1
Reading Title Important notes
Ganor (2022) Defining - Problems in defining terrorism
Terrorism o Objective definition of terrorism is not possible (and will not be)
▪ But possible regarding international laws and principles
o Differentiations between goals and means of terrorism in comparison to other violent acts
o Terrorism (mean) is not national liberation (end) = not positive
o ‘innocent’ is objective when referring to victims
- Definition
o 1. threat or use of violence
o 2. aim of activity is always political
o 3. targets are always civilians
- Need in defining
o Legislation and punishment (to ban and limit terrorism like taking financial aids)
o International cooperation (and strengthening it)
o State sponsoring terrorism (acknowledging it)
o Offensive action (joint, assistance, when is it necessary)
o Attitudes toward the population supporting terrorism (determine if aid there is needed)
o Normative scale (determining differences between actions, undermine groups’ legitimacy)
- Guerilla warfare vs terrorism (victims = guerilla has military targets, security forces and political leadership)
- States involvement
o Support terrorism (financially, ideologically, militarily, operationally)
o Operating terrorism (activities through non-governmental groups)
o Perpetrating terrorism (through official bodies like intelligent services or agents)
- Attitude of terrorist towards definition (against as moral and utilitarian considerations might change
members/people's attitudes towards them = undermine their legitimacy)
Schmid (2013) Academic - Defining terrorism
Consensus o Contested and politicized (efforts by UN failed)
Definition o EU: criminal offences against people and property, allowing serious damage to country or IGO with the
aim of intimidating population, compelling government or IGO to perform an act, destabilizing or
destroying the political, economic and social structure of country and IGOs
▪ No raw emotions and communicative function of terroristso Academic Consensus Definition: illegal repression,
propagandistic agitation by non-state actors, illicit
tactic or irregular warfare employed by state- and non-state actors
▪ Both ideas (ideology) and action (behavior)
Toros (2008) We don’t - Defining terrorism
negotiate with o 1. violent means
terrorists o Aim of political change
o Affecting larger audience than its immediate target
- Need of:
o Problem-solving, critical theory and socio-historical background when engaging with terrorists
o Legitimacy
▪ gives them legitimize as a group/important actors
▪ his agenda
▪ ≠ contradict non-violent resolve if not): two dimensional
▪ Also may allow non-violent transformation
- Example al-Qaeda
o Transforming over existence
o Complex, therefore policies difficult
o Many local groups
- Conclusion
o Opportunity and risk
o Some may offer multiple opening points of negotiations = like al-Qaeda
o ‘engaging with such groups through negotiations can potentially reverse this naming-isolating-radicalizing process’
Reading Title Important notes
Ganor (2022) Defining - Problems in defining terrorism
Terrorism o Objective definition of terrorism is not possible (and will not be)
▪ But possible regarding international laws and principles
o Differentiations between goals and means of terrorism in comparison to other violent acts
o Terrorism (mean) is not national liberation (end) = not positive
o ‘innocent’ is objective when referring to victims
- Definition
o 1. threat or use of violence
o 2. aim of activity is always political
o 3. targets are always civilians
- Need in defining
o Legislation and punishment (to ban and limit terrorism like taking financial aids)
o International cooperation (and strengthening it)
o State sponsoring terrorism (acknowledging it)
o Offensive action (joint, assistance, when is it necessary)
o Attitudes toward the population supporting terrorism (determine if aid there is needed)
o Normative scale (determining differences between actions, undermine groups’ legitimacy)
- Guerilla warfare vs terrorism (victims = guerilla has military targets, security forces and political leadership)
- States involvement
o Support terrorism (financially, ideologically, militarily, operationally)
o Operating terrorism (activities through non-governmental groups)
o Perpetrating terrorism (through official bodies like intelligent services or agents)
- Attitude of terrorist towards definition (against as moral and utilitarian considerations might change
members/people's attitudes towards them = undermine their legitimacy)
Schmid (2013) Academic - Defining terrorism
Consensus o Contested and politicized (efforts by UN failed)
Definition o EU: criminal offences against people and property, allowing serious damage to country or IGO with the
aim of intimidating population, compelling government or IGO to perform an act, destabilizing or
destroying the political, economic and social structure of country and IGOs
▪ No raw emotions and communicative function of terroristso Academic Consensus Definition: illegal repression,
propagandistic agitation by non-state actors, illicit
tactic or irregular warfare employed by state- and non-state actors
▪ Both ideas (ideology) and action (behavior)
Toros (2008) We don’t - Defining terrorism
negotiate with o 1. violent means
terrorists o Aim of political change
o Affecting larger audience than its immediate target
- Need of:
o Problem-solving, critical theory and socio-historical background when engaging with terrorists
o Legitimacy
▪ gives them legitimize as a group/important actors
▪ his agenda
▪ ≠ contradict non-violent resolve if not): two dimensional
▪ Also may allow non-violent transformation
- Example al-Qaeda
o Transforming over existence
o Complex, therefore policies difficult
o Many local groups
- Conclusion
o Opportunity and risk
o Some may offer multiple opening points of negotiations = like al-Qaeda
o ‘engaging with such groups through negotiations can potentially reverse this naming-isolating-radicalizing process’
