Amos Schocken, publisher of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, recently stated that the Israeli government is "fighting Palestinian freedom fighters whom Israel calls terrorists," igniting a fresh wave of public debate.
The discussion largely arises from a mistaken assumption that an individual or organization can only be classified as either a freedom fighter or a terrorist, but never both. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how terrorism is defined and recognized internationally.
The real distinction lies in goals versus methods. While one might question whether a movement or an individual genuinely fights for freedom or for less noble ends, identifying someone as a terrorist is about the methods they choose to achieve their objectives. According to international agreements, an act is considered terrorism when it deliberately inflicts death or serious injury on civilians to instill fear or compel a government or international organization to act in a particular way.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 broadens this definition by including hostage-taking and firmly stating that any political, ideological, or religious grounds cannot justify terrorism. In other words, even a noble goal of freedom cannot justify resorting to terrorism.
By these standards, the actions of Palestinian organizations such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and even seemingly secular groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as seen on Oct. 7, 2023, and throughout various other instances, fall clearly under the definition of terrorism. Even critics of Israel's policies in the West Bank, if they adhere to international law fairly, must acknowledge this. When Israel refers to these groups as terrorist organizations, the term is applied accurately.
Of course, some may argue that Palestinian individuals and organizations who oppose what they term the "Israeli occupation" might genuinely aspire to establish a Palestinian state without resorting to terrorism. Some argue that Israel sometimes uses anti-terror measures against political opponents, such as in cases involving the administrative detention of Palestinian lawmakers.
Security officials, however, have asserted that they possess classified information indicating the covert involvement of these individuals in terrorist activities, and the courts have generally accepted these claims. Naturally, the classified nature of this information, even if necessary, makes it challenging to convince critics who argue that counter-terrorism tools are sometimes misused.
In any case, the familiar saying that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is both incorrect and misleading. The labels "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" operate on entirely different levels – the former refers to the goals being pursued, while the latter pertains to the means used to achieve them.
Colonel (Res.) Dr. Liron A. Libman served as the head of the International Law Department in the IDF and is now a private lawyer, mediator, and lecturer at Sapir College.
