The war against terrorism has started. Aside from the operational pitfalls of fighting this elusive, ideologically fanatic adversary, there is another problem not found in conventional wars: that of defining the enemy – namely, as it is a war against terror, what terrorism is.
There is nothing academic about the issue: Ariel Sharon’s cry of rage and pain against his greatest friend, United States President George W. Bush, broke through the silence that the Americans have been keeping on this point, for obvious political reasons. The Israeli prime minister really asked Bush a very simple question, when he said “We are not Czechoslovakia: What is terrorism? Who is the war against?”
Don’t try to appease the Arab states by sacrificing Israel, Sharon said a few days ago, the way Europe appeased the Germans at M?nich in 1938. Sacrifice Israel to whom? Sharon was talking about Islamic terrorism. He was talking about President Bush seeking fictitious alliances that do not define what terrorism is – who supports it and who finances terrorism with government funds.
His comments come from the obvious desperation of a country that, according to the Israelis, bears the brunt of 20 attacks a day – including bombs, suicide attacks, ambushes and Molotovs (on a recent visit to Iran, sponsor of terrorism, the British foreign minister affirmed that one must distinguish between the terrorism of the Twin Towers and that of the Dolphinarium and Sbarro’s, an opinion shared by the French ambassador to Israel and some other representatives of the European Union). But aside from that, it is clear that an old slogan that seemed to have died with the Cold War is back in fashion: “Your terrorist is my freedom fighter,” the communists said at that time and, now, even if the communists are dead, this formula is here again. The only way of allying with countries that support terrorism is to accept a distorted definition of terrorism and adopt a disabling strategy.
According to terrorism expert Boaz Ganor, author of a book on theoretical terrorism and director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, one of the best centers of this kind in the world, terrorism is defined according to the goal of its attacks, even though it is also important to examine the methods used. “Terrorism is the intentional use or threat to use violence against civilians or civilian targets to achieve political goals.”
And the goal? Independence? Self-determination? Foreign occupation? According to terrorism experts Duval and Stohl – and their opinion is shared by Walter Laqueur (“The Age of Terrorism”), Alex Schmidt and Albert Jongman (“Political Terrorism”) – “in the concept of political terrorism, the motive is completely irrelevant. Analysts are mistaken when they do not recognize this and tend to discuss certain elements of terrorism as logical and necessary.”
What happens if this key concept is not accepted? Exactly what happens in much of the Arab world. Arafat has no hesitation about calling suicide terrorists “martyrs” and glorifying them in schools and on television. Bashar Assad has stated that Syria does not sponsor terrorism. Instead, he claims, it helps national liberation movements. Like his father before him, he too maintains that “Syria has always been opposed to terrorism but we support battles against occupation waged by national liberation movements.”
Boaz quotes Abu Iyad (Salah Khalef), Arafat’s second in command in the organization Black September, which killed hundreds of civilians, including the Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in M?nich in 1972, who said, “By nature and ideology, I am firmly opposed to political homicide and to terrorism in general; still, unlike others, I do not confuse revolutionary violence with terrorism.”
Gadhafi has stated that “Imperialists do not respect the will of the people … fights for liberation arouse their displeasure and they call it terrorism.” In a document entitled “Arab Strategy Against Terrorism” (March 1998, quoted by Boaz), the Arab League states that belligerent activities “in favor of self-determination and liberation” do not belong to the category of terrorism.
On top of the infinite sequence of this type of declaration, we must add the Iranian declarations, essential in the support for terrorism, and ambiguous attitudes like that of the Saudi Arabians. In addition, there is the mass of sermons from many (but not all) of the mullahs and muftis in the Middle East who explain every Friday that not only is terrorism not terrorism, but that suicide (which Islam forbids) is not suicide: It is martyrdom.
It is understandable that the States will attack bin Laden, their aggressor, before anyone else. Still, wouldn’t it be healthier and more reassuring if the theoretical part of this war was clearer – if everyone was called by their proper names, if there was one, single definition of terrorism? Wouldn’t it be better if Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah were included clearly and directly in the list of enemies to be defeated? Isn’t it preferable to have Iran and Syria prove themselves before being treated with esteem? Isn’t it better to declare that terror is terror is terror, and that the daily attacks on the Israeli people are just the same crime as bin Laden’s crime? That the Hezbollah, that are once again threatening the northern border of Israel, are terrorists, enemies of the United States? It’s great to see a war against terrorism conducted by a people of great moral values like the American people. Their task today is not only to fight a war, but to win the moral struggle against the worst enemy of humanity: The terrorists – whoever they are, whoever protects them, as Bush said.
Otherwise, the protectors of terrorists in various parts of the world – in Israel or in the Philippines or wherever – will feel one day authorized by the United States to repeat that terrorists just might be freedom fighters. And that Islamic terrorists in Israel are different from those of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Lies – and here the declarations of Sharon have meaning in the current situation – never led to successful strategy. In the long term, a fallacious strategy is a losing strategy, even if you land a few good punches in the meantime. So let’s say it: Terror is terror is terror. Let Syria, Iran, Sudan etc. know it clearly.
