August 21, 2024
By Nasser Kandil
- According to the definition of terrorism under international law, it is “the use of violence against civilians to achieve a political purpose”. The United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed this definition in Resolution 60/43, adopted in January 2006, which defines terrorist acts as “intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes”.
- There’s no need to argue that the conditions forced upon Palestinians in Gaza – marked by unchecked killing and destruction – have led numerous countries to accuse “Israel” of genocide against the Palestinians. This situation perfectly exemplifies the definition of terrorism as instilling “a state of terror in the general public…for political purposes”.
- The ongoing negotiations aimed at reaching a political solution between Hamas and the occupying entity should presumably adhere to international law standards. This is particularly crucial given that the primary mediator is a major power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, tasked with upholding international law.
As such, the mediator must ensure that neither side exploits the suffering of civilians on both sides as a bargaining chip, especially when it involves endangering lives or restricting access to essential resources.
As a general rule, halting hostilities and ensuring the continuous flow of vital supplies to civilians should be prerequisites for any mediation between warring parties.
- Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that the quickest way to secure a ceasefire and ensure aid reaches Gaza is for Hamas to accept the deal.
In saying this, he implies that civilians’ lives are at risk of death, disease, or starvation until Hamas agrees to the terms. This threat, using the potential death of civilians to achieve a political goal, is the very definition of terrorism.
It violates the principles of fair mediation in times of war and the rules of negotiation that prohibit using civilians’ lives and access to aid as bargaining tools.
- In numerous past wars, civilians, their lives, and their relief efforts have been exploited to coerce a political side into making concessions, much like what is happening in Gaza today.
However, it’s uncommon for a mediator to openly admit that such blackmail is central to their mission, thereby exemplifying what international law defines as an act of terrorism.
This is precisely what Blinken has done. If he had an impartial legal team, they would have informed him that this accusation is legally sound, not merely a case of political rivalry or incitement.
