A number of times in its news on the hour the BBC world Service radio on April 2, 2002 announced that the Muslim countries have failed to agree on a common definition of terrorism. The news item was covering the Special Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) meeting, held in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur, on April 1-3, 2002. The conference was convened in the light of the controversy that emerged following the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Some Muslims, including the Saudi born Osama bin Ladin, have justified the attack on the WTC citing the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and the U.S. backing of Israel. This provided an opportunity to identify Islam with terrorism. As a result the government of Malaysia took an initiative to define the term first among Muslims and then possibly under the auspicious of the United Nations. Explaining the need for the conference, the Malaysian Prime Minister said in his opening speech that, “it was important for the world community to come up with an international agreement to constitute what was terrorism so that they could cooperate and participate in whatever action to be taken against the perpetrators.” However the Prime Minister’s associationg of the term with some Palestinians such as self-sacrifice bombers created uproar among the delegates. Later addressing the participating journalists, the Prime Minister explained that he wanted to raise the issue only for the sake of discussion.

Any discussion on the issue, of course, is crucial and timely. This phenomenon can’t be absolutely accepted, but can’t be totally rejected either. One must first try to understand the phenomenon from the perspective of the activists themselves. Almost all these activists were born and brought up in refugee camps; they have hardly tasted the fruits of freedom and human rights. In fact they have known only disgrace and humiliation. They have also learned from their parents and elders that the people who humiliate them are also responsible for throwing them out of their ancestral home. They know from history that the Israelis, most of whom migrated from Europe, occupied their land by force and by killing or displacing their grand parents or great grand parents with the support of the European colonial powers. In fact those of them who hailed form Dier Yasin would recall that in April 1948 their village was attacked in the middle of the night, and their forefathers were either killed or forced out to a refugee camp. They also know that Monachem Begin, who later became prime minister of Israel and also won a Nobel Prize for peace, was an attacker on whose head the British declared 100,000 pounds, the way the Americans now have declared $25 million on Osama bin Ladin.

They also know that there is no end to the Israeli government’s acquiring more territories for new settlements; while it bulldozes and destroys their houses even in the refugee camps at its will. If they oppose such moves, they are immediately identified as terrorists and enemies of the state of Israel, and punished heavily. If the Palestinians complain about such treatment to the international community, Israel would always dispute, and would come up with its versions. And when the Palestinians demand international observers to monitor the events, Israel would always oppose it. What would a person do under such desperate circumstances?

It will definitely be a mistake to call these activists suicide bombers; for suicide by definition is an act of deviant behavior. Is the behavior of these activists deviant or is it more like that of freedom fighters? One would say it depends on who is defining the term; an Israeli would of course say that yes these are forms of deviant behavior, for they are anti-Semitic. But are the Palestinians really anti-Semitic? Didn’t the Jews live in Palestine one hundred years ago?

A Muslim can’t call this suicidal behavior. For those fighters have sacrificed their lives, the only weapon they have left, preferring a dignified death to a life of humiliation. It was therefore natural that the delegates expressed their reservation on the term. The activists themselves call their action amaliyyat istishadyyah, or martyrdom operations. Under the circumstances scholars such as the Egyptian mufti Ahmad al-Tayeb and Shaikh Yusuf al-Qardawi of Qatar have approved the act as an act of martyrdom. Another Egyptian scholar, Shaikh Muhammad Sayed Tantawi, in fact perhaps the most respected Islamic scholar in Egypt, while condemned suicide attack on civilians, declared that those who died in attack on soldiers were martyrs. This is the main question related to this issue: Can civilians be targeted in a war?

Have the Palestinian activists targeted civilians? If one examines these acts of martyrdom, as the Palestinians call them, until very recently they targeted Israeli soldiers. Even though at times bombs were blasted in public areas such as bus stands or restaurants, these areas were also generally frequented by regular soldiers, and in fact many soldiers have been killed in these blasts. But the media failed to highlight the casualties of the military. In fact the media seem to have a vested interest in reporting these events. They love to call these activities “suicide bombings” and highlight civilian casualties. But how civilian are these civilians? Haven’t they settled in Palestine illegally? Haven’t many of them migrated to the territory illegally under the British Mandate administration? Haven’t they terrorized the local Palestinian population to create their settlements? Haven’t the Israelis elected convicted criminals their prime minister?

Yet from an Islamic perspective it will be difficult to justify the death of individuals who are not directly involved in the war. Are the sufferings of Palestinians more severe than the Prophetic suffering in the hands of Quraish [leading tribe of Mecca in the time of Prophet Mohamad]? Is it more severe than the suffering of Moses and his people in the hands of the Pharoah? Did the prophets of God initiate such activities? Are there no other ways to address this problem? If the problem is left for the Palestinians alone to resolve, then perhaps one has to agree that there is no other way than martyrdom activities to stop the Israeli aggression.

But if Muslims as one group address this problem then peaceful ways may be found to force Israel to behave in a civilized manner. And the discussion on the issue at the OIC platform indicates the desire of Muslims to address this problem as one group. At the end of the conference the OIC came out with a joint statement declaring the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation as the struggle for freedom. However, this was not the first time that the OIC has made such a declaration. What has this Special Conference of the OIC Foreign Ministers achieved? If the discussion developed in the conference succeeds in developing any consensus among its members in their strategy against Israel, the conference would definitely be of great success.

If the OIC implements its earlier adopted resolutions, it would begin to make a difference. It should begin with its resolutions on the economic boycott of Israel and the business establishments that contribute to Israel’s economy. One should remember that Israel has benefited greatly after the 1993 Oslo Agreement, but its economy has been harmed ever since the current intifada began more than eighteen months ago. This pressure must be increased with the participation of the world Muslim community. Can the Muslims boycott companies such as Citibank or Burger King if they insist on keeping their business relations with Israel? One small example will illustrate the point: About a couple of years ago Singapore has introduced halal meat in its chain restaurants such as Burger King, McDonald’s, and KFC. Since then their sales are reported to have increased by twenty percent. Can the OIC and the Muslim community express their support for their brethren in Palestine by utilizing their market potential?