Michael Sean Covey
PL SC 150
Blog 8
In September
2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in the Old
City Jerusalem, which is one of the most sacred sites in Islam and
Judaism. Sharon’s motive for his visit
was to reassure Israelis of their right to visit and worship at the Temple
Mount. Although Sharon came in peace, at normal tourist hours, Palestinians saw
this as an act of aggression and provocation, as if Sharon was “trying to pick
a fight.” Palestinian protests and demonstrations quickly turned violent and
escalated into a six-year conflict known as the Second Intifada (1). The Second
Intifada is most accurately defined as a six-year conflict of terrorism,
because most of the violence and killing revolved around suicide bombers and
Israel’s efforts to prevent them. However,
I’ll also explain how the Second Intifada had elements of a civil war.
The Second
Intifada, which in Arabic means the second “shaking off,” was a major uprising
and instance of political violence that is best classified as terrorism. In Comparative Politics, David Samuels
defines terrorism as “threatened or actual use of violence for political
purposes by non-state actors, directed particularly against civilian targets,”
and it is suicide terrorism when the perpetrators do it expecting to die (2). This
was at the heart of the violence during the intifada. During 2000-2005, there were over 13
instances of Palestinian suicide bombers, who blew themselves up on buses, in
nightclubs, during traffic in Tel Aviv, at hotels, and at social clubs. Stabbings,
missile launchings, stone throwing, and lynching were also prevalent. There
were over 1,000 Israelis and 5,000 Palestinians who were killed during the intifada,
most of whom were regular civilians. Consistent with the definition in Comparative Politics, the terrorism was
carried out by non-state actors, regular Palestinian citizens, who mainly targeted
civilians to send the political message that Israel was oppressive, wrong, and
that the State of Israel should do more for establishing Palestinian
independence and statehood (3). This intifada was one of the most horrifying
episodes of terrorism the modern world had seen.
While most
the violence of the Second Intifada is best classified as terrorism, not all of
the violence was so. Both Palestinians and Israelis carried out gunfights and
strategic assassinations, targeting military officers and not just civilians. There
are no major weaknesses with the definition of terrorism or suicide terrorism
from Comparative Politics—they are
great definitions; the challenge lies
with trying to classify the entire
intifada as terrorism, because some of the violence was just regular gun
battles between the Palestinians and Israelis.
The Second
Intifada also had elements of a civil war. Most instances of terrorism,
uprisings, and assassinations the world has known do not last long. However,
the intifada lasted for about six years, and there were over 6,000 people
killed! It was terrorism, suicide bombers, gunfights, and massive
demonstrations. Looking at it this way, the intifada could resemble a civil
war, which Comparative Politics defines
that civil wars last at least a year and result in at least a thousand deaths
(2). Also, like many other civil wars, the intifada came about because of
cultural polarization—the Palestinian people felt repressed, frustrated, dominated,
and politically insecure. Samuels says that these conditions make civil war
more likely (2). Furthermore, like in many civil wars, individual psychology
also played a role in the intifada. Thousands of Palestinians felt compelled to
participate in their national struggle for freedom, even at great personal
cost. However, unlike most civil wars, the intifada was not an organized and
regular armed conflict—most of the violence was off and on, just sustained over
a long period of time. Also, it is debatable whether the participating parties
were entirely subject to a common authority (2). Although Israel had the most
authority, many of the Palestinians were subject to the Palestinian
authorities. The intifada had many elements of a civil war, but also some big differences.
In
conclusion, although the Second Intifada has many underlying elements of a
civil war, such as the cultural polarization, large death counts, and sustained
conflict over at least a year, it best classified as a long period of terrorism,
because the majority of the violence was off and on instances of suicide
bombers, assassinations, and it was civilians that were the main targets. The
Palestinians and Israelis have been able to maintain a decent level of peace
and security since the end of the intifada, and hopefully they can continue it
through diplomatic and political measures, instead of political violence.
Works Cited
(1) Second Intifada. BBC News. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3677206.stm
(2) Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Pearson Education:
2013. Print.
(3) Fatalities from the Second Intifada. B’Tselem. The
Israeli Information Center for
Human
Rights. Web. 9 Nov. 2012.
2000&eD=26&eM=12&eY=2008&filterby=event&oferet_stat=before
Good topic and interesting study. I like your classification of the conflict and thought you supported your conclusions well throughout the body of your blog.
ReplyDelete-Kennan Howlett