Good Terror, Bad Terror
The United Nations condemns terrorism, but at the same time the U.N. admits that it is unable to agree on a definition of terrorism that will satisfy its membership. And unlike Potter Stewart, Kofi and Company don't even seem to know the thing when they see it.
As Belmont Club points out, "Under the stated criteria, acts such as the recent Israeli missile strike against Hamas second-in-command Adnan al-Ghoul, and his aide, Imad Abbas in Gaza could could come under condemnation just as easily as the massacre of schoolchildren in Beslan," and, "the beheading of British hostage Kenneth Bigley is a legitimate act of resistance against occupation."
For eight years now, a UN committee has labored to draft a "comprehensive convention on international terrorism." It has been stalled since day one on the issue of "defining" terrorism. But what is the mystery? At bottom everyone understands what terrorism is: the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Islamic Conference, however, has insisted that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. In this view, any act done in the cause of "national liberation," no matter how bestial or how random or defenseless the victims, cannot be considered terrorism. This boils down to saying that terrorism on behalf of bad causes is bad, but terrorism on behalf of good causes is good. Obviously, anyone who takes such a position is not against terrorism at all-but only against bad causes.
As Belmont Club points out, "Under the stated criteria, acts such as the recent Israeli missile strike against Hamas second-in-command Adnan al-Ghoul, and his aide, Imad Abbas in Gaza could could come under condemnation just as easily as the massacre of schoolchildren in Beslan," and, "the beheading of British hostage Kenneth Bigley is a legitimate act of resistance against occupation."
