Legal Political: Defining Terrorism
The Legal Political committee was party to a heated debate over the definition of terrorism and the definition of freedom fighting, specifically in Israel.
“We’d like to extend a helpful hand [to other countries] and Israel believes that there is something we can all do [to stop terrorism],” the delegate from Israel stated. The delegate promoted their view that if all countries work with their neighboring countries, terrorism can be fought more effectively and cooperation may lead to stopping terrorism all together, too.
The delegate from Macedonia then brought up the point that Israel has recently been involved in what most people consider to be a form of terrorism against its neighbor, Palestine. The delegate conveyed their distaste for recent Israeli actions by saying that “Macedonia believes that the Israeli state is part of the problem in the Middle East currently.”
The passionate debate was sidetracked when the issue of terrorism was introduced and the chairs of the committee had to interject. They reminded the delegates that although terrorism is a pressing issue, the discussion at hand was not a matter of how to stop terrorism, but instead one of defining terrorism.
None the less, the discussion including the involvement of Israel in recent terrorist activities continued after the chairs’ reprimanding. Peru continued the discussion by pointing out the irony of the Israeli delegate’s statements. “Does Israel perhaps have a bias to help themselves in this case?” the Peruvian delegate questioned. The Peruvian delegate proceeded to explain point: recent terrorist activity, involving Israel’s fight against Palestine could be classified as terrorism, but it’s much more likely that israel would classify it as a necessary battle to preserve their beliefs. The Muslims of Palestine, being the majority of the population, argue that their stance in these possible terrorist activities is justified by the jihad, or religious “struggle’, that is central to Islamic belief.
As the delegations of the Legal Political committee witnessed and as we all can see, the lines are fuzzy when it comes to the differences between terrorism and freedom fighting.
“We’d like to extend a helpful hand [to other countries] and Israel believes that there is something we can all do [to stop terrorism],” the delegate from Israel stated. The delegate promoted their view that if all countries work with their neighboring countries, terrorism can be fought more effectively and cooperation may lead to stopping terrorism all together, too.
The delegate from Macedonia then brought up the point that Israel has recently been involved in what most people consider to be a form of terrorism against its neighbor, Palestine. The delegate conveyed their distaste for recent Israeli actions by saying that “Macedonia believes that the Israeli state is part of the problem in the Middle East currently.”
The passionate debate was sidetracked when the issue of terrorism was introduced and the chairs of the committee had to interject. They reminded the delegates that although terrorism is a pressing issue, the discussion at hand was not a matter of how to stop terrorism, but instead one of defining terrorism.
None the less, the discussion including the involvement of Israel in recent terrorist activities continued after the chairs’ reprimanding. Peru continued the discussion by pointing out the irony of the Israeli delegate’s statements. “Does Israel perhaps have a bias to help themselves in this case?” the Peruvian delegate questioned. The Peruvian delegate proceeded to explain point: recent terrorist activity, involving Israel’s fight against Palestine could be classified as terrorism, but it’s much more likely that israel would classify it as a necessary battle to preserve their beliefs. The Muslims of Palestine, being the majority of the population, argue that their stance in these possible terrorist activities is justified by the jihad, or religious “struggle’, that is central to Islamic belief.
As the delegations of the Legal Political committee witnessed and as we all can see, the lines are fuzzy when it comes to the differences between terrorism and freedom fighting.