Read Our Monthly Magazine
And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
A sovereign nation’s “right to defend itself” is the mantra of the Middle East war, the carte blanche for Benjamin Netanyahu’s expanding bloodlust.
But it was not transferred from Israel to Iran when missiles were launched towards Jerusalem and Tel Aviv this week. Instead, it was “Iran’s wrath”, “Revenge from above”, “Blitz at Israel” that blazoned Britain’s front pages – along with reaffirmation of Israel’s “right to defend”.
The missiles, we were told, were retaliation for Israel’s assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader.
Hezbollah – a Shia group that is armed and financed by Iran – was first formed in response to Israeli invasions of Lebanon in 1978 and 1982.
Like Israel, Lebanon is also a sovereign nation with a “right to defend itself”. And just hours before these missiles were launched into Israel, Israel invaded Lebanon once again.
So how come Iran’s “revenge” does not, in the eyes of Western media, qualify as “self-defence”? Perhaps because Hezbollah is labelled a terrorist organisation by the UK, US, and EU.
A status jarringly at odds with its integral role in Lebanese democracy – Hezbollah won the biggest share of votes in Lebanon’s 2022 general election. “You cannot actually speak about Lebanese politics without including Hezbollah,” said Lebanese journalist and news anchor Zahera Harb.
‘One man’s terrorist…’ you know the saying. This is not a statement of justification, but one of cause and effect. There is reason to call Hezbollah, like Hamas in Gaza, terrorist organisations; there is also reason to call them resistance groups.
Over a million people have already been displaced from Lebanon amid underreported numbers of civilian deaths caused by Israeli air strikes. Hezbollah would not exist if this were not a repeat of history, just as Hamas would not exist if not for millions of Palestinians’ statutory humiliation in the open-air prison that was Gaza.
In such conditions, violent rebellion is guaranteed – history is very consistent with that lesson. But instead of learning, we use the term ‘terrorist’ to shut down inquiry.
‘Terrorist’ is not just a legal definition. It is an excuse to disengage, ignore valid grievances, refuse to negotiate, and bypass human rights.
When we label someone as a terrorist, we turn a blind eye towards whatever motivates them as a human being. This is why Media Storm decided to speak to people who have, themselves or their relatives, been convicted as terrorists and ask them: why violence?
This episode was an inquiry into terrorism and a case that doing so apolitically is not only a journalist’s right but a journalist’s imperative.
Tony Doherty joined the Irish Republican Army after British troops open-fired on a peaceful march on what became known as Bloody Sunday, killing his father and 12 others.
While in prison for enrolling in a terrorist group, he fixated “on the fact that the soldier who killed my father hadn’t spent a single day in prison for the murder of five innocent people within 15 minutes, and yet here – the son of one of those murdered people – was classed as a criminal.”
“‘Terrorist’ is a heavily weighted emotional and propaganda term used by states,” he said. “What I witnessed growing up was state terrorism”.
Similarly, former president of the United Afghan Peace Movement Gulwali Passarlay, who saw loved ones killed by US forces in Afghanistan, said: “I still see the US’ actions as terrorist activities because they terrorised people. You can’t have it both ways.”
When Gulwali’s dad fought in the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union, he was seen by the West as a ‘freedom fighter’, “but when the same Mujahideen fought the US they became terrorists”.
Female Kurdish fighters resisting ISIS in 2014 won CNN’s ‘Most Inspirational Women of the Year’ award. Some years later, when fighting Turkey, their media title took a different tinge: “Terrorists with highlights”.
“I am used to the West trying to change the narrative”, Gulwali said. “The ‘terrorist’ label is less about how you’re fighting than who you’re fighting”.
Editorial word choices subconsciously shape our views. Whether we call a group a ‘resistance’ or a ‘militia’ shapes listeners’ ideas of whether it’s right or wrong.
An ‘army’ (like Israel’s), an ‘invading force’ (like Russia’s). A ‘conflict’ (as in Gaza), an ‘illegal war’ (as in