We're not terrorists because there are no terrorists
The Palestinian Authority has purged itself, at least temporarily, of the influence of Hamas. Hamas, for those of you JUsers out there who don't know, is a terrorist organization funded largely by Syrian, Lebanese, and Iranian interests against Israel. From Australia's The Age:
Whatever one's perception of Hamas and its activities, it has risen as a credible
alternative to the secular Palestine Liberation Organisation, which led the
Palestinian nationalist movement from the middle of the 1960s until the
election of early 2006, which unexpectedly brought Hamas to power.
Hamas won the election largely because a good cross-section of the Palestinian
people had lost faith in the PLO as an organisation capable of delivering them
peace, independence and prosperity, which it had long promised.
But what exactly is terrorism? And who, by extension, is a terrorist? Is Hamas a terrorist organization because they use political and violent means to enact change within the Israeli/Palestinian disputed territories? Should they be taken seriously as a political and diplomatic player because of their overarching "Death to Israel" position? If they're not terrorists, who is?
The reason scholars and diplomats devote so much time to pinpointing a definition of terrorism is that so many people disagree on what 'terrorism' actually is. Ethnic rumblings, separatist movements, and the like lobby feverishly to avoid this label. Terrorism expert Paul Pillar wrote:
This was most in evidence in the 1970s, when multilateral
discussion of the subject in the United Nations General
Assembly and elsewhere invariably bogged down amid
widespread resistance to any condemnation -- and hence any
labeling as terrorism -- of the actions of groups that had favored
status as 'national liberation movements' or the like.
The reason these groups worked so hard to avoid the label is that terrorism is a damaging epithet. To be labeled a terrorist is the equivalent of a criminal and an anarchist, working against the natural order to bring about an unnatural, non-status quo state of being. Accusations of terrorism can dismantle movements. If a movement to be labeled as terrorist, it can be quite divisive and damaging, disheartening those in the affected movement. It undermines the reasons for fighting. Labeling a group as terrorist also gives courage and motivation to the opposition, a rallying cry to those who fight against the newly christened terror threat. It is easy to see why opposition groups strive to avoid the terrorist label.
On a diplomatic level, civilized nations are loath to deal with terrorists. Thus opposition groups, political parties, and their ilk work hard to avoid such labels in order to maintain legitimacy as a political entity. The American government has already stated their utter reluctance towards dealing or negotiating with terrorist groups, so when Hamas took over the Palestine Organization in 2006, America refused to speak with them or fund them until they had renounced their overt "Death to Israel" stance. To do otherwise would legitimize the Hamas movement and the terror it promotes.
This is why America and the West are willing to work with a newly Hamas-free Palestine Authority.