SHOULD A 'DEMOCRATIC' STATE RESORT TO THE TACTICS OF THE 'TERRORIST'? Par 2
Of course, there is a need to distinguish between the 'terrorist',
real or potential, and the use of terrorism as a political weapons. This
is necessarily so, considering the fact that the state or government, will and
does uses the weapons of terrorism to pursue its own objectives,when it
considers it expedient to do so.. When Israel invaded Gaza on the last
occasion, who can deny that, doing so in the manner in which it did, would have
terrorised large if not every part of the population? We can multiply this
example to include all wars - whether or not they were seen as 'legitimate'
ones - as acts of terror and there fore as a way of terrorising the innocent
populations caught up in them. It would have been the case when the Americans
invaded Iraq in 2003, eg, and when the western coalition invaded Libya, when
Saudi Arabia and its coalition began their on-going bombing against the
Yemenis, and when the French went into Mali.
Terrorism, whether perpetrated by the state or individuals or
group of individuals, create fear and terror/
Back to the question of whether Europe, and probably other
countries, should follow Israel's method of dealing with 'terrorism.
Israel, of course, is quite unique, in that it is a largely Jewish state,
which perceives itself as being surrounded by actual and potentially hostile
Arab and Muslims countries, having an Israeli Arab population in Israel proper,
some of whom it will consider to be potential enemies, and an occupied
Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank. This kind of
geopolitical and demographic paradigm is probably not replicated anywhere
outside of the Middle East, except probably 'Indonesia' Papua New Guinea.
And how does Israel maintain control over her, effectively,
subjected and occupied Palestinian colonies? By military writ. The control is
militarised and draconian, with a de facto and, even de jure reality of their
being 'one law for Israeli Jews' and 'a more draconian law for Palestinians.'
Israeli Jews can avail themselves of the benefits of living in a 'democratic
Israel', to an extent which is not realizable by the Palestinians of the West
Bank and Gaza, whose lives are blighted by the ineffectual leadership of their
governments and the hands of the Israeli state around their necks.
Israel, of course, will blame Hamas and Fatah for the plight wretched
people.
We see Israel carrying out a policy of, let me say, counter
terrorism, against individual Palestinians who attempt to murder Israeli Jews
with sharp weapons such as knives, by killing all the attackers and attempted
attackers. The strategy is clearly to that of giving all would be attacker a
very blunt message: you attack our citizen and you die, so do not try it
because we will kill your even when we could arrest you!
In my view, this approach is not compatible with a state defining
itself as 'a democracy,' even though if it is an approach that could prove
effective in reducing or even stopping the number of attacks. The 'democratic
state' does not have the humanistic,legal and 'moral flexibility' that, say,
the 'terrorist group or organization' - an organization which is committed to
using acts of terrorism as a strategy to achieve its objective/s, as opposed
to, arguably, 'a legitimate' or 'legitimsed' group or state that might use a
specific act/s of terror/terrorism, tactically - can abrogate.
For western and European countries to adopt the 'Israeli model' of
fighting terrorism, it would require these countries to build up the necessary
security apparatus to do so. This would include the requisite battery of
security laws. Laws which would not be based on principles of justice, but
expediency in allowing the state to efficiently protect itself, in the first
place, and, secondly the citizens, but at the cost of the curtailment of the
citizens' freedom of speech, movement, privacy and human rights. It would also
carry with it the risk of things 'never being returned to normal', after the
threat has been 'neutralized', but simply becoming part of the status quo,
which could be used or misused for something else.
The terrorist, by definition and intent has shorn and/or been
shorn of his humanity, and has weaponise himself. His constraints have been
removed. For the state to emulate the way of the terrorist, it would mean the
removal - partial or total - of the 'democratic' constraints and principles
forming it. This, if ever, should only be done as a last and not a first
resort, since such changes diminish the 'legitimacy' and 'democratic'
credentials of the state adopting them.
Comments