First, you should read Brad’s post below, which is brilliant. Then, if you have time, check this out. The United Nations is engaged in an interesting and important debate of the definition of terrorism. Does the use of anti-civilian violence against an occupying force constitute terrorism? Should the actions of a state’s armed forces be classified as terrorism if they are directed against a civilian population in violation of accepted international rules of combat? The debate is really about the legitimacy of militant (or terrorist) groups in the occupied territories, and is quite germane to many of us writing about the conflict…
The U.N. Treaty Section began work on the Comprehensive Convention Against Terrorism in 1996. India introduced the current draft in 2001. According to a 2003 report from the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University,
…this draft convention is an attempt to combine and expand on the twelve existing conventions on terrorism, which cover certain terrorist acts without actually defining terrorism. The draft treaty promises to close gaps and to offer a legally uniform regime for judicial cooperation and prosecution of terrorist activities. It covers a wider ground than that delineated by the post-September 11 UN Security Council resolutions. Crucially, if adopted, it would provide a solid legal basis for the fight against terrorism.
CTR interviewed the U.N. Ambassador from India, Vijay Nambiar:
The draft comprehensive convention’s approach is holistic and would offer the international community a sound legal basis to face up to the challenge. The draft convention closes loopholes in the other (anti-terrorism) treaties. It targets the methods through which terrorists commit their crimes and deals with states’ responsibilities in preventing and punishing (such offenses)…
The proposition stalled when the Arab states objected to defining only the military actions of stateless groups as terrorism. Thalif Deen reports for Inter-Press:
Arab diplomats have continued to argue that any comprehensive definition of terrorism must include the phenomena of “state terrorism” and distinguish it from the right of self-determination.
According to this argument, Israel is guilty of state terrorism in the occupied territories, while Palestinians are “freedom fighters.”
The Israelis, on the other hand, have a different take on it: a Palestinian who deliberately kills an Israeli child is a terrorist, while an Israeli who deliberately kills a Palestinian child is a soldier or settler.
The Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) and the League of Arab States are insisting that the treaty should exempt from consideration as terrorists all those engaged in conflicts against “foreign occupation.”
This includes even national liberation movements, including the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Lebanese-based militia, the Hizbollah, both of which have been battling Israeli occupation.
The bombings in Britain and Egypt seem to have given new impetus to the treaty. Al Jazeerah reported Tuesday:
The head of the 22-nation League of Arab States has endorsed a definition of terrorism opposed by many Arab nations for inclusion in a long-stalled comprehensive UN treaty against terrorism.
The proposed definition of any intentional maiming or killing of civilians as terrorism, regardless of cause, put forward by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, “could serve as the basis for consensus” in drafting the global pact, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said.
The BBC has the draft language:
We affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organisation to carry out or to abstain from any act cannot be justified on any grounds and constitutes an act of terrorism.
Annan is pushing to complete the convention put it up for a vote at the next General Assembly session in September. Hopefully, it will enhance international cooperation against Al Quaeda and other groups that are a real threat to states and civilians alike.
As an ethical guidepost, I think the statement above is a good one. And it seems to apply equally to the IDF and the Palestinian miltias. I can’t accept that killing children is an acceptable form of warfare, no matter what cause is served. Nor does the violence of the last five years seem to have brought us any closer to a resolution of the conflict.
But there is the question of the imbalance of power. When a state uses its authority and resources to deprive a whole people of land, and of civil and human rights, as has been the case with Israel and the Palestinians since the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza began in 1967, do the occupied have a right to resist? With arms, if peaceful means fail? And, if with arms, against what targets?
A pacifist - or an anti-terrorist - ethos that fails to address the abuse of power by the state is a cop-out. Those of us who oppose terrorism as a means of resistance should be working hard to redress the balance of power by other means, i.e. by supporting divestment and other forms of economic pressure on Israel to end the occupation.
