There are various definitions of this word but one thing they all agree on is that it involves the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Whatever the definitive definition is it universally carries strong negative connotations. No group happily accepts the label of “terrorists”, much preferring other euphemisms such as liberator, revolutionary or freedom fighter.
Who is it then that gets to decide which groups are terrorists and what criteria are they using? This becomes increasingly confusing when you look at different militant groups from different regions and eras. For example, what differences are there between Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’a Islamic political and paramilitary organisation, and the French Resistance, which formed during the Second World War to fight against the Nazi occupation?
Both are or were national movements defending their sovereign territory from foreign occupation. Both used similar tactics of assassinations and bombings which are considered to be terrorist tactics of ‘unlawful violence’ as opposed to ‘lawful acts of war’ according to those who attempt to define it. The only real difference between the two is the use by Hezbollah of suicide attacks; a concept quite alien to European and American culture although they themselves have histories of human sacrifice for national causes.
Maybe then it is not such much what you do as who you know? Hezbollah is a sworn enemy of Israel, who in turn is a close ally of the USA and who in turn is a close ally of the UK. Strangely enough these three countries account for three of the six which consider it to be a terrorist organisation.
Hezbollah is also supported by Iran and Syria neither of which is likely to be invited to a White House garden party any time soon. It would seem an obvious conclusion that this more then anything helped Hezbollah achieve terrorist group status.
By labelling a group or organisation as terrorists you seek to undermine the legitimacy of their cause, depicting them as immoral or unjustified. Whoever uses the term is aligning themselves to a particular side. Quite simply in its modern day usage anyone who uses violence against you is a terrorist whatever their purpose or ideology. The Palestinians fire rockets or launch a suicide attack against Israel and are denounced by the Israelis as terrorists. The Israelis respond by bulldozing refugee’s homes and killing civilians in military attacks and are in return also denounced as terrorists by the Palestinians.
All acts of violence are intended to terrorise and intimidate people so surely anyone who engages in violence is a terrorist. Once terrorism was seen as an attack on Governments and society but now we have state-sponsored terrorism and entire countries condemned as terrorists. Where is the dividing line between ‘unlawful violence’ and ‘legitimate acts of war’ when civilians are killed in order to liberate them and governments indulge in kidnapping and torture, although now re-branded as extra-ordinary rendition, and detain people for years without trial.
Has a word that is liberally used to conduct wars and violate international law now lost all its meaning since it was first coined to describe the nineteenth century anarchists who embraced its label? It is easy to understand why the notion of a war on terror or terrorism is highly controversial to some people. There is no tangible enemy in a war on terrorism, when anyone who is an enemy is also a terrorist. It gives governments a license to attack anyone for any reason and then to use terrorism as an excuse to hide their truer hidden motives.
