Defeating Terrorism 1

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Terrorism

The new administration must sooner than later come to grips with the inescapable fact that there is both a direct and indirect connection between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and international terrorism. While a resolution to this conflict in and of itself will not end international terrorism by Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups, it is one of the prerequisites to defeating terrorism. There are four realities that demonstrate how the Palestinian conflict and international terrorism intertwine: the Arab states’ exploitation of the Palestinian problem, Al Qaeda’s adaptability and outreach, the Arab media, and the Iraq war. The Role of the Arab States: Since 1948, when Israel was created, the Arab states have used the plight of the Palestinians as a tool to distract public attention from their own domestic social, economic and political problems. But somewhere along the way, the Palestinian struggle also became inadvertently a symbol of anti-western defiance. From the Arab perspective, the events in Palestine, following the establishment of Israel, attested to the prejudice and bad intentions of the West toward the Arab world. Israel was seen as an imperialist beachhead designed to consolidate Western domination of the entire region. For this reason, however indifferent some of the Arab or Muslim states actually were toward the real plight of the Palestinians, their struggle became a galvanizing force around which Arab and Muslims of all denominations–Iranian Shiite, Saudi Sunni, or Syrian Alawite–coalesced, championing their cause and demanding justice. What many Arab governments, including among others, those of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia did not appreciate, was that rallying their masses around the Palestinian cause might lead to other agendas. And this is exactly what happened, as the Arab masses began to equate the Palestinians’ misfortune with their own discontent, inequities, and repression to which their governments paid little or no attention. This growing perception of linkage came to provide fertile ground for bin Laden to promote his own agenda against Arab regimes that he considered corrupt and subservient to the West, especially the United States. Although bin Laden initially considered the Palestinian problem as one of many that Arab governments had failed to resolve on their own terms, by the late 1990s, it had become central to his message. In a video-taped statement he released after September 11, bin Laden directly connected his own crusade against the West with the Israeli occupation and the suffering of Palestinians. In it he criticized the United States for not lifting a finger to stop the Israelis from wreaking havoc on Palestinian towns, and he concluded by warning, “Neither America nor anyone who lives in America will ever dream of peace until we experience it as a reality in Palestine.”

Co-opting the Palestinian Plight: The efforts by some Israeli and American officials not to link the Palestinian problem with international terrorism by arguing that bin Laden merely uses the Palestinians to promote his other agendas seem to fly in the face of other basic realities. Although most terrorist groups have their own specific domestic agendas, a quick review of several of these groups demonstrates how much they all have in common and how flexibly adaptable they can be when conditions require them to shift strategies or even goals. A case in point is the Egyptian Islamic Group whose initial goal was the overthrow of the Egyptian government. After the United States arrested and imprisoned its leader Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and the Mubarek government killed or exiled many others in the top command, the new head, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had to deal with an organization whose leadership was decimated. Al-Zawahiri, who is sympathetic to the Palestinian problem, joined Al Qaeda in the late 1990s. And he brought with him more than 200 well-trained and disciplined fighters who eventually formed much of Al Qaeda’s leadership. Although the majority of the Palestinians terrorist groups did not, in contrast, formally join Al Qaeda, in the late 1990s greater cooperation between Palestinians and groups affiliated with Al Qaeda was, however, established. In 1998, bin Laden pieced together an amalgam of terrorist groups to create the International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and the Crusaders. In the assortment were such groups as Gama’ al-Islamiya, which seeks the overthrow of the Egyptian government, numerous Pakistani groups, and Harakat ul-Mujahidin, whose goal is to unite Kashmir with Pakistan. Around the same time, bin laden also established close ties with other organizations including, the Abu Sayyaf Group, which seeks to promote the establishment of an Islamic state in western Mindanao in the Philippines, Ansar al-Islam, based mostly in Iraq, and the Moro Islamic Liberation, also in the Philippines.

In addition, Bin Laden found a way to cooperate with the Shiite Hizbullah in Lebanon, an organization that initially sought the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon but then allied itself with other Palestinian groups attempting to undermine the Israeli and American occupation of the West Bank and Iraq. Finally, there is growing evidence that Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad, both devoted to the destruction of Israel through a holy war, but also insistent on maintaining their distance from bin Laden, have now also been cooperating with Al Qaeda. What is noteworthy here is that, regardless of their different backgrounds and goals, these organizations–and many others–have found common ground that ties them to Al Qaeda. This commonality is that they are all Muslims, are Shiite or Sunni extremists, have extensive cultural and traditional similarities, speak Arabic or, at a minimum, share a linguistic heritage, suffer from a similar discontent, hate America and the Jews, and blame the West and their own governments for the failure of their societies. These cultural and religious affinities, combined with the perception of a common enemy, have, in the eyes of their leaders, blurred the distinctions among most of these terrorist groups.

The Role of the Arab Media: A little more than a decade ago communication between many of these and other disaffected groups was limited, but the technological revolution has changed all this. Now the tools for instant communication through the Internet, cell phones, and video conferences are readily available to them. An anti-American and anti-Israeli sermon given by a fiery clergyman on a Friday in Cairo can be heard and seen all over the Arab world instantly. CD and video tapes of the same sermon or others filled with poisonous attacks against “the enemy” are made available almost immediately in every corner of every Arab market. This instant communication has made it possible for the varied terrorist groups to share information, discuss strategies, and certainly warn each other of any pending threat. Thus, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its gross daily manifestations have provided a hefty ration of news and discussion among ordinary people in the region. And the Arab controlled-media have certainly played a pivotal role in this cultural/political revolution. In speaking about the negative and biased role of the Arab media in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is easy to fall into the trap of comparing the Arab media and it biases to those of the Israeli or American media. There are plenty of biases to go around. My objective here is simply to demonstrate in general terms that Arab regimes have systematically manipulated the media to sway public opinion to accept their version and interpretation of events. There is no doubt that the Israeli occupation over the past 37 years has provided ample opportunities for the Palestinian and Arab media to portray the Israelis as ruthless and powerful and the occupied Palestinians as helpless. Indeed, however justified or unjustified the occupation is, the fact is that Palestinian homes are being destroyed, leaving, in full sight of the camera, children weeping and the adults despairing. To be occupied is to exist in the daily humiliation that occupation by definition brings. That said, there is also no doubt that the tragedy that has befallen both Israeli and Palestinians because of the second Intifadah falls squarely on the shoulders of Arafat. Still, the question is not how many more Palestinians than Israelis have died, victims of the horrible indiscriminate killings, but how these tragedies are portrayed to people inside and outside the area of conflict. It is in this arena that the Palestinian and the generally government-controlled Arab media have committed the worse disservice to their public.

Take, for example, the demolition of a Palestinian house; however terrible this is, when images of it are repeatedly shown on TV, with minor modification during any given day, the impression is that scores of houses are being demolished daily. Similarly, and the effect is also cumulative, Arab viewers see the death of young Palestinians during an Israeli raid again and again on televison and then their funeral processions in a kind of continuous replay until replaced by images of other dead youth. The Palestinian Authority and the Arab states have deliberately perpetuated the plight of the Palestinian refugees and their despicable living conditions, not only to keep their claim to return alive, but to continuously inflame Arab passions and direct their anger and hatred toward Israel and its major ally, the United States. At the height of the second Intifadah, all Arab reporters in most Arab states were instructed to refer to a suicide bomber as a “martyr,” thereby making suicide bombing into a noble deed. Or, consider the article that appeared in May in the Palestinian daily el Hayat el-Gadida accusing Israel of launching a new plot to kill Palestinian children in Gaza and in the West Bank by dropping poisoned chocolate over an elementary school and a junior high school in the area. This type of “reporting” and the accompanying images have done more than their share to inflame Arabs in the street, wherever they may reside changing despondent and disillusioned youths into eager prey for recruitment into terrorist groups from Al Qaeda down to the Al Aksa Brigade. As a Hamas member boasted, “It used to take months to indoctrinate and train a young man to become a suicide bomber; now it takes only a few days.” Following some brief training on how to prevent premature detonation and to reach the intended target, the potential suicide bomber is seated in-front of a television set for three days to view tapes of Israeli killing Palestinians and the destruction of Palestinian homes. This is the kind of brainwashing that has sanctified a culture of death.

The Iraq War: The Iraq war has forged the most recent link between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and international terrorism. Our waging the war in Iraq while the Israeli forces were conducting nearly daily incursions into the West bank or Gaza offered precisely the kind of images that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups wanted to broadcast to their audience throughout the Arab world. From the perspective of Al Qaeda and most of the Arab states, they were now finally able to show the real objective of American imperialism and Israel’s role as a beachhead for American and Western designs. They could now insist that the broad support extended by the Bush administration to the Sharon Government provided ironclad proof of the American-Israeli plot against Palestinian national interests. That no weapons of mass destruction were found, no link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda established, and no imminent danger to the United States further cemented the prevailing view that America’s goal is domination, not liberation, of the Arab world. The U.S. mishaps and mistakes in Iraq, including the deaths of ten of thousands of Iraqis and the revelation of cruel and inhuman treatment of Iraqi prisoners, demonstrated in stark terms American chauvinism and arrogance while, simultaneously, Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza offered all the evidence needed of American and Israeli collusion. As the whole world waits to see how the situation unfolds, the Iraqi insurgency continues to inflict havoc on Iraqis cooperating with the United States. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are left to their own devices. Instead of fighting international terrorism in Iraq as the administration claims, we have helped to swell the ranks of the terrorist groups fighting us and made the Palestinian plight part and parcel of the internationalist agenda of Al Qaeda.

Those inside and outside the administration who argued that the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had to go through Bagdad have been engaged in a dangerous and costly venture as time and the reality on the ground have already shown. The illusion that the ouster of Saddam Hussein would usher in freedom and democracy in the Middle East and pave the way for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a pipe dream. If the war in Iraq has accomplished anything, it has galvanized anti-American and anti-Israeli forces and made the Palestinian plight an even greater symbol of Arab humiliation and revulsion. If the symbol of Palestine works best for Al Qaeda to promote its agenda only if Palestine is a place of burning, as many neo-conservatives argue, then we need to put out that fire.

The next American administration must realize that, whatever the outcome in Iraq, it must urgently work to fashion an equitable solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Regardless of what formulas is advanced, be it the Clinton/Bark plan, Mr. Bush’s Road Map, or any other formula acceptable to both parties, ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential if we are to reduce the threat of future catastrophic terrorist attacks and eventually defeat international terrorism.

To prevent a new catastrophic terrorist attack and ultimately defeat terrorism, the next administration must develop a comprehensive strategy comprised of 10 distinct critical domestic and international policy agendas which must be acted on simultaneously. The following is the first of the 10 policy agendas:

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Terrorism

The new administration must sooner than later come to grips with the inescapable fact that there is both a direct and indirect connection between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and international terrorism. While a resolution to this conflict in and of itself will not end international terrorism by Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups, it is one of the prerequisites to defeating terrorism. There are four realities that demonstrate how the Palestinian conflict and international terrorism intertwine: the Arab states’ exploitation of the Palestinian problem, Al Qaeda’s adaptability and outreach, the Arab media, and the Iraq war. The Role of the Arab States: Since 1948, when Israel was created, the Arab states have used the plight of the Palestinians as a tool to distract public attention from their own domestic social, economic and political problems. But somewhere along the way, the Palestinian struggle also became inadvertently a symbol of anti-western defiance. From the Arab perspective, the events in Palestine, following the establishment of Israel, attested to the prejudice and bad intentions of the West toward the Arab world. Israel was seen as an imperialist beachhead designed to consolidate Western domination of the entire region. For this reason, however indifferent some of the Arab or Muslim states actually were toward the real plight of the Palestinians, their struggle became a galvanizing force around which Arab and Muslims of all denominations–Iranian Shiite, Saudi Sunni, or Syrian Alawite–coalesced, championing their cause and demanding justice. What many Arab governments, including among others, those of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia did not appreciate, was that rallying their masses around the Palestinian cause might lead to other agendas. And this is exactly what happened, as the Arab masses began to equate the Palestinians’ misfortune with their own discontent, inequities, and repression to which their governments paid little or no attention. This growing perception of linkage came to provide fertile ground for bin Laden to promote his own agenda against Arab regimes that he considered corrupt and subservient to the West, especially the United States. Although bin Laden initially considered the Palestinian problem as one of many that Arab governments had failed to resolve on their own terms, by the late 1990s, it had become central to his message. In a video-taped statement he released after September 11, bin Laden directly connected his own crusade against the West with the Israeli occupation and the suffering of Palestinians. In it he criticized the United States for not lifting a finger to stop the Israelis from wreaking havoc on Palestinian towns, and he concluded by warning, “Neither America nor anyone who lives in America will ever dream of peace until we experience it as a reality in Palestine.”

Co-opting the Palestinian Plight: The efforts by some Israeli and American officials not to link the Palestinian problem with international terrorism by arguing that bin Laden merely uses the Palestinians to promote his other agendas seem to fly in the face of other basic realities. Although most terrorist groups have their own specific domestic agendas, a quick review of several of these groups demonstrates how much they all have in common and how flexibly adaptable they can be when conditions require them to shift strategies or even goals. A case in point is the Egyptian Islamic Group whose initial goal was the overthrow of the Egyptian government. After the United States arrested and imprisoned its leader Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and the Mubarek government killed or exiled many others in the top command, the new head, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had to deal with an organization whose leadership was decimated. Al-Zawahiri, who is sympathetic to the Palestinian problem, joined Al Qaeda in the late 1990s. And he brought with him more than 200 well-trained and disciplined fighters who eventually formed much of Al Qaeda’s leadership. Although the majority of the Palestinians terrorist groups did not, in contrast, formally join Al Qaeda, in the late 1990s greater cooperation between Palestinians and groups affiliated with Al Qaeda was, however, established. In 1998, bin Laden pieced together an amalgam of terrorist groups to create the International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and the Crusaders. In the assortment were such groups as Gama’ al-Islamiya, which seeks the overthrow of the Egyptian government, numerous Pakistani groups, and Harakat ul-Mujahidin, whose goal is to unite Kashmir with Pakistan. Around the same time, bin laden also established close ties with other organizations including, the Abu Sayyaf Group, which seeks to promote the establishment of an Islamic state in western Mindanao in the Philippines, Ansar al-Islam, based mostly in Iraq, and the Moro Islamic Liberation, also in the Philippines.

In addition, Bin Laden found a way to cooperate with the Shiite Hizbullah in Lebanon, an organization that initially sought the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon but then allied itself with other Palestinian groups attempting to undermine the Israeli and American occupation of the West Bank and Iraq. Finally, there is growing evidence that Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad, both devoted to the destruction of Israel through a holy war, but also insistent on maintaining their distance from bin Laden, have now also been cooperating with Al Qaeda. What is noteworthy here is that, regardless of their different backgrounds and goals, these organizations–and many others–have found common ground that ties them to Al Qaeda. This commonality is that they are all Muslims, are Shiite or Sunni extremists, have extensive cultural and traditional similarities, speak Arabic or, at a minimum, share a linguistic heritage, suffer from a similar discontent, hate America and the Jews, and blame the West and their own governments for the failure of their societies. These cultural and religious affinities, combined with the perception of a common enemy, have, in the eyes of their leaders, blurred the distinctions among most of these terrorist groups.

The Role of the Arab Media: A little more than a decade ago communication between many of these and other disaffected groups was limited, but the technological revolution has changed all this. Now the tools for instant communication through the Internet, cell phones, and video conferences are readily available to them. An anti-American and anti-Israeli sermon given by a fiery clergyman on a Friday in Cairo can be heard and seen all over the Arab world instantly. CD and video tapes of the same sermon or others filled with poisonous attacks against “the enemy” are made available almost immediately in every corner of every Arab market. This instant communication has made it possible for the varied terrorist groups to share information, discuss strategies, and certainly warn each other of any pending threat. Thus, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its gross daily manifestations have provided a hefty ration of news and discussion among ordinary people in the region. And the Arab controlled-media have certainly played a pivotal role in this cultural/political revolution. In speaking about the negative and biased role of the Arab media in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is easy to fall into the trap of comparing the Arab media and it biases to those of the Israeli or American media. There are plenty of biases to go around. My objective here is simply to demonstrate in general terms that Arab regimes have systematically manipulated the media to sway public opinion to accept their version and interpretation of events. There is no doubt that the Israeli occupation over the past 37 years has provided ample opportunities for the Palestinian and Arab media to portray the Israelis as ruthless and powerful and the occupied Palestinians as helpless. Indeed, however justified or unjustified the occupation is, the fact is that Palestinian homes are being destroyed, leaving, in full sight of the camera, children weeping and the adults despairing. To be occupied is to exist in the daily humiliation that occupation by definition brings. That said, there is also no doubt that the tragedy that has befallen both Israeli and Palestinians because of the second Intifadah falls squarely on the shoulders of Arafat. Still, the question is not how many more Palestinians than Israelis have died, victims of the horrible indiscriminate killings, but how these tragedies are portrayed to people inside and outside the area of conflict. It is in this arena that the Palestinian and the generally government-controlled Arab media have committed the worse disservice to their public.

Take, for example, the demolition of a Palestinian house; however terrible this is, when images of it are repeatedly shown on TV, with minor modification during any given day, the impression is that scores of houses are being demolished daily. Similarly, and the effect is also cumulative, Arab viewers see the death of young Palestinians during an Israeli raid again and again on televison and then their funeral processions in a kind of continuous replay until replaced by images of other dead youth. The Palestinian Authority and the Arab states have deliberately perpetuated the plight of the Palestinian refugees and their despicable living conditions, not only to keep their claim to return alive, but to continuously inflame Arab passions and direct their anger and hatred toward Israel and its major ally, the United States. At the height of the second Intifadah, all Arab reporters in most Arab states were instructed to refer to a suicide bomber as a “martyr,” thereby making suicide bombing into a noble deed. Or, consider the article that appeared in May in the Palestinian daily el Hayat el-Gadida accusing Israel of launching a new plot to kill Palestinian children in Gaza and in the West Bank by dropping poisoned chocolate over an elementary school and a junior high school in the area. This type of “reporting” and the accompanying images have done more than their share to inflame Arabs in the street, wherever they may reside changing despondent and disillusioned youths into eager prey for recruitment into terrorist groups from Al Qaeda down to the Al Aksa Brigade. As a Hamas member boasted, “It used to take months to indoctrinate and train a young man to become a suicide bomber; now it takes only a few days.” Following some brief training on how to prevent premature detonation and to reach the intended target, the potential suicide bomber is seated in-front of a television set for three days to view tapes of Israeli killing Palestinians and the destruction of Palestinian homes. This is the kind of brainwashing that has sanctified a culture of death.

The Iraq War: The Iraq war has forged the most recent link between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and international terrorism. Our waging the war in Iraq while the Israeli forces were conducting nearly daily incursions into the West bank or Gaza offered precisely the kind of images that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups wanted to broadcast to their audience throughout the Arab world. From the perspective of Al Qaeda and most of the Arab states, they were now finally able to show the real objective of American imperialism and Israel’s role as a beachhead for American and Western designs. They could now insist that the broad support extended by the Bush administration to the Sharon Government provided ironclad proof of the American-Israeli plot against Palestinian national interests. That no weapons of mass destruction were found, no link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda established, and no imminent danger to the United States further cemented the prevailing view that America’s goal is domination, not liberation, of the Arab world. The U.S. mishaps and mistakes in Iraq, including the deaths of ten of thousands of Iraqis and the revelation of cruel and inhuman treatment of Iraqi prisoners, demonstrated in stark terms American chauvinism and arrogance while, simultaneously, Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza offered all the evidence needed of American and Israeli collusion. As the whole world waits to see how the situation unfolds, the Iraqi insurgency continues to inflict havoc on Iraqis cooperating with the United States. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are left to their own devices. Instead of fighting international terrorism in Iraq as the administration claims, we have helped to swell the ranks of the terrorist groups fighting us and made the Palestinian plight part and parcel of the internationalist agenda of Al Qaeda.

Those inside and outside the administration who argued that the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had to go through Bagdad have been engaged in a dangerous and costly venture as time and the reality on the ground have already shown. The illusion that the ouster of Saddam Hussein would usher in freedom and democracy in the Middle East and pave the way for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a pipe dream. If the war in Iraq has accomplished anything, it has galvanized anti-American and anti-Israeli forces and made the Palestinian plight an even greater symbol of Arab humiliation and revulsion. If the symbol of Palestine works best for Al Qaeda to promote its agenda only if Palestine is a place of burning, as many neo-conservatives argue, then we need to put out that fire.

The next American administration must realize that, whatever the outcome in Iraq, it must urgently work to fashion an equitable solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Regardless of what formulas is advanced, be it the Clinton/Bark plan, Mr. Bush’s Road Map, or any other formula acceptable to both parties, ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential if we are to reduce the threat of future catastrophic terrorist attacks and eventually defeat international terrorism.