E=MC2 or Modern Diplomatic Principles of Relativity.
I will probably regret writing this, but i cant help but wonder. Im reading Cuban Chancellory declared Israel a "Terrorist State".
I have never heard a statement to be more true in all my years of reading news form Cuban press.
A terrorist state is that which supports in one way or another actions that might be considered terrorism, or direct support to that kind of activity. For example, Syria and Lebanon might fall under that tag for their direct support of the actions of the hezbolah group. The Taliban was attackted and occupied by the US shortlu after 9/11 for their declared support to the actions of Osama bin Laden, and the fact that he established his base of operations there didnt make their case any easier.
Why should we consider Israel a Terrorist state? For the same reasons as the other countries that have been labeled with that same tag.
Even if its the use of state resources, the claim for self defense with no previous warning on an independent state, the target of innocent civilian targets and the merciless destruction of the means of survival of so many people doesnt precisely make Israel the new heroe for underdog countries in the world.
Israel has waged wars since the beggining of time and it will keep waging them until they do understand that they are the lousy neighbor nobody wants arround, but they have to shove it until they move. In this case, Israel wont go anywhere, but they need to find a way to coexist with their not very friendly neighbors thatwant them out.
Israel must, one way or another, accept the swift formation of the Palestine State, although in my opinion this will result in a very short period of peace, but peace nontheless. I understand the fact that current government officials have stalled negotiations towards that point but face it, Hammas has already acknowledged the existance of the Israeli State under the preassure of its benefactors, but that is a step forward.
The US is, of course directly responsible for this. They have been on the tail of Syria and Lebanon for quite some time now, and i would'nt be surprised if Mr. Bush turned out to be behind these attacks, taking it from their veto of the UN resolution to halt fire.
The UN has to take a more important, more active role in these type of situations. The long awaited reform of the UN has now another reason to justify its role in international diplomacy: Why do we need a world organization run by 7 countries? Whats the point of letting people give their opinion on something, when what really matters is the opinion of those 7?
