Is There a Prospect for Peace in the Middle East - Assignment Example

Terrorism Name Institution 1. Is there a prospect for peace in the Middle East? At present, there are no prospects of resuscitating peace in the Middle East. The current wave of Arab awakening has undermined the diplomatic process. In fact, it could be argued that the current crop of moderate Arab leader are unwilling or lack legitimacy to sign a peace agreement with Israel to effectively restrain the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The scenario has been aggravated by the hardliner attitude taken by some leaders in the region. For instance, in 2009 when Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu assumed office, he took a hard-line stance on the question of negotiating a peace settlement. Similarly, Israel and Palestine are substantially affected by the current wave revolutions that are sweeping the Arab world, such as the ousting of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak , which robbed Israel of a close Arab ally and augmented uncertainties in the Middle East. On the other hand, Syria, which is located on Israel’s northern border, currently undergoes an uncontrolled civil war, which has virtually undermined peace at the Israeli border. Additionally, politics and religion continue to sharply divide the Sunni and Shia Muslims, even as Israel has leveraged the Sunni Arab world's hostility towards Iran and its Lebanese collaborator, Hezbollah. 2. Should the west get involved itself in combating terrorism against Israel? The West should get involved in combating terrorism against Israel. Indeed, the United States would have a golden opportunity to turn round the trends in the Middle East once they combat terrorism against Israel. The West can make efforts to necessitate a diplomatic peace process between Israel and the antagonistic countries to inculcate a culture of peaceful co-existence between Israel and Palestine and other Arab societies in general. For instance, the United States should emphatically remind Israel’s government that military power would only serve to attain short-term objectives, as lasting solutions would require regional cooperation. Indeed, the intervention of the United States in negotiating for cooperation between Israel and Palestine would serve to end terrorism against Israel, as no forms of suppression and repression have been able to stopping the Palestinians’ drive for freedom and self-determination. 4. Rise of al-Qaeda as a terrorist organisation Osama Bin Laden and Muhammad Atef founded al-Qaeda during the 1980s to provide financial and material support Afghanistan in a war against the Soviets. Afghanistan’s victory led to the emergence of "Jihad" or (or the Holy War) movement. During this time, Mujahedin fighters trained in Afghanistan started dispersing to countries like such Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt to continue the "jihad.” Antagonism shifted towards United States and its allies. In 1989, the group declared it had committed itself to opposing non-Islamic regimes in the Middle East and the United States, including through acts of terror. In 1990, it provided intelligence and military training in various places like Pakistan, Afghanistan. By this time, Al-Qaeda was providing military and intelligence training in various areas including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Sudan, for the use of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups, such as the Al-Jihad organization and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. 7. Causes of radicalisation in youth? A situational factor such as modernity is a major cause of radicalisation. For instance, the internet provides the youth with radical ideas that they can share and reinforce among other youths. Additionally, globalisation has led to a situation where many people from different cultures who live in large cities are brought to live closer together, hence making it easier to share radical ideas. Situational precipitant factors also trigger the spread of radicalisation among the youth. An example includes current wars in Iraq, which have attracted sympathy from the less radical population. For instance, recent bombings of the ISIS may trigger the youth to protest against the bombings as well as trigger their interests in radical ideas. Ideological factors also lead to radicalisation of the youth. For instance, some violent extremist groups may operate on the propaganda that they are providing an opportunity for disaffected people, such as the Muslims, to emancipate themselves. 8. How should the international community respond to ISIS? The international community can defeat ISIS by engaging in all forms of retaliation against the ISIS. It should first be defeated where it is territorially strong as well as where it has a majority of its resources. It can also be defeated through economic sanctions, as well as when their supply chains are optimally cut off. As capital resources are critical for optimal operation of the ISIS, cutting off the source of finances can ultimately defeat ISIS. For instance, the ISIS makes money by selling oil to local intermediaries, which when eliminated, including through bombing, would make ISIS to be vulnerable to financial problems. There also has to be cooperation between countries to prevent the travelling of foreign fighters. The international community may also engage counterpropaganda using the mainstream and social media to defeat the propaganda spread by ISIS. 9. Preventing lone wolf terror attacks Lone wolf attacks can be prevented not by knowing who shall carry out the attack but by knowing such attacks are undertaken, as this provides an opportunity to come up with countermeasures that can prevent the attacks. This may include knowing how lone wolf terrorist operate, their modus operandi, hangouts, and their typical targets. Next, the communities can be encouraged to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities in identifying suspected terrorists. Thirdly, the catalysts events that act as impulsive combustion of violence or the potential triggers should be identified and minimised. Additionally, since lone wolf operators tend to draw their inspiration from extremists, there is a need to disseminate counter-narratives or run counterpropaganda through the media to avoid their radicalisation. 11. Causes of terrorism throughout history Throughout history, the causes of terrorism have ranged from social reason, nationalistic reasons, ideological reasons, and religious reasons. These four reasons are related to David Rapoport’s four main waves of international terrorism. The first wave, also called the anarchist wave, has its origins in Russia during the 1880s, and estimated to have ended during the late 1920s. Second wave, also known as the anti-colonial wave, is estimated to have lasted from the 1920s to 1960s. The third wave, also known as the new left wave lasted between the 1960s and 1980s. Lastly, the fourth wave, also known as the religious wave, started in 1979 to date. In respect to the social factors, places with minority groups tended to witness incidences of terrorism that came about when they felt that they had not been granted sufficient rights or when they feel their cultures are threatened. The social reasons dominated the agenda of terrorists during the anarchist. The ‘anarchist’ wave of terrorism started because of the profound discontent of the anarchists with the sluggish societal reforms and a desire to set off uprisings in order to necessitate social reforms. Therefore, terrorism was caused by a desire to necessitate social reforms, where anarchists who engaged terror as a tool for coercion used terror to destroy such conventions. The objective was to coerce those in government to react to terror in a manner that would undercut the government legislations that had to be respected. To attain the government’s disproportionate response, high ranking government officials were the critical targets of terrorists. By such acts, the use of undue force by authorities polarised societies, hence triggering holistic uprising throughout the societies. Indeed, between 1890s and early 1940s, terrorism in this era necessitated major assassinations, leading to significant number of assassination many heads of states and ministers, including a case in 1901 when US President William McKinley was assassinated. An example includes the Black Hand organisation, which in 1914 carried out the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary for purposes of social reforms. Regarding nationalism, it could be argued that nationalist groups that seek to gain independence or exercise their right to self-determination have also led to terrorism. Nationalistic motivations for terrorisms happened during the anti-colonial wave. The start of the ‘anti-colonial’ wave was marked by the signing of the Treaty of Versailles that was to mark an end to the World War I. During this era, major tourist activities based their principles of operation on the tenet of self-determination, which was applied to disintegrate overwhelmed empires. The principle of self-determination provide a framework for the rise of major terrorist organisations such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA) alongside a number of Jewish terror groups like Irgun that allied to fight the British forces who has occupied Palestine. During this wave, terror campaigns were performed in terms of territories. As a result, singular political challenges would necessitate the colonialists to withdraw their forces. For instance in Palestine, Irgun, which had its major highlights between 1943 and 1948 was largely described as freedom fighters that fought against terror used by the government. Another example includes the Tamil Tigers terror group in Sri Lanka, which hope to have an independent country for the Tamil people. Terror groups in this wave would receive far-reaching support from varied diasporas oversees and therefore did not see the need for assassinations to attract public attention. It appears that the main goal of terror groups during this time was to eliminate the local police force as well as achieve its replacement through an occupation of military forces that would be expected to clumsily deal with terrorists, yet sufficiently influential in causing grievance among citizens using their inconsistent responses to acts of terror. Essentially, because of the nationalistic motivation to engage in acts of terror during this wave, it became commonplace for terror groups that fought against colonialists as freedom fighters. Ideological factors also caused terrorism. This happened principally during the new-left wave. The new-left wave of terrorism was outstandingly comparable to that of the first wave of in term of selecting the targets, as the main targets were mostly prominent government officials. It is estimated to have led to nearly 700 between 1968 and 1982, and assassination of to government officials, such as Spanish prime minister, and former Italian prime minister Italy Aldo Moro. While the terror groups carried out assassination of public officials when looking to provoke disproportionate responses, they did also ‘punish’ the targets for a number of reasons. The ‘new left’ terrorism is also argued to have been triggered by the Vietnam War, which was happening at the time. It also made it apparent that modern-states were susceptible to comparatively unrefined weaponry and tactics. As a result, many youths became profoundly discontented with the prevailing system. This facilitated the emergence of terror organisations, including the Red Army Faction in West Germany and PLO in Palestine. Religious factor also caused terrorism. For religious reasons, some organisation resorted to use of terror tactics to coerce the targeted victims. This is the case in the ongoing religious wave. The ‘religious’ wave of terrorism mainly features religious ideologies at the centre. It started in 1979 following various events, including the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union and the start of the Islamic century. Iran made it its obligation, as featured in its 1979 constitution, that it would protect subjugated Islamic states and declared a war against the U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, including by sponsoring terror groups such as Hezbollah. As a result, it called the United States the ‘Great Satan.’ At the same time, wars in Afghanistan necessitated the creation of training grounds for terror groups, including al-Qaeda in addition to Islamic indoctrination system. Al-Qaeda has based its ideology on Islamic jihad. The fourth wave of terrorism is characterised by suicide bombings and mass murders, including through the use of bombs and chemical weaponry, as was the case in Tokyo in 1995 by the Aum Shinrikyo sect. In another case, Hezbollah, in 1983, executed immense suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon on French army and United States marines in the country. 12. Why religious groups embrace terrorism as a tactic Religious groups may resort to terrorism as a tactic for several reasons. First, they may view violence to be a divine duty or sacramental act that they execute in order to directly respond to certain theological imperatives, including a call for Jihad or holy war by al-Qaeda terror group in Afghanistan. Technically, terrorism takes a transcendental dimension, where those who use terror are not constrained by the moral, practical, or political constraints that appear as affecting other terrorists. Clearly, religious terrorism also tends to centre on motivations, such as messianic terrorism or apocalyptic terrorism, where the religious use believe that they have to apply violence to fasten the end of times in order to usher in a new generation or world. 13. Is democracy a cure for terrorism? While there was a strong belief by the Bush administration that pushing for Arab democracy would spread American values as well as counter anti-American terrorism, this has not been the case, as terrorism is yet to be cured. Therefore, the answer seems to be no. Democracy is not a cure for terrorism. In fact, there appears a lack of strong relationship between democracy and reduction in terrorism. In my view, current wave of terrorism seems to originate from factors that tend to be highly specific than merely the type of regime. For instance, Al Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and ISIS are not campaigning for democracy in the Muslim world. Rather, they seek to impose their hope of having an Islamic state. 16. Is the law an effective tool to prevent terrorism? Law is an effective tool that can be used to prevent terrorism. Technically, the law enforcement has helped to counter terrorism globally. The criminal justice systems, whose framework of operation are based on the constitution inculcates values that are critically significant in terms of their effect on the adversaries and the potential adversaries. The law has helped prevent the war. By this, I mean that the law helps the law enforcement agency in disrupting, defeating, dismantling, and destroying the adversaries. In return, the law enforcement agency can disrupt terrorist schemes by making arrests, incapacitating terrorists by incarcerating them after prosecution, and obtaining intelligence from terrorists legitimately or their supporters by interrogating, as well as by recruiting them as informers. The law also spells out the penal code, which may discourage potential terrorists from engaging in terror activities due to fear of getting apprehended. 17. What are the key differences between the PLO and Hamas? Hamas and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) are fundamentally different organisations. The PLO was founded in 1964 by Arab states with the view of contending with the Palestine’s national cause and was principally overseen by Arab states until the late1960s after some Palestinian factions obtained representation in the organisation. Hence, unlike Hamas, it is essentially an umbrella organization for a majority of factions in Palestine. It is most seen as a national movement. HAMAS was founded in 1987 at the start of the initial Palestinian uprising or intifada. Unlike PLO which has its origin in the external Arab states, Hamas has its origin in the Muslim Brotherhood in the country. Hamas is predominately Sunni Muslim. Hamas, by principle, seeks to change Israel from being Jewish states to a Muslim state. In other words, it wishes to see a new Palestine that has no Jews. On the other hand, PLO operates with the view of championing the Palestinians rights for self-determination against the Israelis in the West Bank. Read More