Terror acts have become common in conflictual settings across the world, yet popular perceptions of what constitutes terrorism remain fluid. According to past research, public opinion categorizes violent actions as terrorism not only by their violence levels but also by cues about the perpetrator and its motivation. However, while this debate focuses primarily on different types of violent actions, real-world elite rhetoric often employs frames of terrorism to describe and delegitimize a broader range of non-violent acts (e.g., legal, economic, or diplomatic measures) against the in-group. In this paper, we use an original survey experiment conducted in Israel to examine whether the explicit invocation of terrorism influences popular perceptions of a rival’s non-violent pressure tactics. In particular, we study whether such frames affect attitudes regarding the legitimacy of non-violent acts, the use of state violence in response, and the willingness of domestic audiences to reach a compromise. The analysis carries important lessons about the influence of hawkish rhetoric on perceptions of terrorism and non-violent actions and has consequences for theories of conflict resolution, audience costs, and the utility (or lack thereof) of non-violent resistance.