International
Terrorism: An Israeli and a Jewish Perspective
by Efraim Halevy
Thirty years have
passed since the Yom Kippur war of 1973; this was the last attempt by a coalition of Arab
states to defeat Israel on the battlefield; let us remember that the outbreak of war was a
devastating surprise for Israel, for the entire world; it was an intelligence failure one
of the biggest in world history reminiscent of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in the
United States in 1941. Within the span of three weeks, Israel mourned more than two
thousand dead; the toll rose later to close to three thousand. Those days were among our
darkest hours; there was so much valour during those days and so much pain.
It is more than
interesting to note that at the very time that international Muslim terror in the
seventies and in the eighties was developing, in various parts of the world efforts to
bring about Israeli Palestinian conciliation were reaching unprecedented proportions.
Secret and effective
channels of communication between Israel and the Arab and Palestinian world were being
built and extensively used during that period of time. As the eighties ended, the
Palestinians seemed to be edging forward to constructive dialogue, whereas the Arab world
was somehow becoming attuned to a rapprochement.
Then came the First
Gulf War in 1991. The Arab world was irrevocably split, never to recover even its pro
forma unity, and the Palestinians who had sided with Sadaam Hussein against the U.S. led
coalition, found themselves in a state of inferiority.
In quick succession
we witnessed the Madrid Peace Conference, the Washington three track negotiations between
Israel and Syria, Jordan and a Jordanian Palestinian delegation. And then we had the
secret Oslo track and the surprising Oslo agreement of September 1993.
The rapid succession
of events in what was then called the "Peace Process" triggered, as expected,
reaction among all those opposed to conciliation. Very soon Damascus became the hub of
activity of the rejectionist front and the Damascus Teheran Beirut axis became the
backbone of the Hizbullah movement, one of several Islamic international orientated
groups, operating on a global scale.
In 1993 as Hizbullah
attacks increased along Israel’s northern border, a decision was taken to eliminate a
prominent Hizbullah operative, Mussawi, Israeli aircraft attacked his car killing him and
unintentionally also killing members of his family. The Hizbullah, and its Iranian mentor
retaliated; the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires was destroyed, killing several Israeli
diplomats. And the Jewish community center, the Amia, was brutally eliminated causing more
than eighty deaths.
We are now
commemorating ten tears since those bloody events. In the meantime the Muslim
international terrorist movements have doubled and tripled their efforts. The targets are
no longer only Israelis and Jews, but Americans, British, Australians; virtually everyone
considered an enemy of Islam. Everybody now knows of Osama Bin Laden, of Al Qaida, of
Hizbullah, of Iranian supported terrorist activities. The discovery of the Karin A
shipment of arms sent directly from Iran, and destined to arrive in the Palestinian
Authority, paid by the right hand operative of Chairman Yasser Arafat, and designed to
facilitate a major effort directed at Israeli civilian non combatant targets is one more
manifestation of terrorism completing the full circle.
What is the nature
of the responsibility of the Government of Israel for the well being of Jews who are not
citizens or inhabitants of Israel? For example, in deciding on military operations or any
other types of operations against terrorists threatening Israeli interests or persons,
must the Government of Israel evaluate the effect of such operations on Jews throughout
the world? If Israel does have a responsibility in this regard, does it also have
authority in this regard? If there is a link that binds our destinies today because we are
facing the very same threat, do Jewish communities have a locus standi, in expressing
their views concerning Israel policy on combatting terrorism? If not, is Israel’s
responsibility unilateral? Is unilateral responsibility conducive to the norms of law?
In recent years I
believe all of us have had to try and define for ourselves what is the true implication of
the creation of the State of Israel for issues pertaining to the physical survival of
communities and Jewish individuals the world over. It is now generally accepted that if a
particular Jewish community is in a state of distress or clear physical jeopardy Israel
must "come to the rescue". Why is that so? Why is Israel "responsible"
for the lives of Jews in Morocco, Iran, Yemen and Ethiopia? And if this is so, what
"responsibility" does Israel bear if the international terrorist threat
developes into a potential existential threat to the Jewish people? Can such a burden be
"shared"? Can such a responsibility be "split"?
So, coming back to
my questions, I do not pretend to have answers to all or to most of these issues. There
will be those who say that there are many questions, which it would be better not to ask.
There are many who will recall the famous Yiddish dictum"a Shyleh is treifl"
There will be those who say that much should be left to constructive ambiguities. But when
we approach issues of life and death or to be more precise when these issues approach us,
we cannot leave issues in the hands of ambiguity.
I am a graduate in
law of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I am proud to sport a Magister Juris degree cum
laude of the 1956 class. And yet, as I pursued my career, the last years of which are
public knowledge, I have so often found myself in situations, which have no true legal
construction or no true legal solution. I have known full well that there are times when
one is left alone with just one’s own conscience because one cannot legislate or
adjudicate on matters of conscience.
One of the prominent
characteristics of recent legislation in so many countries round the world is the rush to
promulgate laws designed to provide legal frameworks for combatting terrorism. The pure
physical challenges of terrorism have compelled free societies to run to protect
themselves. This is nothing new in world history. During World War Two, large numbers of
American citizens were detained because of their Japanese origin. The enormity of Pearl
Harbor, the shock of the Japanese onslaught virtually swept away so many of the basic
tenets of the American political culture. When virtual survival was at stake, the law of
the land was capable of effecting lightening adjustments.
I do not believe
that we have reached the peak of the international terrorist challenge, and in this
context I do not feel that as Israelis and Jews we have broken the world cycle of Muslim
terrorism aimed directly at us. Let us not delude ourselves. Much of the present
relatively low level of terrorism must be attributed to the relative success of security
services of Israel and other countries in foiling such acts. But there is a limit to their
capabilities and I do not wish to say more than this in order not to give room to self
fulfilling prophecies.
There is a very
fundamental aspect of the current issue that I feel obliged to emphasize. The
international terrorist effort is not globally organized and coordinated; the various
movements do not have structured organizational charts. In very many of them there is no
central command in which authority resides. They have an amoebic character and as such if
one element is destroyed or damaged, all others can continue to function without any real
problem. Needless to say, these groups do not consider themselves duty bound in any way to
conform to the laws of war or to any other form of international convention. They are
"above the law" or "beyond the law". However, the aims of these groups
are not confined to gaining "victory" against their opponents. Rather they wish
to effect the utter and complete destruction of society as practiced by their adversaries.
In circumstances, as
just described, it is obvious that normal arguments and conventional reasoning will have
little if no effect. Since our adversary is not interested simply in a portion of
territory or an advantage of one type or another, there can be no "compromise"
with him until he realizes that he is losing heavily and is on the verge of virtual
destruction. Only then will our adversary enter into a meaningful negotiation designed to
guarantee his survival. Everything I have just said only goes to show that we are in the
midst of a very long haul the end of which is hardly in sight.
But let us look at
some more promising and optimistic aspects arising out of the current situation. ne fact
is that in the world of 2003, "the law" is prepared to accept forms of action
that it would have rejected only two or three years ago. The more the enemy raises not
only the level of its activities but also the quality of its operations, the more the
defending world will up the ante. In 1998, two American Embassies were blown up in Nairobi
and in Dar Es Salaam. Scores of Americans were killed. The United States responded by
sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan and bombing a chemical plant in Khartoum. In the
year 2001, the Al Qaida attacked a series of targets in the U.S.A. on 11th September. The
U.S. responded by invading Afghanistan, and by carrying out operations, including
targeting individuals in the Yemen.
What next? I know
not, but I venture the view that if terrorism will escalate, so will the response and as
the response escalates, so will "the law" international and national law be hard
pressed to create solutions, novel solutions to the challenges of the day. May I venture
the thought that at such a time, a few answers will be fashioned for the questions I have
mentioned here. I believe we must all be ready to act precipitously at such a time.
In my previous
incarnation, I was often confronted with the dilemma of having to take operational
decisions for which I could find no precedent or parallel. I think that the dilemmas we
face, to some of which I alluded today, are indeed sui generis issues. We will find no
conventional answers to these questions but we will, I believe, all be motivated by a
great single message of our not too distant past. Two words in Hebrew and in English ÜÐ
éÓ never again. If and when Israel will have to face these enormous existential
challenges I have not a shadow of a doubt that we will meet them head on. And we will not
be alone because you and we will be at each others’ side.
Efraim Halevy is the
former head of Israel’s Mossad and National Security Council. This article was
published in Justice No. 37 Winter 2003, a publication of the International Association of
Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.
India’s
IT Looks for Korean Partners
As India seizes the
bits’n’bytes world, local experts say the Korean information-technology sector
should join international rivals in tapping Indian software expertise and consumer demand
for computers and mobile phones.
Korean companies
must strive to combine their hardware technology, where they have a competitive advantage,
with India’s software knowledge, as successful strategies will make it easier to
penetrate deeper into global IT markets, says a recent report by the Samsung Economic
Research Institute.
Most of Korea’s
attention is on China. Recognition and use of Indian expertise is only beginning.
"Until now,
Korean companies have been mainly targeting the Chinese market. But now a few companies
are turning their attention to India. Samsung is doing its bit to promote trade relations
by hiring Indians to participate in projects on a national level," said Samsung
Securities tech team chief, Lim Hong-bin.
Much more should be
done, said the SERI report.
"Most Koreans
know India only for its yoga and meditation. It is time to recognize India’s
potential as an upcoming economic powerhouse and step up economic cooperation," said
the report.
"There are very
few Indian experts here and to keep pace with the latest IT developments, Korea must open
its doors to Indian experts and initiate training programs with them."
In the retail
market, India’s more than 1 billion people represent the "next China" in
consumer potential.
There is no doubt
that India is among the fastest-growing economies. An Indian government report said
India’s $547 billion economy grew 10.4 percent from a year earlier in the last
quarter of 2003.
That was the fastest
on record for India, outstripping China’s growth.
An estimated 2.7
million personal computers were sold in India last year, but that only meant nine per
1,000 people had a PC. Similarly, the penetration rate for mobile phones is a meager 1.2
percent among Indians.
India is
Korea’s 13th largest trading partner but there are no strategic partnerships in
software development and IT-related services, areas in which India is excelling.
Several countries,
including China, Japan and the United States, already are seeking to strengthen IT
relations with Indian software developers.
Malaysia and Taiwan
have also partnered India in the IT sector.
"Even
Japan’s Official Development Assistance has changed their credit granting destination
from China to India, indicating the economic importance of India. It is therefore time for
Korea to pay more attention to India rather than China," said Kim of the Korea
Institute for International Economic Policy.
Most local companies
are focused on China, Korea’s largest trade partner.
"The
large-scale trade between Korea and China is due to geographical and cultural proximity.
However, China turned out to be a competitor. On the other hand, India has a highly
developed software sector and is also an English-speaking country. Therefore, our hardware
knowledge combined with their software know-how will bring about a synergy effect,"
said Daewoo’s Chung.
By Meera
Ganesan and Lee Chae-eun
2004.04.17 |
