Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Why has suicide terror in the Middle East led to an exacerbation of conflict whereas in Sri Lanka, negotiations and a peace treaty appear to be in the process of being successfully negotiated? The conventional wisdom analyzing Palestinian suicide bombing conceives of the phenomenon as motivated by religious beliefs, nationalist ideology, obedience to charismatic and authoritarian leaders, or because of despair. This paper argues that Palestinian public opinion increasingly supports this tactic against both Israeli civilians and military personnel because of several endogenous factors. Under the present political environment, the bombings are a method of recruitment and mobilization for radical Palestinian organizations. They serve at one and the same time to attack the hated enemy (Israel) and give legitimacy to outlier radical groups who compete with the Palestinian Authority (PA) for leadership. In Sri Lanka, suicide bombing has contributed to an atmosphere of war weariness and the groups who have used this tactic have switched to negotiations in part because Tamil public opinion does not support killing civilians and constrains the kinds of terror operations in which the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) can and cannot engage. The two cases provide an interesting contrast of religious versus secular terror. Based on original field research, interviews with leaders, and analyses of public opinion, this paper explores the comparisons and differences between the two cases and explains how similar structural environments, colonial histories, comparable extended conflicts, and similar tactics have resulted in two very different outcomes.