Heinz kept the old map rolled under his bed — not the one with borders and capitals, but a map of human things: convictions, loyalties, grudges, the places where people’s values met and sometimes caught fire. He liked to trace the routes where belief turned into decision, and decision into movement. To him, the map showed two kinds of collisions: the slow, grinding wars of boots and brigades, and the quick, sharp strikes of terror — different in tempo, related in danger.
On a pale morning in October 2023, a new route blazed across his map. A coordinated assault — rockets, raids, hostages — cut through the normal pattern of life and showed how an act rooted in a set of values could suddenly be experienced as an existential wound by another polity. That wound did not just produce a military reply; it produced a whole new geography of fear, displacement, and law. Between those first hours and the second anniversary of those attacks, the map filled with markers: sieges, ceasefires, negotiations, and sporadic strikes that kept the wound raw. The events of 7 October 2023 reframed a local clash as a regional conflagration that would not be confined to a single moment.
Heinz knew, as students of law and soldiers do, that the line between terrorism and armed conflict is not simply one of morality but of legal category and consequence. International humanitarian law — the body of rules that tells states and fighters what may and may not be done in war — treats acts of violence differently depending on whether they are part of an armed conflict or isolated unlawful attacks. That difference affects detention, targeting, and the protections owed to civilians. But law moves slower than emotion; declarations and labels are made after the first shot and often in the shadow of grief.
He would sometimes tell his students about Sarajevo — a morning in June 1914 when a single assassination, itself an expression of political violence and rage, rippled outward through brittle alliances until an entire continent was pulled into war. One small violent act can, in the right conditions, set alliances in motion and let states translate values into actions on a continental scale. The past was not a replay, but it was a warning: when states and societies refuse to read each other’s signals and fail to recognize the human calculus behind rival values, escalation is not only possible — it becomes likely.
Back in the present, the map’s newest marks were messier. After large-scale fighting, ceasefires would be brokered; promises of disarmament, reconstruction plans, and international monitors would be drafted. Yet in the margins, small attacks, assassinations of commanders, or clandestine rearmament — each an action rooted in some actor’s continuing commitment to a cause — kept the cycle of vengeance alive. A recent high-profile strike that killed a senior commander in Gaza in December 2025 reopened those margins and reminded everyone that a fragile truce can fray because values continue to be acted upon in the shadows. What began as an act framed by one side as terror became legally and politically entangled with wider patterns of armed conflict and states’ responses.
Heinz’s students asked: what stops violence from leaping the gap between terrorism and war? He answered with another map — of prevention. It showed local bridges: community programs, mediation, platforms that interrupt the narratives that turn grievance into violence. It showed national guardrails: rules of engagement, proportionality in response, and transparent legal processes that prevent collective punishment. And it showed international scaffolding: diplomacy, humanitarian corridors, and programs to counter violent extremism before it metastasizes. Agencies at the United Nations and NGOs had been refining these tools — not as a magic wand, but as a set of practical interventions that make escalation harder, not inevitable.
Yet Heinz also pointed to the traps. He read reports on how counterterrorism measures, when clumsy or indiscriminate, can deepen alienation and feed the very grievances they were meant to extinguish. Heavy-handed security policies that marginalize minorities, or that conflate dissent with disloyalty, can redraw the map toward more violence. Prevention required recognition — not agreement — of the rival values that motivated others: the fear, the humiliation, the sense of dispossession. When recognition became impossible and narratives hardened into absolutes, armed action filled the space where conversation should have been.
So he wrote a story — not the sort printed in archives, but a living story he shared in classrooms, town halls, and cafés. In it, two neighbors lived on opposite sides of a narrow valley. One night, a bomb exploded in the market, and each blamed the other’s people. Rumors hardened into proof; proof hardened into revenge. Leaders invoked ancient wrongs and called for sweeping reactions. The valley turned into a trench line. But in a ruined schoolhouse halfway between the lines, a teacher named Leila kept a list of simple facts: who had lost what, where the wells were clogged, which children had no shoes. She invited people to read the list aloud — enemy and friend — and they heard the same human rhythms: hunger, grief, fear. Recognition, she said, was not endorsement; it was the first practical step away from the edge.
Her tiny act did not stop the war. It did something more modest and, he believed, more durable: it made certain escalations less automatic. When a small violent faction tried to reopen the valley’s wound months later, the neighboring towns — having practiced listening and negotiated a small local ceasefire — refused to be swept into a larger war. They demanded evidence, they insisted on due process, and they channeled their fear into local councils that could absorb shock without snapping. They had not erased values; they had given themselves institutions and habits that turned reactive action into considered policy.
Heinz folded the map and slid it back under his bed. The lesson was not that law or diplomacy alone would save the valley. It was that wars often begin where people mistake the other’s values for invitations to annihilation. When societies invest in recognition — the patient work of understanding rival claims, the legal practice of distinguishing acts from actors, and the civic infrastructure to manage grievance — they create friction where once there was tinder. Terrorism and war are neighbors on the map; recognition, he thought, builds the kinds of fences that stop a spark from becoming a continent on fire.
Outside, sirens still sometimes traced new routes on the map. Inside, the small lists in the schoolhouse multiplied. If the world wanted fewer wars it would not start with grand speeches, he told his students. It would start with the slow, unspectacular work of knowing one another’s losses, and treating acts — however abhorrent — as things to be investigated, judged, and remedied rather than as instant declarations of total war.
All names of people and organizations appearing in this story are pseudonyms
Comments