The term "terrorism" has often been the subject of intense debate, particularly in academic circles where precision in language is paramount. Recently, Professor Rob Howse made an argument that can only be described as absurd in its attempt to apply the label of "terrorism" to an Israeli military operation targeting Hezbollah operatives through the use of explosive pagers.
Was the Pager Operation in which Israel blew up thousands of Hezbollah terrorists a form of terrorism?
— Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) January 30, 2025
NYU Law Professor @howserob argues the Pager Operation was terrorism.
I argue it was not.
Please watch & share our debate at Northeastern University.https://t.co/rwEzlUAIJe
The CIA defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Professor Howse, however, misinterprets this definition, arguing that any act of violence witnessed by civilians qualifies as terrorism, because it makes those civilians an audience to it.
Here, several key elements are crucial:
- Noncombatant Targets: The primary targets in this case were Hezbollah operatives, combatants by any reasonable definition. Equating this with attacks on civilians is fundamentally flawed.
- Intent: The intent was evidently to disrupt Hezbollah's operations. The act was strategic, aimed at specific combatants, not at the broader civilian population.
- Audience vs. Witness: Professor Howse's leap from civilians witnessing the event to them being an "audience" in the terrorist sense is where the argument becomes patently absurd. An "audience" in terrorism is meant to be terrorized and influenced by the act, not merely to observe it.
Professor Howse's argument not only misapplies the definition but also ignores the context of conflict where military strategies are employed against combatant forces. By suggesting that any military action visible to civilians can be considered terrorism, Howse's logic would absurdly label most military engagements in urban environments as acts of terrorism.
Furthermore, this interpretation could lead to a dangerous precedent where the term "terrorism" loses its specificity, becoming a catch-all for any act of violence with political undertones, thus diluting its meaning and utility in both legal and moral discourse.
In conclusion, Professor Rob Howse's argument is not just flawed; it's absurd. It misconstrues the very nature of terrorism, conflating it with military strategy based on a tangential observation rather than on the intent, method, and target of the operation. This kind of reasoning not only muddies academic discourse but also risks trivializing the real horrors and intentions behind acts of terrorism (using terror to coerce a civilian population into political submission). It serves as a stark reminder of the need for precision and context in our discussions of such grave matters.
Join the conversation on 𝕏:
I agree with @MaxAbrahms... @howserob's attempt to label Israel's pager Op as an act of terrorism is absurd. Read my thoughts on their debate:https://t.co/vehJU5i3xr
— Na'omi (@GetRealPolitik) February 2, 2025
