Freedom fighters, terrorists: What's the difference?

Azzam Tamimi, Director Institute of Islamic Political Thought, London

Those who claim to be experts on terrorism are simply liars and/or fortune hunters. You cannot study terrorism or observe it. You simply cannot talk academically about a rather subjective concept that is usually employed to camouflage complex phenomena the study of which does not, at the given time and location, seem to interest the users of the term "terrorism".

A straightforward definition of terrorism has been: "the use of force (or violence) to advocate a political cause". Yet it is not as straightforward job defining who a terrorist is. For the use of force to achieve political ends may also be adopted as a definition for concepts such as "legitimate armed struggle" or "freedom fighting" or "jihad".

Even the most closely allied powers of the day, Britain and the United States, have so far disagreed on defining the Irish struggle for independence from British rule and for re-joining the rest of the motherland and be part of The Republic of Ireland.

While the British consider the Irish Republican Army to be a terrorist organization, the Americans provided moral and covert material support to the Irish "freedom fighters". Many British nationals and U.S. citizens would agree that out of self-interest their countries have been embroiled in, or have supported, terrorism on numerous occasions.

The Israelis and their allies in America and Europe considered Hizbollah's struggle to liberate the South of Lebanon from Israeli occupation an act of terrorism. Hizbollah's jihad was vindicated when the Israelis could not take any more beating and decided to withdraw unconditionally, admitting in other words that their occupation of S. Lebanon had been illegitimate and illegal.

Israel and its allies continue to regard Hamas' military wing, Islamic Jihad and the military wings of Fatah and other PLO factions to be terrorists. At least one third of the human population would regard them freedom fighters and consider their armed struggle to be legitimate and in full accord of United Nations standards and those of international law.

On the other hand, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, militant secular Palestinian factions, the majority of Arabs and Muslims around the world and a sizable segment of the world's non-Muslim population, including many in America and Western Europe, agree that Israel is a terrorist state that is imposing an apartheid regime on the Palestinians whose lands and homes have been looted and occupied by European, American and African Jewish immigrants.

The Iraqi besieged and tormented people may consider both the U.S. and the UK, who maintain the sanctions against Iraq and bomb it from the air on regular basis, terrorist states responsible in less than 10 years for the murder of no less than half a million Iraqi children.

The Indians regard the Kashmir insurgence to be an act of terrorism. Few countries agree with them simply because according to the UN Kashmiris have the right to self-determination. The Kashmiri struggle is a legitimate jihad and an act of self- defense that deserves all the support it needs.

Similarly, the Russians have been telling the world that their own victims, the Chechens, whose homes have been destroyed and their people killed or made homeless, are terrorists. The Chechens whose struggle for freedom has been going on for more than a century regard the Russians to be their oppressors and in this they enjoy the support not only of the Muslims but also of many more people across the world.

So why talk about terrorism and terrorists? Why don't governments or nations use straightforward, unambiguous terms in describing their enemies? Many so-called terrorists would emerge as freedom fighters and defenders of noble causes. These would include the Palestinians, the Kashmiris and the Chechens but will not include those who killed more than 6,000 civilians in the attack on the World Trade Center.

Nevertheless, those who carried out the attack in New York should be called anything but terrorists. For it serves no purpose to call them so. Some terrorists may come to be recognized as world heroes. Nelson Mandela was once described by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a terrorist who would not be allowed to set foot on British soil.

The attackers of the World Trade Centers committed an evil crime. No ethical person or community would call them heroes or martyrs. Therefore, a relative term such as "terrorist" does not serve the purpose of telling the world what they are or why they committed such an atrocity.

But what if those terrorized are thieves or some kind of aggressors whom one should seek to punish or deter? The Koran uses the term "terrorize" in the context of exhorting the community to be prepared in case war is waged against it. "And prepare for them (that is the aggressors) as much force as you can so as to "terrorize" the enemy of God and your enemy".

With reference to the attack on America, instead of "terrorism", "aggression", and instead of "terrorist", "aggressor" should be used. Since the concept (or value) of justice is a universal one and since justice is what we are all supposed to be in pursuit of, anyone will recognize what aggression and aggressor means, where as "terrorism" and "terrorist" will continue to be subjective and relative.

It is only in this way that Israeli politicians cannot hope to exploit the suffering of the Americans in order to blur the picture and label the victims of Zionism as terrorists. Similarly Indian politicians cannot succeed in doing the same to their Kashmiri victims or the Russians to their Chechen victims.