By William Markiewicz

“To put an end to world terror” is like disinfecting the oceans. Countless places, crowds, unending communication nets, -- who could control all of this?! The dominant leitmotif is: “Not to negotiate with terrorists.” If we could negotiate with microbes, wouldn’t we? In principle, negotiations are to be held with enemies not with friends. Another leitmotif is: “You can’t trust terrorists.” And whom can we trust? Betrayal of Russia under perestroika, the way the world has treated the Serbs, the invasion of Iraq; all this proves there is no basic difference between politics and gangsterism. If, after their conditions are met, the terrorists continue to attack, then it would be a life and death war of unequalled paroxysm. Their cause would come out harmed; Osama and Nasrallah know it well, because they are politicians, not just terrorists. Apparently Osama declared, “No peace until you quit the Middle East.” It doesn’t sound unreasonable. The points of dispute are: West Bank, Golan Heights, Old City of Jerusalem, which Barak was ready to give anyway in his negotiations with Arafat (Arafat interrupted negotiations in my view because he feared for his life). Then, of course, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan remains the main provocation; the invaders must quit. The inmediate local consequences will be hellish but with no other solution in view if there is to be light at the end of the tunnel. Later, at their own pace, they'll join the rest of the world. Who opts for eternal war against terrorism opts for a world of fear and constant strangulation in daily existence.

Back to the index of the Vagabond
© Copyright 2006 E-mail to: William Markiewicz