The word ‘terrorism’ originates from the French Revolution, a term eventually used to describe Maximilien de Robespierre. Initially, the use of the word terreur didn’t have the same negative connotations as it holds today, but after the radicals turned against Robespierre they accused him of terrorisme, a term that has since developed to signify abhorrent criminal associations (E. Herschinger 2013). Nowadays, there are several definitions of terrorism, with each state and non-state faction approaching it from differing angles; there are many reasons why a universal definition has yet to be found, ranging from incompatible national interests, to the inability of the UN to decipher a common definition of political violence. One theory denotes that the numerous definitions of terrorism rest on underlying considerations of “identity, Self and the Other” (E. Herschinger 2013), proving that broad concepts of social principles unique to each state play a role in the varying classifications of what it means to be a terrorist. Moreover, those classifications are contingent upon the parties who analyse them, and their particular cultural values or political leanings will hugely influence those analyses (V. Bartolucci 2013).
David Schafer, a medical physiologist of the Humanist Society, talks about religious terms and their connotations in what it means to be a terrorist (2002). He discusses the concept that, whilst extremist in his religious ideologies, Osama Bin Laden’s underlying political philosophies are, to a certain extent, understandable;
“The US must stop helping Israel in dispossessing the Palestinians, stop propping up corrupt and despotic regimes across the world just because they serve US interests […] Americans will have to accept that their triumphalism and disdain for international law are creating enemies everywhere, not just among Muslims.”
Despite the fact that many people in Western societies understand terrorism as a concept relating primarily to religious extremism, the core of terrorism is in fact nothing to do with religion at all; religion has just been used as a conduit through which to attack culpable states such as the US, the UK and France for their often-indiscriminate use of force against certain nations for their personal political gain. Additionally, a relational theory of terrorism denotes that it is relationships between states and other key actors that explain the roots of terrorism and what it means to be a terrorist, “as opposed to ideas and ideologies” (J. Goodwin 2012). Even Mohammad Sidique Khan, a suicide bomber who killed more than 50 people, accused democracies in the West of “continuously perpetuating atrocities against my people all over the world” (J. Goodwin 20120), exposing the true reasons behind his actions, which were fundamentally political not religious, despite the fact that we use his religion to perpetuate our own ideals of what makes a terrorist. De facto, terrorism as a concept is dependent on the context within which it is used; it is just not about religion.
This brings me to Hezbollah, a political faction that exists under many names; militia, terrorists, Islamic resistance organization, political party and association of social services (K. Wiegand 2009). Despite calls from various Western nations to label them ‘terrorists’, it must be considered that, as a legitimate political party who looks after their communities in the Lebanese context, they have done no more terrible things than some governments; considering the actions of other governments who have committed equally horrifying — if not worse — atrocities worldwide. For example, the Chinese government, who by 2019, had detained some 1.5 million Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps and continue to do so; the US government, who regularly undertake to devastate countries like Afghanistan under the guise of the “War on Terror”; and the UK government, who has likely murdered millions of people throughout imperialist rule. One simply cannot suggest, considering the actions of possibly every imperialist government to date, that Hezbollah have committed worse atrocities. Despite their many downfalls, once compared by the same standard to other governing groups, they are a legitimate a political movement, that provides countless social services for their constituencies, as every other government. Are they terrorists? Perhaps they are, if you can indeed accept that every government in its own right can be labelled terrorists, too.
So, what is terrorism? Honestly, it is dependent on culture, ideology, relationship to statehood, political belief, and countless other variables that are entirely subject to notions of identity. For the sake of conclusion, the best collective definition of terrorism is ‘violence for political gain’; this definition factors in each individual state’s cultural identities and is broadly universal, in the sense that it must be. For without a universal definition such as this, states will continue to use their own changeable definitions to suit their own political principles.
Bibliography
Herschinger, E., 2013. A Battlefield of Meanings: The Struggle for Identity in the UN Debates on a Definition of International Terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 25(2), pp.183–201.
Schafer, D., 2002. Islam and Terrorism: a Humanist View — American Humanist Association. [online] American Humanist Association. Available at: <https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/islam-terrorism-humanist-view/> [Accessed 30 August 2021].
Bartolucci, V. and Gallo, G., 2013. Terrorism, System Thinking and Critical Discourse Analysis. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32(1), pp.15–27.
DUYVESTEYN, I., 2004. How New Is the New Terrorism? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 27(5), pp.439–454.
Wiegand, K., 2009. Reformation of a Terrorist Group: Hezbollah as a Lebanese Political Party. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 32(8), pp.669–680.
Lazrig, H., 2017. [online] Available at: <https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-debate-over-what-constitutes-terrorism/> [Accessed 1 September 2021].
Goodwin, J., 2012. Terrorism. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology, pp.190–204.