The World Economic Forum wrapped up at the romantic Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh a few days ago. The participants included several past and present heads of state, members of parliaments, intellectuals, economists and businessmen representing 50 countries and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). At the two-day conference each one voiced the worries and anxieties of the society or organization he represented. For instance, they discussed such diverse topics as terror, unemployment, challenges posed by globalization, the myth called clash of civilizations, dialogue between religions, the widening divide between the rich and the poor, the Arab-Israeli conflict and Israel’s nuclear arsenal in addition to major economic issues.
While terror is the greatest challenge confronting the humanity now, the countries of the world have, ironically, failed to agree on a definition of terrorism acceptable to all so that the world community can identify and get rid of it. The meeting did not, surprisingly, discuss the causes that give rise to the phenomenon of terrorism. The discussions revolved, largely, around the impact of terror on the world economy and investment climate and the dialogue between civilizations.
It is not an easy task to launch a discussion on the factors and the climate that breeds terrorism. The Arab region with Israel planted in its midst is plagued by a host of ethnic, sectarian, political issues, which are the inevitable consequence of the Western occupation of the region in the past and the present meddling in the region’s internal affairs. The West has been, seemingly, seeking the disintegration or debilitation of the countries of the region that it thinks would serve its interests including the protection of Israel.
Several terrorist outfits have, on the other hand, found a most favorable breeding ground for their nefarious activities in the frequent disputes and clashes in the Middle East, particularly in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The perpetrators of terror attacks never keep it a secret that they have been committing these acts as a reaction to the Western or Israeli policies in the region. They invariably point at the unfair treatment meted out to the Arab people by the West, especially their pro-Israeli stance in the Palestinian conflict. The US and other Western countries do not even make an attempt to hide their bias in favor of Israel.
The Israeli atrocities to the hapless people of the occupied Palestine should, undoubtedly, be considered terrorism.
It is a measure of the blind American support to the Zionist policies of occupation and repression that Israel’s new Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the New York Times that he prays to the Almighty every morning for the long life of America, Bush and Rice!
I wanted the forum to define terrorism even if the US did not like it. It is because Israel has been practicing state-sponsored terrorism while loudly claiming that its army is only fighting in self-defense. On the other hand, even the United Nations does not deny the Palestinians’ right to fight for freedom from Israeli occupation, though the UN turns a blind eye to Israel defying every principle of human rights and international law all the time.
An unbiased attempt to define terrorism should also try to understand the difference between an occupied people’s right to resistance. The criterion applied should be the same for both the sides. Those who call the frustrated Palestinians’ attacks on Israeli civilians terrorism should not hesitate to call Israeli Army’s attacks on hapless Palestinian civilians as state-sponsored terrorism.
The Sharm El-Sheikh meet could have been exploited by the attending international personalities including Israeli and Jewish intellectuals to hammer out a way to bring, somehow or other, Israel to negotiation with the Palestinians.
The peace between Israel and Palestine will undoubtedly bring about harmony in the entire Middle East that will in turn usher in an epoch of progress and prosperity for the region.
Nevertheless, one wonders whether the recommendations of any forum or conference will be potent enough to compel Israel to give up its nuclear warheads. I don’t think it will work even if moderate Israeli and Jewish intellectuals, who reject the Zionist ideas of occupation, take the initiative. It is because the designs of the Jewish state have no place for peace.
