Terrorism and Contemporary International Law

All types of terrorism that intersect with the system of international interests, economic development, and freedom of the market (criteria defining the new international system) have created objections to the link between the emergence of violence in all its forms and applications, and the strict, coercive, and unfair regulations imposed by them on the other countries of the world.
The justification for operations of state terrorism, selective attitudes, looting of people’s resources, economic dominance, military action, and the imposition of economic blockades – all this is justified by allegations that they will bring peace, human rights, and democracy. The United States has carefully silenced opposing opinions and disseminated only its own definition of terrorism. It has made sure to prevent any commitment to a specific legal definition of terrorism created by unified global public opinion and by international institutions and organizations; instead, they prefer – the United States – to keep the definition open to different options and explanations.
It was necessary for the United States, in order to implement its plan in the Middle East, to put a non-Arab element between the Arab countries as its starting point for any military action in the region. This was the reason for their recognition of the Zionist entity and their alliance with (Israel). Since then the United States has worked to strengthen Israel by all and any means. And for (Israel) to be able to take a strong stand in the face of the Arab countries as a whole, it must be shown as an economic, political, and military power. So it was that the United States provided all the required support for Israel to enjoy recognition and become a force not to be reckoned with. For this purpose, there has been U.S. support of Israel in global institutions that ignore the aggression on Palestinian territories and the killings and displacements, starvation and genocide.

State Practice and the International Order
The United States continues a policy of persuasion, threats, and intimidation in order to create an international coalition that allows them to monopolize the right to self-defense and the fight against terrorism. The attack of September 11 provided the U.S. with a good opportunity to reshuffle their cards; it was time to settle all accounts with opponents of their approach to capitalism and globalization. The map of the fight against terrorism that was prepared by the United States could not be expected to be limited to only one or two targets, and does not accept any restrictions or specifications, but includes all who take exception to the American way.  
In such an atmosphere, and within the backdrop of widespread accusations and questioning of the concept of liberation movements and national struggles, including the recent questioning of the Lebanese resistance, it seems that there is a formula whose strands are still being woven, based on the assumption that alternatives to capitalist thought don’t exist, and that the global system of capitalism will continue to strengthen its positions in a decisive way without competitors or concerns. Their tasks of the time are centered around how to grab all the cards of the political game and put them in the hands of the U.S. administration and its strong arm of globalization, in order to give it the legal right and international cover to impose its hegemony and its definition of terrorism, despite the recognition of many of the arbitrary crimes committed by the U.S. administration. This motivates the escalation of the struggle and energizes the masses to deter the threat posed on humanity by the arbitrary and selective policies that prioritize the interests of capitalism. Here emerged the heroic Palestinian resistance, which has continued to resist since then. Entering its sixth year, the Palestinian uprising is still at the height of its power. With every criminal act done by Zionist enemy forces and attacks carried out on our children, elders, and women, hands rise and voices shout for the victory of the Palestinian resistance.
But where is international law in all of these massacres and atrocities? Where are the international institutions that are meant to deal with establishing global peace and creating a better world of kindness, love and nonviolence?
In what follows, we will see some of the statements of international law and some of the acts of global institutions that are supposed to be there to protect the vulnerable and to help the oppressed. Of course, in principle, no law endorses violence and fighting. But is there an applicable law that punishes acts of violence, especially in a unipolar world of patronage?
The United States was at the center of several attempts aimed at the definition of the phenomena of political violence, and the distinction between terrorism and legitimate resistance to occupation. The first decision issued by the General Assembly of the United Nations concerning the treatment of terrorism (Resolution Number 3034, Date: 18/12/1972) was clearly on  the side of confirming the legitimacy of struggle for national liberation and on distinguishing between this and the problem of international terrorism.

The Security Council Resolutions
Regardless of what the Security Council represents as systems, laws and decisions that take the character of justice and equity, their actions are, in fact, completely different and take the character of oppression and injustice, as is the case of Palestine and Iraq on one side and Israel on the other. Decisions are obligatory on the first and not binding on the second. Take Israel and South Africa, two racist regimes; the first system is no longer described as a racist regime by decision of the Security Council, the second is no longer a racist regime because of the demise of the system; yet this is not called, as some would like to call it, selective attention or double standards.  The truth is that the Security Council of the United Nations is an International Zionist Security Council, and therefore there is no so-called double standard, there is only one standard that measures all things according to the vision of the Zionist Israelis. This standard is what created the State of Israel and maintains its survival and continuity.
Let’s ask these questions: How many countries were concerned about the fate of the Jews? What is the need for the existence of a state for the Jews, since Judaism is a religion and not an ethnicity, and even if it is, how does this give them the legitimacy to establish a state? There are Kurds, Armenians, Albanians of Kosovo and many others who are already on their own land! Why doesn’t the Security Council make nations for them?! Instead, it condones their extermination and repression, especially if they are Muslims, such as in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya, or enemies to an ally of the Jews as in the case of the Kurds of Turkey. When it comes to Iraq, however, the Kurds in the north have become a matter of humanitarian concern to the Security Council. What is the interest of the nations of the world and the Security Council in the establishment of a Jewish state when the regimes in most countries are secular, even in most Arab and Islamic states; if not for the Security Council being purely Zionist. But how did the Jews achieve this?
The answer is very simple. They are able to ensure a majority for the issue of any decision they want to pass by working behind the scenes and exercising persuasion and intimidation, both economical and political, on the members of the Security Council. In addition there exists the right of veto by the permanent members, including three states in favor of Israel because of being economically controlled, when only one is enough to disable any decision that does not serve the interests of Zionism. As for the two other countries, Russia and China, we cannot hope for any good from them, as they are often going along with America for the sake of political appeasement, they have a poor track record when it comes to human rights in China, or the persecution of their neighbors and or ethnic and religious minorities in Russia, not to speak of the multi-faceted economic temptation. If one of these two countries thought to use the veto on any decision that serves the State of Israel, it would be labeled as anti-Semitic and Nazi, and the World Zionist media machine would start humming; hence these things become settled in advance.

Humanitarian Agencies in the United Nations
What do these organizations call for? They call for human rights, women’s freedom, birth control, children's rights, and other freedoms and rights. Calling for these rights and freedoms often takes political form. Look at the countries accused of violating these rights and freedoms, it is the Arab-Islamic countries first, Muslim and non-Arab countries second, and communist countries third, and for any other countries they are only talk and no action. What are they expecting? Look at social life in the West, which allows these freedoms and rights, and you'll find that the answer is as follows:
Freedom of thought has resulted in idolatry, atheism and the worship and consecration of physical things. Women are liberated so they gave up their traditional role of motherhood and raising their children; this has led to all kinds of immorality, pornography, prostitution, and women are treated as pieces of meat, vulnerable to predators. Children are liberated so they disrespect parents and teachers, rebel at puberty, leave their families, and care only to satisfy their own instincts and desires. From the above we can conclude that this claim of protecting rights and freedoms is actually rebellion against human nature and norms, and against the spiritual and moral values provided by the monotheistic religions as a way of life. It aims to destroy the family, which is the cornerstone of building societies, deprive the father of his leadership role, leading to the dismantling of relations between family members and the loss of shared visions for survival and continuity, and to increase illegal birth - children of adultery - the mankind’s greatest evil before God. As for us, we are on our way to face these Zionist claims with the efforts of our thinkers, experts, and specialists in the fields of emancipation, liberation, and economic and cultural, reform. And we achieve this soon, unless God calls us to rest in peace first.


Authors: Post date:

Add new comment