OPINION:
Terrorism was born and has been abroad in the Middle East for decades, only now it is under an Islamic umbrella. Before there was Islamist terrorism, there was Palestinian terrorism. Of course, extremist Islam is a dimension of today’s turmoil that cries out for reform. But there is some truth to the argument that “It is not true Islam” and that terrorism is a tactic. The Palestinians’ stated objective was a secular, democratic state, and they included Christians as leaders. Underlying all these terrorist currents, whether secular or Islamic, is another dynamic — a power play to dominate their world. Understanding that is key to countering today’s terrorist brand.
A plethora of revolutionary and Marxist-Leninist Palestinian groups has been active since the 1960s. To maintain some control, certain Arab states also established groups, while others financed all.
When the Soviet Union, their prime benefactor, imploded, the terrorists sought another rubric. They found religion. Under the guise of Islam they could finance their operations and continue roiling the masses.
Like the secular Palestinian predecessors, there are multiple Islamic groups today, some state-sponsored. Also as in the past, Arab and other financial backers have tried to appease them.
The Islamic groups have drawn upon, and at times distorted, ideas and movements that have been extant in the Middle East for some time. Propagated by the 19th-century thinkers Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh, pan-Islam sought to reform Islam to accommodate modern life and unify the region under Islam to confront encroaching Western powers. Al-Afghani advocated revolution, whereas Abduh advocated a gradual, nonviolent, educational approach. Sultan Abdulhamid II adopted pan-Islam, emphasizing his role as caliph, to shore up the Ottoman Empire. Al-Afghani, Abduh and others inspired the Muslim Brotherhood’s formation in Egypt in 1928. Today’s Islamists eschew modernization and promulgate a conservative Islam, seeking to impose it even upon co-religionists through violence. Such narrow, orthodox Islam also has been a longtime strain, beginning with the 9th-century Hanbali school and revived by the 18th-century Wahhabis, who dominate Saudi Arabia today.
Looking for a precedent to the upfront and personal violence that the Islamists use, one cannot but think of the Assassins. This 11th-century Ismaili Shiite sect became known for fearsome raids from mountain fortresses and for assassinating prominent individuals. A more recent precedent, in the 1940s and ’50s, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt assassinated political opponents and pro-British Egyptians. Yet, it is difficult to find a precedent in Islam for today’s street-level violence against ordinary civilians.
In dealing with today’s Islamists, we can learn much from the Palestinian example.
The Palestinian terrorists wreaked havoc in Jordan — cavorting in the capital with arms, shooting live ammunition in populated areas, setting up roadblocks, arresting and interrogating people, and extorting money — and almost overthrew King Hussein. They refined hijacking as a terrorist tool, were a catalyst for the civil war in Lebanon, murdered U.S. diplomats, intelligence agents and citizens. They murdered 22 children in Maalot, Israel, in 1974 — three decades before the atrocities in Beslan, Russia, and four decades before Boko Haram terrorized Nigeria. Despite these horrific events, Middle East specialists parsed their statements for distinctions in ideology, aims and tactics, hoping to tease out moderates and negotiate a settlement.
This was naive. Each group was interested in its own aggrandizement and power. They fought their host governments and each other. When they cooperated at all, they moved toward the extreme; there were no true moderates. The Palestinians rejected any opportunity for a settlement and instead mounted two intifadas. The Palestinians could have had a thriving state by now; one can only conclude that they do not want one.
Today, similar to the Palestinians, several Islamic groups fight each other and compete to be the most extreme. The leaders, who essentially head groups of criminals, are interested in imposing their power, and they pervert the Koran.
We in the West should not repeat our past miscalculations. We should not parse statements, seek to “understand” underlying motivations, or scour the Koran. We cannot begin to address social conditions while a sword is at our throats.
We must use all necessary force to eliminate the terrorists. There is no possibility of compromise or hope of co-opting them into a political framework. They would use any such opportunity to thwart our efforts to establish a civil society. We should not allow them to keep their arms and migrate from place to place to return and fight another day as we allowed the Palestinians to do. We should be prepared to accept civilian casualties, even of hostages, understanding that such casualties would be as great if these groups came to power. Only the consequences for the West would be greater.
• Marcia Drezon-Tepler is a writer specializing in the Middle East and terrorism.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.