Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (228)	11/12/2001 10:11:24 PM
From: Scoobah	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32591

Is Colin Powell an Arab? Colin Powell and Palestinian "freedom fighters" By Louis Rene Beres November 12, 2001 israelinsider.com Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently that Palestinian terrorists might just be "freedom fighters." Although Bin Laden's Al-Qaida is clearly a terrorist group, said Powell before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Palestinian groups allegedly lie in "gray areas," areas "that might need to be treated politically." Speaking of Palestinian organizations that regularly target and murder Israeli schoolchildren, Powell instructed the Committee that this is a domain where "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." From the standpoint of authoritative international law - let alone the basic standards of civilized international relations - Secretary Powell is altogether incorrect. Although it is true that certain insurgencies can be judged lawful under international law, these insurgencies MUST conform to the laws of war. The ends can never justify the means in international law. Where the insurgent group resorts to unjust means, its actions are unambiguously terroristic. Period! Jurisprudentially, the statement that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is entirely meaningless. There are precise and determinable standards that must be applied in judgment of all insurgent resorts to violence. These standards are known in law as JUST CAUSE and JUST MEANS. These standards, and these standards alone, allow us to distinguish lawful insurgency from terrorism. National liberation movements that fail to meet the test of JUST MEANS are not protected as lawful or legitimate. Leaving aside the very doubtful argument that Palestinian organizations meet the standards of "national liberation," it is assuredly clear that they do not meet the standards of discrimination, proportionality and military necessity - the standards applicable under the laws of war. These standards have been applied to insurgent organizations by the common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and by the two protocols to these Conventions of 1977. They are binding upon all combatants by virtue of both customary and conventional international law. The ends do not justify the means. As in the case of war between states, every use of force by insurgents must be judged twice, once with regard to the justness of the objective (in this case, a Palestinian state built upon the charred ruins of a dismembered Israel) and once with regard to the justness of the means used in pursuit of that objective. A group of Palestinian organizations that deliberately targets women and young children - usually with intent to maximize pain and suffering - can NEVER claim to be "freedom fighters." One would have expected the Secretary of State of the United States to understand this incontestable norm. American and European supporters of a Palestinian State presume that it will be part of a "two-state solution," that is, the new Arab state will exist side-by-side with the existing Jewish State. Yet, this presumption is dismissed everywhere in the Arab/Islamic world. Indeed, the "Map of Palestine" at the official website of the Palestinian National Authority includes all of Israel. There are not two states on this map, only one. Palestinian insurgents who resort to terrorism against Israel will NEVER acknowledge that a Jewish State has any right to endure. Why this should be so difficult to understand when even the most "moderate" Palestinians themselves have been so cartographically honest on their own website is beyond comprehension. Terrorist crimes, as part of a broader category called CRIMEN CONTRA OMNES (crimes against all), mandate universal cooperation in apprehension and punishment. In this connection, as punishers of "grave breaches" under international law, all states are expected to search out and prosecute, or extradite, individual terrorist perpetrators. In no circumstances are any states permitted to characterize terrorists as "freedom fighters." This is especially the case for the United States, which incorporates all international law as the "supreme law of the land" at Article 6 of the Constitution, and which was formed by the Founding Fathers according to the timeless principles of Natural Law. Palestinian terrorists are not "freedom fighters," Mr. Powell. They are "Common Enemies of Mankind," and must be treated accordingly.

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (228)	11/12/2001 10:17:58 PM
From: Scoobah	Respond to of 32591

Analysis: The nuclear fallout of the war on terror by Ze'ev Schiff Courtesy of Ha'aretz The war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban government in Afghanistan also has strategic nuclear ramifications that will have an impact, somewhere down the road, on the Middle East. Due to Pakistan's geographical location and its importance to the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, Washington agreed to lift the sanctions it had imposed on Islamabad in the wake of the nuclear tests Pakistan carried out in 1998 when India was conducting its own nuclear tests. That is the price that Washington is paying to Islamabad for its role in this war. Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf demanded massive American economic assistance, support for Pakistan's position in its dispute with India over Kashmir and the lifting of the sanctions. It was American Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld himself who supported Musharraf's demand for the removal of the sanctions. Granted, Pakistan was a nuclear power even before the sanctions were imposed; however, from now on, Pakistan will be a legally recognized nuclear power in the eyes of both the United States and the United Kingdom. This development delivers a strategic message to other countries that a nation can go nuclear and even conduct nuclear testing without any fear of heavy punitive measures from the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. will now be forced to defend Musharraf's regime, although he seized control through a military insurrection and not through democratic elections - unlike Pakistan's neighbor and rival, India. The fear that extremist forces in Pakistan might take over its nuclear weapons arsenal will obligate Washington to keep Musharraf's undemocratic regime afloat. What lessons can Pakistan's neighbors deduce from America's decision to lift the sanctions it imposed on Pakistan? Iran will undoubtedly conclude that it has been provided with a golden opportunity to step up its nuclear weapons production project. It is thus not surprising that some Iranians are today saying that neighboring Pakistan's transformation into a formally recognized nuclear power is not really an unwelcome development. If that is the conclusion reached by Iran, Iraq will certainly adopt a similar position - namely, that it should get a move on with its own nuclear arms program. "If Pakistan is given the green light, what right has anyone to prevent us from doing so as well?" Iraq's leaders are probably saying to themselves. Egypt as well might decide to get into the nuclear race. On more than one occasion, Egypt has made it clear that, if Iran goes nuclear as Israel has already done, it will be forced to review its approach to the entire issue of nuclear armament. A retired Egyptian general has told me that if, in addition to Israel, Iran arms itself with nuclear weapons, Egypt will have no choice but to become the Middle East's third nuclear power. Thus, what is happening between the U.S. and Pakistan could inadvertently promote stepped-up nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. A key issue in this latest development will be the direction taken by the talks between Washington and Islamabad on the nuclear question. That direction will certainly have an impact on India's nuclear plans. Do the Americans have sufficient knowledge concerning Pakistan's nuclear deployment? Do they know how many nuclear bombs Pakistan has, what state those bombs are in, where they are located and how well they are secured? Can anyone say with any degree of confidence that measures have been taken to prevent the possibility of the seizure of those weapons by hostile elements? It was never publicized that, when Benazir Bhutto was elected prime minister of Pakistan, the American ambassador and the representative of the Central Intelligence Agency paid her a visit for the express purpose of informing her what her own generals had not disclosed to her - namely, the nature of Pakistan's nuclear deployment. Washington will now unquestionably demand that Pakistan not assemble its nuclear weapons. It is even possible that the Americans will be prepared to supply Pakistan with safety mechanisms capable of preventing a nuclear mishap; in other words, it is possible that the Americans will participate - even if only indirectly - in guarding Pakistan's nuclear weapons. It is also reasonable to assume that Washington will now intensify its demand that Pakistan, together with India, sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Japan has sent a promising hint to the effect that Tokyo will be prepared to renew its economic assistance to Pakistan if Islamabad signs the treaty. As all the above indicates, the so-called "side effects" of the war against global terrorism will not be so marginal and indeed, will have a significant effect on the Middle East and, of course, on Israel. virtualjerusalem.com (c) 2001 Ha'aretz