Terrorists and War Criminals
In modern so-called asymmetric wars, there is almost always a well-armed regular army on one side and irregular groups on the other, unable to face the army in open battle. As a result, they operate through tactics once described as guerrilla warfare, hiding among the population—whether willingly or by coercion.
Depending on one's political perspective, one side may refer to war criminals while the other speaks of terrorists, and sometimes both labels are accepted.
A current example is the war in Gaza: some argue that HAMAS is a terrorist group, while others believe that the Israelis are war criminals. Some accept both definitions, to the point that international courts issue arrest warrants that have no real chance of being enforced but are used by both sides as propaganda.
This raises the question: what meaning do these definitions hold, given their frequent use in propaganda?
The main point seems to be this: wars are not sporting competitions where breaking the rules leads to disqualification, but immense tragedies where victory goes to those who use the necessary means to win.
War Criminals
Nowadays, the term "war crimes" is less commonly used than broader concepts like crimes against humanity, atrocities, or genocide—terms that are much more vague.
A war crime is a violation of the laws of war. In practice, these are treaties that no one really follows anymore because, at least since 1940, they have become inapplicable to modern conflicts. One exception was the Arab-Israeli wars of the last century, but these lasted only a few days—more blitzes than full-scale wars.
The rules of war are no longer observed because they are no longer practical: conventions like those of Geneva apply to armies on open battlefields, but they are irrelevant in asymmetric wars. If guerrilla fighters lack a conventional army to oppose an enemy in open combat, their adversaries also do not face a traditional army.
One crucial point in understanding these events is that the laws of war are only effective when observed by both sides: "I will not kill your civilians if you do not kill mine." This is not just a historical truth but also a military necessity.
If bombing a city is considered a war crime, then those who bombed London and Dresden, Berlin and Tokyo, Vietnam and Afghanistan, ISIS (in Mosul), and the Houthis would also be criminals.
If combatants hide among civilians, it is impossible to strike them without also hitting civilians, who, in many cases, are indistinguishable from fighters.
There is ongoing debate over whether the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, or Hiroshima were necessary or effective in winning the war. If they were unnecessary, then they were pointless acts of cruelty.
I am not certain, but it seems to me that in total wars, breaking the enemy’s will to fight is essential. Bombings, food shortages, lack of water, medicine, and other necessities increase the desire of populations to prefer the end of war over victory.
To me, the greatest crime is prolonging a war that can no longer be won—something the Germans did in the last two years of World War II and something HAMAS and others have done for decades.
Terrorists
In international discourse, "terrorist" does not simply mean "one who spreads terror" (since terror is present in all conflicts—see the bombings in Gaza). Instead, it refers to those who are not legitimate combatants, meaning those who do not wear a uniform that makes them identifiable.
By this definition, the Spanish guerrillas against Napoleon, Fidel Castro’s revolutionaries, the Viet Cong, the Afghan mujahideen, and even partisan fighters in World War II all violated the laws of war by fighting without uniforms.
The distinction between "freedom fighters" (or those fighting for an ideal) and terrorists is purely a matter of political perspective.
For example, while Western governments classify HAMAS as a terrorist organization, much of the Arab world views its members as heroes, shahid (martyrs of faith) who, according to their beliefs, are granted immediate entry into paradise.
Arab governments are all against HAMAS, yet none openly admit it, fearing backlash from their populations.
Labeling a group as either terrorist or patriotic is thus a matter of perspective.
At times, regimes that severely violate civil rights are also called terrorist states. By this logic, nearly all Middle Eastern, Sub-Saharan African, and many other countries worldwide—those that do not adhere to our principles—would be considered terrorist states. Yet, these principles are not universal but rather specific to the modern West, at least in constitutional documents (the reality is often different).
It is similar to the idea of "eternal fascism," where the term fascist is applied to all authoritarian regimes—meaning that even Charlemagne, Augustus, Stalin, and Mao could be called fascists.
Ethical Perspective
Perhaps the core issue is the ethical view of politics.
Historical events cannot be judged from an ethical standpoint (as historians never do) because each side operates based on different principles and interprets facts differently, believing they are in the right.
Machiavelli observed (he did not invent) that in politics, methods may be immoral: one may engage in wrongdoing to achieve a greater good.
In modern times, with our expanded understanding of different cultures, we must recognize that conflicts arise because each side judges based on its own principles and views itself as just, fighting for what it sees as good.
For instance, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Orthodox Jews (Haredim) believe that God permanently granted all of Palestine to the Jewish people, while HAMAS (Islamic fundamentalists) holds that the land is a waqf (a religious trust) that must remain in the hands of the faithful and cannot be relinquished.
Both sides believe they are fighting for God, for justice, and that dying for their cause will earn them paradise (at least for the Islamists).
Similarly, in wars of independence, Italian patriots believed they were fighting for a just cause—since every nation should have its own state—while reactionaries defended the legitimate ruler, supposedly appointed by divine will.
It is often said, "There is no peace without justice." However, when each side pursues the justice it believes in (which differs from that of its enemies), conflicts become inevitable and radicalized.
For peace, realism and pragmatism are needed.
It is not a matter of determining whether Israel or HAMAS is right or just, but of recognizing that Israel cannot be destroyed and therefore its existence must be accepted. Without this acknowledgment, Palestinians will continue to face catastrophe after catastrophe—whether it is fair or unfair is irrelevant.