Boaz Ganor's Definition Of Terrorism

Terrorism as a term is equivocal in that it is defined differently by various states. A state such as the United States of America may have a different definition of terrorism compared to a state such as Syria as they both hold contrasting values and principles. Boaz Ganor states in his piece that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (287). This statement helps to emphasis different state’s views on terrorism as a state who agrees with a terrorist organization’s actions may retain that the organization consists of “freedom fighters” instead of terrorists. Ganor discusses this subject matter in depth in his text, giving his opinion on the aforementioned quote as well as if terrorism can in fact have an objective definition.

Ganor puts this differentiation into perspective by comparing the targets of both terrorists and guerrilla fighters. While terrorists intentionally target civilians, guerilla fighter’s targets are military ones (Ganor 288). A civilian can be defined as one who is unarmed, uninvolved, unaware and uninformed. In order to terminate these different views on the qualifications of a terrorist, Ganor proposes that an international definition of terrorism is acquired (289). He suggests that an objective definition of terrorism could be “the deliberate use or the threat to use violence against civilians in order to attain political, ideological and religious aims” (Ganor 288). It is important for a definition such as this to be accepted internationally as current definitions of terrorism can be abused by various factions. Many terrorist organizations use the current ambiguous definition of terrorism to promote their own interests and goals. Although politicians also promote their own interests and needs by making political use of the term “terrorism” by emphasizing the brutality of the term (Ganor 293). Another significant reason that an international definition for terrorism is adopted is to help emphasize the difference between terrorism

Ganor agrees with this idea in that any state can currently define what terrorism actually is according to their perspective and worldview, although he disagrees that they should subjectively be able to define the word in the first place (292). Throughout the piece, Ganor stresses the importance of an international definition of “terrorism” being accepted as many factions can abuse the current ambiguous definition of the word. This ambiguity allows any state to decide and define what violent acts can fall under the category of being committed by a “terrorist” or a “freedom fighter”. If a singular worldwide definition of the word “terrorism” is adopted, many different issues can be resolved such as countries and organizations being held responsible for carrying out terrorist attacks (Ganor 289). Under the current national law, “organizations are not specifically prohibited from perpetrating actions that are considered illegal and abhorrent when carried out by sovereign states” (Ganor 289). This injustice could be addressed virtually to the fullest extent if an international definition of “terrorism” becomes accepted. Ganor further states that “only on the basis of an international agreement on the definition of terrorism will it