GlobalVillageSpace
Media Partner
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2017
- Messages
- 993
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
The coerced dictated definitions: Who are terrorists and freedom fighters?
Global Village Space |
Muhammad Feyyaz |
Qatar is in the eye of a storm, and sectarian blocks have deepened as never before. Indeed, geopolitically, the whole edifice of real politicking is homed on to ensure the security of Israel, and elimination of pockets of resistance posing potential threats to its existence and safety of its citizenry. The prevailing state of human tragedy in Syria, destruction of Iraq’s erstwhile Baathist regime and proscription of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization by the Gulf States and Organization of Islamic Cooperation clearly reveal the extent of punishment that can be or will be inflicted upon those despising Israel, rhetorically as well as actively. The national security of the Middle Eastern Muslim states has thus been explicitly anchored with the allegiance to coexist with Israel as benign subjects or be prepared to face prospects of obliteration and anarchy.
Eventually, Qatar might emerge unhurt, the crisis evokes a conceptual revisit to a crucially important reference underlying this crisis – what is terrorism and whose acts are terrorist activities?
The range and severity of curbs against Qatar by Saudi-led coalition of monarchies and dictatorial governments in the region such as Egypt, that have been slapped due to alleged support by the former to various resistance groups in Israel in particular and the Middle East in general and promoting critical discourse by Al Jazeera, boils down to one single compelling agenda – learn to live with the dictated definition of terrorism and a terrorist. It is simply not like the phrase what the US President George W. Bush famously called “you’re either with us or against us,” but implies hugely much more.
Read more: Qatar: Another reason for the rift between NATO allies?
Terrorists or freedom fighters?
What will be the ultimate outcome of collision course that Saudis and their backers have embarked upon is exceedingly difficult to tell. Even though eventually, Qatar might emerge unhurt, the crisis evokes a conceptual revisit to a crucially important reference underlying this crisis – what is terrorism and whose acts are terrorist activities?
More specifically, the syndrome instantly calls to mind notoriously most widespread assumption, ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ Alex Peter Schmid, one of the pioneers in the field of terrorism studies, is spot on when he argues that while there have been many attempts to find a ‘terrorist personality’, the ‘freedom fighter’ has escaped such profiling. The dominant narrative by Arab monarchies quite curiously points out to the same – in the struggle for liberation by hapless Palestinians and ruthlessly state-led terror campaign by Israel.
Nowhere is the freedom fighter versus terrorist controversy more pronounced than in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Incidentally, prior to the currency of notion of freedom fighters that presumably began after WWII, rebels popularly espoused and felt subjectively pleased for labeling themselves as terrorists. This tradition had continued from the era of Russian revolutionaries in late 19th Century like Narodnaya Volya who displayed no qualms in describing themselves and their deeds as terrorists and terrorism respectively, until the more modern times when Zionist groups like Irgun increasingly began to realize pejorative connotation of the word – terrorist. The buzzword freedom fighters or revolutionaries thus became more fashionable in the post-war environment, and the decolonization phase witnessed its usage at extended scale in Asia, Africa, and later in Latin America. The colonizing powers however preferred to ascribe liberation struggles as acts of terrorism, thereby more formally instituting the dichotomous categorization – terrorist and freedom fighter- for characterizing non-state violent perpetrations.
Read more: The Gulf tightening its noose: What are Qatar’s real options?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Nowhere is the freedom fighter versus terrorist controversy more pronounced than in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Skillfully, hitherto Zionist terrorists first transformed themselves into self-styled freedom fighters, and that with a bang at the world stage with their frequently committed spectacular terrorist performances in British-controlled Palestine, and subsequently after illegally occupying the land and bludgeoning their rule, began to brand freedom struggle by the natives against them as terrorism. In both cases, but more in the latter, one distinguishing characteristic of the resistance movements had been the popular content, earlier by immigrant Jewish community in support of Irgun and other Zionist networks and later by Arab Palestinian population of the PLO, Islamic Jihad, and now Hamas.
Read full article:
The coerced dictated definitions: Who are terrorists and freedom fighters?
Global Village Space |
Muhammad Feyyaz |
Qatar is in the eye of a storm, and sectarian blocks have deepened as never before. Indeed, geopolitically, the whole edifice of real politicking is homed on to ensure the security of Israel, and elimination of pockets of resistance posing potential threats to its existence and safety of its citizenry. The prevailing state of human tragedy in Syria, destruction of Iraq’s erstwhile Baathist regime and proscription of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization by the Gulf States and Organization of Islamic Cooperation clearly reveal the extent of punishment that can be or will be inflicted upon those despising Israel, rhetorically as well as actively. The national security of the Middle Eastern Muslim states has thus been explicitly anchored with the allegiance to coexist with Israel as benign subjects or be prepared to face prospects of obliteration and anarchy.
Eventually, Qatar might emerge unhurt, the crisis evokes a conceptual revisit to a crucially important reference underlying this crisis – what is terrorism and whose acts are terrorist activities?
The range and severity of curbs against Qatar by Saudi-led coalition of monarchies and dictatorial governments in the region such as Egypt, that have been slapped due to alleged support by the former to various resistance groups in Israel in particular and the Middle East in general and promoting critical discourse by Al Jazeera, boils down to one single compelling agenda – learn to live with the dictated definition of terrorism and a terrorist. It is simply not like the phrase what the US President George W. Bush famously called “you’re either with us or against us,” but implies hugely much more.
Read more: Qatar: Another reason for the rift between NATO allies?
Terrorists or freedom fighters?
What will be the ultimate outcome of collision course that Saudis and their backers have embarked upon is exceedingly difficult to tell. Even though eventually, Qatar might emerge unhurt, the crisis evokes a conceptual revisit to a crucially important reference underlying this crisis – what is terrorism and whose acts are terrorist activities?
More specifically, the syndrome instantly calls to mind notoriously most widespread assumption, ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ Alex Peter Schmid, one of the pioneers in the field of terrorism studies, is spot on when he argues that while there have been many attempts to find a ‘terrorist personality’, the ‘freedom fighter’ has escaped such profiling. The dominant narrative by Arab monarchies quite curiously points out to the same – in the struggle for liberation by hapless Palestinians and ruthlessly state-led terror campaign by Israel.
Nowhere is the freedom fighter versus terrorist controversy more pronounced than in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Incidentally, prior to the currency of notion of freedom fighters that presumably began after WWII, rebels popularly espoused and felt subjectively pleased for labeling themselves as terrorists. This tradition had continued from the era of Russian revolutionaries in late 19th Century like Narodnaya Volya who displayed no qualms in describing themselves and their deeds as terrorists and terrorism respectively, until the more modern times when Zionist groups like Irgun increasingly began to realize pejorative connotation of the word – terrorist. The buzzword freedom fighters or revolutionaries thus became more fashionable in the post-war environment, and the decolonization phase witnessed its usage at extended scale in Asia, Africa, and later in Latin America. The colonizing powers however preferred to ascribe liberation struggles as acts of terrorism, thereby more formally instituting the dichotomous categorization – terrorist and freedom fighter- for characterizing non-state violent perpetrations.
Read more: The Gulf tightening its noose: What are Qatar’s real options?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Nowhere is the freedom fighter versus terrorist controversy more pronounced than in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Skillfully, hitherto Zionist terrorists first transformed themselves into self-styled freedom fighters, and that with a bang at the world stage with their frequently committed spectacular terrorist performances in British-controlled Palestine, and subsequently after illegally occupying the land and bludgeoning their rule, began to brand freedom struggle by the natives against them as terrorism. In both cases, but more in the latter, one distinguishing characteristic of the resistance movements had been the popular content, earlier by immigrant Jewish community in support of Irgun and other Zionist networks and later by Arab Palestinian population of the PLO, Islamic Jihad, and now Hamas.
Read full article:
The coerced dictated definitions: Who are terrorists and freedom fighters?
