Freedom Fighters

Much like the term terrorist, the term freedom fighter means many things to different people. This is why trying to define or classify freedom fighter to everyone's satisfaction proves nearly impossible: thus the adage, “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.” According to that logic, one could theoretically label Yasir Arafat a freedom fighter and George Washington a terrorist. While it is conceivable that comparing the first president of the Palestinian Authority with the first president of the United States might not raise eyebrows by the 22nd century, for now the comparison is problematic.

Freedom fighters and terrorists can be distinguished from each other by taking into consideration the targets of their operations. Freedom fighters predominantly concentrate on military targets, whereas terrorists deliberately target civilians; for terrorists, inspiring fear in a general population is as [Page 144]important as, if not more important than, the particular individuals killed or injured. Most terrorists view themselves as freedom fighters, especially those who are fighting for national liberation or some other worthy goal. However, while one might feel that the unification of Ireland is a legitimate political objective, the actions of the Irish Republican Army in targeting civilians require that they be viewed as terrorists, not freedom fighters.

More than semantics is at stake. The distinction between the terms is important because these terms, especially when used by the media, can serve to subtly legitimize particular groups. In other words, describing a group as being made up of freedom fighters implies legitimate involvement with a struggle for national liberation or the like. However, the use of the term freedom fighter by the media does not guarantee legitimacy of mission. For example, Hezbollah fighters, often referred to in the press as guerrilla fighters, ousted the Israeli Army from southern Lebanon ending a 22-year occupation. Yet Hezbollah is characterized by many as a terrorist organization and so listed by the U.S. State Department.

It can be safely assumed that the terrorist/freedom fighter paradox will continue to provide the backdrop for debate about the legitimacy of individual and group actions. For example, some news organizations in the United States inspired a heated controversy in 2001 when it was announced that they would not use the word terrorist when referring to the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks. Defenders of the decision argued that it was an attempt to remain neutral by avoiding an emotionally loaded term. However, the vehemence of the reaction against this decision demonstrates how much power a simple word can wield.