UN Can't Define International Terrorism

While the United Nations pretend to condemn and eliminate international terrorism, they don't know what they are condemning and eliminating.  The United Nations are unable to reach consensus on a definition of international terrorism.   In this post, I will delve into  the divisive issue of defining international terrorism.

    Mr. Yousef Sultan Laram, Deputy Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar to the United Nations raised the issue of definition of terms.

An important step to combat terrorism would be to find a clear and realistic  definition to this phenomenon. In this regard, we must distinguish between terrorism and legitimate resistance movements against foreign occupation.

When Irgun bombed the King David Hotel, was that an act of terrorism or an act of legitimate resistance to foreign occupation?  Was Great Britain occupying Israel or not? Did the Balfour Declaration promise Israel independence in their national homeland or not?

    The Permanent Mission of Kazakhstan on behalf of the OIC Group worded the same concept a bit differently.

We reaffirm our determination to make every effort to reach a consensus agreement on the draft convention, by resolving the outstanding issues including those related to the legal definition of terrorism, particularly on the distinction between terrorism and the struggle for the rights of self-determination by people under foreign occupation, and colonial or alien domination, as well as on the scope of the acts covered by the draft Convention.

    China approaches the issue very carefully, by indirection.

SCO Member States emphasizes that counter-terrorism cooperation should be conducted on the principle of respect for international law including state sovereignty and without any "double standards" .

The "double standards" reference must be to Islam's arrogant implication that  their bloody murders ain't terrorism.  When they blow up an Israeli school bus or a British subway, that ain't terrorism, its "legitimate resistance".  Their arrogance is exposed by two logical fallacies.

    When Irgun bombed the King David Hotel, was that an act of terrorism or an act of legitimate resistance to foreign occupation? No, it was both.  Was Great Britain occupying Israel or not? Did the Balfour Declaration promise Israel independence in their national homeland or not?  The resistance was legitimate, the attack was terrorism. If we accept Islam's definition, the bombing of the King David Hotel was not terrorism.

    Israel is occupied by Arab Muslims, not occupying them. The Levant belongs to Jews, it is their homeland, not the Arab's.  Caliph Umar's conquest in 638 does not confer legitimate title; Israel's recovery of Judea & Samaria as a consequence of Islam's genocidal attack in 1967 conveys legitimate title. 

    Afghanistan is occupied by NATO forces as a consequence of its complicity in the Accursed Abomination. Resistance to that invasion and occupation is not legitimate.