Friday, June 09, 2006

UN Resolution 42/159

Measures to prevent international terrorism which endangers or takes innocent human lives or jeopardizes fundamental freedoms and study of the underlying causes of those forms of terrorism and acts of violence which lie in misery, frustration, grievance and despair and which cause some people to sacrifice human lives, including their own, in an attempt to effect radical changes:

This quote from UN Resolution 42/159 gives tacit agreement to the use of suicide bombers with the inclusion of "including their own" vis a vis " sacrifice human lives.... to effect radical changes."

source

Terrorism defined by means other than the great UN always includes the deliberate targeting of innocents. It never has included the body of the killer in some exculpatory phrases in defense of killing innocents. Terrorism is defined by the fact that they target innocents. This resolution is an effort to dismiss the targeting of innocents because of some grievance. To generalize from this: any group with - what it perceives as a grievance - can target innocents if the person that does the killing is also killed.

b) Convening, under the auspices of the United Nations, of an international conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of peoples for national liberation .

in as much as it is preceded by this quote:

Measures to prevent international terrorism which endangers or
takes innocent human lives or jeopardizes fundamental freedoms and study of the underlying causes of those forms of terrorism...

source http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/a42r159.htm

It appears the united nations wants to prevent that which it has not yet a definition for.

Much of the resolution is crafted not around what is the definition of that which targets the lives of innocents, but a workaround for some that do take target the lives of innocents. It appears that under the aegis of 'struggles of peoples for national liberation,' the targeting of innocents is tolerable.

a reflection:

A reading of the Hamas Covenant reveals not a people striving for "national liberation" but a religious movement:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned. In the absence of Islam, strife will be rife, oppression spreads, evil prevails and schisms and wars will break out.



Given that 'Palestine' is a mixture of religions (mainly Christians and Moslems), it could be argued that the present Palestinian government is not primarily a national movement, but a religious movement. Actually it could be argued that the government under Arafat was also suffused in the Islamic religion to the exception of the Christians in as much as it was to be under Sharia law.


Middle East Report Online: The Palestinian Elections That Never ... Arafat had also finally signed the Palestinian Basic Law, long since approved by the ... So far, law in future Palestine is based on Islamic sharia law, ... www.merip.org/mero/mero012403.html - 52k - Cached -

That leaves the constitution committee, headed by Shaath. Every
day, the press carries his statements that the document is only days from completion. So far, law in future Palestine is based on Islamic sharia law, an announcement that has caused concern for the Christian minority. Unlike most other Arab women, Palestinian mothers will pass on their citizenship to their offspring.


Today's Palestinian government, Hamas, is a religious movement on a mission:


"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" Hamas_covenant


One may well ask, what do we have here: a national movement or Islamic imperialism??

--(The Lady or the Tiger?) ---credit to nobody

1 comment:

Stella said...

A true and excellent article. Indeed, the UN wants to prevent that which it has not yet a definition for. And they are at great pains to avoid one. (How refreshing it would be if they abstained from euphemisms when they spoke of terrorists.)
Indeed, a fine article!