As modern terrorism transcends
borders, the existence of international cooperation in the struggle
against it is imperative. However, that is not the reality.
The terrorism threatening the
world today is unique not only in terms of its methods but also in
terms of its objectives. The declared objective of Islamic terrorism
is not to fix the world or to advance social solutions – its objective
is to destroy and demolish. In its most extreme manifestation, it is
interested in obliterating all Western values.
The war against terrorism and the
wars and struggles against Nazism are identical, as the extreme
ideologies of Islam and the Arab world have already caused, and are
liable to continue to cause, results no less severe than those caused
by Hitlerism and Stalinism.
Until the 11th of
September, and at times even thereafter, there were official American
spokesmen, especially in the State Department, who in their desire to
distinguish between “their” war against terrorism and Palestinian
terrorism characterized the latter as belonging in some kind of “gray
area”, not exactly “real” terrorism. This distinction did not last
very long, primarily due to the clear, unequivocal statements of
President Bush Jr., that there is no such thing as “good terrorism”
and “bad terrorism”. The Europeans, on the other hand, articulate
contempt and hostility towards the ostensible “simplicity” of the
Americans in general and of President Bush in particular, as those who
view everything in hues of black and white. It must be emphasized that
despite the sincere empathy, which the Europeans demonstrated towards
the Americans after the bombing of the Twin Towers, as soon as
Washington began speaking about broader strategic targets in the war
against terrorism, beyond the objective of al-Qaeda and Bin-Laden –
most European governments, and public opinion there to an even greater
extent, recoiled from and opposed the American course of action.
In the view of the American
administration, the war in Iraq constituted a central stage in the war
against terrorism – and in practical, as opposed to propaganda, terms
– from its perspective, it made no difference whether or not any
connection existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, as the swift
and crushing victory over Saddam Hussein was designed to signal to the
other countries operating or supporting terrorism, that Bush’s
America, as opposed to Clinton’s America, is not a “paper tiger”, and
that it is serious and determined to take action against them as well,
if they do not change their ways. Only the future will prove whether
or not the strategy of “so that they may see and fear” will be
effective. One can only hope that there will not be a historic waste
of an opportunity, as 2003, in the wake of the Iraq campaign, could
have been the year of the turning point in the war against terrorism.
For years, Israel and American
experts on terrorism have pointed to the activity of people and
elements in the service of Palestinian terrorist organizations in
America – both in the financial realm and in other areas – however,
beyond possible political considerations, the legal situation in the
United States and the protection of human rights provided by the
American constitution, prevented the authorities from taking effective
action. From that perspective, it was only after the Twin Towers
incident that a change took place and effective laws were legislated,
an office of Home Security was established, and the assets of various
Islamic “charity organizations” were frozen, organizations, which
channeled funds to terrorist organizations throughout the world. Much
has been said and written about the deep financial involvement of
Saudi elements in financing al-Qaeda and other terrorist
organizations, and it is not for naught that the American, European
and Asian authorities are expending every effort to decipher the
secrecy surrounding the clandestine ways in which funds from various
sources flow to the terrorist organizations.
With the conclusion of the Cold
War, a genuine dilemma existed – it was not clear from which
direction, if at all, the next threat to the United States and the
free world was imminent. Would it be from the “backward countries”,
due to their instability, or from Russia, the Ukraine, et al., which
possess enormous stockpiles of missiles and nuclear weapons? Perhaps
from China, which is gradually growing stronger, or perhaps from
Islamic fundamentalism – despite the fact that some American experts
refuse to treat it as a tangible threat? As a result, in the absence
of clear instructions, none of the branches of the American security
forces mobilized in order to appropriately deal with any of the
aforementioned threats, including terrorism. However, when that
happened, they recovered quickly.
In summary, it may be said that
the obvious natural conclusion is that in the era of global terrorism,
the war against it must be global. The problem is that unfortunately,
in practice it is not always possible, whether for operational reasons
or from various, obvious and less obvious, political considerations of
the relevant countries. And therefore, in this period as well, which
was supposed to be marked by the complete mobilization of all
civilized countries together for the purpose of an all-out war against
terrorism and by maximal international cooperation – each country
individually, including Israel, must maintain its independent
operational capability against the terrorist bodies threatening it,
even if doing so is liable at times to complicate its diplomatic
relations.