The Other Middle Eastern Terrorist

Image via WikipediaAs ongoing acts of violence continue to escalate and intensify across the planet, it becomes more appropriate that we all take a step back and revisit the question: "Does the definition of what constitutes terrorism depend upon who the perpetrator happens to be"? Or, are we simply content to sit back and accept whatever list of terror organizations as may be drawn up by the state as the only ones that are guilty of committing such heinous acts? While there is still no universally agreed definition, Wikipedia states that "Common definitions of Terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of civilians". The difficulty in blindly accepting any labeling can be seen in Afghanistan, where the Taliban were once called freedom fighters (mujaheddin) and backed by the CIA when they were resisting the Soviets - now that they resist this occupation they are labeled terrorists. During WWII the French resistance used explosives and other violent means to fight against the Nazis and their own Vichy regime - today they are seen as heroes. For those fighting on the 'wrong' side, Resistance is called ‘terrorism’.

When the basis under which your state comes into existence is found to rely on the terrorizing and forced expulsion of many hundreds of thousands of inhabitants from their homeland with a subsequent denial of their right to return to their lands, your forces assassinate the peace negotiator who called for repatriation and compensation for the refugees and also carry out numerous terrorist acts including dynamiting a public building, massacring many hundreds of villagers, bombing a public bus, and also bombing British, U.S., and Egyptian property, you have set the tone for future interactions. Indeed, a brief check of the history will reveal that In the Beginning, There Was Terror. Indeed, when no less than four of your heads of government have been involved in leading campaigns of terror, it adds a new dimension to a nation Founded By And Living On Terror.

It is interesting that those wishing to justify the status-quo are prone to treat only one side as the aggressor while the other is painted as the victim only seeking to defend itself. So, if you live in the West consider this: If a group of Muslims migrated to your country claiming a divine right to occupy your property and to take over your farmland or business, then drives you and your family out permanently, would you refrain from retaliation? Well, if you did nothing you would be one of a very, very tiny minority of people on this planet. Almost everyone would then consider themselves morally justified indefending their rights! And if Aggression, Militarism, and Terror have prevailed, why would you act any differently?

So why has this been allowed to go on for so long - this continued subjugation and humiliation of a people who have been forcibly separated from their property, denied the right to return to the land of their birth, and forced to live a sub-human existence while those who deny them the right of return forcibly build settlements where they now live? Well, one reason may be that for a long time the world felt unrelieved guilt at not having done more to prevent the genocidal acts committed by the Nazis during World War II. In attempting to remedy that situation they may have turned a blind eye to another equally appalling situation that has been perpetrated on another civilization. Another reason is undoubtedly that many have misread biblical prophecy and used it as a justification for actions that are indefensible. By so doing they bring a stain onto the name of the One!

Many many years ago there lived a man who traversed far and wide over these lands that now occupy much of the world's attention to bring forth the good news of God's kingdom. Most people who heard him misunderstood and misapplied the biblical prophecies as they eagerly awaited and watched for him to establish an earthly kingdom. Even though he constantly explained that he had come to establish a spiritual kingdom, preaching that  "...the kingdom of God is within you", many hearing his message still clung to such beliefs. In the end, those charged with leading the people colluded with the earthly rulers of that time in having him executed, rejecting the messenger sent by the Most High. Once again, the modern-day descendants of those ancients look to their holy books to find justification for establishing an earthly kingdom and for dispensing with anyone who may be in their way. Once again also, many of those who purport to be followers of the rejected messenger find themselves waiting and watching for this earthly nation and defending the indefensible!

Some additional writings of interest in this ongoing saga:
The Hypocrisy
We Have Lost Our Way
Terrorism in the Region
One State Stands, and Lies, With Another
Settler Terrorists Plan more Mosque Burnings