|
|
||||||||
|
|
Concepts of Terrorism & Resistance In the wake of September 11, 2001 the Middle East Studies Center in Jordan began a process of bringing together Arab leaders, intellectuals and scholars to formulate an agreed upon understanding and definition of terrorism. It clearly outlined the difference between illegitimate violent terrorism and legitimate armed resistance. This document marks the outcome of that process in which nearly 50 Arab leaders and scholars participated. Since its completion, it has been signed by dozens of other prominent Arab leaders and intellectuals thus forming the basis for a region-wide understanding of the difference between terrorism and resistance as well as the basis for an Arab-Western dialogue over this contentious issue. Concepts of Terrorism and ResistanceAn Arab – Islamic UnderstandingIntroductionThe illegitimate use of violence is a phenomenon that has existed throughout history. However, the use of the term "Terrorism" to label such acts has increased dramatically in recent years despite the fact that the international community has not been able to agree on a single, distinct definition of the term. Terrorism is sometimes defined as any offensive attack against civilians and civilian property. Others assert that to differentiate terrorist from criminal acts the motivation of the perpetrator needs to be taken into account. Most of the confusion and disagreement over the use of the term terrorism occurs when it is used to label what others would consider a legitimate right of resistance against colonial domination or occupation. Ever since the issue of defining terrorism was first brought to the attention of the League of Nations in 1937, the international community has consistently distinguished between illegitimate acts of violent terrorism and the legitimate right of a people living under colonial rule to use force in resisting occupation. UN agreements, such as the Special International Agreement for Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights of 1966 made the right to self-determination an international legal right. In pursuance of those legal rights, the UN has consistently recognized the legitimacy of the use of armed struggle by national liberation movements. Thirteen international agreements have been concluded by the UN General Assembly recognizing the right of colonized people to use armed force in seeking independence and self-determination. In Recommendation 3103 of 1973, the General Assembly clearly provided those resisting foreign occupation the legal status of those involved in armed conflicts thus covering them under the rules of international law, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In Resolution 3070 of 1974, the UN General Assembly further sanctioned all forms of foreign aid and assistance to those seeking self-determination and resisting foreign occupation. In the case of the Palestinian people, the UN General Assembly has consistently recognized both their inalienable legal and political rights as well as the legitimacy of their armed struggle to regain those rights. Examples of such resolutions include Resolution 3236 of 1974, Resolution 39/17 of 1984, and Resolution 49/149 of 1995. Despite the clear and consistent differentiation made by the United Nations and other international bodies between terrorism and resistance, the United States of America has persisted in labeling many legitimate acts of armed resistance as acts of terrorism, particularly with regards to the Palestinian people. This became especially pronounced after the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 and the Sharm El-Sheikh Conference in 1996. After September 11, 2001 such selective labeling took on new prominence as the United States declared an open war on terrorism and announced the division of the world into two camps, saying countries, groups, and individuals were "either with America or with terrorism." In the current world order, there is an important need to distinguish between terrorism and legitimate resistance. This will ensure first, that the legitimacy of the right to resist against foreign occupation is reaffirmed and second, that the selective use of the term terrorism not be used as a pretext to violate the human, political, and legal rights of peoples nor encroach upon the sovereignty of states or unjustly interfere in their internal affairs. The Concept of Terrorism Terrorism: It is the illegitimate use of violence, or threat to use violence, stimulated by illegitimate motives that primarily aim at terrorizing people and exposing innocent lives to danger, undertaken by a state, a group or an individual for the purpose of achieving illegitimate interests. On this basis, terrorism differs utterly from instances wherein resort to armed force is undertaken within the framework of legitimate resistance. As such, terrorism is a complete violation of all basic norms of human behavior and human rights that contradicts all divine legislations and international conventions. The Concept of Resistance top back Resistance: It is the legitimate use of all means, including armed force, to fight off aggression; eliminate occupation and colonial domination; achieve independence; and do away with injustice backed by armed force. Resistance is undertaken for legitimate political objectives fully consistent with international law and confirmed by the Islamic Principles. The legitimacy of resistance is based on a set of established legal principles, UN resolutions and international conventions, including Article 51 of the UN Charter and UN General Assembly Resolution 3246 of 1974 which not only affirmed the legitimate right to resist occupation but declared that any attempt to suppress such armed resistance would be a violation of the UN Charter and international law. Resisting Israeli Occupation top back The foundation of the Israeli state was brought about at the expense of another people. Israel is the aggressor against the Palestinian people and the occupier of their territory. What this state resorts to in terms of torture; mass arrests; murder; massacres; the killing of children; the demolishing of homes; the confiscation and destruction of lands; and all acts pertaining to oppression, injustice, displacement and exile practiced against the people of Palestine, constitutes terrorism in the actual sense of the word. The Israeli acts are crimes that violate international norms as stated in the UN Charter and are inconsistent with all human values. Accordingly, Palestinian acts of resistance against Israeli occupation are legitimate endeavors, no different from the resistance of De Gaulle and Churchill against Nazi terrorism in Europe; nor that of the Americans against British colonialism in the 18th Century; nor that of other peoples in their resistance against colonial domination and foreign occupation for the sake of attaining independence and the right of self-determination. Recommendations In order to stem the growth of terrorism and reaffirm the rights of legitimate resistance, we suggest the following recommendations: 1. Formulating an internationally agreed-upon definition of Terrorism that clearly distinguishes it from legitimate resistance. 2. Differentiating between the terrorist acts undertaken by Israel and other states and acts of legitimate resistance carried out by national liberation movements. 3. Providing peoples subjected to occupation or colonial domination with independence and the right of self-determination which will uproot any attempt to use national motives to excuse terrorism. 4. Increasing international cooperation based on justice, equality, mutual interests and the application of international laws pertaining to the right of self-determination. 5. Providing sufficient protection to civilians during war situations, including ensuring the delivery of medical assistance and offering food and other kinds of aid to those who are in need. 6. Confronting state terrorism, and checking its aggravation, by crystallizing a unified international stance against states that resort to it, particularly Israel; and isolating such states until they desist practicing and patronizing terrorism. 7. Having strong states desist from the use of military and economic threats and the exploitation of the resources of weak states and alternatively working on encouraging the establishment of cooperative, peaceful international relationships. 8. Extending the scope of cultural dialogue between the Arab-Islamic world and the western world, with the objective at lessening the need to resort to force and violent means in handling any problems or crises that might arise between the two peoples. Such deep cooperation and dialogue tracks would minimize the use of differences as a pretext for acts that may lay under the term terrorism as mentioned above earlier.
Amman – Jordan
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|