On the Legitimacy and Justification of Terrorism

Whether or not terrorism can be legitimate or justified depends on how one defines terrorism. I choose to define it as purposely killing, trying to kill, or threatening to kill civilians to effect political change. There are two caveats to this definition. One, “purposely” implies not only that there is a willingness to kill civilians to achieve a political goal, but also that the political goal itself requires the killing of civilians. “Collateral damage” could be considered terroristic if the attackers know they could possibly kill civilians and do nothing or close to nothing to minimize this danger, because they believe their political strategy necessitates and their political goals justify such killing. Two, the destruction of public or private property so as to threaten a civilian population could also be considered terrorism, because it is virtually the same as threatening to kill civilians.

The political legitimacy of any government is rooted in the consensus/support of the people whom it governs, and is thus subjective. This definition of legitimacy, I think, is not just a “Western” concept. Even dictatorships as ruthless as Joseph Stalin’s or Saddam Hussein’s have to have some sort of support from their people; oppression is an effective way to gain “support” by convincing the people the government cannot be questioned or challenged. Ironically, in cases such as these, the legitimacy of the government is predicated on the use of terrorism as it is defined above. Terrorism, then, can only be legitimate in the eyes of supporters of the terrorists’ cause. If that cause is to maintain state control over a civilian population, it is legitimate in the eyes of the state. In the eyes of the civilian population, if they believe their terrorist government is a legitimate one, then they at least tacitly support its terrorism, and thus legitimize it. If that cause is to bring down a government (perhaps the same government that terrorizes its own citizens), then in the eyes of those who want to bring it down, killing civilian administrators who work for the government, etc. is legitimate because the government they work for is illegitimate. In other words, the legitimacy of terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder.

But legitimacy and justice are not necessarily the same thing. Justice, in my opinion, is a more objective concept than legitimacy. Whereas legitimacy depends on human opinion, which can change over time, justice is absolute, even though human opinion may differ as to what it actually is. For example, because the legitimacy of a government depends on the support of its people, one day a government can be legitimate and the next day it may not be. But, simply because the people viewed their government’s actions differently the next day, does not necessarily mean its actions were just one day and not the next.

In my opinion, killing civilians can never be justified. Even “collateral damage,” no matter how much care was put into avoiding it, is at best manslaughter and at worst terrorism – it should be treated as a detestable reality of war rather than as an acceptable reality of war. This means military planners must put a premium on civilian life at the expense of strategic goals, rather than the other way around. This is especially true in a war against terrorism in which the opinion of the global population decides the legitimacy of political actions. And, even though one’s opinion about justice is fallible, since perception is reality for the individual, that doesn’t really matter. In other words, individuals and groups can believe terrorism is justified for their cause, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so. What it does make it is much more likely terrorism will be carried out in the name of that cause.

The onus of proof is on the group committing the killing, and its legitimacy or justification lies in the hearts and minds of the people who are the intended audience.

A real-world example here is helpful. Attacks on Israeli civilians are considered justified by many Palestinians, and the argument that justifies these attacks is vigorously promulgated by groups Israelis and many Westerners would call terrorist. The question of who’s right and who’s wrong is not as important – and virtually impossible to answer – as are the questions, What is the rationale behind these terrorists’ justification? and, How can those who believe them be convinced otherwise?

If a global consensus can be reached on the definition of terrorism as being purposely killing civilians, along with the two caveats, then major changes may take place. First, any argument justifying the killing of civilians can be easily countered with, “no cause is worth the lives of innocents.” This will constrain many governments, and rightfully so. This may also ameliorate the political and social conditions of civilian populations in which terrorism breeds, because oppressive regimes and/or foreign invaders will be forced to take the people’s opinion into account when executing their security/military strategy. Second, finding a common definition – and a strict one at that – for terrorism may bridge the gap between “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist,” and thus unite peace-seeking communities against warmongers on all sides. Third, because civilian casualties is a reality of war (whether thought of as detestable or acceptable), a global community bounded by the notion of “never kill civilians” could – theoretically, at least – begin to slowly make the idea of war itself undesirable under any circumstances. These idealistic goals can only be achieved gradually – maybe over a thousand years – and with a lot of hard work, but each goal reinforces the other, and, if we truly care about our children and our world, we should begin now.