Beyond justificati

Apologists of terror do more harm than good, writes Ibrahim Nafie

---

Words alone are not enough to express our abhorrence of the barbarous acts of terrorism that reached a new peak in Egypt with the Sharm El-Sheikh bombings, claiming dozens of innocent lives, Egyptian and foreign. We must summon the courage to take an honest look at this phenomenon, for only a precise and objective understanding will enable us to find the most effective means of combating it.

Terrorism is too complex a phenomenon to be abbreviated as a violent form of political protest. There are many deeply-rooted ills that are driving individuals in the prime of their youth to blow themselves up in the midst of areas crowded with civilians, against all religious injunctions. We can no longer afford to take the easy way out and point to certain regional and international issues, as crucial as they are, as the sole cause of this horrifying murder and destruction. In spite of the enormous efforts by many parties, the world is in the grip of a new and systematic campaign of terrorism. In spite of how coolly and sensibly the British government handled the London bombings of 7 July and how strongly religious leaders in Britain condemned these acts, terrorists tried to stage a repetition of the horrors. Clearly, sensible people are thinking in one direction and terrorists in an entirely different one. We need clear and convincing answers as to why.

Shortly after the London bombings a programme on an Arab satellite station asked viewers to phone in their answer to the following question: "If you saw a person who you suspected was on his way to commit a terrorist act would you inform the authorities?" I waited until the end of the programme for the answer: 46 per cent of viewers answered no. Of those who answered in the affirmative many added a qualification. They would only inform the authorities if the terrorist was going to perpetrate his act in an Arab or Islamic country.

I was stunned. Clearly something is terribly wrong. Arab and Islamic societies are in the grip of any number of grave injustices. Yet, however heavy and extensive the toll of these injustices, this is not sufficient to explain the profoundly warped way of thinking on the part of many respondents. It reflects a loss of all humanitarian sensibility and respect for the sanctity of human life.

Nothing could more starkly underscore the severity of the terrorist phenomenon. Social psychologists suggest there are three stages in the creation of a terrorist bomber: ideological indoctrination, emotional preparedness and the behavioural triggers that translate the first two into murder and destruction. If we are to put an end to the brutal terrorism that threatens all humanity, we must develop a comprehensive strategy that addresses all three components.

Terrorism must be condemned outright and in no uncertain terms. There is no justification whatsoever for the deliberate taking of innocent lives or for targeting the security and stability of the nation in order to rock the political and economic development upon which the welfare of millions depends. In this regard, one can only welcome the marked rise, in the wake of the recent bombings, of a trend to adopt precisely this attitude. Terrorists have profited too long from the ready pretexts offered by commentators who, if only in an attempt to explain the phenomenon, point to conditions in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no denying the justice of these causes and the right of peoples to defend them. But the ends do not justify the means. If the cause is liberation from foreign occupation, then the struggle should focus directly against the occupation forces, in keeping with the provisions of international law and legitimacy. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the struggle is to remain a means towards just and legitimate ends, and not an end in itself.

We must also take this opportunity to caution against those who are fond of fishing in troubled waters in the pursuit of goals of their own. A blatant example of this is to be found in the recent statements issued following the Sharm El-Sheikh bombings by Yoval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, casting aspersions on the abilities of Egyptian security forces. Eventually he got to his real point, which was to call into question whether Egypt could effectively control the border area with Gaza, thereby effectively declaring his opposition to the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Philadelphia corridor. The MK's statements triggered a spate of commentaries in the Israeli press arguing that Israel should continue to occupy the border strip inside Gaza. One commentator, Nahum Barnea in Yediot Aharanot, attempted to justify what he described as the growing anxiety in Israel over the fate of the border area between Gaza and Egypt earmarked for the deployment of Egyptian forces, on the grounds that "after the [Sharm El-Sheikh] bombings, the Egyptian regime is more unstable than ever".

Such remarks are part of a bid to go back on earlier understandings pertaining to the full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the deployment of Egyptian forces to secure the border area. This habit on the part of Israeli officials and commentators of capitalising on tragedy in order to realise gains -- or what they imagine to be gains -- is indicative of an extremely deleterious trend in regional and international relations. Such cynicism serves neither the fight against terrorism nor the aspirations that are pinned on peace and stability.