Author: Dr. Uzi Arad
Publication:
Date: October 8, 2004
Report Compiled By Radha Rajan
We woke up today, my wife and I
with news about terrorism against Israelis in the tourist resort town of
Taba in Egypt's Sinai peninsula. This time of the year is one of the two
peak holiday times for Israelis. Mnay of us travel on holidays at this
time and this holiday resort town in Sinai is a favorite vacation place
for Israelis. There were three simultaneous attacks, three car bombs, in
this large resort town frequented by Israeli tourists. They were attacked
at dinnertime when probably all of them, including women and children were
eating their dinner.
But there was one unusual factor
this time - we had early warnings that this was coming. Israel's counter-terrorism
agency warned Israelis not to travel to Sinai during this holiday season.
Such a warning is unusual for us. But Israelis decided to ignore the warning
and they went ahead with their holidays as planned. I can tell you that
there is a sense of hopelessness and outrage that is gripping all Israelis
today but there is also the conviction that we must struggle on, to continue
with our lives; we just cannot allow ourselves to be always held in a state
of siege or hostage.
I had intended initially to make
a very analytical and even objective presentation to you all about terrorism
against Israel but I cannot be detached or clinical about terrorism against
our people and I don't think we should be detached or clinical. Therefore
I will abandon the idea of making a prepared or a formal presentation and
will instead share with you some thoughts in a reflective manner, not from
a strategic perspective but with a historic perspective. What are the thoughts
that come to my mind?
These repeated attacks are a part
of the wider thing happening around the world. This kind of terror attacks
is now a problem of global proportions. It is really a global war. Even
the other great wars involving several countries of the world, when they
were happening, were not seen to be world wars - only in retrospect did
they come to be called World Wars; including the Cold war. It was only
in retrospect that people really came to grips with the enormity, the scope
and the dimensions of the two world wars and the Cold war. During these
wars people didn't really know what they were going through nor understand
the ramifications of these great wars. There are some people who call this
global war against terrorism, a clash of civilizations and those who pooh-pooh
this clash of civilizations theory, who trivialise this view point,
end up trivialising the seriousness of the threat of Islamic terrorism
or that much of this Islamic terrorism is directed against non-Islamic
peoples and nations.
Now I don't know if this is going
to get any worse, get better or get better before it ends. If events are
cyclical, then I also don't know where we are positioned in this one -
at the beginning, in the middle or in the end. Russia, Madrid, Bali, India
we see Islamic terrorism everywhere - sometimes these acts of terror are
local, sometimes bigger and connected.
The second point I wish to make
is, what are the root causes for this terror? We can also be dismissive
of these so-called root causes. Rather than splitting hairs on the nuances
of the root causes, I have found it useful to call a spade a spade. So
I have always simplified the issue by posing the following questions -
who is the enemy, who are our friends? My answer is also not nuanced. The
enemy is radical Islam and this is the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission
Report. It is radical Islam in Madrid, Bali and other parts of Asia, in
the US and in Russia. Maybe this is a test of things to come.
Of course, there are other instances
of terror. Just as during the Cold war era there were other skirmishes.
But dominantly, it was the ideological war between capitalism and communism
as embodied by the US and the Soviet Bloc which characterised that period
in world history. Today, in one way or the other, most acts of terrorism
are connected to radical Islam - same scope, same intensity, same methods
with global effects. And this is costing the world not just in terms of
human life but also politically and economically. This deviant version
of Islam is characterised by its intense animosity and its utter lack of
restraint or inhibitions in its fanatic desire to cause the demise of entire
civilizations. And it is armed with weapons of mass destruction.
The third point that I make is to
ask "Who are they fighting"? And as I said before it helps to generalise
in the interest of clarity. They are fighting non-Islamic societies and
within Islamic nations they are fighting to impose an Islamic State of
their kind of deviant Islam. They are consumed by hatred, revanchism, call
it what you will. And I ask you, if this is indeed larger than isolated
incidents of terror, if there is a global network operating on similar
intentions, then what should be the attitude of world governments and peoples
to cope with it, to confront it?
Those of us who are coping with
radical Islam are confronted by a dilemma - either adjust to it hoping
it will moderate itself. So we appease it as a method of engaging with
it. There is a lot of charm to this appeasement because it appears tolerant
and self-critical but in my view, this kind of appeasement is like 'protection
money'. It is like the protection money we pay to mafias and organized
criminal gangsters, only this is elevated to the level of the State against
organized religious terrorism.
The converse of appeasement
is confrontation and even preemption. Like protection money, this too is
expensive, has no assured victory. The costs of confrontation and preemption
are certain but the fruits of this kind of coping is uncertain. It also
leads to escalation unless our confrontation and preemption are planned
and executed towards blunting the terrorist initiative.
So, which one of these methods of
coping with radical Islam is superior? Again, for the sake of clarity let
us simplify our argument. If the conflict is existential, then there can
be no compromise on how we deal with it whereas if the conflict is circumstantial
then maybe we can pursue the line of appeasement if we think it can buy
some peace. There is however the real danger that appeasing Islamic terrorism
towards a short-term goal can feed its destructive appetite and by always
dealing with it in the circumstantial mode we may end up losing the existential
war. The other problem is also that radical Islam refuses to negotiate.
There are no doubts about the nature of the struggle. It wants you to disappear,
it wants to kill you and/or be killed in the process. It takes up a non-negotiating,
maximalist stand against its enemies. So the confrontation with radical
Islam is almost always existential.
That being so, we have no choice
about our methodology because the nature of the conflict leaves us with
no choice. Therefore I think those of us who are confronting radical Islamic
terrorism have to brace ourselves for a defence commensurate with the problem.
And as these radical Islamic terrorists get hold of weapons of mass destruction,
then the conflict is even more complex and dangerous.
We need to think in Churchillian
terms - all and every kind of force needs to be mobilised and used. There
is a need and an urgency for unity of purpose among the countries of the
world which are the victims of Islamic terrorism to confront radical Islam
because we are lagging behind in this war. How do we manage this campaign
to defeat it? Two or three broad approaches.
Do whatever one needs to do defensively.
Put in place protective defensive measures - national borders, in sensitive
installations, in public places like airports, shopping malls, important
work places.
Going on the offensive. Learn as
we go, as in a military operation. We must resort to targeted killing,
a tactic that Israel is actively employing now. Targeted killing is much
more surgical and effective because it has an immediate and perceptive
disruptive on the enemy. I mean target the commanders and planners of these
terror acts - these commanders and planners like Bin Laden will always
be in hiding, will always be on the run. They are more cowardly than the
terrorists who actually execute these acts, killing innocent men, women
and children.
We need resources, will and professionalism
in dealing with radical Islam. You know I have seen in many international
airports - If you are caught possessing drugs you are punishable with death
- or something to that effect. We need the will to say that about terrorists
- If you are a terrorist or if you are caught aiding or abetting terrorism
in any form, you are liable for punishment by death. If societies want
to rise to the situation, then we must legislate to enable our law enforcing
agencies to deal ruthlessly with terrorism.
Lastly, if my observation that almost
all of these global acts of terror come from deviant, radical Islam then
one must also accept the recommendations of the commissions that have gone
into the why s and how s of 9/11 and either destroy or bring about a change
in the habitat that breeds this form of terrorism.
SOME OBSERVATIONS FROM THE PARTICIPANTS
You mentioned existential and circumstantial
situations which decide the method of dealing with terrorists and also
mentioned appeasement or confrontation as the two methods. I would like
to draw your attention to the faxct that after Indinesia, India has the
largest Muslim population in the world and taking such decisions is extremely
difficult. Sometimes it calls for repeated appeasement. Rather than use
the words existential and circumstantial, I would say that sometimes this
appeasement is tactical and sometimes strategic.
SPEAKER: For a moment I thought
you had something new to say. But please expand upon yopur line of thinking
and you and I are saying the same thing. It is alright to use appeasement
as a policy if it is tactical and achieves for us an immediate objective.
But only a word of caution. These tactical appeasement measures should
not lead to a point that we lose the will to confront terrorism and we
end up losing the strategic war.
You called for a unity of purpose
and mobilising all resources to confront the kind of terrorism authored
by deviant Islam but this war is being led by the US and we in India have
no great faith in the US' commitment to ending global Islamic terrorism.
If it was committed to ending this terrorism then far from chasing after
Iraq it ought to have entered into Pakistan. Almost every act of terror
in this global network of jihadi terrorism has been rooted in Pakistan.
There has been a direct or direct Pakistan connection to this terrorism.
And India has been the victim of Pakistani aggression and Pakistan-based
terrorism long before 9/11 and for all these years until 9/11 the US has
been either condoning or even encouraging this kind of terrorism by refusing
to heed India's repeated accusations.
And pardon me, there seems to be
no consensus on what constitutes terrorism. Terrorism has come to mean
terrorism against the US and its national interests. Look at the two reports
that the US State Department issues annually - one on terrorist acts around
the world and the one on religious freedom. If Islamic terrorism is rooted
in religion then it means we have to deal with the followers of that faith.
Somehow these two reports appear to be at cross-purposes when it deals
with the root causes of terrorism against India and India's dealing with
Muslims in this country. How can Indians repose faith in the US to weld
together a coalition against global Islamic terrorism when it has this
grossly ambivalent attitude towards Pakistan and its role in authoring
all acts of terror including those against India. Forgive me but it seems
India has to devise her own method of dealing with Islamic terrorism and
if the State in India too fails to protect its people against Islamic or
jihadi terrorism as we call it, then society will find its own way
of dealing with it, in fact, it is society which will destroy the habitat
which breeds it.
ANOTHER PARTICIPANT: Even if you
reduce society to anarchy?
Oh yes, even if we reduce society
to utter chaos. Sir, you said now that even if the rest of the world were
not with you, Israel is prepared to be isolated and will fight this war
alone. We too are prepared for a similar isolation. Even if the rest of
the world condemns us, our society will deal ruthlessly with jihadi terrorism
if there are no other ways available to it.
SPEAKER: (After a few moments
of total silence), What can I say? What really can I say? You are absolutely
right on every count. It is obvious you have thought a great deal on this
issue. Please, please continue with this thought and pursue it until you
have the answer to how to deal with radical Islam. You must persist with
this thinking. And as for Pakistan, I have no answers to that one too.
What can we do about Pakistan? I don't know the answer to that either.
You know no country really has any problems about India's nuclear capability
but it is the fact that India's weapons capability has triggered
Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme which causes the world this concern.
So what is the answer?
For one, the US can de-nuclearise
Pakistan.
SPEAKER: Let us assume for arguments
sake that the US did indeed de-nuclearise Pakistan. It would also demand
that India too de-nuclearise herself.
But then our nuclear weapons programme
is not Pakistan-focussed or Pakistan-centric. Our concerns lie elsewhere.
ANOTHER PARTICIPANT: Let me conclude
by saying that it is the US which is directly responsible for the kind
of global jihadi terrorism we see happening in Iraq, in Indonesia, in the
Philippines, in Russia, in India and of course in the US. The US used extremist
Islam in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. It was the CIA and Pakistan's
ISI which trained and armed the mujahideen which transformed itself into
the Taliban and other jihadis perpetrating acts of terror around the world
today. And as for Pakistan, we have several options available to us to
finish it. Pakistan has always underestimated the Hindus, the day Hindus
decide to teach Pakistan a lesson we will destroy it and it will not even
know what hit it.
(REPORT COMPILED BY RADHA RAJAN,
JOINT SECRETARY, VIGIL PUBLIC OPINION FORUM)
DR. UZI ARAD
Dr. Uzi Arad is the Director of
the Institute of Policy and Strategy (IPS) and Professor of Government
at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at Herzliya's
Interdisciplinary Centre (IDC).
Before joining the IDC and between
1975 and 1999, Dr. Arad served with Israel's foreign intelligence service,
the Mossad in senior positions both in Israel and abroad. Among these,
he held the positions of Director, Intelligence Division and then that
of Foreign Policy Adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
His areas of specialization include
foreign and security affairs, intelligence and policy making. He has jointly
authored 'Sharing Global Resources' written for the New York Council on
Foreign Relations. He has also authored several articles on national security,
arms control, energy policy and on European, American and Middle-East issues.
Dr. Arad also sits on the Board of Directors of a number of international
non-profit organizations and foundations.