Get definition straight on Palestinian 'terrorism'

Get definition straight on Palestinian ‘terrorism’

Robert Jensen
Department of Journalism
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
work: (512) 471-1990
fax: (512) 471-7979
rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu

Houston Chronicle, March 9, 2001, p. 35-A.
Also posted on the Common Dreams News Center website.

by Robert Jensen

With a new hard-line Israeli defense minister promising to strike at thePalestinian “terrorists and their masters,” it is more importantthan ever to be clear about the politics of the term “terrorism.”A bit of contemporary history might help here.

On Dec. 7, 1987, the U.N. General Assembly voted 153-2 (with one abstention) to approve a resolution that condemned international terrorism.

The two nations rejecting the resolution were the United States and Israel.

The story of those votes tells us much about the power of some states tolabel the acts of others as terrorism while avoiding accountability for theirown terrorist acts.

General Assembly Resolution 42/159 concerned “measures to prevent international terrorism,” and was made up mostly of boilerplate phrases that seem hard to contest: “deploring the continuation of all terrorist acts,” “deeply disturbed by the world-wide persistence of those acts,” and “convinced of the importance of expanding and improving international co-operation.”

The language seems uncontroversial, until one gets to the section that reaffirms the legitimacy of the national liberation movements of “peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination;” nothing in the resolution should be taken to deny “the right to self-determination, freedom and independence.”

The resolution also urges all states “to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Now the no-votes by the United States and Israel, and their positions onterrorism, become clearer. Both nations oppose terrorism, so long as we havethe definitions straight.

From the U.S./Israeli point of view, violence committed by Israel against Palestinians is defensive. So, Israel’s military occupation of theWest Bank and Gaza, routine use of torture, arbitrary demolition of homes,and political assassinations are not examples of terrorism, but are simplynecessary for defense. Palestinian violence in resistance, though alwaysat a far lower level, is terrorism.

Similarly, when Israel occupied Lebanon throughout the 1980s and ‘90s in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, the violence of that occupation was defensive, and Hezbollah’s resistance to that occupation was labeled terrorism.

The question is, of course, what is Israel defending? Its people, or itsprogram of conquest and expansion?

If we were to take seriously the moral call to end domination by colonial regimes, certainly Israel’s occupation of Palestine would be amongthe first to be addressed. Everyone is aware of the complexity of the situation in Israel/Palestine, but we all should be just as aware that Israel occupies land conquered in war in violation of international law. That is colonialism.

There is no doubt that both sides in the conflict have killed, and at times killed civilians. The 1987 General Assembly resolution deplores any taking of “innocent human lives,” but it also acknowledges that thecauses of terrorism often lie in “misery, frustration, grievance anddespair” that leads people to seek radical change. Such sympathiesfor the victims of occupation and repression, and hence the resolution expressingthose sympathies, were unacceptable to Israel and the United States.

So long as the Palestinians accept the narrow limits of what was until recently called “the peace process,” Israel is willing to grant them some minimal rights, mostly the right to rule over their own impoverishment.

But Palestinians revert to the status of terrorists when they resist thedaily humiliations of checkpoints, closures and random violence against them,or when they refuse to accept a subordinate status that allows Israel toretain the best land and the water resources. If Palestinians demand a statewith true sovereignty and self-determination, the condemnations from Israelbegin once again.

If one abandons morality and considers only power, it is easy to see whyIsraeli refused to vote to condemn terrorism. It’s also easy to seewhy the United States followed suit. For decades the United States has investedin Israel as a strategic partner to help maintain U.S. dominance in the Middle East. So long as policymakers see value in that strategy, the United States is unlikely to put serious pressure on Israel to seek not just peace, but a just peace, in the Middle East.

The likelihood of such pressure for justice for the Palestinians will increase dramatically, however, if U.S. citizens understand better the history ofthe region, realize the complicity of the United States, and demand thatU.S. policy support “the inalienable right to self-determination andindependence of all peoples” that the U.N. resolution reminds us isthe foundation of international law.

Robert Jensen is a professor in the Department of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.

BACK TO FREE-LANCE ARTICLES

BACK TO ROBERTW.JENSEN'S HOME PAGE