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