To what extent do you agree that violence and terror can be justified to achieve political objectives? What is the difference between terrorism and freedom-fighting?

Within global politics, terrorism and political violence are common and often split opinion due to them being both hard to define and justify. This essay will provide an evaluation of what makes political violence in the form of terrorism justifiable in some cases, with the aim of then using this to help better discern where the line can be drawn in regards to the difference between freedom fighters and terrorist groups. In order to do this, I am going to first attempt to define both of these terms (although there is no official fixed definition of either), before looking at where violence can be seen as crossing a line and then looking into how history, morals, and goals affect both the justification for the extent of violence as well as help split terrorists and freedom fighters. All of this will highlight that violence in the form of terror can be argued as somewhat just as long as it follows moral guidelines and does not directly target civilians, with the extent of the violence acting as an essential tool in separating terrorism and freedom fighting; however, it is difficult to completely separate groups along these lines.

Firstly, while “Most researchers tend to believe that an objective and internationally accepted definition of terrorism can never be agreed Upon” (Ganor, 2010, p. 287), there have been attempts to define it that can prove useful in highlighting the key differences that are often visible. Oxford Languages sees terrorism as “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” (“Terrorism”, n.d.). In contrast, The Britannica Dictionary sees a freedom fighter as “a person who is part of an organized group fighting against a cruel and unfair government or system” (“Freedom Fighter”, n.d.). These highlight the contrast between these two groups within contemporary politics, as while it is clear that “Freedom fighters and terrorists often do have many similarities”, the most clear of which is that “Both groups take part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal” (“Why Terrorists Aren't Freedom Fighters”, 2023.). What differentiates these two groups is in some cases, how “just” their cause is, or more commonly, how far they go in order to achieve their aims, with violent acts aimed at civilians often where the line is drawn between freedom fighters and terrorists. It is a combination of these two factors that can be used to separate these two groups, despite not all groups filling both categories. These definitions are useful in order to provide the basis upon which it can be argued that these groups are essentially two sides of the same coin, both justifying violence and terror in order to achieve their goals, therefore requiring an objective evaluation of a group's actions and goals to see both how far violence and terror can be justified and the difference between terrorism and freedom fighting.

A question that therefore must be posed in this case is, to what extent can violence be seen as the deciding factor as to the difference between freedom-fighting and terror? Ganor argues that “A correct and objective definition of terrorism can be based upon accepted international laws and principles regarding what behaviours are permitted in conventional wars between nations” (Ganor, 2010, p. 288), therefore seeing freedom fighting as terror when it moves away from following the rules of war. This is due to the targets of terrorism often being civilians, in order to instil fear, as it can make the threat of a smaller group seem much larger than in reality. “Terrorism exploits the relative vulnerability of the civilian ‘underbelly’” (Ganor, 2010, p. 294). However, this is not to argue that any form of violence in pursuit of a goal is terrorism, as it can be argued that "where there is no viable alternative way to defend our moral rights to free expression or be given a hearing, violence may be morally justifiable” (Brooks, 2010, p. 192). This is the idea that an oppressed population will almost always have to resort to violence in order to see political change. This can be linked to the theory of “just war,” as under the views of Aquinas, “according to the natural law, rational creatures have an obligation to defend and preserve their lives.” (Eardley et al, 2011 p. 109.). This argument can be used to justify violence against a clear enemy while still highlighting the fact that, under no circumstances, intentional civilian murders are a form of freedom fighting. This idea can be very effectively outlined through the use of a political violence matrix separating political violence along these lines (civilian/combatant) as well as the level of force used (discriminate/indiscriminate).

(Gus, 2019, p. 84)

This can then be used to show how far political violence can be justified before it can be seen as terror, with a group's “just cause” being undermined when civilian targets are involved, which will be explored further below. Overall highlighting that the extent to which violence can be taken in a political sense is related to whether the target is a combatant or a civilian, with this also working to separate freedom fighters from terrorists.

The final aspect this essay will explore is the extent to which a group's actions can be justified through the oppression faced. All groups, both terror and freedom fighters, will see their actions as just under their own set of beliefs, once again highlighting the fact that “Both groups take part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal” (“Why Terrorists Aren't Freedom Fighters”, 2023.). However, there are two clear distinctions that can still be used to separate these groups. The first of these is the idea that “There is no merit or exoneration in fighting for the freedom of one population if in doing so you destroy the rights of another population.” (Ganor, 2010, p. 288). This can be used to separate the actions of the two types of groups. Where a freedom-fighting group looks to create positive change, such as the civil rights movement in the USA, a terrorist group would look to institute a new form of oppression, simply moving from being the oppressed into being the oppressor. An example of this would be ISIS, who have done serious damage to women's rights in areas under their control (“women suffer under ISIS”, 2016).

The second distinction that can be seen is once again related to the level of violence employed and whether or not it can be argued as the “ends justifying the means” (n.d.). A clear example of this comes in the form of the views of Al Qaeda and its leader Bin Laden. Their cause can be argued as initially being just, with Bin Laden having the goal of simply ending the Muslim oppression caused by the US meddling in their countries affairs (Owens et al, 2023, p. 217.). However the actions on 9/11 left nearly 3000 civilians dead, showing a clear example of political violence gone too far, further highlighting that civilian targets cannot be justified (Hartig, & Doherty, 2021). Al Qaeda can also be seen as moving away from the very basis on which their initial beliefs and goals came from, as “The jihadi insurgencies became increasingly sectarian and astonishingly violent, compromising Al Qaeda’s brand and Bin Laden’s vision” (Owens et al, 2023, p. 217.). This proves a clear example of a terror group as they moved away from their values and goals, as well as the fact that the violence used was not “based upon accepted international laws and principles” (Ganor, 2010, p. 288).

A terror group however, will not always fit both of these criteria. Hamas, while officially being determined a terror group by the UK home office (Home Office, 2024), as well as their actions towards civilians, establishing them as a terror group using the previously established criteria in this essay, can split opinion. On moral grounds, many argue that Hamas represents an oppressed people pushing back, as found by survey, 60% of young adults see Hamas attacks as justified on moral grounds (Frazer, 2023). This shows just how difficult it is to truly define a terror group, due to the fact that there is no one size fits all approach, as this essay highlights, there are a number of factors that can differentiate terror groups from freedom fighters and in some cases one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

To conclude, it can be seen that violence and terror can have some level of justification under the correct set of circumstances, however civilian targets can be seen as crossing the line, moving a group's aims from freedom fighters into terrorists. While still contentious due to a lack of an official definition of a terrorist, as well as examples of blurring the lines between terror and freedom fighting (e.g. Hamas), the criteria presented can largely be used to separate freedom fighters from terrorists, with the extent of the violence and the goals behind it making up key elements that can highlight splits between the groups.

Bibliography

Brooks, T. (2010). Justifying Terrorism. Public Affairs Quarterly, 24(3),192-193. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25767215?seq=1

Eardley. & Peter, S. & Carl, N. (2011). Aquinas: a Guide for the Perplexed.Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/portsmouth-ebooks/detail.action?docID=634556

Frazer, J. (2023,December 20). 60 percent of young adults in the US say Hamas attacks justified, shock survey finds. Jewish News. https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/60-percent-of-18-24-year-olds-in-the-us-say-hamas-attacks-justified-survey-finds/

Freedom Fighter. (n.d.). In The Britannica Dictionary.9th May, 2024, from https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/freedom-fighter#:~:text=Britannica%20Dictionary%20definition%20of%20FREEDOM,and%20unfair%20government%20or%20system

Ganor, B. (2010). Defining Terrorism: Is One Man's Terrorist another Man's Freedom Fighter?. Police Practice and Research, 3 (4), 288-295. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1561426022000032060

Gus, M. (2019). Terrorism. SAGE Publications.https://prism.librarymanagementcloud.co.uk/port/items/1373895?query=terrorism&resultsUri=items%3Fquery%3Dterrorism%26facet%255B0%255D%3Dcollection%253A%26facet%255Bpublishedyear%255D%255Bfrom%255D%3D2015%26facet%255Bpublishedyear%255D%255Bto%255D%3D2024&facet%5B0%5D=collection%3A&facet%5Bpublishedyear%5D%5Bfrom%5D=2015&facet%5Bpublishedyear%5D%5Bto%5D=2024

Hartig, H., & Doherty, C. (2021, September 2nd). Two Decades Later, the Enduring Legacy of 9/11. Pew Research Centre. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/09/02/two-decades-later-the-enduring-legacy-of-9-11/

Home Office. (2024, April 26th). Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations. Gov.UK.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version

Iraq: Women Suffer Under ISIS. (2016, April 5th). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/06/iraq-women-suffer-under-isis

Owens, P., & Baylis, J., & Smith, S. (2023). The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations (2). Oxford University Press. https://prism.librarymanagementcloud.co.uk/port/items/1515267

Terrorism. (n.d.). In Oxford Languages.9th May, 2024, from https://www.google.co.uk/search?sca_esv=33fda89bc4ea5a26&sca_upv=1&q=terrorism&si=ACC90nytWkp8tIhRuqKAL6XWXX-NikuTQYXFZaqcbyWasjWYRbZFktkLr6LyAiD97u6h8Vd8bvKU_CXGr57ULoxkPysviGaenf6Tl2tg4zrKVhlBLEWDq9U%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio9eLLs4GGAxWETEEAHRQlCFoQ2v4IegQIIxAW&biw=1600&bih=1073&dpr=1

the end justifies the means. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster Dictionary. Retrieved May 14th, 2024, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the%20end%20justifies%20the%20means

Why terrorists aren’t freedom fighters. (2023, October 13th). ERLC. https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/why-terrorists-arent-freedom-fighters/

Footer

This is an essay I previously wrote as part of my degree, feel free to give any feedback :)