全球恐怖主义浪潮书评:从1879年到现在

IF 1.6 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
João Raphael da Silva
{"title":"全球恐怖主义浪潮书评:从1879年到现在","authors":"João Raphael da Silva","doi":"10.1080/17539153.2023.2187839","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism (Rapoport 2004), David C. Rapoport theorised that modern terrorism can be historically seen and understood through the Anarchist (1st/1879–1920s), Anticolonial (2nd/1919–1960s), New Left (3rd/1960s-1990s) and Religious (4th/1979–2020s?) Waves. Ideologically similar, the organisations within each Wave also share characteristics, such as signature tactics, weaponry, and targets. The energy driving them spreads globally and tends to last one generation. Since the Rapoportian Wave Theory was launched, its explanatory power has been widely debated; sometimes challenged, but usually tested, corroborated and applied to uncover overlooked Waves (da Silva 2020). Unsurprisingly, the 2011 Oslo and Utøya Attacks (Norway), the 2019 Christchurch Mosque Shooting (New Zealand), and the 2019 El Paso Shooting (U.S.) made Terrorism Studies scholars wonder whether these were shaping a Far-Right (5th) Wave. In the 448-page Waves of Global Terrorism: From 1879 to the Present, David C. Rapoport re-explores his longstanding scholarship to shed light on this heated debate. Definitionally, Rapoport understands terrorism as “[. . .] violence employed for a religious or political objective and is not limited by the accepted moral norms that limit violence” (03). In Chapter 1, a lengthy discussion on pre-1879, non-Wave Abrahamic (e.g., Jewish Sicarii and Zealots, Islamic Assassins, and Christian Crusaders) and secular (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan and Sons of Liberty) terrorism makes it appear that the book’s title does not truly translate its content. Yet, it serves to remind us that not only Islam but also Judaism and Christianity have been used to encourage terrorism, but that the West only attributes positive connotations to the latter. Rapoport proceeds by brilliantly combining a chronological and thematic structure. The theorist expands on the Anarchist (Chapter 2) and Anticolonial (Chapter 3) Waves, and updates the New Left (Chapter 4) Wave by discussing the peace agreement between Colombia’s Government and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia. Furthermore, he extensively elaborates on how the 2011 Arab Spring contributed to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s emergence and growth, thus, boosting the Religious Wave (Chapter 5), a chapter that takes the spotlight until the novel discussion on a Far-Right Wave (Chapter 6). Previously, Rapoport (2004, 61) had argued that “[. . .] three events in the Islamic world [. . .]” sparked the Religious Wave: “In 1979, the Iranian Revolution occurred, a new Islamic century began, and the Soviets made an unprovoked invasion of Afghanistan.” Now, he adds the IsraelEgypt Peace Treaty (1979) as “[. . .] the second crucial event [. . .]” (218). However, he does not explain why it was not originally appraised. Confusingly, Rapoport argues that “[. . .] it was not until the third decade of the wave that Islamic groups began targeting Western states like the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Spain” [emphasis added] (209). Perhaps, he meant the second decade because “[s]trikes on American soil began in 1993 with a partially successful effort on the World Trade Center” (366). In addition, Rapoport argues that “[i]n 2006, Hamas released an Israeli soldier in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian terrorists and terrorist suspects” (201), then, he argues that “in 2011, when Hamas exchanged an Israeli soldier for 1,027 Palestinian terrorists and terrorist suspects” (202). The Israeli soldier – Gilad Shalit – was kidnapped on 25 June 2006, and released on 18 October 2011. These are not the only phrases that read almost identically and are next to each other, suggesting that this chapter could have been better edited:","PeriodicalId":46483,"journal":{"name":"Critical Studies on Terrorism","volume":"10 1","pages":"424 - 426"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book Review of Waves of Global Terrorism: From 1879 to the Present\",\"authors\":\"João Raphael da Silva\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17539153.2023.2187839\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism (Rapoport 2004), David C. Rapoport theorised that modern terrorism can be historically seen and understood through the Anarchist (1st/1879–1920s), Anticolonial (2nd/1919–1960s), New Left (3rd/1960s-1990s) and Religious (4th/1979–2020s?) Waves. Ideologically similar, the organisations within each Wave also share characteristics, such as signature tactics, weaponry, and targets. The energy driving them spreads globally and tends to last one generation. Since the Rapoportian Wave Theory was launched, its explanatory power has been widely debated; sometimes challenged, but usually tested, corroborated and applied to uncover overlooked Waves (da Silva 2020). Unsurprisingly, the 2011 Oslo and Utøya Attacks (Norway), the 2019 Christchurch Mosque Shooting (New Zealand), and the 2019 El Paso Shooting (U.S.) made Terrorism Studies scholars wonder whether these were shaping a Far-Right (5th) Wave. In the 448-page Waves of Global Terrorism: From 1879 to the Present, David C. Rapoport re-explores his longstanding scholarship to shed light on this heated debate. Definitionally, Rapoport understands terrorism as “[. . .] violence employed for a religious or political objective and is not limited by the accepted moral norms that limit violence” (03). In Chapter 1, a lengthy discussion on pre-1879, non-Wave Abrahamic (e.g., Jewish Sicarii and Zealots, Islamic Assassins, and Christian Crusaders) and secular (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan and Sons of Liberty) terrorism makes it appear that the book’s title does not truly translate its content. Yet, it serves to remind us that not only Islam but also Judaism and Christianity have been used to encourage terrorism, but that the West only attributes positive connotations to the latter. Rapoport proceeds by brilliantly combining a chronological and thematic structure. The theorist expands on the Anarchist (Chapter 2) and Anticolonial (Chapter 3) Waves, and updates the New Left (Chapter 4) Wave by discussing the peace agreement between Colombia’s Government and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia. Furthermore, he extensively elaborates on how the 2011 Arab Spring contributed to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s emergence and growth, thus, boosting the Religious Wave (Chapter 5), a chapter that takes the spotlight until the novel discussion on a Far-Right Wave (Chapter 6). Previously, Rapoport (2004, 61) had argued that “[. . .] three events in the Islamic world [. . .]” sparked the Religious Wave: “In 1979, the Iranian Revolution occurred, a new Islamic century began, and the Soviets made an unprovoked invasion of Afghanistan.” Now, he adds the IsraelEgypt Peace Treaty (1979) as “[. . .] the second crucial event [. . .]” (218). However, he does not explain why it was not originally appraised. Confusingly, Rapoport argues that “[. . .] it was not until the third decade of the wave that Islamic groups began targeting Western states like the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Spain” [emphasis added] (209). Perhaps, he meant the second decade because “[s]trikes on American soil began in 1993 with a partially successful effort on the World Trade Center” (366). In addition, Rapoport argues that “[i]n 2006, Hamas released an Israeli soldier in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian terrorists and terrorist suspects” (201), then, he argues that “in 2011, when Hamas exchanged an Israeli soldier for 1,027 Palestinian terrorists and terrorist suspects” (202). The Israeli soldier – Gilad Shalit – was kidnapped on 25 June 2006, and released on 18 October 2011. These are not the only phrases that read almost identically and are next to each other, suggesting that this chapter could have been better edited:\",\"PeriodicalId\":46483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Studies on Terrorism\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"424 - 426\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Studies on Terrorism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2023.2187839\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Studies on Terrorism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2023.2187839","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在《现代恐怖主义的四波浪潮》(Rapoport 2004)中,David C. Rapoport认为,现代恐怖主义可以通过无政府主义(1 /1879 - 1920)、反殖民主义(2 /1919 - 1960)、新左派(3 /1960 -1990)和宗教(4 /1979 - 2020 ?)来历史地看待和理解。波。意识形态相似,每个波中的组织也有共同的特点,比如标志性的战术、武器和目标。驱动它们的能量在全球范围内传播,并往往持续一代人。自从拉波波特波理论提出以来,它的解释力一直备受争议;有时会受到挑战,但通常会经过测试、证实和应用,以发现被忽视的波浪(da Silva 2020)。不出所料,2011年奥斯陆和Utøya袭击(挪威)、2019年克赖斯特彻奇清真寺枪击案(新西兰)和2019年埃尔帕索枪击案(美国)让恐怖主义研究学者怀疑,这些事件是否正在形成极右翼(第五波)浪潮。在448页的《全球恐怖主义浪潮:从1879年到现在》一书中,大卫·c·拉波波特重新探索了他长期以来的学术研究,以阐明这场激烈的辩论。从定义上讲,拉波波特将恐怖主义理解为“为宗教或政治目的而使用的暴力,不受限制暴力的公认道德规范的限制”(03)。在第一章中,对1879年以前的非波派亚伯拉罕恐怖主义(如犹太Sicarii和zealalots,伊斯兰刺客和基督教十字军)和世俗恐怖主义(如三k党和自由之子)进行了冗长的讨论,这使得这本书的标题似乎并没有真正解释它的内容。然而,它提醒我们,不仅伊斯兰教,犹太教和基督教也被用来鼓励恐怖主义,但西方只给后者赋予了积极的内涵。拉波波特将时间顺序和主题结构巧妙地结合在一起。这位理论家扩展了无政府主义(第二章)和反殖民主义(第三章)浪潮,并通过讨论哥伦比亚政府与哥伦比亚革命舰队之间的和平协议来更新新左派(第四章)浪潮。此外,他广泛阐述了2011年阿拉伯之春如何促成伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯兰国的出现和发展,从而推动了宗教浪潮(第5章),这一章引起了人们的关注,直到关于极右翼浪潮的小说讨论(第6章)。此前,拉波波特(2004,61)认为“伊斯兰世界的三个事件[…]”引发了宗教浪潮:“1979年,伊朗革命爆发,一个新的伊斯兰世纪开始了,苏联无端入侵阿富汗。”现在,他把以色列-埃及和平条约(1979)作为“第二个关键事件(…)”(218)。然而,他没有解释为什么最初没有对它进行评估。令人困惑的是,拉波波特认为“[…]直到浪潮的第三个十年,伊斯兰组织才开始瞄准西方国家,如美国、法国、英国和西班牙”[重点补充](209)。也许,他指的是第二个十年,因为“美国本土的三次恐怖袭击始于1993年,当时对世贸中心的袭击取得了部分成功”(366页)。此外,拉波波特认为,“2006年,哈马斯释放了一名以色列士兵,以换取1027名巴勒斯坦恐怖分子和恐怖分子嫌疑人”(201),然后,他认为“2011年,当哈马斯用一名以色列士兵换取1027名巴勒斯坦恐怖分子和恐怖分子嫌疑人”(202)。以色列士兵吉拉德·沙利特于2006年6月25日被绑架,并于2011年10月18日获释。这些并不是唯一读起来几乎相同且彼此相邻的短语,这表明这一章可以被更好地编辑:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Book Review of Waves of Global Terrorism: From 1879 to the Present
In The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism (Rapoport 2004), David C. Rapoport theorised that modern terrorism can be historically seen and understood through the Anarchist (1st/1879–1920s), Anticolonial (2nd/1919–1960s), New Left (3rd/1960s-1990s) and Religious (4th/1979–2020s?) Waves. Ideologically similar, the organisations within each Wave also share characteristics, such as signature tactics, weaponry, and targets. The energy driving them spreads globally and tends to last one generation. Since the Rapoportian Wave Theory was launched, its explanatory power has been widely debated; sometimes challenged, but usually tested, corroborated and applied to uncover overlooked Waves (da Silva 2020). Unsurprisingly, the 2011 Oslo and Utøya Attacks (Norway), the 2019 Christchurch Mosque Shooting (New Zealand), and the 2019 El Paso Shooting (U.S.) made Terrorism Studies scholars wonder whether these were shaping a Far-Right (5th) Wave. In the 448-page Waves of Global Terrorism: From 1879 to the Present, David C. Rapoport re-explores his longstanding scholarship to shed light on this heated debate. Definitionally, Rapoport understands terrorism as “[. . .] violence employed for a religious or political objective and is not limited by the accepted moral norms that limit violence” (03). In Chapter 1, a lengthy discussion on pre-1879, non-Wave Abrahamic (e.g., Jewish Sicarii and Zealots, Islamic Assassins, and Christian Crusaders) and secular (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan and Sons of Liberty) terrorism makes it appear that the book’s title does not truly translate its content. Yet, it serves to remind us that not only Islam but also Judaism and Christianity have been used to encourage terrorism, but that the West only attributes positive connotations to the latter. Rapoport proceeds by brilliantly combining a chronological and thematic structure. The theorist expands on the Anarchist (Chapter 2) and Anticolonial (Chapter 3) Waves, and updates the New Left (Chapter 4) Wave by discussing the peace agreement between Colombia’s Government and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia. Furthermore, he extensively elaborates on how the 2011 Arab Spring contributed to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s emergence and growth, thus, boosting the Religious Wave (Chapter 5), a chapter that takes the spotlight until the novel discussion on a Far-Right Wave (Chapter 6). Previously, Rapoport (2004, 61) had argued that “[. . .] three events in the Islamic world [. . .]” sparked the Religious Wave: “In 1979, the Iranian Revolution occurred, a new Islamic century began, and the Soviets made an unprovoked invasion of Afghanistan.” Now, he adds the IsraelEgypt Peace Treaty (1979) as “[. . .] the second crucial event [. . .]” (218). However, he does not explain why it was not originally appraised. Confusingly, Rapoport argues that “[. . .] it was not until the third decade of the wave that Islamic groups began targeting Western states like the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Spain” [emphasis added] (209). Perhaps, he meant the second decade because “[s]trikes on American soil began in 1993 with a partially successful effort on the World Trade Center” (366). In addition, Rapoport argues that “[i]n 2006, Hamas released an Israeli soldier in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian terrorists and terrorist suspects” (201), then, he argues that “in 2011, when Hamas exchanged an Israeli soldier for 1,027 Palestinian terrorists and terrorist suspects” (202). The Israeli soldier – Gilad Shalit – was kidnapped on 25 June 2006, and released on 18 October 2011. These are not the only phrases that read almost identically and are next to each other, suggesting that this chapter could have been better edited:
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Studies on Terrorism
Critical Studies on Terrorism POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
41.70%
发文量
62
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信