|
|
March 31, 2006
The battle against terrorism
Israel is at the front line of a complex, enduring world war.
CYNTHIA RAMSAY
Israel is a tiny country. In one panoramic view from Kibbutz Misgav-Am,
you can see the Mediterranean Sea on the left, Syria on the right
and Lebanon literally feet ahead. As you stand at that position,
the beauty of the land is evident, but the sensation is almost one
of being trapped; water on one side, hostile countries on the others.
A similar feeling encompasses you at the top of a hill near the
Palestinian town of Kalkilia, from which the Mediterranean can also
be seen. At approximately 16 kilometres away, it is an easily walkable
distance through Israeli communities. Near this part of the now-infamous
security barrier, the boundary is actually a huge, concrete wall
and not a fence, because Palestinian terrorists have shot and killed
Israeli motorists travelling along the highway.
In addition to the immediate existential threat posed by local terrorists,
Israel is the likely first target of any attempt by Iran to use
nuclear weapons. As most of the international community condemns
Israel for building a security barrier around itself, they hesitate
to intervene in Iran and that country's destructive efforts continue.
With the notable exception of the United States, Israel has been
left on its own to defend itself and combat terror.
The security barrier
Last week, in one night alone, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) arrested
18 wanted terror suspects and there were numerous other violent
incidences with which they had to deal. The sad fact is that there
are Palestinians who want to kill Israelis – and the barrier,
as detestable and restrictive as it is for Palestinians living in
the disputed territories, has made this objective more difficult.
According to statistics provided by Ophir Falk, a research fellow
at the International Counter-Terrorism Institute in Herzilia, there
have been 143 suicide attacks in Israel and the territories over
the last six years. There were four attacks in 2000 and they peaked
at 60 in 2002. Since the start of the barrier's construction in
mid-2003, that number has steadily declined, to 26 attacks in 2003,
15 in 2004 and only three in 2005.
It is likely that hundreds of lives have been saved by the existence
of the barrier, yet the critics continue unabated. Even Israeli
government and army officials bemoan the necessity of such an extreme,
albeit nonviolent, measure to protect their country's people.
The lengthy barrier is not that difficult to build from a technical
standpoint – IDF spokesman Aryeh Green told participants in
a recent Canadian mission that it would take about six months –
but security concerns had to be balanced as much as possible with
humanitarian ones. As well, democracy requires that legal challenges
to the barrier be permitted.
According to Israeli government data, as of mid-January 2006, two
and half years into the process, 300 kilometres of the barrier had
been completed, while 201 kilometres was either under construction
or about to enter the construction phase: 233 kilometres of the
barrier was under legal review by various Israeli courts. The government's
website states that, to date, 43 petitions concerning the barrier
have been concluded by the Supreme Court. Of the 48 petitions yet
to be examined by the Supreme Court, the site states that 16 deal
with the barrier in the Jerusalem area and five with humanitarian
concerns, such as the permits policy and the opening hours of agricultural
gates.
There is no denying that there are problems with Israel's solution
to the terror threat, but what is continually overlooked is how
well Israel is functioning as a democracy. People have access to
peaceful means by which to contest government and military actions
– and Israel has responded in the case of the security barrier,
ordering changes to its route, sometimes even after portions of
it have been constructed.
The war on terror
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon or one restricted to Israel. In
the last quarter century, said Falk, more than 29 countries have
been attacked and the attacks have been carried out by 30 different
terrorist goups. Falk was speaking to participants of the United
Jewish Communities' Tel-Aviv One conference earlier this month.
There are four things to learn from this experience with terrorism,
he said: nearly all attacks are part of an organized campaign, democracies
are the most vulnerable to attack, the attacks are part of an overall
strategy (not a one-shot deal) and most attacks have been carried
out by Islamic organizations.
With regard to suicide bombing in particular, Falk said that it
is the ultimate human smart bomb: it causes four times more fatalities
than other methods of attack and 26 times more injuries. It results
in broader media coverage and enhances the terror organization's
political goals, he added.
In Israel, suicide attacks have comprised less than one per cent
of all attacks, said Falk, but have been responsible for 49 per
cent of the fatalities and 57 per cent of the injuries caused by
attacks. He noted that, since 2001, Israel has thwarted 154 suicide
attacks at the "ticking bomb" stage and hundreds of others
earlier than that.
But such victories are small in what will be a long-term fight.
Ilan Linhard, an adviser to Israeli and U.S. corporations on counter-terrorism
and security issues, was also on the three-person panel with Falk
at the conference.
He argued that the war on terror – which some have dubbed the
"Third World War" – will continue for years because,
unlike conventional warfare, terrorists are not fighting for land,
but against people they consider heretics. As well, in conventional
warfare, there are clear boundaries and countries know their enemy,
which is not the case with terrorism, he explained.
"Killing the bad guy is not the solution to countering terrorism,"
he said, calling for a global solution, a new attitude. In the general
war on terror, argued Linhard, there is a lack of co-operation between
nations and their intelligence communities, as well as confusion
over who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of action even when there
is clarity on such issues. For example, Iran's President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad utters anti-Semitic remarks at will, openly supports
terrorism and is working to develop nuclear weapons, yet little
has been done to rein him in.
The Iranian threat
The third panellist on the topic of International Security: Post-Modern
Terrorism and the Iranian Threat was Dr. Emily Landau, a research
fellow and director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Project
at the Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies at Tel-Aviv University.
She focused on the threat posed by Iran.
According to Landau, Iran has two main goals: to advance its nuclear
program in the face of international skepticism and, in doing so,
not bring upon itself the wrath of the international community.
It has successfully achieved these aims, she said, through never-ending
negotiations; a mix of co-operation and never agreeing to give up
its uranium enrichment program.
Because the international community has been unable to find the
"smoking gun," i.e. tangible proof of Iran's military
intentions, this has allowed for "interpretation gaps"
with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which Iran is
a signatory, said Landau.
One potentially good thing about the new hard-line government in
Iran is that Ahmadinejad's actions have pushed the Europeans to
recognize that the country does indeed pose a threat, she said,
although Russia and China are not yet on the same page as the United
States and Europe. She gave a few examples of how Iran is still
successfully manipulating the international community, including
the fact that, in August 2005, uranium conversion (the stage before
enrichment) was on the negotiating table, but now is no longer:
Iran has resumed operations at its conversion facility.
Landau held out little hope that Iran's nuclear program would be
halted by the international community.
"Unfortunately, the facts on the ground show that harsher measures
are still not on the table," she said. "The incentive
to deal with Iran through diplomatic means is still quite strong
and Iran is in a better starting point than before in terms of its
nuclear program and that's how Iran [has been] playing the nuclear
game."
^TOP
|
|
