|
|
February 13, 2004
A truth about terrorism
Editorial
On Sunday, U.S. President George W. Bush acknowledged that American
intelligence was incorrect on Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction
(or "WMDs," as they have become too familiarly known).
Going to war based on false intelligence is a horrifying symptom
of massive national defence failure at perhaps the most inopportune
moment in contemporary history, as the Democratic contenders running
against Bush will tell us ad infinitum until the fall. Then
an investigation will clear the air next spring, after all
of November's presidential election ballots have been counted.
At the same time, Canadian news services broke the story Monday
that Jewish targets in Canada were the intended targets of
Islamist terrorism in 1999. The attack was prevented, the story
goes, thanks to Argentine intelligence.
Reports that intelligence operations have helped to intercept a
terror attack always carry a sense of cautious relief. Though a
major attack has been averted, such reports raise questions about
how many similar plots we don't know about. Further, it's
alarming enough when we assume our intelligence operations function
as they should. It is doubly alarming when we realize that there
may be some major flaws with intelligence-gathering operations and
the way their information is used.
This confluence of wildly disturbing reports is just this week's
dump of news.
Meanwhile, Israel's top court began hearings this week into the
legality of the fence being constructed roughly along the border
between Israel proper and the West Bank. The complaints from international
observers and Palestinians are several. The fence prevents Palestinians
from travelling between work and home. It creates a number of serious
inconveniences for both Israelis and Palestinians, who have, despite
what you may have heard, a deeply symbiotic economic relationship.
The fence is an international public relations disaster for Israel,
a potent symbol of Israel's alleged "segregation" from
its non-Jewish neighbors. The opposition to the fence is almost
unanimous worldwide.
Out of historical necessity, Israel has developed one of the most
successful intelligence gathering operations the world has known.
Unlike 9/11, which rocked North Americans out of our dazed isolation,
Israel has not experienced a sudden realization of its vulnerability.
For 56 years, the state has slowly, steadily and with a delicate
and contentious balance of human rights, freedom of movement and
freedom of the press, thwarted as many attacks on civilians as it
could. Israel's citizens are keenly aware, as North Americans seemingly
are not yet convinced, that actual "successful" terror
attacks are the tip of an iceberg, not random events.
If Israel, with its supreme intelligence gathering and interception
capabilities, feels that a fence is needed to prevent the continued
murder of its civilian citizens, perhaps Canadians and Americans
should tamp down our moral outrage at the "apartheid wall"
and review matters with a more pragmatic eye.
The truth about terrorism is that we don't know what to do about
it. The protection of human life, we are coming to understand, sometimes
requires infringements on our conveniences. Sometimes it encroaches
on those things we consider our rights, from boarding an airplane
with ease to having our personal information shared between governments.
In Israel, one can't enter some public places, like a mall, without
passing through the sort of security that Canadians experience boarding
a plane. Is this too much security? Too little? Fine for there,
but too much for here?
These are issues that Canadians have so far been able to defer to
a large extent. So while some Canadians continue to march and write
letters to editors condemning Israel's fence, we have a much larger
issue facing us closer to home in the coming weeks and months.
A segment of the North American population, particularly Canadians,
accept a simplistic worldview that there are various types of terrorism
some bad, some justifiable. Then, once we've created categories
of terror, we suggest that giving in to the "justifiable"
types of terror is the prudent path. If Israel, for example, would
"end the occupation," they wouldn't have to put up with
continued violence. And drinking salt water will cure your thirst.
The terror Israel faces isn't a different terror than North America
faces. It is merely the frontline in the same battle. And, of all
countries in the world with advanced intelligence-gathering operations,
the one with probably the most dependable information on terrorism
is Israel.
So, if Israel wants to build a fence, that should cause us alarm,
not because of what it says about the threat to Palestinians' freedom,
but because of what it says about the threats to our own security.
^TOP
|
|