1

Critical  Analysis  of  the  Guardian  article:  ‘Tel  Aviv  bus  bomb  injures  at  least  10  people’  On Wednesday 21 November, a bomb was detonated on a bus in Tel Aviv, injuring ‘at least

ten people’1. This bombing came amid a period of intense fighting between Gaza and Israel.

Israel had been relentlessly bombing Gaza as part of Operation “Pillar of Defence”, and this

bus bombing took place on the eighth day of the offensive amid peace talks which the US and

Egypt were both heavily involved with.2 Hamas did not initially claim responsibility for the

attack, but instead blessed the bombing. It has been claimed almost a year after the attack

however that Hamas were indeed responsible.3

The article in question is careful to appear from a neutral standpoint. It does not automatically

describe the attack as being a terrorist attack; it instead quotes the Israeli Prime Minister as

claiming this incident is of a terrorist nature. The article in fact focuses on the possible

ramifications of this attack, which includes the peace talks between Gaza and Israel being

‘derailed’, as well as detailing actions of both sides during the Israeli operation “Pillar of

Defence”, which preceded this attack. The article is also careful to detail Israel’s actions

which may have sparked this attack, including their bombing of a refugee camp, and their

targeted bombing of news organisations. The article also concentrates on the relative death

toll, which is far higher for the Palestinians than the Israelis. The article uses emotive

language by detailing that 34 Palestinian children are among the dead and that a refugee

camp – containing innocent, desperate people - has been bombed.

1 H.Siddique, ‘Tel Aviv bus bombing injures at least 10 people’, The Guardian, 21 Novermber 2012. URL: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/21/tel-aviv-bus-bomb-gaza 2 Ibid. 3 D.Halevi and E.Benari, ‘Hamas Claims Responsibility for 2012 Tel Aviv Attack’, 23 October 2013. URL: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/173110#.UqJLRsRdVIF

2

The angle the article takes in terms of the international response is an interesting one, it

focuses on America in a positive manner as a mediator, with Hilary Clinton helping to

negotiate and initiate peace talks between the two sides. In contrast Al Jazeera’s article of the

same event details how the White House’s released statement actually came out in full

support of Israel and condemned the attack.4

Firstly the reason for this attack and who was responsible will be addressed. Secondly

whether this was a legitimate attack, taking into consideration just war theory, will be

discussed. Thirdly, the definition of terrorism and whether or not this example can be classed

as a terrorist attack will be looked at. Fourthly the different classes of terrorism which are

involved in this particular situation will be noted, considering both Israel’s and Hamas’s

actions. Fifthly, the intended outcome of this action and the response to this outcome will be

discussed. Lastly, the media article will again be concentrated on, with particular focus on the

report of the US’s role in this situation and also the adequacy of the article in terms of the

report of the attack.

Hamas eventually claimed responsibility for this attack.5 This attack was part of a response to

the eight days of bombardment Gaza had endured from Israel, as part of their operation

“Pillar of Defence”. This attack also came amid peace negotiations which involved Egypt and

the US. It was perhaps these peace talks which were the reason for Hamas not initially

admitting responsibility for this attack, but instead waiting until almost a year after the attack

to reveal that they were in fact responsible. Had Hamas admitted their responsibility at the

time it may have led to Gaza losing credibility at the peace talks, and appear as the aggressor,

when in fact the violence perpetrated by Israel had been on a much larger scale.

4 ‘Many injured in Tel Aviv bus explosion’, Aljazeera, 21 November 2012. URL: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/20121121101723829887.html 5 D.Halevi and E.Benari, ‘Hamas Claims Responsibility for 2012 Tel Aviv Attack’, 23 October 2013. URL: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/173110#.UqJLRsRdVIF

3

This violence could be described as legitimate, as although both Israel and the US

condemned this as a terrorist attack; it was in fact an attack in response to the violence being

perpetrated by Israel. Seeing as Hamas controls the Gaza strip which is an area being attacked

by Israel, and is the organisation responsible for this attack it can be seen as a justified

response. However the question of whether this attack comes within the confines of the just

war theory is a pertinent one, seeing as the attack purposely aimed at non-combatants. Just

war theory states: ‘non-combatants are immune from belligerent attack’6. Therefore the

legitimacy of this attack could be called into question, however it is also true that during

Israel’s bombardment its rockets did not discriminant against civilians or soldiers. In addition,

‘the obliteration bombing of enemy cities is equally reprehensible’7, as terrorism. The death

toll is also very telling: ‘the death toll in Gaza since the start of the operation “Pillar of

Defence” rose on Tuesday to 138, including 34 children…the total number of Israelis killed

by Gazan rocket fire since the start of the operation to five’8.

In terms of whether this act can be called terrorist or not, there are a number of factors to take

into consideration. Firstly, the definition of terrorism is a much discussed issue, with many

variations appearing within the literature. Terrorism is defined here as ‘the use or threat, for

the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, of action which involves

serious violence against any person or property’9, which involves ‘the deliberate creation and

exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of change’10.

Therefore in accordance with this definition, this incident can most definitely be described as

terrorism. This definition is used as it involves all types of terrorism, including religious, state

6 L.Calhoun, ‘The injustice of “Just Wars”’, Peace Review: a Journal of Social Justice, Vol.12(3), 2000, p.449. 7 C.A.J.Coady ‘The Morality of Terrorism’, Philosophy, Vol.60, 1985, p.50. 8 H.Siddique, ‘Tel Aviv bus bombing injures at least 10 people’, The Guardian, 21 Novermber 2012. URL: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/21/tel-aviv-bus-bomb-gaza 9 ‘Terrorism’, Security Service MI5, URL: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism.html 10 B.Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), pp.2-3.

4

and dissident and does not limit the term terrorism to particular groups which are often

stereotyped as terrorist. By allowing a state to be described as terrorist it also ensures that

violence is not condoned, simply because it is perpetrated by the state. Indeed, Tolstoy

describes governments as ‘instruments of violence…from which humanity’s greatest evil

flows.’11

The operation “Pillar of Defence” could be described as state terrorism by Israel. This form

of terrorism ‘is the most organized, and potentially the most far-reaching, application of

terrorist violence.’12 The rockets fired into Gaza by Israel, aimed to disable Gaza’s capability

to fire rockets into Israel. This rocket fire also specifically targeted Hamas headquarters, and

therefore also aimed to thwart Hamas’s ability to organize further threats to Israel. Martin

defines the goals of official state terrorism as ‘to preserve an existing order and to maintain

state authority through demonstrations of state power’13. The goal of Israel in its attacks on

Gaza is most definitely in line with these aims, leading one to believe that what they

perpetrate is in fact state terrorism.

In addition, Israel’s attacks on Gaza could also be classed as counterterrorism. This has been

described as when ‘nations sometimes resort to the use of conventional units and special

operations forces to wage war against terrorist movements. The goal is to destroy their ability

to use terrorism to attack the nation’s interest.’14 By attacking Hamas’s headquarters and

disabling their ability to fire rockets into Israel’s territory, Israel were most definitely also

applying a policy of counterterrorism in this situation. In addition, economic sanctions are

another tool which Israel has used in order to suppress the terrorist threat from Gaza. The

economic blockade has led to severe restrictions on Gaza’s imports as well as their exports.

11 L.Tolstoy, Government is violence (London:Phoenix Press, 1990), p.87. 12 G.Martin, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues, (London and New Dehli: Sage Publications, 2003), p.81. 13 Ibid., p.101. 14 Ibid., p.351.

5

Indeed in past blockades, the Israeli military has calculated how many calories a typical

Gazan would need to survive, in order to determine how much food to supply Gaza with.15

This was as part of Israel’s plan to ‘keep Gaza’s economy on the brink of collapse while

avoiding a humanitarian crisis.’16This has led to a dire situation in Gaza, with high

unemployment rates as well as seventy percent of the population being in receipt of

humanitarian aid.17This situation is one which would arguably fuel the popularity for terrorist

acts against Israel.

In this case, the act committed was most definitely a case of religious terrorism. ‘Hamas’s

roots lie in the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood’18therefore there could be a

religious dimension to their beliefs and acts. In addition, in terms of religion, Hamas has been

described as having a ‘dynamic relationship between the religious thought that frames the

movement, provides its ideological reference, and regulates its general political rhythm on the

one hand, and its application on the ground on the other.’19 There is also the Islamic sense of

endowment- waqf- because the lands of Palestine are considered to be sacred. Both the

Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas espouse that the ‘land of Palestine is Islamic is in accord

with the legal positions of the companions of the prophet Muhammad and the early

scholars’20. Therefore the religious identification with Hamas is strong, however, as the

organization has developed and particularly since it became elected in the Gaza Strip in 2006

it has become less hard line and more flexible in its rhetoric. Furthermore, as well as Hamas

having a definite religious dimension to their actions, Israel also has a strong religious aspect.

15 ‘Israel Counted Minimum Calorie Needs in Gaza Blockade’, Project Censored, URL: http://www.projectcensored.org/20-israel-counted-minimum-calorie-needs-gaza-blockade/ 16 Ibid. 17 R.Wright, ‘When Will the Economic Blockade of Gaza End?’, The Atlantic, 19 November 2012. URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/when-will-the-economic-blockade-of-gaza-end/265452/ 18 J.Masters, ‘Hamas’, Council on Foreign Relations, accessed December 7, 2013, URL: http://www.cfr.org/israel/hamas/p8968 19 O.Abu-Ishaid, ‘The dialectic of religion and politics in Hamas’ thought and practice’ (PhDThesis, Loughborough University, 2013), p.9. 20 Ibid., p.180.

6

However, in this category of terrorism there is also the factor of whether religion is the

primary motive for the terrorist behaviour or is it in fact a secondary consideration. Gus

Martin suggests that ‘for many ethno-nationalist and other revolutionary movements, national

independence or some other degree of autonomy forms the primary motivation for their

violent behaviour.’21This can be used as an accurate description for the case with Hamas. It is

not merely religion which drives Hamas to commit acts of terrorism, it is more their desire to

hold on to their homeland, and it is with good reason that they react to Israel’s treatment of

them. This want for land is a natural one, as Tolstoy identifies ‘if the working man has no

land…(he) does not possess the most natural right of every man’22. Chomsky has described

the Israeli occupation of Palestine as having ‘adversely influenced human development’23,

and that Israel has reduced Gaza to ‘the largest and most overcrowded prison in the world in

which over a million Palestinians can rot, largely cut off from contact with the outside by

land or sea, and with few means of sustenance.’24 These extremely strong statements reflect

the extent of the situation in Gaza and perhaps give some justification for the above terrorist

act.

The intended outcome of this terrorist act was a sign to Israel that they could not continue to

bully their smaller neighbour, and suffer no consequences for it. This act came as a shock to

Israel, as ‘the city experienced its first terrorist bombing in years’25. Therefore in this respect,

Hamas achieved what it expected to with the attack, it led to Israel having a new sense of

vulnerability. In addition, during the time of the attack, as the Guardian article mentions,

there were on-going peace talks concerning operation “Pillar of Defence”, involving the

21 G.Martin, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues, (London and New Dehli: Sage Publications, 2003), p.188. 22 L.Tolstoy, Government is violence (London:Phoenix Press, 1990), p.82. 23 N.Chomsky, Failed States, (London: Penguin Books, 2007), p.170. 24 Ibid., p.193. 25 I. Kershner, ‘Explosion on Bus in the Heart of Tel Aviv Kills No One but Reopens a Wound’, International New York Times, 21 November 2012. URL://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/explosion-reported-on-tel-aviv-bus.html?_r=0

7

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud

Abbas, and Hilary Clinton, as well as Mohamed Morsi, the Egyptian President.26 This is an

important factor to consider as Hamas has been accused of seeking ‘to undermine the peace

process’27, in the past. Hamas has used bombings and attacks as a way of ensuring that peace

talks between Israel and the more moderate representative, Palestinian Authority are

undermined. By resorting to violence, Hamas illustrates that it is very difficult to broker a

peace deal, when this will have little implication on Hamas’ actions, as the Palestinian

Authority has no bearing upon Hamas’s actions. This bus bombing did indeed lead to the on-

going peace talks being unable to reach an agreement when they were expected to. Therefore

if this was one of Hamas’s outcomes they did indeed achieve it.

The response to this attack was that Israel immediately condemned the attack as “terrorist”

and placed the city’s police on a state of high alert. The police combed the surrounding area

looking for suspects and a gagging order was also placed upon the details of the

investigation.28 This reaction conveys how serious a threat it was perceived to be, particularly

seeing as there had not been a terrorist bombing in Tel Aviv, the commercial hub of Israel for

several years previously. In addition to Israel’s reaction, the US outright condemned the

attack, announcing ‘The United States will stand with our Israeli allies, and provide whatever

assistance necessary to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of this attack’29. This

statement was reported in an Al Jazeera news article, about the bus bombing, however the

Guardian article chose not to focus on this response and instead detailed how the US had

26 H.Siddique, ‘Tel Aviv bus bombing injures at least 10 people’, The Guardian, 21 Novermber 2012. URL: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/21/tel-aviv-bus-bomb-gaza 27 D.Byman, ‘How to Handle Hamas’, Foreign Affairs, September 2010. URL: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66541/daniel-byman/how-to-handle-hamas 28 ‘Terror attack in Tel Aviv: Bomb explodes on Tel Aviv bus, at least 28 hurt’, Hareetz, 21 November 2012. URL: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/bomb-explodes-on-tel-aviv-bus-at-least-28-hurt-1.479535 29 ‘Many injured in Tel Aviv bus explosion’, Aljazeera, 21 November 2012. URL: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/20121121101723829887.html

8

been heavily involved in peace negations between Israel and Palestine. The US’s

involvement in Israel’s foreign policy is interesting, and arguably inappropriate. Chomsky

claims that the US has some sway over Israel’s actions, for example it must do what the

‘boss-man’ deems to be appropriate30. This relationship also has a huge impact on Palestine.

How are Palestine meant to have as much of a say in the region when the strongest power of

the globe is effectively always on Israel’s side in any conflict between the two powers. The

US are condoning Israel’s actions towards Palestine and always support them in their

offensives, citing Israel’s right to ‘defend themselves’.

This media report is guilty of failing to identify the level of relationship and effect that the

US has on the region. It dwells on the US’s involvement in a positive light with Hilary

Clinton as mediator. The Egyptian President, who played just as big a part as Clinton did is

mentioned less in the article despite his arguably bigger role in the situation. The article also

failed to mention that the US reaction to this terrorist attack was to condemn the attack, and

identify their loyalties with Israel. Perhaps this is due to ‘public opinion and government

pronouncements (setting) the agenda for how the news will be spun.’31 Conversely, the article

is not as keen to portray Israel in a solely positive light. The levels of Israeli attacks

perpetrated compared with those of Gaza, are compared in an unfavourable light, making

Israel seem as if it is the aggressor. The casualties from both sides are also compared, with

most of those dead being Gazan, which also reflects badly on Israel. Additionally, it is

alluded to within the article that Israel has been concentrating their bombing towards media

facilities, ‘Reporters Without Borders…condemned attacks on news organisations as war

crimes.’32 This is a serious accusation and one which suggests that Israel is not a nation

30 N.Chomsky, Failed States, (London: Penguin Books, 2007), p.179. 31 G.Martin, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues, (London and New Dehli: Sage Publications, 2003), p. 285 32 H.Siddique, ‘Tel Aviv bus bombing injures at least 10 people’, The Guardian, 21 November 2012. URL: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/21/tel-aviv-bus-bomb-gaza

9

which embraces the Western ideals of freedom of speech. Therefore this part of the article

does use language which condemns Israel’s actions.

The article’s analysis of the cause of the incident is comprehensive. Considering the article is

written and published immediately after the attack, it would be expected to have only the

basic facts of the incident in question. However there is also a detailed description of the

events that led up to the bus bombing – operation “Pillar of Defence” – as well as an analysis

of the possible ramifications of this incident. With regard to the language used, the article

does describe this incident as a terrorist attack, though only as a direct quotation from the

Israeli Prime Minister. The use of this word and dramatic descriptions of the previous

‘bombardment’33 of Gaza, as well as using emotive facts such as ’34 children’34 being among

the dead adds to the drama of the article, which is perhaps a device used to sensationalise the

incident and guarantee higher audiences.

In summary, the people who were present on the bus which was bombed on the 21 November

2012 in Tel Aviv were the victim of an attack because of underlying tensions between Israel

and Palestine. This attack can be deemed a terrorist attack when taking into account the

definition mentioned previously. However it was most definitely a terrorist attack in response

to the state terrorism perpetrated by Israel previously, though both attacks cannot be ascribed

legitimacy as they both aim at non-combatants, which does not follow the ideal of the just

war theory. The article is sufficient in a most aspects, however it is lacking in deeper analysis,

though this can be forgiven for the immediacy of it with respect to the attack.

33 Ibid. 34 Ibid.

10

Bibliography  Abu-Ishaid, O, ‘The dialectic of religion and politics in Hamas’ thought and practice’ (PhDThesis, Loughborough University, 2013).

Calhoun, L, ‘The injustice of “Just Wars”’, Peace Review: a Journal of Social Justice, Vol.12(3), (2000): pp.449-455.

Chomsky, N, Failed States, London: Penguin Books, 2007.

Coady, C.A.J, ‘The Morality of Terrorism’, Philosophy, Vol.60, (1985): pp.50-59.

D.Byman, ‘How to Handle Hamas’, URL: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66541/daniel-byman/how-to-handle-hamas (accessed 9 December 2013).

D.Halevi and E.Benari, ‘Hamas Claims Responsibility for 2012 Tel Aviv Attack’, URL: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/173110#.UqJLRsRdVIF (accessed 9 December 2013).

H.Siddique, ‘Tel Aviv bus bombing injures at least 10 people’, URL:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/21/tel-aviv-bus-bomb-gaza (accessed 9 December 2013).

Hoffman,B, Inside Terrorism, New York: Columbia University Press, 2006.

I. Kershner, ‘Explosion on Bus in the Heart of Tel Aviv Kills No One but Reopens a Wound’, URL://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/explosion-reported-on-tel-aviv-bus.html?_r=0 (accessed 9 December 2013).

‘Israel Counted Minimum Calorie Needs in Gaza Blockade’, URL: http://www.projectcensored.org/20-israel-counted-minimum-calorie-needs-gaza-blockade/ (accessed 9 December 2013).

‘Many injured in Tel Aviv bus explosion’, URL:http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/20121121101723829887.html (accessed 9 December 2013).

J.Masters, ‘Hamas’, URL: http://www.cfr.org/israel/hamas/p8968 (accessed December 7, 2013)

Martin, G, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues, London and New Dehli: Sage Publications, 2003.

R.Wright, ‘When Will the Economic Blockade of Gaza End?’, URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/when-will-the-economic-blockade-of-gaza-end/265452/ (accessed 9 December 2013).

11

Terror attack in Tel Aviv: Bomb explodes on Tel Aviv bus, at least 28 hurt’, URL: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/bomb-explodes-on-tel-aviv-bus-at-least-28-hurt-1.479535 (accessed 9 December 2013).

‘Terrorism’, Security Service MI5, URL: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism.html (accessed 9 December 2013).

Tolstoy, L, Government is violence, London: Phoenix Press, 1990.

Appendix  One  The Guardian: ‘Tel Aviv bus bomb injures at least 10 people’

21 November 2013

Source: (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/21/tel-aviv-bus-bomb-gaza)

A bomb attack on a bus in Tel Aviv has threatened to derail attempts to broker a peace deal between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Israeli rescue services said that at least 10 people were injured in the attack outside the military headquarters. Ofir Gendelman, a spokesman for the Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, said: "A bomb exploded on a bus in central Tel Aviv. This was a terrorist attack. Most of the injured suffered only mild injuries."

The bombing comes as Hillary Clinton held meetings with Netanyahu and the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, in an effort to bring an end to the bloody conflict, after arriving in the region on Tuesday.

An expected ceasefire failed to materialise on Tuesday night, despite predictions by Hamas officials and the Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, who has been acting as a mediator between the two sides, that a truce was imminent.

Israel stepped up its bombardment of Gaza from air and sea overnight with munitions slamming into Gaza at a rate of one every 10 minutes at one point. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said they had hit 100 targets in Gaza since midnight and intercepted 12 out of 29 missiles launched towards Israel from Gaza.

Clinton's talks with Netanyahu in Jerusalem lasted late into Tuesday night. She returned on Wednesday for further talks with Israeli leaders after travelling to the West Bank to meet Abbas. She is due to travel on to Cairo to meet Morsi and UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon later.

Reports in the Israeli press said the failure to reach agreement on Tuesday was due to a disagreement in the Israeli cabinet between defence minister Ehud Barak, who was in favour of a truce, on one side and Netanyahu and the Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, on the other. They were reportedly unwilling to accept the ceasefire on the proposed terms.

However, the prospects of an Israeli ground invasion seemed to have diminished after Lieberman appeared to rule out such an operation before the January election, telling Ynet: "We should leave this decision for the next government."

12

Among the buildings struck in Gaza overnight were Hamas's civil administration building and a house belonging to Essam al-Daalees, a senior adviser of Gaza prime minister Ismail Haniyeh. An Israeli warplane first fired a warning missile before scoring a direct hit on the building, in the Nusseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip, flattening the property.

Medics reported that one passerby was wounded. Al-Jazeera said its office suffered damage from the airstrike on the Hamas compound. A reporter said the windows were blown out but no one was injured. It was the latest in a number of media facilities to be hit. On Tuesday the building housing the AFP offices in Gaza was hit in an Israeli air strike. Israel's military said it had been targeting a Hamas intelligence centre in the tower.

Also on Tuesday, three al-Aqsa journalists were killed by strikes that hit their cars. Reporters Without Borders has condemned attacks on news organisations as war crimes. In Israel, a direct hit from a Palestinian rocket set a house on fire in Be'er Tuvia, the IDF said.

The death toll in Gaza since the start of operation "Pillar of defence" rose on Tuesday to 138, including 34 children, according to Palestinian medical officials. Two Israelis were killed on Tuesday, a soldier and a civilian contractor. Their deaths brought the total number of Israelis killed by Gazan rocket fire since the start of the operation to five.

An Israeli Defence Forces spokeswoman said 111 Israelis were wounded on Tuesday, an unusually high number, but it was later clarified that the majority had suffered trauma.