Piers Morgan’s latest interview with a Hamas spokesperson has once again sparked global debate over one of the most contentious questions surrounding the Israel-Gaza conflict: who should be held accountable for terrorising civilians?
During the interview, Morgan repeatedly described Hamas as a terrorist organisation—a designation recognised by Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union and several other governments. The exchange quickly became heated as broader questions about civilian casualties and accountability emerged.
The Legal Position
Hamas is officially designated as a terrorist organisation by numerous countries because of attacks deliberately targeting civilians, including the 7 October 2023 attack in Israel.
Israel, by contrast, is a recognised sovereign state and is not designated as a terrorist organisation. However, its military operations in Gaza have been the subject of allegations involving war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law. Israel rejects allegations that it intentionally targets civilians and maintains it is acting in self-defence against Hamas.
The Debate
Supporters of Israel argue there is a clear distinction between a terrorist organisation and a state military operating during armed conflict.
Critics argue that regardless of legal status, actions resulting in large-scale civilian deaths deserve equal scrutiny under international law.
This difference between terrorism, war crimes, and crimes against humanity has become one of the defining legal and moral debates of the conflict.
Why It Matters
The language used by journalists, politicians and governments shapes public understanding of the conflict. While some believe the label “terrorist” should apply only to non-state groups, others argue any deliberate or reckless violence against civilians deserves the same level of condemnation.
As investigations into the conflict continue, international courts and legal bodies will remain central to determining accountability for alleged violations of international law.
The question continues to divide opinion around the world:
Should the focus remain solely on legal definitions, or should all actions causing widespread civilian suffering be judged by the same moral standard?