Soccer Dad

Funding hamas; defining terror

There were a couple of interesting posts at the Counterterrorism blog last week. One was Latest Evidence Hizballah Funds Palestinian Terrorists by Matthew Levitt, detailing some of Hezbollah's current efforts. In particular he focuses on one terrorist, the subject of a recent Dateline report:

A Dateline NBC report that aired September 11, 2005 reveled that Jihad Jaara, a top operative for the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, is living free in Ireland where he continues to meet with fellow terrorist operatives and finance terror attacks.

On Jaara's suggestion, Dateline correspondent Lisa Myers contacted his friend and fellow al-Aqsa operative Salem Bawaqnah in an Israeli maximum security prison. Jaara believed Bawaqnah would corroborate his claim that he has entirely renounced terrorism following his exile from the West Bank. Instead, Bawaqnah told Myers that since July 2004 Jaara has helped him secure funding from Hizballah for terrorist cells in the West Bank involved in car bombings in Israel.

A few comments:
1) This isn't based on any inaccessible investigative work; this was something available on network TV.
2) This shows once again the risk in releasing terrorists who "promise" to reform as a condition of their release.
3) Now that Hezbollah doesn't need to defend itself on its own territory it is free to branch out and help the offensive capabilities of other terror groups.
4) Whenever a reporter writes something to the effect of "Israeli officials claim that many Palestinian policeman were also working for terror organizations" rememeber that it should have started, "It's been confirmed that many ..."

In UN Diplomats Drop Efforts to Define Terrorism, Victor Comras writes of recent efforts to define terrorism have come to an unsuccessful conclusion:

No one ever thought that reforming the United Nations would be an easy task or that we were about to return the United Nations to its role as an effective protector of international peace and security. Yet, we should all be saddened by news that the negotiators in New York have dropped the inclusion of a clear definition of terrorism from their reform program. Previous efforts, extending over 8 years, had failed to come up with an agreed terrorism definition. This time there was high hope that the UN would “get it right.” Drawing from the recommendations of its own High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, Secretary General Kofi Annan had put great emphasis on a definition of terrorism and a strategy aimed at combating terrorism and terrorism support and financing. It was time to make it clear, he said, that any deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes was terrorism. He lobbied for, and received strong support for such a definition from international leaders at both the Riyadh Counter-Terrorism Conference and the Madrid Terrorism Summit. So what happened?

Unfortunately, too many countries, particularly in the Middle East, are still wedded to the same terrorist tactics they have used for decades to address their perceived grievances. They maintain that there must be a right to resistance against occupation and that such right encompasses tactics of violence against civilians. Such a "right to resistance" concept carries with it nefarious implications not only for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but also for the coalition presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

1) It's not surprising that it didn't work out. What is surprising is that there had been some useful work done on the topic in Saudi Arabia, even if Saudi Arabia ended up contributing to the panel's failure.
2) Actually there already is a definition for terrorism in place. The problem is that it is largely ignored. (I don't know the exact wording but it involves defining non-combatants.) There was an effort in the 70's to permit irregular warfare and provide a legal framework for allowing terror - especially against Israel.
3) Maybe a clear definition of "occupation" would be in order too, as that it often the given justification for terror.
4) Even if terror were re-defined, I have a hard time believing it would make much of a difference. The Palestinians have very successfully managed to get their grievance against Israel virtually codified in diplomatic, academic and journalistic circles. The people who accept this aren't necessarily going to be moved by a definition that doesn't include "Palestinian national rights."

Technorati Tags: Israel, Technorati Tags: terrorism.