Dishonesty+of+language+of+terrorism,+Crispin+Hemson,+Business+Day

Business Day, Johannesburg, Letters, 17 July 2006
The Middle East conflict illustrates the profound dishonesty of the language of “terrorism”. What constitutes terrorism is never defined. It does not include the wanton destruction of Lebanese or Palestinian infrastructure. It does not include the killing of dozens of civilians in these areas.

According to US President George Bush, these are all forms of “legitimate retaliation” for what US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton refers to as an “act of terrorism”.

And what was this act? The capturing of three soldiers as a means of getting Israel to negotiate for the release of some of the thousands of fighters it has captured.

However, US funding for Somali warlords who commit every human rights violation is not terrorism. Nor was its shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner.

We should be particularly aware of this double-speak in SA, where the dishonest use of the term terrorism was part of the system set up to control the population.

Israel and the west are morally bankrupt on this issue.

I am someone who teaches students about the long history of anti-Semitism in the west, and who explains how that relates to racism now. I challenge anti-Semitic language. I believe that all in the Middle East deserve peace and security.

None of this should ever be used to justify the contempt Israel displays for Arab people, a contempt built on the west’s historical treatment of Arabs.

The cynicism of the west and its use of the word “terrorist” to describe whoever it does not like, is itself a major contributor to violent conflict around the world.

Glenwood
 * Crispin Hemson**


 * From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/article.aspx?ID=BD4A233909**

277 words