War against terror can't be won conventionally, say the experts
Israeli, U.S. officials discuss security behind closed doors

Haaretz Newspaper Article
December 11, 2001

By Aluf Benn

How can you deter a suicide bomber from carrying out his mission? Is it even possible to threaten terrorists who are more than willing to lose their lives? It's hard to think of a question that is weighing more heavily on the minds of security officials in Israel and the United States, two countries which have recently suffered from vicious suicide attacks. Security experts from both countries met several weeks ago at a closed convention in Herzliya to discuss possible deterrence strategies against Islamic terror threats.

The convention was part of preparations for next week's Herzliya Convention, organized by Uzi Arad, Benjamin Netanyahu's former political adviser and head of the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center's diplomatic and strategic department. Those participating in the convention include President Moshe Katsav, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, Chief-of-Staff Shaul Mofaz, Mossad Head Ephraim Halevi and Netanyahu.

Last year's convention was held during the first phases of the intifada at a time when the peace process still seemed a viable option. Since then, however, the conflict with the Palestinians has spiraled into a vicious circle of bloodshed, and, more importantly, the United States has joined the aggressive fight against terror.

Israel was worried about a deterioration in its power of deterrence even before the September 11 attacks against New York's World Trade Centers, but the subsequent change in international opinion brought to the fore the strategic and moral questions that Israel has long been deliberating.

Most participants in the recent closed convention agreed that the war on terror cannot be won through conventional means used in large-scale wars worldwide. Israel's status as a nuclear power can deter Arab leaders from waging all-out war on the country, they said, but it does not influence guerrilla fighting such as that waged by Hezbollah or the Palestinians. The strategy of "mutual extermination" used in the Cold War is irrelevant in an asymmetrical conflict such as that between the West and the Muslim world, two sides which have an entirely different political culture and set of values.

What, then, can be done? The solution supported by most participants was that terror should be struck at wherever possible, including countries that support and harbor terrorists. No terror organization can thrive without shelter provided by a country, claimed the Israelis.

"Terrorism can be deterred only through severe punishment," said one of the Israeli participants. "The punishment should be much worse than the terror attack," he added. An American colleague agreed, saying that he believes terrorist leaders should be assassinated. An Israeli added that leaders of countries that harbor terrorists should also be threatened.

The Israelis brought up the moral dilemma evoked by punishing the families of suicide bombers, but said the price is justified. "It's better than forcing a million refugees out of their homes in winter," said one Israeli, in reference to the U.S. strikes in Afghanistan.

The Americans agreed that punishment is important, but added that it is not enough: Countries that are "good" should get incentives adding that terrorism should be dealt with at its roots.

The Israelis countered that in the case of Palestinian terror, the root of the problem is not the Palestinians' desire for self-definition, but their denial of Israel's right to exist. Therefore, the root of the conflict is unsolvable, they claimed.

One of the American participants addressed Israel's treatment of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. "Israel should ask itself whether it wants Arafat in power. If it doesn't, it should take steps to topple him," said the participant. "But if it does, it should establish a system of punishments and incentives that will show him that his key to survival lies in Israel's hands."

One Israeli said that diplomatic means are also important for deterrence alongside military responses which are hard to justify in the international community. He suggested a "diplomatic attack" focusing on delegitimizing Palestinian acts. This is, in effect, the strategy chosen by Sharon - to recruit the U.S. Administration and get a go-ahead from U.S. President George W. Bush to take more extreme measures against Arafat and the PA.