The piece argues that states can also engage in acts of terror, particularly when using systematic violence and collective punishment against populations, similar to non-state actors. It emphasizes that the definition of terror must include actions by governments that employ tactics such as arbitrary detention and threats to instill fear and maintain control over the populace. The author, Etan Halon, presents historical examples including Argentina’s military junta, apartheid-era South Africa, and Syria’s civil unrest, underscoring that while the contexts differ, the mechanisms of oppression are alarmingly similar.

Furthermore, the article highlights that such state practices can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, or even genocide. The author notes that international humanitarian law explicitly prohibits violence and threats intended to terrorize civilians during armed conflicts. Thus, the article urges the global community to recognize these actions as violations of human rights and to hold states accountable for acts of terror that mirror those of insurgent groups.

In conclusion, the author calls for a broader and more inclusive definition of terror that encompasses both state and non-state actions. Recognizing that terror can originate from various actors, including governments, is crucial in addressing political violence and ensuring the protection of civilians under international law. This perspective presents significant implications for international relations, as it challenges the traditional view that only non-state actors can be labeled as terrorists, urging a reevaluation of the international legal frameworks that govern state conduct in conflict situations.