Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighter

The phrase one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter is true because of the cultural and social implications of violence. Terrorism is broadly defined as the use of force in order to intimidate or coerce. Therefore any act of violence could be considered terrorism if it is meant to achieve particular political goals could be considered terrorism. Whether these acts are considered terrorism or freedom fighting depends only on the perspective of those viewing the acts of violence. Terrorists are culturally vilified while freedom fighters are culturally glorified. While both freedom fighters and terrorists use violence what separates them is the ends they hope to achieve not the means by which they get there.
The aim of Hezbollah is to wipe Israel off the map and to have in its stead a Palestinian state whereas the goal of Israel is to have an Israeli state without the existence of a Palestinian state. To many who agree with the Palestinian cause Palestinian violent elements are freedom fighters attempting to give their people their homeland and the freedom to live on that land. Subsequently even though they use violence their violence is justified as “not terrorism” because it is for a good cause according to those who support them. On the other hand Israelis tend to see them as terrorists because the Palestinians’ goal directly conflicts with their own. Therefore one person’s freedom fighter whose violent acts are justified because they promote a particular end is another person’s terrorist who directly counters their own goals. Furthermore this discussion depends upon peoples’ definitions of freedom. Israel seeks freedom from a Palestinian presence and Palestine seeks freedom from an Israeli state and therefore each entity’s goals are in conflict with those of the others. This leads to the conclusion that those who are fighting for freedom on one side are also fighting as terrorists in the eyes of their enemy.
The policy implications of this situation are that states risk being viewed as terrorists themselves if they actively fight those who oppose them. However, as a realist would say, they have to defend their nation or they will face ultimate destruction. If a state seeks to eliminate those it deems terrorists it is susceptible to being accused of terrorism by those who support their opponents, which makes it harder for them to win converts to their “side” of the conflict let alone maintaining the people they already have on their side. This is particularly important when dealing with cultural identifications. Those who identify culturally with a group a particular state deems terroristic are much more likely to believe those who share their culture as to who is the real terrorist. This situation makes the fighting “terrorism” extremely difficult within the international system.
Erica Peterson