Violence & Resistance: Why Some Resort to What is Perceived as Terrorism

Our news channels have bombarded the populations of the world with designations of terrorist, terrorism & acts of terror. These are familiar refrains which pass us by without much notice, so accustomed we have become to such language. Still a noticeable shift has emerged in the awareness of the average person. Given the events of the last year many have been left asking, "why are the side under occupation with almost no means of defence terrorists and yet the wealthy, nuclear armed occupier, just acting in self defence". Lets attempt to examine this phenomena, which is nothing new, in more detail.

Throughout history, resistance movements seeking freedom, autonomy, or justice from oppressive regimes have frequently employed what are labeled as "terrorist" tactics. While the label of terrorism is often loaded with negative connotations, it is crucial to understand the underlying dynamics that push certain groups toward the use of such tactics. This article aims to explore why resistance groups sometimes believe that the use of violence, including actions perceived as terrorism, is necessary to achieve their objectives.

The Nature of Power and Oppression

Oppressive regimes and powerful states rarely relinquish control voluntarily. Whether fighting colonialism, dictatorship, or systemic inequality, resistance groups are often up against well-entrenched power structures with significant resources, military strength, and political influence. These regimes tend to protect their interests aggressively and are generally unwilling to engage in negotiations unless pressured.

For many resistance groups, peaceful protests and diplomatic negotiations are insufficient to challenge such entrenched power. They may be met with violent crackdowns, censorship, imprisonment, or even assassination. Faced with these obstacles, resistance movements often feel forced into adopting more extreme tactics to break through the overwhelming power imbalance. As Frantz Fanon, a prominent anti-colonial theorist, once argued, when all nonviolent means are suppressed, the colonized or oppressed may find violence to be their only avenue for liberation.

Asymmetry of Power and the Use of Guerrilla Tactics

One of the most important factors that explain why resistance groups may resort to what is perceived as terrorism is the asymmetry of power. Governments, especially those with strong military capabilities, possess overwhelming force compared to most resistance movements. Direct military confrontation is often not an option for resistance groups due to a lack of resources, manpower, and access to conventional weaponry. In this context, guerrilla tactics and other forms of asymmetrical warfare, which may include attacks on military targets or acts of sabotage, can seem like the only effective means to level the playing field.

These tactics are often labeled as "terrorist" because they may involve actions that inflict violence on civilians or create widespread fear and instability. However, for many resistance movements, such actions are seen as a form of psychological warfare designed to undermine the legitimacy of the state, exhaust its resources, and erode public support for the government. By targeting key infrastructure or symbols of power, resistance groups aim to make governance costly and to show that the state is not as invincible as it seems.

The Political Nature of "Terrorism" Labels

It is important to recognise that the term "terrorism" is highly political. Governments often use it to delegitimise any form of armed resistance, regardless of the reasons behind it. Many resistance groups that have been labeled as terrorists in the past, such as Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) or the Irish Republican Army (IRA), were later recognised as legitimate political actors or freedom fighters once they achieved their objectives.

The use of violence by resistance movements is often framed by governments as irrational or fanatical. However, when viewed from the perspective of the resistance fighters, these tactics may be seen as a rational response to an oppressive situation. While their actions may be violent, they often arise from a deep sense of desperation and a belief that more peaceful methods of change have been closed off.

The Role of Violence in Sparking Negotiations

Another reason why resistance groups resort to violent or so-called terrorist actions is that violence can force governments to the negotiating table. History has shown that governments often ignore peaceful resistance for years, but when faced with sustained violence that threatens political stability or economic interests, they may become more willing to negotiate.

For example, the British government was largely indifferent to the peaceful demands of Indian independence activists until World War II created pressure on Britain to rethink its colonial policies. In Ireland, peaceful attempts to achieve independence from British rule were ignored until the Easter Rising of 1916, which, although violently suppressed, helped galvanise public support for Irish independence and eventually led to the establishment of the Irish Free State.

This is not to say that violence is always the most effective or desirable option, but in many cases, resistance groups see it as the only means of getting their demands taken seriously. Governments that are unyielding in the face of peaceful resistance often find themselves dealing with more violent uprisings as a result.

Terrorism as a Tool of Political Messaging

Violent actions, particularly those labeled as terrorist attacks, are often intended as political statements. They are designed not just to inflict damage but to draw attention to a cause that might otherwise be ignored. These actions force both the government and the public to reckon with the grievances of the resistance movement.

In situations where the media and public discourse are tightly controlled by the government, acts of violence can serve as a powerful form of communication. The explosion of a bomb, for instance, can act as a megaphone for groups that have been systematically silenced, drawing international attention to their plight. The intention is to create a spectacle that forces the world to take notice, even if the immediate result is condemnation.

This strategy is risky, as it often leads to increased repression and public backlash. However, for resistance groups facing annihilation or obscurity, the risk may seem justified if the alternative is to remain unheard.

Moral Ambiguities and the Ethics of Resistance

The use of violent tactics by resistance groups raises important moral and ethical questions. Is it ever justified to use violence in the pursuit of political goals? Can the ends such as freedom, justice, or self-determination justify the means of inflicting harm on civilians or creating fear?

These questions are difficult to answer, and opinions vary depending on one's perspective. From the point of view of those who are oppressed, violent resistance may be seen as a legitimate form of self-defense against an unjust system. On the other hand, many argue that the use of violence, especially against civilians, can never be justified and ultimately undermines the moral authority of the resistance movement.

However, it is worth noting that many states themselves engage in violent actions that harm civilians, often under the guise of maintaining order or defending national security. Governments frequently employ military force, police violence, and even forms of state terrorism to suppress dissent. In such cases, resistance groups may argue that their use of violence is simply a mirror of the violence inflicted upon them by the state.

Conclusion: The Perceived Necessity of Violent Tactics

In conclusion, while many may find the violent tactics employed by some resistance groups often labeled as terrorism abhorrent, these actions are often seen by the groups themselves as necessary steps in their struggle for survival and justice. Faced with overwhelming state power, limited access to peaceful channels of change, and systemic repression, resistance groups often feel that they have no choice but to employ violent tactics to achieve their objectives.

The use of violence by resistance movements is not inevitable, but it is often the result of a complex interplay of political, social, and economic factors. While violence can achieve short-term gains and force governments to negotiate, it also comes with significant moral and strategic risks. Ultimately, the path chosen by any resistance movement depends on the specific context in which they are operating and the extent to which peaceful methods have been exhausted or rendered ineffective.

Always ask these questions when you hear the terrorist label, are the people in question suffering? how profound are the crimes that have been committed against them & most importantly what alternative to violent resistance is available to them, and has this alternative any viable hope to alleviating their suffering? Pertinent questions in the context of the middle east today.