Post on 03-Sep-2014
description
transcript
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 1 of 16
Gandhi and Terrorism
Anurag Gangal,
Professor, International Politics,
Department of Political Science, and
Director, Gandhian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies,
University of Jammu, Jammu-180006, J&K, India.
Abstract
Sometimes violence has to be used under certain inevitable circumstances. Yet violence
is the way to self-destruction. Nonviolence is an ever alive process – it never ends and it is
timeless. Violence kills and nonviolence never kills. That is why vast international resources are
being spent on establishing the processes of nonviolence for resolving conflicts and tensions
through multi-track diplomacy and instruments of institutions like the United Nations etc.
What is really required is also benevolent intent of political will, determination, patience,
perseverance and a general belief in the force of nonviolence. Violence does not succeed.
Despite this realisation about violence and terrorism, there is emerging a new profession
for our younger generation. This is the profession of ‘Terrorism’. This is the most dangerous
portent for posterity to see in a much vaster and wider form. This must be done away with soon.
Otherwise, the twenty-first century must be considered as having brought in its wake, among
others, an absolute consolidation of the dawn of the Age of Doomsday today.
Mahatma Gandhi has zero tolerance for Terrorism. No compromise with violence
especially when it is becoming like an Age of Overkill of Max Learner. Yet Gandhi did
try his best for saving the life of so-called terrorists like Sardar Bhagat Singh and others.
Why did he do so? Was Gandhi following different policy for his theory and practice?
Was he a man full of contradictions? Can terrorism be conceptualised? Is there a
philosophy of terrorism?
For trying to answer all above mentioned questions, author of this
research/seminar paper is highly grateful to Mark Juergensmeyer for his timely
publication “Gandhi vs. Terrorism” in Daedalus, Vol.136, No.1, 2007, pp. 30-41.1 But
for the relatively negative approach of Juergensmeyer when he reasons out his preference
for Gandhian nonviolence to deal with the menace of terrorism today, he has written a
bold piece in recognition of the power of nonviolence in the modern world – specially for
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 2 of 16
tackling the challenge of terrorism after 9/11 attacks on New York Trade Tower and the
Pentagon.
Introduction:
Gandhi is known to have lived amidst violence and terrorism quite like the type
that we see in the world today. India has come across a lot of violence when Gandhi
returned from South Africa in 1915. Before coming to India, Gandhi had suffered from
violence in South Africa. Yet he never resorted to retort through violence. It is indeed in
historical records that Gandhi has always succeeded while using his own precept and
practice of nonviolence against violence.
Gandhi’s views on violence leads us to think that violence seldom succeeds.
Gandhi, as such, has written and debated widely on the themes of violence and terrorism.
It would be well to reproduce quite a few paragraphs from Juergensmeyer’s above
mentioned article here:
India was on the verge of a violent confrontation with
Britain when, in 1915, Gandhi was brought into India's
independence movement from South Africa, where as a
lawyer he had been a leader in the struggle for social equality
for immigrant Indians. In India, as in South Africa, the British
had overwhelming military superiority and were not afraid to
use it. In 1919, in the North Indian city of Amritsar, an irate
British brigadier-general slaughtered almost four hundred
Indians who had come to the plaza of Jallianwala Bagh to
protest peacefully.
But the nationalist side was countering with violence
of its own. In Bengal, Sub-has Chandra Bose organized an
Indian National Army, and, in Punjab, leaders of the Ghadar
movement -- supported by immigrant Punjabis in California --
plotted a violent revolution that anticipated boatloads of
weapons and revolutionaries transported to India from the
United States. These Indian anarchists and militant Hindi
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 3 of 16
nationalists saw violence as the only solution to break the
power of the British over India.
Terrorism versus Nonviolence Debate
Gandhi's views about violent struggle were sharpened
in response to Indian activists who had defended a terrorist
attack on a British official. The incident occurred in London in
1909, shortly before Gandhi arrived there to lobby the British
Parliament on behalf of South African Indian immigrants. An
Indian student in London, Madan Lal Dhingra, had attacked an
official in Britain's India office, Sir William H. Curzon-Wylie,
in protest against Britain's colonial control over India. At a
formal function, Dhingra pulled out a gun and, at close range,
fired five shots in his face. The British official died on the
spot. Dhingra was immediately apprehended by the police;
when people in the crowd called him a murderer, he said that
he was only fighting for India's freedom.
Several weeks after Gandhi arrived in London, he was
asked to debate this issue of violence with several of London's
expatriate Indian nationalists. His chief opponent was Vinayak
Savarkar, a militant Hindu who would later found the political
movement known as the Hindu Mahasabha, a precursor to the
present-day Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata
Party. At the time of the 1909 assassination Savarkar was
reputed to have supplied the weapons and ammunition for the
act, and to have instructed the ardent Hindu assassin in what to
say in his final statement as he was led to the gallows. The
young killer said that he was "prepared to die, glorying in
martyrdom."2
Shortly before the debate, Gandhi wrote to a friend that
in London he had met practically no Indian who believed
"India can ever become free without resorting to violence."3
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 4 of 16
He described the position of the militant activists as one in
which terrorism would precede a general revolution: Their
plans were first to "assassinate a few Englishmen and strike
terror," after which "a few men who will have been armed will
fight openly." Then, they calculated, eventually they might
have to lose "a quarter of a million men, more or less," but the
militant Indian nationalists thought this effort at guerrilla
warfare would "defeat the English" and "regain our land." 4
During the debate, Gandhi challenged the logic of the
militants on the grounds of political realism. They could
hardly expect to defeat the might of the British military
through sporadic acts of terrorism and guerrilla warfare. More
important, however, was the effect that violent tactics would
have on the emerging Indian nationalist movement. He feared
that the methods they used to combat the British would
become part of India's national character.
Hind Swaraj
Several weeks later Gandhi was still thinking about
these things as he boarded a steamship to return to South
Africa. He penned his response to the Indian activists in
London in the form of a book. In a preliminary way, this
essay, which Gandhi wrote hurriedly on the boat to Durban in
1909 (writing first with one hand and then the other to avoid
getting cramps), set forth an approach to conflict resolution
that he would pursue the rest of his life. The book, Hind
Swaraj, or, Indian Home Rule, went to some lengths to
describe both the goals of India's emerging independence
movement and the appropriate methods to achieve it. He
agreed with the Indian radicals in London that Britain should
have no place in ruling India and exploiting its economy.
Moreover, he thought that India should not try to emulate the
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 5 of 16
materialism of Western civilization, which he described as a
kind of "sickness."
The thrust of the book, however, was to counter
terrorism. Gandhi sketched out a nonviolent approach,
beginning with an examination of the nature of conflict. He
insisted on looking beyond a specific clash between
individuals to the larger issues for which they were fighting.
Every conflict, Gandhi reasoned, was a contestation on two
levels--between persons and between principles. Behind every
fighter was the issue for which the fighter was fighting. Every
fight, Gandhi explained in a later essay, was on some level an
encounter between differing "angles of vision" illuminating
the same truth.5
It was this difference in positions--sometimes even in
worldviews--that needed to be resolved in order for a fight to
be finished and the fighters reconciled. In that sense Gandhi's
methods were more than a way of confronting an enemy; they
were a way of dealing with conflict itself. For this reason he
grew unhappy with the label, 'passive resistance,' that had
been attached to the methods used by his protest movement in
South Africa. There was nothing passive about it--in fact,
Gandhi had led the movement into stormy confrontations with
government authorities--and it was more than just resistance.
It was also a way of searching for what was right and standing
up for it, of speaking truth to power.
In 1906 Gandhi decided to find a new term for his
method of engaging in conflict. He invited readers of his
journal, Indian Opinion, to offer suggestions, and he offered a
book prize for the winning entry. The one that most intrigued
him came from his own cousin, Maganlal, which Gandhi
refined into the term, satyagraha. The neologism is a conjunct
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 6 of 16
of two Sanskrit words, satya, 'truth,' and agraha, 'to grasp
firmly.' Hence it could be translated as 'grasping onto truth,' or
as Gandhi liked to call it, "truth force."
What Gandhi found appealing about the winning
phrase was its focus on truth. Gandhi reasoned that no one
possesses a complete view of it. The very existence of a
conflict indicates a deep difference over what is right. The first
task of a conflict, then, is to try to see the conflict from both
sides of an issue. This requires an effort to understand an
opponent's position as well as one's own--or, as former U.S.
Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara advised in the
documentary film The Fog of War, "Empathize with the
enemy."
Gandhi’s View of Conflict
The ability to cast an empathetic eye was central to
Gandhi's view of conflict. It made it possible to imagine a
solution that both sides could accept, at least in part--though
Gandhi also recognized that sometimes the other side had very
little worth respecting. In his campaign for the British to 'quit
India,' for instance, he regarded the only righteous place for
the British to be was Britain. Yet at the same time he openly
appreciated the many positive things that British rule had
brought to the Indian subcontinent, from roads to
administrative offices.
After a solution was imagined, the second stage of a
struggle was to achieve it. This meant fighting--but in a way
that was consistent with the solution itself. Gandhi adamantly
rejected the notion that the goal justifies the means. Gandhi
argued that the ends and the means were ultimately the same.
If you fought violently you would establish a pattern of
violence that would be part of any solution to the conflict, no
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 7 of 16
matter how noble it was supposed to be. Even if terrorists
were successful in ousting the British from India, Gandhi
asked, "Who will then rule in their place?" His answer was
that it would be the ones who had killed in order to liberate
India, adding, "India can gain nothing from the rule of
murderers."6
A struggle could be forceful--often it would begin with
a demonstration and "a refusal to cooperate with anything
humiliating." But it could not be violent, Gandhi reasoned, for
these destructive means would negate any positive benefits of
a struggle's victory. If a fight is waged in the right way it could
enlarge one's vision of the truth and enhance one's character in
the process. What Gandhi disdained was the notion that one
had to stoop to the lowest levels of human demeanour in
fighting for something worthwhile. This brings us to the way
that Gandhi would respond to terrorism. To begin with,
Gandhi insisted on some kind of response. He never
recommended doing nothing at all. "Inaction at a time of
conflagration is inexcusable," he once wrote.7
Beneath Contempt
He regarded cowardice as beneath contempt. Fighting-
-if it is nonviolent--is "never demoralizing," Gandhi said,
while "cowardice always is."8
And perhaps Gandhi's most memorable statement
against a tepid response: "Where there is only a choice
between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."9
Occasionally violence does indeed seem to be the only
response available. Gandhi provided some examples. One was
the mad dog. On confronting a dog with rabies, one must stop
it by any means possible, including maiming or killing it.10
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 8 of 16
Another case that Gandhi offered was a brutal rapist
caught in the act. To do nothing in that situation, Gandhi said,
makes the observer "a partner in violence." Hence violence
could be used to counter it. Gandhi thus concluded, "Heroic
violence is less sinful than cowardly nonviolence."11
Gandhian Strategy
A Gandhian strategy for confronting terrorism,
therefore, would consist of the following:
Stop an act of violence in its tracks. The effort to do so
should be nonviolent but forceful. Gandhi made a distinction
between detentive force--the use of physical control in order to
halt violence in progress--and coercive force. The latter is
meant to intimidate and destroy, and hinders a Gandhian fight
aimed at a resolution of principles at stake.
Address the issues behind the terrorism. To focus
solely on acts of terrorism, Gandhi argued, would be like
being concerned with weapons in an effort to stop the spread
of racial hatred. Gandhi thought the sensible approach would
be to confront the ideas and alleviate the conditions that
motivated people to undertake such desperate operations in the
first place.
Maintain the moral high ground. A bellicose stance,
Gandhi thought, debased those who adopted it. A violent
posture adopted by public authorities could lead to a civil
order based on coercion. For this reason Gandhi insisted on
means consistent with the moral goals of those engaged in the
conflict.
These are worthy principles, but do they work? This
question is often raised about nonviolent methods as a
response to terrorism--as if the violent ones have been so
effective. In Israel, a harsh response to Palestinian violence
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 9 of 16
has often led to a surge of support for Hamas and an increase
in terrorist violence. The U.S. responses to jihadi movements
after the September 11 attacks have not diminished support for
the movements nor reduced the number of terrorist incidents
worldwide. Militant responses to terrorism do not possess a
particularly good record of success.
Violence begets violence and absolute violence leads to complete extinction.
Nonviolence, on the other hand, cuts at the roots of violence. Nonviolence paves the
pathway to peace and ultimate victory in which even the loser is not hurt. Gandhi,
therefore, even while dealing with state “terrorism” of the British, always succeeded in
his nonviolent attempts to resolve numerous conflicts.12
Sometimes violence has to be used under certain inevitable circumstances as
already shown in this chapter earlier. Yet violence is the way to self-destruction.
Nonviolence is an ever alive process – it never ends and it is timeless. Violence kills and
nonviolence never kills. That is why vast international resources are being spent on
establishing the processes of nonviolence for resolving conflicts and tensions through
multi-track diplomacy and instruments of institutions like the United Nations etc.
What is really required is also benevolent intent of political will, determination,
patience, perseverance and a general belief in the force of nonviolence. Violence does not
succeed.13
However, State and inter-state use of force maybe necessary now in view of
the latest establishment of the United Jihad Council (UJC) in Pakistan recently.
Modern terrorism is indeed not a random response of an individual or a group of
individuals. Terrorism has become an army of disciplined and well trained soldiers
beyond national frontiers. They have their own philosophies, morals and ethics. In
addition to their networking and armaments, their real strength comes from their
philosophies – ethically sound and morally soothing to them though esoterically. Hence,
the terrorists will have to be dealt with nonviolently – with nonviolence providing the
strong base for confronting the terrorists ethically as well. Otherwise, terrorism will
flourish ever more. Terrorists go for massive violence with ethical base beneath their act.
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 10 of 16
Terrorism Terrorises
Terrorism, indeed, terrorizes. It has evolved into a profession in rich and poor
countries both. It denotes instantaneous power not only for unemployed youth but also
for disgruntled rich and poor individuals, groups and countries alike. It immediately
provides liquid money, gun-power, license to kill alongwith facilities of moving about the
world freely with easily obtainable passports and visas.
Definitions and Major Types:
There are, among several others, three major types of terrorism such as
‘insurgency’, ‘militancy’ and ‘terrorism’.
"Insurgency" involves revolutionary and guerrilla activities against the military
force of a State.
"Militancy" is the more aggressive and even violent wing of a political party.
Prime target of militancy is also military, para-military, armed soldiers and police forces
of the State machinery. However, they do not hesitate to go for other destructive and
absolutely violent acts when it is required to attain their ends.
"Terrorism" is the violent act involving massacre and indiscriminate killing of
innocent people for the purpose of drawing political attention by generating mass fear
psychosis to attain certain political and motivated ends or goals.
All three types of above mentioned activities involve absolute and utterly
destructive violence. These definitions have emerged after prolonged years of interviews
and discussions with senior air force, army and police officers of India and several other
academics from various universities in India and abroad.
Operations:
Terrorists today operate from the comfort of five star hotels in general and not so
much from dangerous jungles and ravines. Police, Army, Air Force and intelligence
services all appear to have failed in dealing with the ever growing menace of terrorism.
Federated Network:
Terrorist network appears to have become a federation on global scale with well
established branches and centres operating from every country. Terrorists have their own
economy through counterfeit currency notes. They print these currencies of United States
dollars, Indian rupees, British pounds and what not freely with the help of rouge states.
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 11 of 16
Terror Islands:
Terrorists have now stopped using services of national and international banking
also. Terrorism is emerging as a federal post-modern nation-state spread like networked
islands of power in a world full of terror from Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).
Even WMDs are also available to terrorists now!
Massive Destruction:
Terrorism is now evolving as a profession and institution. Joseph Conard has
pointed out its professional commitment to utter destruction beyond all shades of doubt:
"A bomb outrage to have any influence on public opinion now must go beyond
the intention of vengeance or terrorism. It must be purely destructive. It must be that and
only that, beyond the faintest suspicion of any other object".14
Sheer irresponsibility of the modern State vis-à-vis terrorists can be seen in the
later acquiring nuclear weapons.
"The reality is that a number of terrorist groups have already employed chemical
[and nuclear] weapons, e.g. Japan’s Aum Sinriklyo’s use of …in Tokyo subway system
in 1995, and …..Terrorism is widely believed to be a new kind of warfare and the al
Qaeda network and al Queda-inspired groups its foremost exponents".15
The terrorists are now sharing their networked information bank the world over.
They have acquired a hidden international identity nearly as powerful as the institution of
the State. It is the State and its sponsored terrorism and counterterrorism that appear to
have become direct and indirect source of the strength of terrorist groups the world over.
Terrorism will not end until there develops a strong faith in the power of
nonviolence on a larger general plane at the behest of every individual and organization.
Real Danger:
The twenty-first century is replete with “floodgates” of globalization and surging
flames of terrorism. Events of 11 September 2001 are logical corollary of massive
violence and weapons of mass destruction available to the institution of State. The trend
is thus set and examples are then adopted and followed. The trend-setters just do not
appear to be realizing this aspect. This violence is becoming not only infectious but also
professional to a great extent.
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 12 of 16
Indeed, terrorism, even for Mahatma Gandhi, can be dealt with only through zero
tolerance towards it. Otherwise, it will go for ever more violence upon violence and
massacres after massacres, i.e. mass killings of innocent masses in a ruthless fashion.
This violence has to be taken care of through an international collaborative effort.
Other Dynamics of Terrorism:
This violence is becoming not only infectious but also professional to a great
extent. How this situation has emerged? Why terrorism is still a continuously growing
phenomenon despite the so-called “war on terrorism” and “zero tolerance to terrorism”?
What after all terrorism is? What are the different perspectives on terrorism? Are terrorist
having any special characteristics? Can terrorism be defined? What are diverse and
different views and analyses in this matter?
Nassar presents an in depth picture on the real and historic causes behind
terrorism. For him, as it were, every global citizen and leader in Parliament are, among
others, responsible for the current and widespread menace of terrorism. That is why
Nassar says:
Recently, a former student of mine wrote me one of those
rare but special notes that teachers occasionally receive. Lynn
Weddle of the class of 1985 wrote, “I often am reminded of the
many things I learned while in your class and how some of the
things you mentioned became truly prophetic.” My former student
went on to remind me of a statement I had made in class arguing
that the Soviet Union was not the enemy we needed to fear but
rather “a Third World country that we would never expect to
wreak havoc on the US.” The events of September 11, 2001,
reminded her of that statement. While the events of that dreadful
day were a wake-up call to most Americans, terror has been a
normal way of life for a long time to many people around the
world. It certainly has been a part of my life since birth (Nassar i-
iv).16
Terrorism is and terrorist incidents are on the increase in Asia and Middle-East
and West Asia while they are on a decreasing trend in Europe and America. Terrorist
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 13 of 16
violence and incidents have led to thousands of death every year from 700 to about 6000
in the world (Sengupta and Cockburn 27 March 2007).17
International Terrorist Incidences 1968 to 2004
Source: Graph from MIPT database, http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp
Terrorism on the Rise:
This menace of terrorists’ violent and fatal incidents is beyond human description
and definition. Various dictionaries and encyclopaedias define terrorism mainly in terms
of acts of fatal violence and attacks against established and recognized institutions of
State and its citizens and forces. Academics and experts do not fully agree with such
simplistic meanings and definitions. For Jimmy Carter, Palestinian people have always
suffered at the hands of the Israel’s policy of “Apartheid” against them.18
If this so then
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 14 of 16
what about Palestine’s’ sustained terrorists attacks not only aimed at Israel but also the
different countries of the entire world. For Nassar Jamal, terrorism is use of excessive
force, fatal attacks with the intention to create terror and panic in order to secure
calculated political demands. He, however, finds – quite like Bjorgo – institution of State
more responsible for present-day terrorism.19
Gurr and Cole believe that there are different levels of terrorist attacks and
violence – the conventional and non-conventional. Terrorist groups are not gun-trotting
armatures. They have there aims and purposes. As such there main objective is to
accomplish their political aims through effective means of massive violence. They even
use weapons of mass destruction especially nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.20
Defining terrorism leads also to a major question. Are terrorists normal human
beings? Are they primarily pathological cases? Yes, even terrorists of today are normal
beings and their global system and networking is running parallel to governments all
around the world. They are certainly not pathological at all. They are die hard and
energetic persons living a normal life in this age of information technology.
Terrorism is now evolving as a profession and institution. Joseph Conard has
pointed out its professional commitment to utter destruction beyond all shades of doubt:
A bomb outrage to have any influence on public
opinion now must go beyond the intention of vengeance or
terrorism. It must be purely destructive. It must be that and
only that, beyond the faintest suspicion of any other object.21
Sheer irresponsibility of the modern State vis-à-vis terrorists can be seen in the
later acquiring nuclear weapons.
The reality is that a number of terrorist groups have
already employed chemical [and nuclear] weapons, e.g.
Japan’s Aum Sinriklyo’s use of …in Tokyo subway system in
1995, and …..Terrorism is widely believed to be a new kind of
warfare and the al Qaeda network and al Queda-inspired
groups its foremost exponents.22
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 15 of 16
Conclusion:
The terrorists are now sharing their networked information bank the world over.
They have acquired a hidden international identity nearly as powerful as the institution of
the State. It is the State and its sponsored terrorism and counterterrorism that appear to
have become direct and indirect source of the strength of terrorist groups the world over.
Terrorism will not end until there develops a strong faith in the power of
nonviolence on a larger general plane at the behest of every individual and organization.
At times, legal violence, against the perpetrators of widespread massive satanic violence,
is also to be regarded as nonviolence only.
Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 16 of 16
References and Notes:
1 Mark Juergensmeyer, “Gandhi vs. Terrorism”, Daedalus, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2007, pp. 30-41.
2 James D. Hunt, Gandhi in London, (Promilla and Co. Publishers, New Delhi: 1973), p. 134.
3 Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,
Vol. 9, (Publications Division, Delhi: 1958), p. 509. 4 M. K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule, 2nd ed., (Navajivan, Ahmedabad: 1938), p. 69.
5 Young India, 23 September 1926. See specially Mark Juergensmeyer, Gandhi's Way: A Handbook of
Conflict Resolution, rev. ed., (University of California Press, Berkeley: 2005). 6 Op cit. n. 1.
7 Harijan, April 7, 1946.
8 Young India, October 31, 1929.
9 Young India, August 11, 1920.
10 Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol. 14, 505.
11 Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol. 51, 17. References 1-10 in this chapter are almost wholly reproduced
from Mark Juergensmeyer, “Gandhi vs. Terrorism” in Daedalus, Vol.136, No.1, 2007, pp. 30-41 with
emphasis added in different ways. I express deep sense of gratitude to Mark for writing such a
commendable piece on “Gandhi and Terrorism”. 12
Erik H. Erikson, Gandhi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence, (W. W. Norton, New York:
1993), pp. 413-416. 13
Michael J. Nojeim, Gandhi and King: The Power of Nonviolent Resistance, (Praeger, Westport, CT :
2004) pp. 91, 288. 14
Meghnad Desai, Rethinking Islamism: The Ideology of the New Terror, (I.B. Tauris, London: 2007), p.1. 15
L. Weinberg, Global Terrorism, (Oneworld, Oxford: 2006), pp.131-132. 16
Nassar, Jamal, R. Globalization and Terrorism: The Migration of Dreams and Nightmares, , Oxford,
Rowman and Littlefield: 2005), pp. i-iv, 103. 17
Kim Sengupta, and Patrick, Cockburn, “How the War on Terror Made the World a More Terrifying
Place”, The Independent, (London: 2007). See also http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp 18
Jimmy, Carter, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, (Simon & Schuster, New York: 2006), p. 176. 19
Bjorgo Tore, Root causes of Terrorism: Myths, Reality, and Ways Forward, Routledge: 2005), see
especially the entire first Chapter. 20
N. Gurr, and B. Cole, The New Face of Terrorism: Threats form Weapons of Mass Destruction, (I.B.
Tauris, London: 2002), pp. 1-22. 21
M.Desai, Rethinking Islamism: The Ideology of the New Terror, (I.B. Tauris, London: 2007), p.1. 22
L. Weinberg, Global Terrorism, (Oneworld, Oxford: 2006), pp. 131-132.