Force against Resistance Movements - Research Paper Example

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist? There have developed many conflict situations in the world today and these have mainly been as a result of resistance movements against sitting governments. The governments which have faced resistance have often labeled resistance movements as terrorists and have used this term as a means of justifying their use of force against these movements. Therefore, over the years, most resistance movements have been viewed as terrorist organizations and have become victims of massive crackdowns, murder, and long prison terms as a result. It is therefore necessary to make a clear definition between terrorists and freedom fighters because while one group aims at causing chaos, the other fights for justice. Many resistance organizations have been put on the official list of terrorist organizations of the United States and among these are Hezbollah and Hamas. Among Palestinians, members of these organizations are considered to be freedom fighters who are fighting for the liberation of their homeland. Hezbollah and Hamas have been fighting against Israel for decades and this has mainly been because of Jewish occupation of lands that are believed to be legitimately Palestinian. As a result, these organizations have come to gain a reputation of being the only legitimate defenders of Palestinian interests in a world which many Palestinians believe has abandoned them. Hezbollah is based in Lebanon and has been an active participant in the affairs of this country for decades as a representative of the Shia sect. with massive funding from Iran, this organization has been able to develop an armed wing which is extremely competent and has managed to hold its own against the far superior Israeli army (Saad-Ghorayeb 168). This can be attested through its performance in the 2006 Israel-Lebanese war where Hezbollah played a significant role in ensuring that the Israeli military did not get a foothold in Lebanon. In some cases, Hezbollah has been praised for ensuring that, according to some analysts, that the war became so costly for Israel that it had to withdraw from Lebanon. It was after this war that Hezbollah’s credibility within Lebanon in the twenty first century was firmly established in the political sphere where this organization has become an active participant. While Hezbollah is still considered to be a terrorist organization by some western states, especially the United States, it has managed, through its popularity, to successfully field candidates in Lebanese elections. A result of its involvement in politics has been that it has ended up winning a significant number of seats in parliament which has ensured its continued influence (Lamloum 353). In Lebanon, where Hezbollah is based, this movement is considered to be a fighter for the freedom of not only this country, but also of those Palestinians whose land has been occupied by Israel. Its reputation as a competent fighter for freedom has made Hezbollah very powerful politically and it is because of this that it has remained popular despite western countries labeling it a terrorist organization. While this movement started out as strictly a militia group to serve the interests of Shias and Palestinians in Lebanon, over the years, it seems to have began to take on a role that will ensure its future in a more peaceful Middle East through getting directly involved in politics. Some members of this organization have chosen to run for and won parliamentary seats while at the same time, Hezbollah has also provided support to individuals allied to it support in politics. In this way, Hezbollah has been able to increase its credentials as a resistance movement because by winning parliamentary seats, it has taken an active part in discarding its image as a terrorist organization. By getting involved in Lebanese politics, Hezbollah has managed to increase its legitimacy as a fighter for the freedom of Lebanon. Governments whose legitimacy is questionable have taken to labeling all of those movements that resist them as terrorists. An example of this is the Assad regime in Syria which, when faced with rebellion as a result of its refusal to undertake reforms labeled those who had rebelled as terrorists and as a result launched a brutal crackdown which resulted in the Syrian civil war. However, for a large number of the Sunni majority in Syria, these rebels have come to be seen as freedom fighters that are fighting for the cause of freedom which has been denied them by the Assad family (Hinnebusch 95). The armed rebellion in Syria is aimed at overthrowing the Assad regime and instituting democratic reforms within the country so that its people can have a say in its governance. While this may be the case, there are some groups within these rebels which have the aim of a purely Islamic state with little or no democracy within it. These have developed a reputation of attacking and murdering all those groups that are opposed to their ideology and as a result, these can be considered to be terrorists (Landis 72). Because freedom fighters are defined as those individuals who fight for the freedom of their people as well as their homelands, some organizations in the Syrian rebellion do not fit this definition. Those individuals involved in fighting against the government who belong to such groups as the al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), can only be defined as terrorists. This is because these groups have taken a radical approach which is based on terrorizing and killing civilians who do not follow their doctrine or are not members of the Sunni sect. The terror unleashed by these two groups has removed their credibility as freedom fighters and has instead come to make them little more than terrorists who are determined to impose their beliefs on the people in territory they control. In most cases, freedom fighters often emerge in countries where there are oppressive governments or in countries which are occupied by foreign powers. This was the case in some African countries during the colonial period when many African nationalist groups emerged to fight for their people’s freedom. These movements used different means to achieve their aims and among these was the use of dialogue as well as military force. In Kenya, there emerged the Mau Mau movement whose aim was to ensure that white minority rule ended in the country and that Africans regained the lands and freedoms which they had lost when they were colonized (Branch 292). The Mau Mau movement was labeled as terrorists by the British colonial government and its members and suspected members were either hunted down as terrorists or sentenced in circumstances which were unfavorable for them. As a result, many men and women lost their lives in the fight for freedom and while they were labeled terrorists by the colonial government, when Kenya gained independence, they were recognized as freedom fighters and honored as such. The rehabilitation of Mau Mau fighters’ image from that of terrorists to freedom fighters was essential because most of the African population in Kenya considered them to be the latter. The Mau Mau movement being labeled as terrorists is an example of an instance where a government is threatened and needs justification to use force to ensure its survival. However, in most cases this labeling only increases the determination of freedom fighters and these has often resulted in long conflicts as seen in such countries as Myanmar and Colombia. In the contemporary world, following the lead of media, a conscious attempt has been made to ensure that freedom fighters are referred to in neutral terms. Such terms as insurgents or militants have become the norm when referring to freedom fighters because in most instances, these individuals fight for the cause of freedom in situations where it is difficult to determine who will win. On the other hand, the term terrorist has come to describe a large number of groups, such as al Qaeda, which are organizations whose aim is to cause chaos among those they term to be enemies (Bale 777). These organizations tend to have vague aims and their activities inevitably end up with the death of innocents. This is something which makes al Qaeda different from Hezbollah because while the former concentrates on acts of terror, the latter also gets directly involved in the lives of those that they claim to represent. For example, Hezbollah has an extensive social welfare program that it operates for the benefit of those individuals who live in territory that it controls. These programs have endeared Hezbollah to those who believe in its cause and while it still remains in the United States’ list of terrorists organizations, it has managed to ensure that its credibility as a freedom fighter among those it represents is retained. In conclusion, the distinction between who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter has become quite problematic in the modern world. This is essentially because where people from different cultures and ideologies view individuals or groups as terrorists; another tends to view them as freedom fighters. However, a distinction can be made between these two groups of individuals based on their causes as well as their consideration for the welfare of those they claim to represent. Therefore, while terrorists can be defined as agents of chaos, freedom fighters are those whose cause is the achievement of freedom and justice for their people. Works Cited Bale, Jeffrey M. "Deciphering Islamism and Terrorism." Middle East Journal 60.4 (2006): 777–788.Print Branch, Daniel. "The Enemy Within: Loyalists and the War Against Mau Mau in Kenya". The Journal of African History 48.2 (2007): 291–315. Print Hinnebusch, Raymond. "Syria: From Authoritarian Upgrading to Revolution?". International Affairs 88.1 (2012): 95–113. Print Lamloum, Olfa. "Hezbollahs Media: Political History in outline". Global Media and Communication 5.3 (2009): 353–367. Print Landis, Joshua. "The Syrian Uprising of 2011: Why the Assad Regime Is Likely to Survive to 2013". Middle East Policy 19.1 (2012): 72–84. Print Saad-Ghorayeb, Amal. Hizbullah: Politics and Religion. London: Pluto Press, 2002. Print Read More