Terrorism (n) - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. - American Heritage Dictionary
International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. - The Guardian, November 20, 2003
Since the onset of the Israeli occupation in 1967, and in response to established, illegal policies and practices of the occupying Power, the Security Council has adopted 26 resolutions that affirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel. Of those resolutions, several deal directly with the issue of Israeli settlements and several also specifically deal with Israeli violations in Occupied East Jerusalem.
The resolutions clearly address the illegality of Israel’s policies and practices with regard to both issues. For example, some of the resolutions affirm that the Israeli settlements ‘have no legal validity’; call upon the government and people of Israel ‘to dismantle the existing settlements’; and call upon ‘all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories’.
As for Occupied East Jerusalem, which the Israeli government illegally annexed in 1980, the Security Council, in resolution 478 (1980), determined ‘that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and, in particular, the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith’.
Similar affirmations were made by the Council in several other resolutions. Moreover, the General Assembly and other UN organs have adopted scores of resolutions on the illegal policies and practices of the Israeli occupation and on the legitimacy of, and the necessity for, the exercise of the right to self-determination by the Palestinian people. - Nasser Al-Kidwa
9 Comments
The wikipedia entry for UN Resolution 478 makes it sound like it was the claim that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel that was “null and void”. The entry for East Jerusalem makes equating Israeli annexing the city with terrorism a pretty far stretch.
Even with the definition and the quote I am having a hard time understanding your point.
By the way, that was me.
I was trying to emphasize the “unlawful use of force or violence” part of the definition, and point out that both our current occupation of Iraq and the Israeli/Palestinian occupation are both illegal under international law.
It goes back to the whole labeling issue, where many people feel comfortable labeling suicide bombers “terrorists” (and rightly so, they are terrorists), but they rarely associate that label to other parties in the conflict to which it equally applies.
The Israel thing just stands out because I think it’s the best example of this: looking at the numbers, their army does far more unjust, unlawful killing than the Palestinian terrorist organizations, but for some reason only the other side is usually referred to as terrorists.
To be fair, Israel acquired all the land in question through defensive wars and has for the most part been willing to trade land for peace. Also, Israel has never targeted innocent non combatants. Civilians have been killed because the IDF is battling an irregular force that refuses to separate civilian and military life.
There have been numerous reports of the Israeli army doing things like rolling over houses with tanks, soldiers shooting machine guns into crowds, and bombing populated areas. If that’s not targeting non-combatants, I don’t know what is.
There are many examples of this, but here are a few for starters:
Israeli Airstrike on Crowded Civilian Area Condemned
Human Rights Watch Oral Intervention at the 57th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights
Briefing to the 59th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights
Since the Palestinians don’t have a “military” that could ever oppose Israel, they aren’t “refusing” to separate civilian and military life, they have no choice. If I understand you correctly, you believe that the only “fair” way to fight is with uniformed soldiers; that simply doesn’t work when the sides are so unevenly matched - it’s basically like saying that the smaller side should just give up.
And by the way, the Palestinians aren’t the only side to employ the use of civilians:
IN A DARK HOUR: THE USE OF CIVILIANS DURING IDF ARREST OPERATIONS
As for the initial acquisition occurring during “defensive wars”, that can be disputed as well - whether a war is “defensive” often depends on the perspective of the person applying that label. We claim (or did in the past, the admin. has backed off on this recently) that the Iraq invasion was a “defensive” action on our part, which is untrue.
As for Israel, During the first Israeli-Arab war in 1948, 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes and lands. Though U.N. Resolution 194, passed in 1948, orders that these refugees be allowed to return to their homes, Israel has refused to comply for the last 53 years. In addition, Israel took the remaining 22% of Palestine in ‘67.
Despite voting for this resolution, the U.S. provides the money, arms, and political muscle that allows Israel’s refusal to comply with international law to continue.
Over the last several decades there have been numerous attempts by the rest of the world to call Israel to accountability for its actions, and for some reason the US (as a member of the security council) consistently votes down or vetoes attempts to sanction or otherwise correct or condemn Israel’s illegal actions. Here is a despicable record of some of these votes.
P.S. - Just to head off the common objections that seem to come up in any discussion having to do with Israel (not saying this would be from anyone here, but just in case):
1. Criticizing the actions of the government of Israel is not anti-semitic, in any way. Many people internationally criticize our current government while still admiring the people of America.
2. There is sometimes an unspoken assumption among Christian circles that it is bad to criticize Israel because it’s “God’s nation”. This doesn’t fit for several reasons: (A) The current government of Israel does not necessarily equate to the Biblical nation/people - for one it isn’t a theocracy (B) Even if it was the same thing, there are plenty of examples in scripture of the nation of Israel making bad decisions and falling away from God’s will. To say that it’s actions are always justified without question would be inaccurate.
The demolishing of homes that the IDF carries out is always aimed at root out terrorists and in most cases has the purpose of finding and destroying smuggling tunnels that allow weapons to be used against the Israeli population. They simply do no indiscriminately destroyed homes as an attempt to terrorize the Palestinian people.
No, I am not saying that the only fair way to fight is with uniformed soldiers. I am saying that to attack non combatants and then purposely hide among non combatants shows the disregard for human life the Palestinian terrorists (as well as the PA for not preventing such atrocities) have, and leaves Israel with few options for defending it’s citizens. None of which fit the definition of terrorism that you have listed above. Neither am I saying that that the Palestinians should give up. As I said before and is becoming increasingly evident, Israel is willing to carry out peaceful negotiations with the PA that would result in a sovereign Palestinian nation. Remember, Israel is the one who has threats against it’s very existence.
As for the refugees, many of them were not driven from their homes but fled on their own accord (remember East Jerusalem) just as many Jewish people who were living in Arab countries did. The fact that Israel was willing to give the Jewish refugees amnesty and citizenship while the Arab countries refuse the Palestinians speaks volumes about the opposing sides but has nothing to do with Israeli terrorism.
Finally, the fact that you would dispute that any of the wars involving Israel were not defensive shows me that unfortunately this conversation is useless due to your willingness to accept the most absurd theories.
On the defensive war subject, I was just saying that it is often not clear cut on who the “agressor” is, and I’ve definitely heard stories that lay the blame differently in this situation. I’m not saying that I automatically accept either theory, just that reasonable people do have differing opinions on the subject, and that’s probably largely due to where they get their info from.
In any event, the main point is that continued (long-term and/or permanent) occupation of territory acquired in any war (whether or not it is a defensive one) is illegal under international law, and Israel has disregarded this for a long time.
It can’t be denied that this violation of law is the case, as the records speak for themselves, and therefore, I believe that the definition I quoted above, especially the “unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence” part, applies directly to an illegal military occupation.
As for talks leading to the development of a sovereign Palestinian nation, both sides are guilty of ending the talks and walking away from the negotiating table several times. One of the ongoing issues is that when Israel does present a plan, it is often way too small of a concession on their part, and when the Palestinians reject it, they are portrayed negatively. I would equate it to a defense attorney for a (pick your violent crime) criminal proposing a plea bargain to the DA which consisted of a two month county jail sentence. It just isn’t a fair deal, and no one would criticize the DA for rejecting it.
Also, let me point out again that the rest of the world can also see that Israel has some apologizing to do (not to lessen the degree of wrongdoing on the Palestinian side either, it goes both ways). I just don’t see why the US insists on defending these actions.
The idea that the Israeli army only engaged in just actions against the Palestinians would be noble, but there is way too much evidence that shows that not to be the case. You don’t have to take my word for it, there have been plenty of independent investigations into these allegations, some of which I’ve linked to above. To say that the *numerous* reports, confirmed by multiple sources are all untrue and inspired by arab anti-semitism is naive. Sure there is a lot of that type of thinking in the world, but that doesn’t mean that Israel does no wrong, and that any claims that suggest they do should be automatically dismissed.
First off, I apologize for saying that you accept a position which you may not, but I am willing to bet that most reasonable historians who have done extensive research on the events overwhelmingly see the wars as defensive.
I am not claiming that the UN is in any way driven by antisemitism(cop out #1, I would like to but don’t have the energy). I will however point out that the UN also makes mistakes, behaves in less than noble ways and has always been a forum that competing nations have used for their own political gain. I also am no making a claim that the majority of the reporting that goes on in the region is slanted against Israel(cop out #2), although I do view skeptically what Human Rights Watch has to say. I will point out a recent story that shows that there are news organizations that, to put it lightly, do not make great efforts to get the story right.
I never claimed that Israel has never made a mistake. My only claim is that the occupation of Palestinian territories is clearly not terrorism. It is defensive in nature and a task that Israel would gladly give up as long as it could do so and still ensure the safety of its nation and her citizens. It is truthfully to say that Israel deals with its enemies(and sometimes its allies) with a heavy hand, but they do so because of the knowledge that their nation’s neighbors as well as many individuals around the world welcome their extinction. It is also true that Israel often carries out humanitarian efforts in the Palestinian territories which makes you wonder why they would want to do such a thing while simultaneously terrorizing them.