Guerrilla Warfare vs. Terrorism
Books on Sociology of Terrorism,
Sociology of Terrorism
Harkabi describes guerrilla war as a prolonged war of attrition, with progressively increasing violence, blurred limits, a fluid line of contact, emphasizing the human factor. In the course of the war, guerrilla combatants become regular military forces until victory is attained and one party is defeated.
Huntington argues that guerrilla warfare is a form of warfare by which the strategically weaker side assumes the tactical offensive in selected forms, times and places. Guerrilla warfare is the weapon of the weak.
Harkabi indicates that guerrilla activity is best placed on a sequence, ranging from sporadic terrorist attacks not necessarily against military units, up to sustained guerrilla warfare and confrontation with military forces.
Walter Laqueur writes: Urban terrorism is not a new stage in guerrilla war, but differs from it in essential respects, and [that] it is also heir to a different tradition.
According to Ehud Sprinzak: Guerrilla war is a small war subject to the same rules that apply to big wars, and on this it differs from terrorism.
According to David Rapaport: The traditional distinguishing characteristic of the terrorist was his explicit refusal to accept the conventional moral limits which defined military and guerrilla action.
Paul Wilkinson distinguishes between terrorism and
guerrilla warfare by stressing another aspectharm to civilians: