The Similarities between PLO and FLN and How Both Groups Fought for Freedom

Post by 

Chirusha de Mel

March 26, 2017

Professor Shirk

Blog Post 2

The Similarities between PLO and FLN and How Both Groups Fought for Freedom

While learning about the different groups in class, such as the PLO and FLN, it is important to understand another perspective on why these groups are fighting for freedom, whereas categorizing them as terrorist groups. According to Daniel Pipes, the PLO is considered to be more like Algeria’s FLN, both groups have a specific but limited agenda of getting Westerners out of their land.  Both groups were seen as freedom fighters because of political strategies and methods they used to reach their objectives. There have been a large number of innocent civilians who have died within their own ethnicity.

       Some scholars may argue that the PLO is a terrorist group, however it is important to understand their motives and the cause behind it. However, PLO did use violence and intimidation, but one could argue that it was for the Palestine cause not for their individual benefits. PLO is not an actual state; they are an organization which characterized them as non-terrorist organization. The PLO used guerilla warfare tactics to fight against the Israeli in order to demoralize them. According to Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? The Origins of the Palestine Liberation Organization by Ashley Fritchl, “initiated attacks from the borders of Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, entering through the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and from inside Israel as well. The Israelis fought back, and gave them a choice after defeat, go back to their homes or get help relocating to another area. This never was accomplished, but the Israelis did refuse Palestine from returning to their land, and instead used it to contain Jewish immigrants.” This aggravated the PLO organization to be more resistant to the Jewish expansion.

In addition, many individuals can argue that the tactics that were used were unjust and controversial in order to achieve freedom. FLN used similar political strategies against the French. FLN publicized women’s participation in the war as evidence of their freedom and dignity under Islam (Eager, Paige).  According Martin C Thomas, FLN were characterized as freedom fighters during the end of the conflict. He articulated that in “early decades of military rule shaded into a protracted colonization process that hardened the territory's inter-communal antagonisms and ensured that colonial Algeria was also steeped in violence. Estimates vary, but some calculate that 825,000 Algerians fell victim to violence during the first forty-five years of colonial conquest after 1830, a figure broadly comparable to the number who succumbed to famine and epidemic disease over the same period (Martin p.218).” The FLN fought to liberate their country from the occupied French forces. Their motive is also seen as a political strategy to oppose the efforts of the assimilation of Algerians into their French culture. In the Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon, colonialists proclaimed that the European culture was beneficial for all natives in order to emulate by using violence and divide-and-conquer strategies to keep the natives down. Fanon also proclaimed that violence against the settlers was a way for colonized people to regain their sense of self-respect. Thus, there is a clear resemblance between the PLO and FLN when fighting for freedom. 

Eager, Paige. From Freedom Fighters to Terrorists: Women and Political Violence.

Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched Of The Earth. New York : Grove Press, ©1963. Print.

Thomas, Martin. The Routledge History of Terrorism. Edited by Randall D. Law. New York, N.Y.: Routledge, 2015

2 Key Differences between Hamas and PLO :: Reader Comments at Daniel Pipes." Daniel Pipes. N.p., n.d. Web.

Fritchl, Ashley. "Washington State University." Fall 2015 Terrorists or Freedom Fighters The Origins of the Palestine Liberation Organization Comments. N.p., n.d. Web.

The PLO

            When examining whether the PLO is terrorism or not, it is important to take several factors into account such as the groups actions and whether a state actor can be a terrorist organization. Despite the PLO being a governing group and softening its stances., it should still be considered a terrorist organization based on its actions and charter.

            In the PLO charter, one of the reoccurring themes is liberation. It talks about the illegitimacy of the Israeli government and state, and that the Palestinians have the right to rule not the Jews. Article 15 of the charter states, “The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine”. This article discusses the liberation of the Palestinians from Zionist imperialists which sounds very familiar to one of Rapport’s categories of terrorism, anti-colonialism. The language of the PLO is very anti-colonial using imperialism, because they believe they have illegally occupied their home and that Jews are oppressing their people.

            The Charter of the PLO is also very violent, and openly states that they will fight and go to war with Israel. Article 27 calls it a war for independence, one that they will gain at any cost. The sheer willingness to use violence over diplomacy is typically a trait of terrorist organizations, who would rather achieve their means by violence than compromise. For the PLO, there is very little compromise when it comes to their own state. However, recently the PLO has adopted a two-state policy where they would get an independent Palestinian state with the territories that they choose.

            Despite this, some may believe that the PLO is not a terrorist organization because they are largely a political faction in recent years. The Arab league represents the PLO as the official Palestinian representation, and this gives the group a platform for international recognition. The PLO also runs a limited government in Gaza and the West Bank, where they get semi-autonomy from the Israeli government. The PLO is also trying to actively settle issues of independence and borders with Israel. Many would point to all of this as PLO not being a terrorist organization because they are a governing body and they also have international recognition because Israel works with them. However, just because the PLO is more into governance now does not mean that it is suddenly not a terrorist group.  For example, Arafat the leader of the PLO often uses HAMAS for deal making to get what he wants. He will say that he cannot control HAMAS unless he gets X, Y, Z which usually are one-sided deals. While the PLO itself might not be actively committing terrorism, they are very willing to use a terrorist organization as a bargaining chip. A group that is not terroristic would not use a terrorist group as leverage unless it was itself a terrorist organization. Just because they are more into governance now, does not mean that they stop being a terrorist organization. Governments can also commit terrorism.

- Andrew Gillis

International Support and Current Events are Crucial for FLN, and other Minority Nations’ Portrayal as Freedom Fighters or Terrorists

Stephen Agnatovech

3/26/17

Global Politics of Terrorism

Professor Shirk

            International Support and Current Events: Crucial for FLN 

Looking at a group such as the FLN is important when trying to figure out how a group is viewed when fighting for freedom. A nation that has power over a certain group tries to make that group look evil in the international eye. The nation that has power justifies their wrongdoings because it is the minority groups fault. The FLN was a group at first labeled as terrorists because France had ownership over Algeria. The minority group that justifies their actions as acts in a war trying to fight for freedom can be looked at as enemies, or terrorists. The minority group can also be looked at as heroes fighting for their freedom. These two opinions of the minority group are formed based on the international opinion of the issue as well as what is going on in the world at the time.

The FLN were looked at as freedom fighters at the end of the conflict between the French. The FLN had formed due to years of colonial rule which had resulted in nearly 825,000 Algerians falling victim to some sort of violence (Thomas p. 218). There was a strong sense of nationalism between native Algerians and hatred towards colonial rule by the French. This resulted in the FLN’s first armed revolt declaring independence in November of 1954. The FLN was viewed as terrorists because of their attacks on civilians, and bombings trying to gain international recognition. Their motive can also be looked at as political because of how they had shut down trade between French trying to restore the Algerian culture. The Algerians had been looked at as second class citizens for so long, and had found force to be the only language that the French spoke (Fanon p. 83).

Fanon also goes on to state how media played a huge role in the struggle Algerians faced for freedom against the French. French reporters had given inaccurate representation for the Algerians favoring the French side. This set the stage for how the FLN was going to be viewed throughout their fight for freedom. The conflict had continued to go on for years which had started to make it unpopular by the end of the 1950’s. French citizens as well as the rest of the international community didn’t see the point in colonialism as it started to become an unpopular concept. The idea of a nation having an empire in contrast with civilian deaths had made the conflict look pointless for the French to pursue. The Battle of Algiers had also become a significant turning point for the FLN gaining their freedom from French rule. “The remaining group of FLN bombers found on October 8, 1957, who didn’t surrender got blown up in an explosion so large that it destroyed the entire block killing an additional 17 residents” (Thomas p. 232). This had become a significant event that French citizens didn’t necessarily agree with going forward with the conflict against the FLN and France. Colonialism becoming unpopular in the international realm is what ended the conflict between the FLN and France. The FLN was looked at as a group that wanted their independence, and France was looked at as a nation who wanted to restore colonial power. The lack of support for the French resulted in their withdrawal in 1962 giving the FLN and native Algerians freedom.

A good example of how the minority group can be looked at as enemies and terrorists would be in the case of the IRA. Unlike the case of the conflict between the FLN and France, The IRA had gained no international or situational support by the end of the conflict between Britain. The reason for the difference is because of having barely any support from native Catholics in Ireland. The IRA had been doing illegitimate acts against Britain which had resulted in the deaths of Ireland's own citizens. Another reason for the IRA’s lack of support was because of there not being one specific IRA. The citizens of Ireland who joined the IRA disagreed on a number of issues which had resulted in there being six different IRA groups. The lack of order and vision on what the IRA wanted to accomplish was responsible for their demise. This is why international support as well as what is going on in the world at the time is integral for the outcome of the minority group either being successful or unsuccessful.    

Algerian War of Independence

Christopher Bouchard

Professor Shirk

POL:357 B

3/22/2017

Blog Post on the Algerian War

            During the Algerian War of Independence, the FLN committed acts of terrorism by using terror as a tactic.  The FLN’s motives and tactics fit exactly with what we have learned about in class on how to describe or determine if they are in fact a terrorist group or not.  These acts committed by the National Liberation Front provoked France and started a cycle of terror as a tactic during this war.  The continuation of these tactic proves that the FLN was in fact not a freedom fighter group but rather a terrorist organization.

            One of the most obvious reasons that the National Liberation Front should be considered a terrorist group is that they specifically targeted citizens in 1955.  A lot of the time we discuss that civilians are unfortunately a nor al casualty of war and that when they do die due to armed conflict in the region sometimes it isn’t because of a direct action or plan.  Sometimes it is just due to a crossfire between armed combatants, but in this case the FLN specifically targeted civilians in an attempt to try and raise public support for their cause in an either you’re with us or against us type of approach.  But anytime innocent un-armed civilians are being targeted that is just the pure use of terror by the aggressor in an attempt to make the civilian public do what they want.  Now in response to this the French government came down very hard on the population of Algeria.  In an attempt to quell the uprising taking place in Algeria the France military began to use torture and terror as a tactic themselves in order to try and combat the FLN.  But this use of terror on both sides and the brutality of each sides attacks trying to surpass or make up for the last attack that was dealt on them made the entire war itself very unpleasant and confusing as to what side was the terrorist side and which one wasn’t.  I believe that the use of terror on both sides of this conflict makes it possible to classify each side as a terroristic group during this war. 

            Another subject to consider when thinking about the FLN and even France for that matter is that both of their end goals were political in nature.  The FLN wanted to be independent from France whereas France was fighting to quell the uprising but eventually failed to in the end.  I think that when we look back at this war we could almost think of it as two groups using terroristic actions to fight over the same land.  Neither group was distinct from one another from the tactics that they used to what their goal was.  But I believe that the brutality of each attack from each side is what fueled this war to escalate to the level of violence that it did.  For example, if the French were not as brutal as they were in the begging when they retaliated for the attacks from the FLN then maybe the FLN would not have targeted urban areas in an attempt to gain international attention.  That is why in this war for Algerian Independence neither side could solely be defined as a terroristic group I believe that each side due to their use of terror as a tactic, by targeting civilians and torturing captured civilians, should be considered as terroristic during this war.               

John Brown is a Terrorist by Andrew Gillis

When examining the legacy of John Brown, it becomes difficult to categorize him because of what he stood for. As we know, John Brown was a key abolitionist and because of his actions people often portrait him as a hero (which he is). In light of this, I believe that John Brown was a terrorist and committed terrorism. Now I want to stress that I am not comparing him to modern day ISIS and I still believe that he is a hero, however his actions are one of a terrorist.

If you examine the actions of John Brown, and then put them into modern context it becomes quiet clear that his actions are terrorism. For example, John Brown specifically targeted and attacked property that belonged to slaver owners and pro-slavery individuals. He was not targeting people as much as their property to get his point across. This is used as a tactic today by many groups such as environmentalists and pro-choice extremists. Rather than attacking individuals of their opposing view, they attack offices or public locations so their actions can publicly be seen. John Brown also specifically chose his targets for psychological reasons. He wouldn't attack someone or something that people did not care about, but rather he would target known individuals or landmarks to psychologically affect his victims. We have seen this recently with the case of 9/11, when they chose the World Trade Center because they knew the psychological impact it would have on the US (among other reasons).

Should John Brown be Considered as a Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?

February 26, 2017

Post by Chirusha de Mel 

Should John Brown be Considered as a Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?

John Brown is a radical abolitionist who has caused violence in Kansas, in order to free slaves from the south. Analysts of the conflict have viewed John Brown as a terrorist. However, even though Brown and his group went on a rampage and killed many innocent civilians, it does not mean that this was an act of terrorism. I believe that John Brown was a freedom fighter because he fought for basic human rights, by trying to put an end to slavery for a virtues cause. In the article, John Brown, Terrorist? By Nicole Etchenson. Etchenson argues that John Brown flourished as a guerrilla leader in the 1860s by attempting to put an end to slavery, however some scholars may argue that John Brown should be considered as a terrorist due to the attacks on innocent civilians.

The term terrorism was not defined until the1960s. John Brown is a freedom fighter, he fought for the rights of African Americans, and while fighting he never instilled fear among those he had attacked.  In addition, terrorism is partly defined as instilling fear among individuals, and as time progresses the term terrorism becomes more ambiguous. According to Lutz and Lutz,

“terrorism is a term that has come to have an extremely negative connotation that makes it difficult to be connected to a good cause. The association of terrorism with evil began in the 1960s and clearly became more connected in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombings, the 9/11 attacks, the school takeover in Beslan in Russia, and other major attacks that have killed large numbers of people. It is worth noting, however, that terrorism did not always have such a negative connotation.”[1]

The attacks at Pottawatomie Creek was vicious, making John Brown’s actions unjustified in many eyes, however this does not detract from his constructive acts to end slavery.  It is important to note that only after the 1960s individuals began to consider John Brown as a terrorist. At that time period John Brown was fighting to gain freedom for the African Americans, and did not aim to harm innocent civilians. This portrays John Brown as an abolitionist fighting for the rights of African Americans.

            According to Etchenson, while guerrillas predominantly attack the military, terrorists engage in spectacular acts of violence intended to impress public opinion and whose targets are either “indiscriminate” – disregarding the possibility of civilian deaths – or are expressly civilians. [2] This states that John Brown appears as a guerrilla intent on overthrowing the oppression of slavery. The Harpers Ferry was a model of guerrilla warfare rather than terrorism. Harpers Ferry was a secret conspiracy that failed, and the attack on Harpers Ferry was directed at a federal arsenal. Furthermore, it is important to denote that John Brown, did not have a concrete political strategy while causing violence. 
         Lastly, his only intentions were to free the slaves. If John Brown did not fight for the rights of African Americans someone else would have. If John Brown never occurred, MLK would have been different, and may have not been as effective if he was peaceful.  In addition, John Brown should not be considered as a terrorist but as a freedom fighter, and tactic was needed during that specific time period.

---

[1] Lutz, Lutz. John Brown as guerilla terrorist. 2014

[2] Etchenson. John Brown, Terrorist? 2009.