Israel Matzav

What's terrorism?

Anne Bayefsky points to the disconnect between the positions being taken by Muslim countries at President Obama's conference on preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, and the positions being taken by the same countries, 200 miles up Interstate 95, at a UN Conference on defining terrorism.

In Washington, the image is of President Obama sitting on a chair beaming like a Cheshire cat, opposite some lucky head of state. The two are surrounded by smiling Obama appointees and everyone agrees that terrorism is bad. In New York, the very same states agree terrorism is naughty. It’s just that “resistance,” “armed struggle,” and “liberation” are not terrorism.

The major stumbling-block to the conclusion of a draft comprehensive convention against terrorism at the UN has been a concerted effort by Islamic states to carve out an exception for murdering civilians of their choosing. Israelis top the list, but Americans are not far behind.

The terrorism convention of the Organization of the Islamic States accordingly creates an exception to its phony denunciation of terrorism. Exempt from “terrorist crimes” are “peoples' struggle including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination.”

So let’s compare the simultaneous Washington and New York performances. In Washington, the president invited many “anti-terrorism” invitees from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. Presumably, he decided to showcase his close ties with Muslim nations. In New York, OIC members chose Syria, nuclear arms wannabe and state sponsor of terrorism, to do their talking. Speaking on behalf of the OIC, therefore, Syria declared yesterday: “The group reiterates once again the need to make a distinction…between terrorism and the struggle for the right of self-determination by people under foreign occupation, and colonial or alien domination.”

In Washington, the president invited many additional “anti-terrorism” invitees from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) – such as China, India, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. At the UN, the 117 NAM members selected as their spokesperson for the drafting of an anti-terrorism convention none other than Iran. Iranian UN Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee said the following on behalf of NAM states – almost half of Obama’s invitees coming from this group: “Terrorism should not be equated with the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination…for self-determination and national liberation.” (The issue of self-determination for the Iranian people was somehow not raised.)

Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani wallowed in Obama’s attention in D.C. and declared that any nuclear terrorism fears arising from Pakistani actions or inactions were unjustified. Meanwhile, his UN representative was saying in New York: “My delegation aligns itself with the statements made by the distinguished representatives of Syria and Iran.”

The government of Algeria was especially pleased by Obama’s invitation. But a few hours before Foreign Affairs Minister Mourad Medelci dined in D.C. last night, his government told the UN: “Algeria endorses the statements made by Syria and Iran…International law should make sure that we avoid generalizations that Algeria has always denounced between terrorism and the armed struggle of people in supporting their right to self-determination and their liberation…”

Bayefsky then rips Obama:

President Obama’s security summit takes grandstanding to a whole new level. The White House calls it “the largest gathering of countries hosted by an American President…since the conference in San Francisco around the United Nations” in 1945. Of course, back then the number meant most of the world’s states, while today it is less than a quarter.

True friends of America like the British and Israeli prime ministers have stayed away, while double-talking and double-dealing non-democrats have their run of the place. Shutting down Iran – the leading threat to nuclear security and state sponsor of terrorism – is not even on the table.

And half of the attendees at this anti-terrorism extravaganza can’t recognize terrorism when it stares them in the face.

Read it all.

It would seem that the OIC would be okay with nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists at least so long as they are only used in 'wars of liberation' or against 'occupation.' Anyone who doubts that Iran or its proxies would use nuclear weapons against Israel should take note once again.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:27 PM