GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES | April 2010 | North America Edition

INSIGHTPeasants suspected of being communists underdetention of U.S. army, 1966 | Wikimedia CommonsQUESTION 3:Does the UN definition, which was adopted with the consent of the U.S., UK and otherWestern powers, justify the use of chemical weapons?How to judge the case of the U.S. use of Agent Orange in Vietnam to which 4.8 millionVietnamese people were exposed, resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities, and500,000 children born with birth defects? And the deployment of Napalm by the U.S. –was that “lawful”?And how to categorize the Israeli bombing with white phosphor on Gaza?Don't these activities fall under the definition of “unlawful”? Aren't these “criminalacts”?The UN definition of terrorism is: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke astate of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for politicalpurposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political,philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may beinvoked to justify them."QUESTION 4:Weren't the U.S. nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a “... calculated use ofunlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce orto intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political,religious, or ideological,” according to the U.S. Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms definition?Can't the U.S. use of drone strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan be defined as calculated use of unlawful violence? They kill hundredsof unarmed civilians.QUESTION 5:Don't the Western threats to impose more and tougher sanctions against Iran to punish it for a potential, not‐based on any scientificevidence, probable and eventual intention to produce nuclear heads in an unspecified future... don't they fit in the U.S. Defense Departmentdefinition: “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or tointimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”QUESTION 6:Doesn't the reported possession by Israel of 200 nuclear weapons constitute “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a stateof terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable,whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invokedto justify them."? How to characterize that in the light of all the above definitions of terrorism? Is it enough to declare the aim of suchweapons as 'deterrent' instead of using the definition of “inculcate fear”?QUESTION 7:The final statement by an unprecedented 47‐nation nuclear security summit in Washington promised greater efforts to block "nonstateactors" from obtaining the building blocks for nuclear weapons for "malicious purposes".Is such a last‐minute differentiation between “state actors” and “non‐state actors” enough to legalize Israeli, Indian and Pakistan'srefusal to join the Nuclear Non‐Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?Isn't refusing to sign the NPT an act of unlawful action by a state?Isn't it state terrorism, the use of military force and violence against unarmed demilitarized populations, of occupying their lands,demolishing their houses, installing colonies in their place, building separation walls, annexing territories, imposing hermetic siege,showing irreverence toward places of worship, and more – expelling natives from their lands?A FINAL POINTAll said, there is an aspect that has not been specified in any of the above definitions but that could possibly fit in one or another definition.It is about that fact that quite often – with or without any solid, scientific evidence – terrorism and terrorists are both tagged withthe adjective ‘Islamist’, a singular word designed to define Islam only.In fact, no terrorist organization in a ‘Christian’ European country (Spanish ETA, the German Baader‐Meinhof or the Irish RepublicArmy, among others) has ever been branded as “Christianist”.Nor has the Haganah – the paramilitary organization active during the British Mandate for Palestine period 1920 to 1948 – whichlater became the core of the Israel Defense Forces – ever been called “Hebrewist” or “Jewishist”.Could it be that there are 'good' terrorists and 'bad' terrorists? 10 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES | APRIL 2010