Reference is made to your article titled ‘Terrorism by any standard’ by Curtis Ward, former ambassador of Jamaica to the United Nations, in the Jamaica Observer of October 12, 2023.

All well-thinking people will agree that the loss of lives in any conflict is regrettable and must be condemned. In the case of Hamas’s actions, Ambassador Ward has labelled same a terrorist attack.

Without entering the historical debate on the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and freedom from oppression, to include human rights abuses, breaches of United Nations Security Resolutions and International Law or the debate as to whether the recent actions of Hamas are acts of terrorism or a struggle for freedom, I wish to ask a simple question: By whose standard is an act to be considered terrorism?

Ambassador Ward relies on “the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in its December 1994 Declaration on measures to Eliminate International Terrorism (1994 Declaration)”. The 1994 declaration unequivocally “condemned all acts, methods, and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomever committed”, and, most importantly, that “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons, or particular persons for political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them”.

If the position is, as Ambassador Ward states, then certain obvious questions arise.

1) Was The Der Yassim massacre an act of terrorism?

2) On August 5, Israel launched an offensive on the Gaza Strip targeting the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and its armed wing, destroying or damaging some 1,700 Palestinian homes and displacing hundreds of civilians. Was this an act of terrorism?

3) Israeli authorities demolished 952 Palestinian structures across the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, displacing 1,031 Palestinians and affecting the livelihoods of thousands of others. Was this an act of terrorism?

4) Israeli forces continued to subject Palestinian detainees to torture and other ill-treatment. Is this an act of terrorism?

5) Israeli forces killed 151 Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and injured 9,875, according to United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs- Occupied Palestinian Territory (OCHA-OPT), amid a surge of military incursions that involved alleged excessive use of force, including unlawful killings and extrajudicial executions. Is this an act of terrorism?

6) On April 15, Israeli police arrested more than 400 Palestinians, including children, journalists, and worshippers, during a raid on the al-Aqsa mosque compound in the Old City of Jerusalem. Was this an act of terrorism?

7) Random attacks and murders of Palestinians by Israeli settlers on internationally recognised Palestinian lands. Are these acts of terrorism?

If the actions of Hamas are to be labelled as acts of terrorism, would the foregoing acts not also be considered acts of terrorisms under the same definitions posited by Ambassador Ward? The answer is obvious.

The difficulty is and has always been that terrorism in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has, in reality, never been defined in an objective manner, that is, applying the same definition to all parties. Terrorism has, and continues to be defined by who the victims are. If this were not the case, then individuals such as Ambassador Ward would write an article to the Jamaica Observer every day. Why every day? Because the Palestinian people have for upwards of 75 years, every day of their lives, been the victims of terrorism (as defined by his article). Yet a blind eye is turned by the international community.

At present, the stated policy of the Israeli Government as it relates to Gaza is that it has declared a siege. Israel has made clear it will now conduct attacks on civilian infrastructure with the clear aim to cut off men, women, and children from water, electricity, medicine, food, and heating. The international community has said nothing on the policy.

This is in stark contrast to the European Union (EU) position of only a few months ago when Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said, “Targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure with the clear aim to cut off men, women, and children of water, electricity, and heating with the winter coming, these are acts of pure terror and we have to call it as such. This is the moment to stay the course, and we will back Ukraine…”

Despite its strong statement on the issue of Ukraine, the EU has on this occasion said nothing. Is it because on this occasion the victims are Palestinians and not white Europeans?

The failure of the international community to speak out is reflective of the bias that has plagued this conflict for years and years. A bias which has allowed the situation to fester. A bias which has allowed one party to act with impunity. A bias which has always condemned only the actions of oneparty.

If this conflict is to end, then the world, particularly the power brokers, will have to start calling a spade a spade and address the issue in a more balanced and deliberate manner.

Unfortunately, Ambassador Ward’s position is reflective of many in the international community. There is evident bias, in my opinion, written in his article, as there is in the international community.

Today’s terrorist is tomorrow’s freedom fighter. Let’s not forget the late great Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress.