In the 21st century, it is convenient to categorize groups fighting against established governments as terrorists. Throughout the globe, disparate protest movements are fighting against persecution by governments based on religious, cultural and political differences. It is difficult to differentiate between terrorists and freedom fighters. In most cases, a group that one calls a terrorist movement might be categorized as a freedom fighting movement. This paper seeks to examine characteristics that changes the categorization of protest movements from legitimate freedom fighter movement to terrorist organization. The argument put forward is that the means and targets of protest movement are critical in defining them as legitimate or illegitimate.
Going way back as early as the 18th century, protest movements have often morphed into guerilla armies. In reaction to government’s indifference to their cause, protest movements can take up arms and fight for freedom. The American war of independence against the British is an early example of struggles for independence that took on a bloody path but is not categorized as a terrorist movement. Most historians and social scientists agree that the individuals who led the war against the British had legitimate reasons. They were fighting for freedom from British oppression and exploitation. It is easy to see the American war as legitimate and Hamas in the Israel-Palestine conflict as illegitimate. Like any other political protest movement, Hamas because of its political activities has been labeled a terrorist group but that is not all it is. It has been portrayed as “an insular, one dimensional entity dedicated sorely to violence and to the destruction of the Jewish state” (Roy, 2011, p. 4). It however is an organization with fully functional social, political and cultural wings with legitimate concerns about the nature and position of Palestine. Hamas is on paper a legitimate political organization with legitimate claims of fighting for the people of Palestine. It won legislative elections of 2006, showing that it was embraced by the people of Palestine. What makes it difficult for Hamas to be identified as a legitimate fighter for freedom is that its leaders admit that their goal is terror. Terror does take for precedence than fighting for freedom. One Hamas leader argued that in response to the US occupation of Iraq, Iraq would be better served if “it equipped its citizens with explosive belts and turned them into human bombs” (Yassim in Roy 2011, p. 17). Such claims make Hamas more of a terrorist organization than a freedom fighting movement. The lack of respect for civilian life is an element that makes terrorist groups different from social movements.
Terrorism in essence is defined as a weapon of the weak. The lack of instruments or capacity for conventional fighting methods leads groups to adopt terror mechanisms. The ultimate weapon of terrorist is fear. This fear is directed towards civilians. Terrorists are aware that directing their attacks towards government fighting forces will change nothing, hence terrorize and destabilize society. What people can identify as terrorist activities today can change into the future and accepted as something legitimate. An example of this is the ‘terror’ acts conducted by the African National Congress (ANC)’s Umkhonto we Sizwe in the fight against apartheid in South Africa (Roy 2011). The ANC was branded a terror organization and so were other anti-colonial forces. Today these groups’ acts are heralded are heroic and they are branded freedom fighters.
Terrorist activities do not always emerge out of the desire to destroy humanity and create chaos.
Most terrorist organizations have legitimate claims. In the 1970s, Irish Catholics revolted against the British. The British responded with harsh treatment of those protesting its rule. It has been documented that harsh government response to mass action leads to radicalization which in the end result in terrorism. (Rosendorff & Sandler 2004). For decades, the IRA was depicted as a terrorist organization. This did not stop it from fighting for the Independence of Ireland. A reflection of the developments in North Africa and the Middle East shows how difficult the categorization of terrorism can be. The flood of protest movements that toppled Mubarak in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya, were peaceful but they were considered terrorist movements by the governments of the time. The Muslim Brotherhood, an organization with terrorist links took over power in Egypt but they were heralded as freedom fighters when they were fighting against Mubarak.
In conclusion, as Hoffman argued, “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” (2006, p. 11). This means that the difference between a protest movement and a terrorist organization is relative. Martin McGuinness and Nelson Mandela lived for the better half of their lives with the label of terrorist on their shoulder. The case of Mandela now identified throughout the world as an agent of peace shows how difficult it is to differentiate between terrorists and freedom fighters. With the movement of time organizations like Hamas just like the ANC can be identified as freedom fighters.
References
Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rosendorff, & Sandler, T. (2004). Too much of a good thing? The proactive response dilemma.
Roy, S. (2011). Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza: Engaging the Islamist Social Sector.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
