. Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance”,  (JSTOR2004),   http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

[7] John Sigler, “Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism”, (2004), http://electronicintifada.net/content/palestine-legitimate-armed-resistance-vs-terrorism/5084

[8] UN General Assembly, ” A/RES/37/43″, (1982), http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r043.htm

[9] Alastair Crooke, “Resistance: The Essence of the Islamist Revolution”, (2009), p.viii

[10] Council On Foreign Relations, “Hezbollah”, (2010), http://www.cfr.org/lebanon/hezbollah-k-hizbollah-hizbullah/p9155

[11] Carl Anthony Wedge, “Hizballah’s Bekka Organization”, (A Journal of Terrorism Research Initiative, 2010), p 29

[12] Hillel Avihai, “Definition of terrorism act and the Israeli social structure: Obscurity over the relevancy of Typology”,(Aviation Terrorism Research), http://www.skyjack.co.il/pdf/Definition-of-terrorism-and-the-Israeli-social-structure.pdf

[13] Hillel Avihai, “Definition of terrorism act and the Israeli social structure: Obscurity over the relevancy of Typology”,(Aviation Terrorism Research), http://www.skyjack.co.il/pdf/Definition-of-terrorism-and-the-Israeli-social-structure.pdf

[14] Jack Gibbs, “Conceptualization of Terrorism”, (JSTOR, 1989), p329-340 http://www.jstor.org.ezsecureaccess.balamand.edu.lb/stable/pdfplus/2095609.pdf?acceptTC=true

[15] Jocelyn A. Hollander, Rachel L. Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance”,  (JSTOR2004),

p. 533-554   http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

[16] Judith Harik, “Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism”, (2007), p163

[17] Ran HaCohen, “A Case for Hizbollah?”, (Dissident Voice, 2003), http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/HaCohen_Hizbollah.htm

[18] Diane Kholos Wysocki, “Readings in Social Research Methods”, (Google Books, 2007), p.91, http://books.google.com.lb/books?id=_sPG4EP0ut8C&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=a+comprehensive+definition+of+terrorism+does+not+exist+nor+will+it+be+found&source=bl&ots=5vyCuFw3EZ&sig=K34fF9c5_MyfxuIGDHSB7EHxx-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TlgYT5mPOo_iswbjl-TbDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=a%20comprehensive%20definition%20of%20terrorism%20does%20not%20exist%20nor%20will%20it%20be%20found&f=false

[19] Al-Jazeera, “Perspectives on Terrorism, Resistance and Radicalization”,  (Al-Jazeera center for studies 2010), http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/EXERES/D7B9B6FC-F28C-46F5-B1BD-9FB4245A462D.htm

[20] Walter Laqueur, “A history of terrorism”, (Google Books, 2001), p.5, http://books.google.com.lb/books?id=RlqQHKpLfL8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=falsee

[21] George Rosie: “The directory of International Terrorism” (New-York: Paragon House, 1986), p.17

[22] William J. Crotty, “Democratic development & political terrorism: the global perspective”, (2005), p.258 http://books.google.com.lb/books?id=Mij5aWJnAcQC&pg=PA258&dq=%27Premeditated,+politically+motivated+violence+perpetrated+against+noncombatant+targets+by+sub-national+groups+or+clandestine+agents,+usually+intended+to+influence+an+audience%27&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KvIWT4sHqOHhBKqpuKIE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=’Premeditated%2C%20politically%20motivated%20violence%20perpetrated%20against%20noncombatant%20targets%20by%20sub-national%20groups%20or%20clandestine%20agents%2C%20usually%20intended%20to%20influence%20an%20audience’&f=false

[23]John Sigler, “Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism”, (2004), http://electronicintifada.net/content/palestine-legitimate-armed-resistance-vs-terrorism/5084

[24] United States Military Academy, “Insurgents vs. Guerrillas vs. Terrorists”, http://www.usma.edu/dmi/iwmsgs/insurgents-vs-guerrillas-vs-terrorists.pdf

[25] Jack Gibbs, “Conceptualization of Terrorism”, (JSTOR, 1989), p329-340 http://www.jstor.org.ezsecureaccess.balamand.edu.lb/stable/pdfplus/2095609.pdf?acceptTC=true

[26] Jack Gibbs, “Conceptualization of Terrorism”, (JSTOR, 1989), p329-340 http://www.jstor.org.ezsecureaccess.balamand.edu.lb/stable/pdfplus/2095609.pdf?acceptTC=true

[27] Jack Gibbs, “Conceptualization of Terrorism”, (JSTOR, 1989), p329-340 http://www.jstor.org.ezsecureaccess.balamand.edu.lb/stable/pdfplus/2095609.pdf?acceptTC=true

[28] Terrorism Research, “Terrorist Behavior”, (2011), http://www.terrorism-research.com/behavior/

[29] Hillel Avihai, “Definition of terrorism act and the Israeli social structure: Obscurity over the relevancy of Typology”,(Aviation Terrorism Research), http://www.skyjack.co.il/pdf/Definition-of-terrorism-and-the-Israeli-social-structure.pdf

[30]Hillel Avihai, “Definition of terrorism act and the Israeli social structure: Obscurity over the relevancy of Typology”,(Aviation Terrorism Research), http://www.skyjack.co.il/pdf/Definition-of-terrorism-and-the-Israeli-social-structure.pdf

[31] Hillel Avihai, “Definition of terrorism act and the Israeli social structure: Obscurity over the relevancy of Typology”,(Aviation Terrorism Research), http://www.skyjack.co.il/pdf/Definition-of-terrorism-and-the-Israeli-social-structure.pdf

[32] Jocelyn A. Hollander, Rachel L. Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance”,  (JSTOR2004),   http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

[33] Jocelyn A. Hollander, Rachel L. Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance”,  (JSTOR2004),   http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

[34] Susan M. Shaw, “Conceptualizing  Resistance: Towards a Framework For

Understanding  Leisure as Political Practice”, (University of Waterloo, 1999), http://lin.ca/Uploads/cclr9/CCLR9_64.pdf

[35] UN General Assembly, ” A/RES/37/43″, (1982), http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r043.htm

[36] Susan M. Shaw, “Conceptualizing  Resistance: Towards a Framework For

Understanding  Leisure as Political Practice”, (University of Waterloo, 1999), http://lin.ca/Uploads/cclr9/CCLR9_64.pdf

[37] Susan M. Shaw, “Conceptualizing  Resistance: Towards a Framework For

Understanding  Leisure as Political Practice”, (University of Waterloo, 1999), http://lin.ca/Uploads/cclr9/CCLR9_64.pdf

[38] Jocelyn A. Hollander, Rachel L. Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance”,  (JSTOR2004),   http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

[39] Jocelyn A. Hollander, Rachel L. Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance”,  (JSTOR2004),   http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

[40] Jocelyn A. Hollander, Rachel L. Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance”,  (JSTOR2004),   http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

[41] Dal LaMagna, “Distinguishing Between the Resistance and Terrorism”, (The Huffington Post, 2007), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dal-lamagna/distinguishing-between-th_b_51857.html

[42] Paul Pillar, “What is Terrorism?”, CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, http://mrfarshtey.net/whnotes/Terrorism.pdf

[43] Paul Pillar, “What is Terrorism?”, CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, http://mrfarshtey.net/whnotes/Terrorism.pdf

[44] Dal LaMagna, “Distinguishing Between the Resistance and Terrorism”, (The Huffington Post, 2007), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dal-lamagna/distinguishing-between-th_b_51857.html

[45]Dal LaMagna, “Distinguishing Between the Resistance and Terrorism”, (The Huffington Post, 2007), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dal-lamagna/distinguishing-between-th_b_51857.html

[46] UN General Assembly, “A/RES/33/24”, (1978), http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/D7340F04B82A2CB085256A9D006BA47A

[47] Judith Harik, “Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism”, (2007), p163

[48] Ran HaCohen, “A Case for Hizbollah?”, (Dissident Voice, 2003), http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/HaCohen_Hizbollah.htm

[49] Ran HaCohen, “A Case for Hizbollah?”, (Dissident Voice, 2003), http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/HaCohen_Hizbollah.htm

[50] Barak Ravid, “Syria willing to transfer disputed Shaba Farms to UN custody”, (Haaretz, 2007), http://www.haaretz.com/news/syria-willing-to-transfer-disputed-shaba-farms-to-un-custody-1.230048

[51] Ran HaCohen, “A Case for Hizbollah?”, (Dissident Voice, 2003), http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/HaCohen_Hizbollah.htm

[52] Ran HaCohen, “A Case for Hizbollah?”, (Dissident Voice, 2003), http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/HaCohen_Hizbollah.htm

[53] Samia Badih, “Chomsky: Hezbollah has right to fight aggression”, (Gulf news, 2010), http://gulfnews.com/news/region/lebanon/chomsky-hezbollah-has-right-to-fight-aggression-1.631245

[54] Al-Manar, “Noam Chomsky: Hezbollah’s insistence on keeping its arms is justified”, (2006), http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/topic/33489-noam-chomsky-hezbollahs-insistence-on-keeping-its-arms-is-justified/

[55]Tom Clonan, “Hizbullah rockets cannot be fired from buildings”, (2006), http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=345

[56] Hillel Avihai, “Definition of terrorism act and the Israeli social structure: Obscurity over the relevancy of Typology”,(Aviation Terrorism Research), http://www.skyjack.co.il/pdf/Definition-of-terrorism-and-the-Israeli-social-structure.pdf

[57] Judith Harik, “Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism”, (2007), p163-175

[58] Judith Harik, “Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism”, (2007), p163-175

[59] Brian Manthe, “United States Military Doctrine and the Conduct of Counter-insurgency Operations”, (2001), http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA393508

[60] Christopher Harmon, “Terrorism today”, (Google Books, 2000), p.192 http://books.google.com.lb/books?id=F4AYGALitgsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Christopher+C.+Harmon&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6xcbT5mXI83d8QPSmtG_Cw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Christopher%20C.%20Harmon&f=false

[61]Judith Harik, “Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism”, (2007), p163-175

[62] Norton, “Hezbollah: A Short History”, (2009), p.33 http://books.google.com.lb/books?id=x0MZOnnu8qcC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=When+we+entered+Lebanon,+there+was+no+Hezbollah%3B+it+was+our+presence+there+that+created+Hezbollah.%22&source=bl&ots=d_8x3L5a4t&sig=_ZE7DYFFvue-fXz3zGkns6JmNNg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qkccT5eSB4KaOsiCkLAL&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=When%20we%20entered%20Lebanon%2C%20there%20was%20no%20Hezbollah%3B%20it%20was%20our%20presence%20there%20that%20created%20Hezbollah.%22&f=false

[63] Hillel Avihai, “Definition of terrorism act and the Israeli social structure: Obscurity over the relevancy of Typology”,(Aviation Terrorism Research), http://www.skyjack.co.il/pdf/Definition-of-terrorism-and-the-Israeli-social-structure.pdf

[64] Judith Harik, “Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism”, (2007), p163-175

                                                              

  Bibliography

 

1-Al-Jazeera. “Perspectives on Terrorism, Resistance and Radicalization.” Al-Jazeera Center for Studies. 11 Oct 2010. http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/EXERES/D7B9B6FC-F28C-46F5-B1BD-9FB4245A462D.htm

2- Al Manar. “Noam Chomsky: Hezbollah’s insistence on keeping its arms is justified.” Global Affairs. 15 May 2006. http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/topic/33489-noam-chomsky-hezbollahs-insistence-on-keeping-its-arms-is-justified/

3- Avihai, Hillel. “Definition of terrorism act and the Israeli social structure: Obscurity over the relevancy of Typology.” Aviation Terrorism Research. http://www.skyjack.co.il/pdf/Definition-of-terrorism-and-the-Israeli-social-structure.pdf

4- Badih, Samia. “Chomsky: Hezbollah has right to fight aggression.” Gulf News. 24 May 2010. http://gulfnews.com/news/region/lebanon/chomsky-hezbollah-has-right-to-fight-aggression-1.631245

5- Clonan, Tom. “Hizbullah rockets cannot be fired from buildings.” 31 July 2006. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=345.

6- Crotty, William J. Democratic development & political terrorism: the global perspective. Boston, Northeastern University Press, 2005. http://books.google.com.lb/books?id=Mij5aWJnAcQC&pg=PA258&dq=%27Premeditated,+politically+motivated+violence+perpetrated+against+noncombatant+targets+by+sub-national+groups+or+clandestine+agents,+usually+intended+to+influence+an+audience%27&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KvIWT4sHqOHhBKqpuKIE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=’Premeditated%2C%20politically%20motivated%20violence%20perpetrated%20against%20noncombatant%20targets%20by%20sub-national%20groups%20or%20clandestine%20agents%2C%20usually%20intended%20to%20influence%20an%20audience’&f=false

7- Council On Foreign Relations. “Hezbollah“. 15 July 2010. http://www.cfr.org/lebanon/hezbollah-k-hizbollah-hizbullah/p9155.

8- Crooke, Alastair. Resistance: the essence of the Islamist revolution. London: Pluto Press, 2009.

9- Griset, Pamala L., and Sue Mahan. Terrorism in perspective. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003. xiii.

10- Gibbs, Jack. “Conceptualization of Terrorism“. JSTOR. June 1989.  http://www.jstor.org.ezsecureaccess.balamand.edu.lb/stable/pdfplus/2095609.pdf.

11- HaCohen, Ran. “A Case for Hizbollah?”. Dissident Voice. 18 August 2003. http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/HaCohen_Hizbollah.htm

12- Harik, Judith P. Hezbollah: the changing face of terrorism. New ed. in pbk., 2006 ed. London: I.B. Tauris, 2006.

13- Harmon, Christopher C.. Terrorism today. London: Frank Cass, 2000. http://books.google.com.lb/books?id=F4AYGALitgsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Christopher+C.+Harmon&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6xcbT5mXI83d8QPSmtG_Cw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Christopher%20C.%20Harmon&f=false

14- Hollander, Jocelyn A., and Rachel L. Einwohner. “Conceptualizing Resistance.” JSTORDecember 2004. http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp.

15- Kegley, Charles W. The new global terrorism: characteristics, causes, controls. The University of Michigan: Prentice Hall. 2003.

16- LaMagna, Dal. Distinguishing Between the Resistance and Terrorism. Huffington Post. 12 June 2007. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dal-lamagna/distinguishing-between-th_b_51857.html.

17- Laqueur, Walter. A history of terrorism. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 2001. http://books.google.com.lb/books?id=RlqQHKpLfL8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.

18- Laqueur, Walter. The new terrorism: fanaticism and the arms of mass destruction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

19- Manthe, Brian. “United States Military Doctrine and the Conduct of Counter-insurgency Operations“. 18 May 2001. , http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA393508.

20- Norton, Augustus R.. Hezbollah: a short history. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. http://books.google.com.lb/books?id=x0MZOnnu8qcC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=When+we+entered+Lebanon,+there+was+no+Hezbollah%3B+it+was+our+presence+there+that+created+Hezbollah.%22&source=bl&ots=d_8x3L5a4t&sig=_ZE7DYFFvue-fXz3zGkns6JmNNg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qkccT5eSB4KaOsiCkLAL&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=When%20we%20entered%20Lebanon%2C%20there%20was%20no%20Hezbollah%3B%20it%20was%20our%20presence%20there%20that%20created%20Hezbollah.%22&f=false

21- Pillar, Paul. “What is Terrorism?.” CIA’s Counterterrorist Center. http://mrfarshtey.net/whnotes/Terrorism.pdf

22- Rosie, George. The directory of international terrorism. New York: Paragon House, 1986.

23- Ravid, Barak. “Syria willing to transfer disputed Shaba Farms to UN custody.” 26 September 2007. http://www.haaretz.com/news/syria-willing-to-transfer-disputed-shaba-farms-to-un-custody-1.230048

24- Terrorism Research. “Terrorist Behavior.” 2011. http://www.terrorism-research.com/behavior/

25- United States Military Academy. “Insurgents vs. Guerrillas vs. Terrorists.” United States Military Academy. http://www.usma.edu/dmi/iwmsgs/insurgents-vs-guerrillas-vs-terrorists.pdf

26- UN General Assembly. “A/RES/33/24.” 29 November 1978. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/D7340F04B82A2CB085256A9D006BA47A

27- UN General Assembly. “A/RES/37/43.” 3 December 1982. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r043.htm

28- Rosie, George. The directory of International Terrorism. Paragon House, 1986.

29- Shaw, Susan. “Conceptualizing Resistance: Towards a Framework For

Understanding Leisure as Political Practice.”  12 May 1999. http://lin.ca/Uploads/cclr9/CCLR9_64.pdf

30- Sigler, John. Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism. 17 May 2004. http://electronicintifada.net/content/palestine-legitimate-armed-resistance-vs-terrorism/5084

31- Walter, Laqueur. “The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the arms of mass destruction” . Oxford University Press. 1999.

32- Wedge, Carl. “Hizballaha’s Bekka Organization.” A Journal Of the Terrorism Research Initiative Vol 4, no. No 3 (2010): 29-39.

33- Wysocki, Diane Kholos. Readings in social research methods. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2007. http://books.google.com.lb/books?id=_sPG4EP0ut8C&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=a+comprehensive+definition+of+terrorism+does+not+exist+nor+will+it+be+found&source=bl&ots=5vyCuFw3EZ&sig=K34fF9c5_MyfxuIGDHSB7EHxx-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TlgYT5mPOo_iswbjl-TbDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=a%20comprehensive%20definition%20of%20terrorism%20does%20not%20exist%20nor%20will%20it%20be%20found&f=false

Kevork Elmassian

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: