<$BlogRSDUrl$>

7.9.03

Let's talk about "terrorism"

The United States Department of State defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant... targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience". What is it called when "premeditated, politically motivated violence" is perpetrated against noncombatant targets by national groups - like one of the world's most powerful armies?


AP photo

"Holding his daughter Allah, Palestinian resident Mohammed Abdullah weeps as he looks at the debris of the apartment building he lived in, after it was destroyed by the Israeli army in the West Bank city of Nablus".

Noticeably lacking in the State Department's definition of "terrorism" - besides the idea that it can be committed by states - is the concept that "terrorism" causes terror or fear among civilians. But how do ordinary people watching their lives' work being blown up feel, if not terrified and fearful? What other words describe the feelings of a child who has been thrown out of her house by soldiers and then made homeless? How else, other than "terrorist", does one describe a state that can casually commit such a crime against innocent people - collective punishment justified solely by the fact that they are members of one ethnic group and not another? Former Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu defines "terrorism" as "the deliberate and systematic assault on civilians to inspire fear for political ends." No one - certainly not Netanyahu - can deny that the Israeli army and its commanders are deliberate and systematic in their assault on the Palestinian population.


Reuters photo

"A Palestinian man weeps while entering a hospital with a wounded baby, after an Israeli missile hit a Palestinian house in a densely populated area of Gaza City".

The child above was wounded in an attack that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - one of the world's leading terrorist commanders - authorized in order to kill Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin - another terrorist commander. But Sharon could not be bothered to personally supervise this murder. Instead, he "kept in touch by phone... reportedly busy at the time with preparations for the birthday party of his grandson Rotem". Assassination has become so commonplace that it can be mixed with a celebration of life, with no need to reconcile any moral contradictions or conflicts. Indeed, there are none. It is sometimes "regrettable", but always necessary, that Palestinian children must pay the price with their lives, their minds, and their personalities so that Rotem and other Israeli children are able to have parties, celebrate and live normal lives. Whether or not the child pictured above lived or died was of no concern to the criminals who authorized this attack in Gaza City. The very fact that he exists is of no consequence to the Israeli government - that is, until the day he may take a gun in his hands or strap on a belt of explosives. But until that day - a day on which, according to the official American and Israeli explanations, all human reason takes leave and an inexplicable hatred fills this void - his experiences under military occupation and an incredibly brutal apartheid system aimed at dispossession, imprisonment and punishment mean nothing. Disregard for human life joins with the already despicable idea of the acceptability of collective punishment.

Six hours after a gunbattle between Israeli soldiers and one Palestinian militant at this apartment building, Israeli soldiers returned, forcibly removed its inhabitants, and then dynamited the structure. According to AP, the destruction of this building left over 100 people homeless. Clearly, a good deal of "premeditation" was involved in this act of psychological "violence", which was aimed at "influencing an audience" - the entire civilian Palestinian population of Nablus. But would the noble Secretary of State Colin Powell, a man who cannot shut up about Palestinian terrorism, ever scrape up the moral courage to say that this destruction fits his own department's definition of terrorism? As for the rest of us, perhaps lacking a definition of "terrorism" so clearly formulated that only Palestinians and other Arabs seem capable of committing it, is it permissible to think of the psychological damage a crime like this inflicts upon the people subject to it? To wonder about the mentality of the people - only following orders - who calmly trampled over the lives of innocent human beings? To ask whether they too are terrorists? Or is one allowed only to praise the morality of these soldiers and remark approvingly of the fact that they did not kill their victims?

AFP photo

It is clear that organizations like the State Department and people like Netanyahu will not or cannot face up to the hypocrisy they peddle with their one-sided definitions of terrorism. Under no circumstances will the people pictured above and those whose homes were demolished ever be considered victims of terrorism. But until ordinary people begin speaking up in defense of all victims of terrorism and against self-serving standards, people like Netanyahu and Powell will continue perpetuating the very thing they supposedly are seeking to end.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Top