Foreign Secretary justifies terrorism

So David Miliband has finally accepted that Hamas has a legitimate right to resist occupation! I haven’t made this up, just look at what he said on BBC Radio 4. Asked whether he thought terrorism can be justified, the British Foriegn Secretary replied:

‘Yes, there are circumstances in which it is justifiable, and yes, there are circumstances in which it is effective.’

But, yes there’s always a but, he was talking about the ANC’s struggle against apartheid South Africa. However according to his logic, Hamas and its resistance can be justifiable:

‘The importance for me is that the South African example proved something remarkable: the apartheid regime looked like a regime that would last forever, and it was blown down.

‘It is hard to argue that, on its own, a political struggle would have delivered. The striking at the heart of a regime’s claim on a monopoly of power, which the ANC’s armed wing represented, was very significant.’

The Israeli example is also remarkable in that there exists a regime with nuclear weapons, with powerful friends, where it can do no wrong – including kill thousands of innocent civilians (Gaza) and have it overlooked. It too looks as if it would last forever. But we know it will be blown down, just as its predecessor crusader states which at times lasted up to 90 years – and they were liberated.

There are many parallels between the South African and Israeli examples - the fact they were both colonial enterprises,  with apartheid societies, meant they were natural allies. It is even said that South Africa supplied Israel with Uranium for its illicit nuclear programme.

Mr Miliband is also correct in suggesting that a political struggle on its own does NOT achieves the objectives. In the case of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, that proved to be spot on, and some more. Since the Oslo Accords of 1993, instead of a Palestinian state with al-Quds as its capital – we have more settlements, an open [Gaza] prison, the rest is well known history. Instead of delivering the goods, they have made ‘peace talks’ forever tainted.

The late Yaseer Arafat recognised the role of armed resistance (the reason why Israel poisoned him), and Hamas still maintains the right to it. It’s just a shame that the Israeli puppet called Mahmoud Abbas has failed to see this.

So the question is will Miliband’s logic force him to change the law and remove Izz al-Deen al-Qassem Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, from the list of terrorist organisations? I doubt it, being a typical Western politician, he is naturally a hypocrite. What he means by ’some circumstances’ that justifies terrorism is those that agree with his government’s national interests.

We must not proscribe legitimate resistance, because of our own self interest. William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary quickly recognised the significance of Miliband’s remarks and commented ‘Ministers must be very careful before advancing any argument that seems to legitimise terrorism in some circumstances’. Why? Because ‘…the sacrifices of our troops in Afghanistan, are devoted to defeating terrorists, this is hardly the time to argue that terrorism is sometimes acceptable.’

Just because we have invaded countries illegally or chose to remain in others, and as a result are fighting national resistance groups – does not mean all resistance should be de-legitimised to protect British troops. The correct way to protect British troops is to return them home!

I have no problems accepting the traditional definition of terrorism, acts of violence (by non-state actors) to achieve political (including religious) objectives, and agree that it is unacceptable. But unlike Miliband I believe we must be objective in its application.

Yes peaceful means must always be the first course of action, but when that isn’t an option armed resistance is the only way left - that is precisely why international law allows armed resistance against foreign occupation.

So for example, in the case of Northern Ireland (NI) – there cannot be any justification for terrorism. The Republicans have a political mechanism to unify the island of Ireland – if the majority of the people of NI vote for it, the UK government will accept it. For the Unionists (mostly the descendants of British colonials), if they don’t like it they can always come back to the mainland – they cannot use violence to ensure NI remains British.

The same for the Basque ETA terrorists, Spain is a democratic country – if the Basque want independence for their region, they need to do it through the ballot box, not bombs. But when there is no political option as in the case of Palestine (where the peace process actually means more time for the Israelis to steal Palestinian land), resistance is the only option left.

In the words of the former US President John F Kennedy, ‘if you make peaceful revolution impossible you make violent revolution inevitable.’

It’s all well and good for the Foreign Secretary to make such remarks, and all he gets is mild criticism from his political opponents. But when Muslims make the exact same arguments that armed resistance is justifiable in certain circumstances they are condemned as promoters of terrorism.

Shaykh Qaradawi said resistance in Palestine by all means available, is legitimate, but bombing the streets of London is terrorism and unacceptable (Haraam) – for stating the obvious and using the same logic as Miliband, he gets banned from entry to the UK. And if the likes of the MCB were to state the same – for sure they would be condemned and possibly even investigated for breaking the law!

So Mr Miliband, is this a case of national interest or conflict of interest?