“[T]he US, Israel and other imperial European countries understand well that the resistance of Palestinians, Algerians, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans, Yemenis, Somalis and other peoples around the world to colonial and imperial invasions and bombings is a legitimate and moral self-defence against imperial and colonial terror, which is why they have to launch political propaganda campaigns and fabrications, and deploy the term “terrorism” to depict such resistance as always immoral and illegitimate.”
—Joseph Massad, Middle East Eye, 17 September 2021
‘We are back’ to the same arguments about ‘terrorism’ and ‘international law’.
– It is a question of power and revenge. Israel’s massive state violence stems from the ability of the state to carry out such acts.
– Israel’s massive acts of violence is supported by the major power with whom it has broken the ‘international law’ over decades.
– Israel can do it, like the US did it in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other countries because it can.
– Like the concept of ‘freedom’, the definition of ‘terrorism’ is controlled by those who define it and suit their interests. Thus, state violence is not considered ‘terrorism’.
– Israel is a Western creation. Israel is a ‘liberal democracy’ supported by ‘liberal democracies’. Period.
– ‘Terrorism’ description has also been used by other states, besides the Western powers. From Egypt to Russia, from Venezuela to China opponents of the state have been labelled ‘terrorists’.
– What defenders of ‘international law’ are not aware of or seem to ignore is the indeterminacy of law and its interpretation. “Because international law is a process, not a set of norms, we cannot look to it to tell us whether or not the waging of the Gulf War [for example], or … the methods by which it was executed, were legal or illegal. For every claim there is a counter-claim, and ‘legalist’ opposition to the war is therefore ultimately toothless.
“The attempt to replace war and inequality with law is not merely utopian – it is precisely self-defeating. A world structured around international law cannot but be one of imperialist violence. The chaotic and bloody world around us is the rule of law.” (China Miéville, Between Equal Rights, 2005)
****
“The moral revulsion that we must feel against terrorism is selective. We are to feel the terror of those groups, which are officially disapproved. We are to applaud the terror of those groups of whom officials do approve. Hence, President Reagan, 'I am contra’. He actually said that.
The dominant approach also excludes from consideration the terror of friendly governments. It excused among others the terror of Pinochet in Chile and it excused the terror of Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan.
The ratio of people killed by the state terror of Zia ul-Haq, Pinochet, Argentinean, Brazilian, Indonesian type, versus the killing of the PLO and other terrorist types is literally, conservatively, one to one hundred thousand.
US policy in the Cold War period has sponsored terrorist regimes one after another. Somoza, Batista, all kinds of tyrants have been America's friends. Nicaragua, contra. Afghanistan, Mujahiddin. El Salvador, etc.”
—From a transcript of a talk by Eqbal Ahmed, University of Colorado, Boulder, on 12 October 1998
Comments