Dr. Tim Anderson, an Australian scholar and author of several books on Middle Eastern politics, views the concept of "terrorism" within Western foreign policy parlance not as a fixed definition, but as a flexible political tool that shifts according to national interests. In this interview, he analyses the key distinction between "terrorism" and "legitimate resistance" under international law, emphasizing the inalienable right of peoples under occupation, apartheid, and genocide to resist – including through armed struggle. Citing international instruments such as the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions and UN General Assembly resolutions, Dr. Anderson critiques the double standards of the West and NATO in labelling resistance groups, highlighting examples ranging from silence regarding the terrorism of allied states to practical cooperation with Takfiri groups. He also points to concrete instances such as the indirect collaboration with groups like ISIS, analyzing the long-term impact of this dual policy on the West's credibility on the international stage. The full text of our exclusive interview follows.
1. How do you define the concept of terrorism within Western foreign policy—or perhaps I should ask, how is it defined by Western states? Is this definition less of a fixed concept and more of a flexible political tool that shifts according to national interests?
Western states have a distinct approach to terrorism, mainly focused on disqualifying resistance to colonial and neocolonial interventions. We can see quite clearly their divergence from international law and norms.
There are several groups in West Asia designated as terrorist by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). These include Al Qaeda, and its offshoots, Jabhat al Nusra, Hayat Tahrir as Sham (HTS) and ISIS (ISIL, DA’ESH). Those designations were accepted by the UNSC after atrocities committed against civilians, including atrocities committed on a sectarian basis (under Salafi-Wahhabi ideology) with the aim of toppling the constitutional order in countries including Libya, Iraq and Syria. The “Consolidated List” of the United Nations Security Council also includes groups in North Africa - like al Shabab and Boko Haram - which carry a similar Salafi-Wahhabi sectarian ideology. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah appear on the list of groups designated as terrorist organizations by the UNSC, but they do appear on the national lists of most Anglo-American and NATO states (all traditionally sponsors of Israel).
There are clearly political reasons for these distinctions (Hamas resists Israeli occupation and Hezbollah resists the Israeli invasions of Lebanon) but there are also conceptual distinctions, to do with both aims and methods. Terrorist groups and terrorist activity typically has illegitimate aims (undermining a legitimate constitutional order) and with egregious breaches of the rules of war (such as targeting civilians). Resistance groups, on the other hand, have some legitimacy under international law which recognizes the right to resist illegal occupation, to self-defense, to dismantle apartheid regimes and the responsibility to “prevent and punish” the crime of genocide. Of course, legitimate aims can be undermined by the use of illegitimate means, such as the targeting of civilians. In the context of constant war propaganda, some evidentiary burden (more than simple assertions) should apply to claims about terrorist tactics. That applies to state as well as non-state actors, with Israel in recent years being the major assailant of civilians.
Resistance, including armed resistance, to occupation, apartheid and genocide finds support in several instruments of international law. Intellectuals have a responsibility to educate on this right to resistance.
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East cite UN resolutions on the right of Palestinians to struggle for self-determination (CJPME 2023): UNGA Resolution 3314 (1974) affirmed the right of self-determination, freedom, and independence for all “peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination,” and affirmed the “right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support.”
UNGA Resolution 37/43 (1982) reaffirmed the “inalienable right” of the Palestinian people “and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination” to self-determination. It also reaffirmed the legitimacy of “the struggle of peoples for […] liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.”
They further cite the right to resist under the Geneva Conventions: initially, the international laws of war as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) had little to say about the use of force against an occupying power, but did not prohibit it. However, supplementary amendments to the Fourth Geneva Convention under Protocol I (1977) expanded the scope of the law, explicitly affirming that it applies to situations including “armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination.” This update to international law gave legal legitimacy to “the resort to arms by national liberation movements, including the PLO,” giving Palestinians a “legal right” to use force against military occupation, similar to that enjoyed by sovereign nations”, subject to the rules of war (CJPME 2023).
Similarly, Stanley L. Cohen (2017) a US Attorney, writes of the Palestinians’ “legal right to armed struggle”, citing Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (on international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts), as a protected and essential right of occupied people everywhere. He also links this to UN resolution 3314 of 1974 and 37/43 of 1982.
The ICJ advisory opinion on Israeli occupation (ICJ 2024) further supports this body of law. The provisional designation by the ICJ of the Israeli massacres in and siege of Gaza as a “plausible genocide” adds a level of duty to the struggle against Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people, under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (UN 1948). That treaty directs state parties [including Palestine] “to prevent and to punish” the crime of genocide.
To the extent that Palestine is recognized as a nation, its recourse to the self-defense provision of the UN Charter (Article 51) adds to the right of the Palestinian people to resist Israeli incursions and occupation.
Finally, there are a growing number of reports which cite the Israeli regime as an apartheid state (CCHS 2022). In my opinion the most acute of these reports was that prepared for the United Nations by Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley in 2017. That report sets out to clarify “international responsibility and obligations with regard to combating the crime of apartheid”. The 124 state signatories to the Statute of Rome, they say, “have a legal responsibility to oppose apartheid and take measures to end it wherever it may arise. That responsibility concerns not only human rights violations resulting from apartheid but the threat it poses to international peace and security.”
As it happens, in January 2015 the state of Palestine acceded to ICC jurisdiction under the Statute of Rome and thus has both a right and a responsibility to dismantle apartheid, at least in its recognized territories (ICC 2018).
The above is a summary of the heads of international law relevant to the right of the Palestinian people to resist invasion, occupation, genocide and apartheid by all necessary means, including by armed struggle. Those elements distinguish many of the matters referred to as “terrorism” in popular and official accounts.
The western habit of not making a distinction between terrorism and resistance is that this may provide cover for (or complicity in) atrocities in the name of an absolutist goal of “destroying terrorism”.
2. Why does the West, when analyzing the root causes of terrorism—such as extremism in certain countries—emphasize internal and ideological factors, yet remains silent regarding terrorism that may be supported or funded by its regional allies?
Western states, embedded in North American imperial projects, almost always use a partisan logic to disqualify resistance by calling it terrorism. At the same time, they downplay the terrorism and state terrorism that supports their ambitions. We saw and still see this clearly in West Asia, through the US collaboration with ISIS, Nusra and HTS. Washington pretend to fight ISIS but in fact did not, as Iraqi and Syrian forces testified.
3. In your view, what will be the long-term impact of these double standards on the West's legitimacy and credibility on the international stage, particularly among countries directly affected by terrorism? Doesn't this ultimately foster deeper distrust?
North American propaganda relies of widespread cynicism about their interventions to cover up its own crimes and those of its proxies. They also intimidate serious investigation of terrorist atrocities which benefit US aims.
One example of this was the US and Australian collaboration in the ISIS takeover of the mountain behind Deir Ezzor airport in September 2016. US and Australian warplanes bombed and killed more than 120 Syrian soldiers to facilitate this ISIS takeover. The US military partially admitted this attack but falsely claimed it was a “mistake” [https://counter-hegemonic-studies.site/jat-1/]. Another example is the constant prevarication and denial of the state terrorism embodied by Israeli genocidal attacks on Gaza, over 2023-2025.
4. How far can Western countries continue with this policy of double standards? What would it take to stop these practices? It seems that even when these countries themselves become targets of terrorist attacks, they continue with the very same approaches that are being criticized.
North American or Anglo-American imperialism is founded on double standards. They emphasize this when they speak of their “exceptional” mission, or when they demand immunity from prosecution for their expeditionary armed forces. Double standards are the bedrock of imperial practice, in the post-colonial era, where colonialism is formally disbanded.