Tuesday, April 16, 2002
According to the National Post:
The resolution yesterday reaffirms support for a Palestinian armed struggle by "recalling" a 1982 General Assembly resolution that slammed both Israel and the white-run government of South Africa....The 1982 General Assembly resolution "reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle."
In a 1982 interview being shown in a CNN biography of Mr. Arafat, the Palestinian leader cites the General Assembly and the words "all available means" as justification for terrorist acts.
In classic weaseling style, the EU ambassadors then began the customary denials:
France's ambassador said yesterday his country could not accept the use of violence even though France had approved the measure.
Austria's ambassador said his country did not subscribe to several paragraphs, including the one that referred to resistance through violence.
Sweden's ambassador said his country had supported the resolution "without joy," but that "the sponsors did not want to accept further improvements to the resolution."
The ambassador of Portugal said his country's support "did not imply total support for some of the formulations of the text."
Belgium's ambassador said the resolution "could be seen as a call for peace."
So now we have these EU countries pulling a classic Arafat -- giving encouragement to terrorism through official actions while denying doing so when talking to the Western press.
I'm scheduled to attend a conference in Paris in September, but I don't know if I'm going. I don't have a great desire to sprinkle my dollars on those moral lepers.
Canada will not ban fundraising by the social and political wing of Hezbollah despite pleas by Israeli officials who say the entire structure of the Lebanese-based organization is dedicated to terrorism.
After Sept. 11, Canada banned fundraising for about 20 suspected terrorist groups, including the Hezbollah External Security Organization.
But the group's social and political wing is not part of the ban because there is an "aspect of Hezbollah which supports doctors and other workers," which is supported by people working for peace in the Middle East, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham said.
What can you say to this? Some of the money from Bin Laden's network went to pay for some nice public facilities. Colombian drug cartels devote a portion of their loot to schools and welfare of the local population. But in those cases the Canadian government seems to be able to understand that 1) one can't separate the small, localized good deeds from the terror or drug running, and 2) the small, localized good deeds are part of a campaign to woo more locals into the terror/drug running part of the business. Why isn't that obvious in the Hezbollah case too?
I'm guessing that it sounds that way to many vocal Globe readers, too, because the on-line version of the article has undergone a title change to "Elusive Advocate of Uprising Captured."
In Damascus, about 200 Syrian lawyers staged a government-approved demonstration against Israel's conduct on the West Bank.
I wonder what their billing rates are?