Page 45 - Conflict, Terrorism, and the Media In Asia

34 Benjamin Cole
mitigating circumstances for the use of violence if those people have no other
choice. This links the definition of terrorism, and, therefore the legitimacy of
using violence, to the perceived validity of the causes that the combatants are
fighting for, which is an inherently subjective judgement. He argued that

We do not want the independence fighters to be called terrorists. But we have to
accept the fact that certain acts like killing civilians who have nothing to do with
their fight, are acts of terror but there are mitigating circumstances. The Israeli
Government can avoid committing acts of terror because they have the means,
they don’t have to carry out acts of terror. The Palestinians, they have no aero-
planes, no tanks, no nothing; the only way they can fight back is the way they
fight back. They may carry out suicide bombings. If they act against civilians
and not soldiers, it is still acts of terror but it is mitigated; it is because they have
no choice. If they have a choice, I’m sure they would not do this.
(New Straits Times 2003f)

In this way the government and the media attempt to control the use of the
terminology by determining what is a legitimate cause and selectively using the
label ‘terrorist’ to try to de-legitimise some conflicts, whilst preserving the legit-
imacy of others. Significantly, the concept of ‘terrorism’ is also broadened out to
include state terrorism. Mahatir argued that

The Israeli government, however, has no excuse as they have other means to
defend themselves and need not carry out acts of terror. The Israeli govern-
ment has a choice, the Americans have a choice not to terrorise people by
bombing civilians, hospitals etc. But they do that, so that is an act of terror
that cannot be excused.
(New Straits Times 2003f)

The labelling of the actions of states – particularly Israeli military operations in
the occupied territories and US operations in the ‘war on terror’, as terrorism, is
a recurrent theme in government speeches that are reported in the media.
The dominance of these definitions was confirmed in September 2003, when
Abdul Hadi Awang, the leader of PAS condemned JI bombings in Indonesia. Yet
he went on to declare that they support Hamas, on the grounds that they are being
oppressed, and described Israel as being ‘terrorist and criminal’. He also hailed
Palestinian suicide bombers as Martyrs (BBC News Online 2003c).
Broadly speaking the KMM, JI and al Qaeda are not defined as ‘Islamic’ or
‘Islamist’ terrorists. Islam does not permit terrorism, so terrorism perpetrated by
Muslims is not of its nature, Islamic. Since 9/11 the majority of mainstream
media articles specifically de-link Islam from terrorist acts (Malaysiakini 2003b).
As a consequence there is no differentiation between ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ ter-
rorism. Instead, all terrorism is implicitly identified as being political in nature,
because its objectives are to achieve political goals such as overthrowing existing
governments.