What does the word “terror” mean? In recent months it seems that the word has acquired new meanings depending upon whom you speak to. The meanings seem to vary and to encompass a number of mutually exclusive things. What do the words retaliation, civilian casualties and “peace” — above all “peace” — mean?
What makes someone like George W. Bush and his supporters define the “war against terror” so differently from the Arab, or even the European, definition? What makes such countries as Denmark and Belgium see Israeli actions on the West Bank as gross violations of human rights while the US calls those same actions self-defense?
Sharon says he wants a responsible Palestinian leadership. But do the words “leadership” and “responsible” have the same old dictionary meanings? Or is there a new Sharonite meaning which we must adopt and adhere to? In a speech on Monday, Sharon accused the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, of having created a “regime of terror,” against Israel. Does that sound familiar? What is “a regime of terror” anyway? Would it include suicide bombers and Israeli tanks destroying homes in Nablus and West Bank? A besieged leader is a terrorist while a prime minister who is demolishing homes and killing innocent civilians is not. Who is the terrorist? What does the word mean?
Instead of coming together, the world today seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Nobody seems to agree on simple facts or even on what we used to believe in and accept as established facts. Suddenly Sharon, Bush, Blair and company have a certain way of putting things into words. On the other side of the globe most of the world is boiling with anger, frustration and despair. They too have their own definitions of what the words “terrorist” “peace” and “justice” mean. How can it be just and fair to ask the world to attack Iraq because it is violating international laws while Israel makes it a habit to ignore UN resolutions?
A teenage girl, a mother, a child of six, a desperate suicide bomber, a politician or a church-bell ringer? How can all these people be terrorists, according to the US definition? And what about that other infamous expression: “collateral damage”? What does human life mean? What is it worth? If it is not the same in the US and Palestine, then we must agree that we have a basic misunderstanding which ultimately breaks the world into small pieces. And in this chaotic world, neither the US nor any other country has the right to decide what is right or wrong. If it is right for the US to kill Afghan civilians in its battle against terrorism and if Sharon can kill children and stop ambulances from collecting the wounded and the dead on the West Bank, then it is certainly just as right for a Palestinian suicide bomber to kill as many civilians as he can. After all, the suicide bomber is fighting in his way what he would define as terrorism!
Until the world agrees on what is called what, things will remain the same, people will be reduced to numbers in news bulletins and games for power will erode more of what is left of basic human rights and values.
If this state of confusion is what the world’s only superpower wants, then surely Colin Powell should save both his time and his breath. No matter what he says, there is already the deepest possible gulf between what is right and what is merely politically expedient. The Americans want the Arab to stop donations to the Palestinian families, because this is an endorsement of terrorism. What is the difference between the families of Palestinian bombers and those of McVeigh and the UnaBomber?
By ignoring and refusing to see the other side of the conflict, the US cannot reasonably be surprised at the depth and increase of anti-American feeling in the region. [email protected]
