The “lesser” jihad, characterized by Bin Laden as obliterating half of humanity in the name of Islam, is described by Malise Ruthven as an occasional obligation of Muslims applied in self-defense. George Bush is encouraging the “greater” jihad, the continuous inner struggle against evil, as he wages the War on Terror. While a physical goal is to disable terrorism, an ideological goal of the War on Terror is the affirmation of civilians’ rights as superior to the rights of warring parties. Many conflicts around the globe involve a traditional military force fighting “insurgents,” “gorillas,” “rebels” or “jihadists” who target civilians. Counter-terrorism measures often include repression of the host population; terrorism defines the field of modern combat as civilian homes. In the Israeli Palestinian conflict, selective applications of the theory of “civilian immunity” inversely justify the ideologies of the US and the Arabs.

The National Security Strategy of the United States of American states “no cause justifies terrorism.” Terrorism, murder by demographic profile, is antithetical to Americans. For fifty years prior to 9/11, Americans strongly rejected victimization by category and developed a minimum standard equality among white men, minorities, women, children, the disabled, homeless, homosexual, religious, unions and prisoners. America’s egalitarianism toward external populations evolved from Hiroshima 1945 (deliberately targeting civilians) to Baghdad 2003 (deliberately avoiding civilians).

Conversely, many Muslims view the targeting of Israeli civilians as acceptable. Raghida Dergham has recently stated: “Let us talk frankly and admit that a lot of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims implicitly support the suicide attacks against Israelis and consider them as the only available weapon to face Israel’s military supremacy…” As the editors of the Jerusalem Post have noted the United Nations Commission on Terrorism is unable to define terrorism because of divergent views on targeting civilians and the 1998 Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism “distinguishes between terrorism and legitimate struggle against foreign occupation.” Randomly victimizing Muslim civilians in Riyadh, Al-Qaeda has swayed some Arab popular opinion against terrorism and toward civilian immunity according to the New York Times

The US advocates for the rights of Israeli civilians; the Arabs advocate for the rights of Palestinian civilians. In response to the Intifada, the US sponsored Road Map for Peace links the rights and protections of Palestinian civilians to a third party, Palestinian terrorists. As Daniel Mandel has noted in the Middle East Quarterly, easing the suppression of Palestinian society occurs when Palestinian terror activities ends. Palestinian children’s rights are subordinate to the actions of their parents and contingent upon good self-governance. In the Islamic world, the abject degradation of Palestinian society is a source of great discord with the West. Many Arabs agree with the press release issued by the Gaza Community Mental Health Program: “American unconditional support of Israel…is hypocritical, evil and will continue to be a source of conflict with Arabs and Muslims.” Mainstream Muslims interpret Israeli self-defense measures as collective punishment: roadblocks, invasions, curfews, demolition of houses, confiscation by continuing settlements, 2500 civilian deaths, and the “apartheid” wall are viewed together as blatant social torture.

The US and the Arabs demand adherence to international norms of civilian immunity; Israeli and Palestinian leadership erode those norms because targeting civilians is effective. Chechnyan “rebels” gained media exposure by taking over a Moscow theater. Saddam Hussein shows the defense against an American smart bomb is a school full of children. “Soft target” bombings in Iraq have frightened away the United Nations, the Red Cross, additional coalition troops and numerous investors. By shielding themselves within the population, terrorists encourage the collective repression of their own people and thus further radicalization. In Iraq and Chechnya, as in Gaza, the consequences of targeting civilians are borne by civilians themselves.

An intellectually consistent position on the rights of civilians includes an objective view of both Israelis and Palestinians as equally deserving of protection. Presidential candidate Howard Dean was roundly denounced for suggesting a more “even-handed” US approach to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The Saudi Peace Proposal, the “unofficial” peace agreement, and the Geneva accords have been disparaged for advocating resettlement not repatriation, a cessation of terrorism, and recognition of Israel. The voices for peace are unable to find an audience among the parties under siege. At what point does the world airlift the children of the Holy Land away from the rage of their parents? The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child specifically recognizes the moral, religious and social traditions of foster parents, Kafalah of Islamic Law, previous declarations of Human Rights and the duty of States Parties: the right to remove, and the duty to parent, orphaned, neglected and endangered children.

In the absence of functional international institutions of conflict resolution, global mores against targeting civilians are challenged by those who both demand and deny civilian immunity. More moderate voices are ineffective, fragmented and drowned out. As Raghida Dergham notes: “That silent part in the popular Arab, Israeli, American and international base gives the impression that it blesses the controlling fundamentalism, simply because it refrains from testifying with a clear voice.”