For the West Allies are not Terrorists

Byron A. Ellis-January 07, 2009

According to the U. S. Department of State, “International terrorism threatens the United States, its allies and interests, and the world community.” The Department of State defines the terrorist enemy has one who threatens the United States. But, what if the terrorist is not an enemy?

Apparently, if the terrorist does not threaten the U.S., is not an enemy. Therefore, it can terrorize with impunity and it is often called the right of self-defense.

Thus, Western leaning terrorist nations can bomb schools, university, hospitals, and places of worship, kill innocent civilians, including children all in the name of the right of self-defense.

In the U.S., the Secretary of State determines which countries are terrorists. Therefore, friendly nations that kill civilians are unlikely to be on the U.S. terrorist nations’ list. However, unfriendly nations are likely to be on the list.

Terrorism Research notes that terrorism is not new, but it is hard to define. According to their website it has been described as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. For them, terrorism is a tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. And, perhaps that is why strong nations that massacre innocent civilians, such as Israel are not viewed as terrorist.

In essence, in warring conflicts nations with strong ties with the West can commit atrocities and not be classified as terrorist or war criminals. This is also true for the winner of warring conflicts. However, nations with weak or no ties to the West that kill civilians, their leaders are expeditiously classified as war criminals and hauled off to The Hague for trial. Will Israel leaders be classified as war criminals?

Thus, the human construct of justice is, indeed, flawed. So, where does the weak and downtrodden seek justice?

And, if the human construct of justice does not address the grievances of the weak world citizens, should they accept the status quo?

The conflict in the Middle East is about grievances of the dispossessed. Grievances created by Western powers dividing Arab lands, as well as lands in other conflict prone regions, such as India and Pakistan.

As long as fair procedures are not in place to compensate those unjustly dispossessed from their land, they will continue to seek the right for just remuneration.

There is something deeply wrong with the argument of attributing the right to self-defense to colonizers and occupiers and not to the people that were forced from the land of Palestine.

[ Home | Comments | Search | Post ]

POST COMMENT