Rethinking Islamist Terrorism
Dan Yankelovich

Participant
This conference is directed toward finding an alternative approach to the war on terrorism, a way to curb Islamist violence. We have in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict a long history of efforts to quell such violence. More than half a century of experience now. And in many ways it is comparable to our own situation--a powerful nation facing angry bands of primitively armed resistors, unable through military action to solve the crises. The persistent call is for the Palestinians to give up suicide bombing and the Israelis to dismantle the encroaching settlements. Neither side will budge. Is there, in Don's terms, a NEW SOLUTION possible? Is there in Dan's writing the key to a new strategy appropriate to that situation? Or is that situation off limits, for the reasons I have cited earlier, as an example we might work with? I appreciate the important difference, that the Palestinian/Israeli struggle is less religious than a fight over territory and residence rights, but are the similarities strong enough to give us food for thought?

During the cold war, the late psychologist Charles Osgood, a former Fellow of WBSI, advanced a conflict resolution strategy that involved one party taking small, graduated unilateral steps, one at a time, indicating some disarmament and calling for a matching step from the opposing side. The twist was, as I recall, that even without reciprocation, a next small step would be taken unilaterally, expecting that an accumulation of such steps would eventuate in the other side reciprocating. We tested that strategy through interaction simulation gaming in the laboratory with successful results, but it was never adopted by the Joint Chiefs.

Now leaders here and in Israel are calling for Sharon to take such a unilateral move by dismantling some of the settlements before requiring the suicide bombing to cease. Recent moves by the Israeli leadership don't seem to be creating a climate for such an action, but heightened tensions actually make such a move more dramatic.

Participant
Front running Democratic candidate Howard Dean is being beaten up for his remark in the recent debate suggesting that if we are going to be able to broker a peace in the Israel/Palestinian conflict we have to be even handed. Although he has recruited seven times as many contributors as his closest rival, some think this remark will be his undoing.

I rest my case.

Participant
In Comment #114, Richard asks "Does anyone think that the Islamists can be dealt with without first dealing differently with Israel?" In #116 he states his belief that our "continuing one-side support of Israel" has actually worsened matters for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What do others see as the relationship between what is happening in Israel and Islamist terrorism?

Participant
A friend asked me, "How would we react if the leadership of the Palestinian Authority decided that in order to pursue a reasonable peace settlement it would be necessary to assassinate Sharon?"

Participant
Coming into this rich conversation after a too-long absence, I'd like to (1) express my agreement with Dick's comment that "war on terrorism" was a foolish way to frame the present situation -- if we could have approached it as an effort to bring more peace, security and rule of law into the world we could have accomplished much, much more -- and (2) advance for your consideration the thought that there is only one kind of social order that is going to work in the 21st century, and that is pluralism. Sure, it can be defined many ways. But the idea that nations should be composed of culturally and ethnically coherent peoples -- the rock on which Israel was founded and Osama bin Laden hopes to build a new Islamic society -- just isn't going to work any more.

Participant
Walter: does your 132 suggest that democracy is not a viable form of government in this century?

My answers to this question would be yes, unless we make some fundamental changes in in how we practice democracy. Most of us have made suggestions for this in our long record above. It would be interesting to pluck them from this record if there was a mechanical way to do it.

An even more interesting answer would be some new theory for a viable form of government to meet the new conditions.

Participant
Walt, there is some developing interest among people on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian divide that perhaps it may be wisest to create one nation that would give full citizenship to all cultures. Many Muslims now live permanently in Israel, without the vote, and they will eventually outnumber the Jews. Adding the refugees would make it an overwhelmingly large group. Yet, there is still some interest. That would transform it from a purely Jewish state, and what amounts to a theocracy, into the multicultural state you were describing. Think that is viable?

Participant
I certainly wouldn't want to deny that multicultural and democratic states are subject to great stresses if there are strongly self-identified ethnic and religious groups within them. I think I previously referred to Fareed Zakaria's book The Future of Freedom, which makes a persuasive case that mere democracy -- having elected officials -- isn't enough. You also have to have recognition of the rights of minorities, and that's much harder to achieve and maintain. But without it, you are in danger of having a dictatorship of the majority, which is a very real possible outcome in Iraq.

Participant
And in response to Dick's question about Israel/Palestine: I do think a one-state solution would work if it were a democracy with rule of law and protection of rights of minorities. Achieving it would be dicey, of course, but the present situation is such a bloody disaster that it would be well worth the effort.

Participant
Walt, in Comment #132 you advanced the thought that "there is only one kind of social order that is going to work in the 21st century, and that is pluralism." You discussed this briefly in regard to Israel/Palestine. Could you expand a bit more on why you see this as the case in general? And how we could get there from where we are today?

Participant
The reason all social orders must be pluralistic is that it is simply not possible to maintain ethnically and culturally homogenous ones. People move around, ideas move around, ethnic and cultural labels don't fit everybody. There are always minority sects, dissident movements, and minority ethnic groups. There are conflicts between generations, between political factions, between fundamentalists and revisionists. There are women, gays, scientists, rockers, computer geeks, and endless new subcultures that stretch across all boundaries and are often at odds with orthodox beliefs. The idea of a cozy little bunch of people who run their own country is a myth, and a dangerous one. It's powerful -- it defines what Israel is afraid of losing, and what Palestine desperately wants, and politicians are afraid to challenge it.

Participant
Walt, we have two major trouble spots right now, Iraq and Israel. In the case of Iraq, we have a nation attempting to embrace pluralism, and in Israel we have a nation attempting to be culturally homogeneous. Taking your general thinking to the next step of designing structural solutions to the difficulties in those countries, could you give us an idea of what you might say to Sharon or Bush about the structural implications of your theories? Wouldn't those structural concepts be important to Dan as he tries to find alternatives to our "war on terror"? (I always think we should first try to fix situations before we try the much harder job of fixing people).

Participant
Dick, I think your depiction of Israel as a nation dedicated to cultural homogeneity is correct -- that was its very founding premise -- but I don't know how deep the urge for pluralism goes in Iraq. In fact it's quite apparent that different factions have different ideas about that -- the Kurds want small-scale homogeneity and some degree of self-rule, some Shia leaders appear to be after a semi-democratic theocracy a la Iran. I think a firm and clearly-enunciated US policy favoring pluralistic democracy must be the basis for weaving through these tangles and also taking a real and constructive role of global leadership. In short, we need to get Wilsonian.

In regard to Israel the situation is more difficult because the US supported its creation and has been strongly allied with it ever since without really challenging those founding assumptions. The one-nation idea you mentioned is worth bringing much more into the public dialogue, but we have to recognize that it's politically explosive and no high-level US official or presidential candidate that I know of would be willing to be associated with it. It's an idea whose time has not yet come, even though the old idea of nationhood that remains in place is not working very well anywhere.

Participant
Walter: Would you be a little more explicit in your suggestion that we need to "get Wilsonian".

If we had lots of time, enough money, and the personnel to lead the process -- and by this I mean a generation or two of all three requirements -- I could understand better how we might be able lead the Iraqis into some sort of democracy. I believe that, by definition, a democracy that will continue without in effect becoming a colony, cannot be imposed. If you disagree, please tell me where I am wrong.

Participant
Morton Kondrake in his column today said that because of the remarks Dean made about the need to be "even handed" in our dealings with the Israelis and Palestinians, and the failure of the other candidates (except for Lieberman) to step on him for that, top leaders of Jewish organizations are suggesting that many Jewish Democrats may switch to Bush, giving him as much as 40% of the Jewish vote. This, even though Dean's wife is Jewish and their children are being raised in the Jewish faith.

So, Walt, you are surely right that your suggestion couldn't be discussed by any politician in America.

Participant
Don, by "being Wilsonian" I mean taking a position of world leadership that is based on a vision -- in Wilson's case, the "triad" of disarmament, democracy and free trade, based on strong international organizations -- that appeals to people everywhere and does not simply cast the US in the role of unilateral bully.

I can't say you're wrong about Iraq. I just think it is worth the effort to make democracy work there. I also think that should be an effort in which many nations and organizations -- NGOs, the UN, etc. -- participate.

Dick, I have a lot of Jewish friends -- and I'm sure you do too -- who abhor some of Israel's actions toward Palestine.

Participant
Many Jewish friends, of course. And many oppose Sharon. But the problem is just as difficult for them as for the rest of us. Nobody, Jewish or not, can wade into the politics of US/Israel relations, and expect to be elected to office, or even honored in the community. Wesley Clark (an old WBSI member, by the way), whose father was Jewish, may run into the same problem Howard Dean did if he doesn't watch his step. He may think his Jewish heritage will insulate him, but he would be mistaken.

To truly examine in any public way our relationship to Israel is curtains for any politician, and for that reason the US is unable to rein in Israel, even when its actions are reprehensible. By our non-existent or tepid responses to the atrocities, we give tacit approval. This makes a mockery of a "war on terrorism", because we can't begin to address the central reason the Middle East is angry with us. We are not even addressing it in this conference, which purports to be an effort to think this situation through. Our national leaders say the Middle Easterners hate us for our freedom, and never mention what the Muslims, including bin Laden, explicitly give as their reason--our one-sided support of Israel. And the anger toward us on this issue is not limited to the Middle East, but is strong in many other parts of the world, especially Europe. In our interview with British anthropologist Mary Douglas, she avoided this subject until the very end, and even then was so reluctant to mention it that she almost didn't address at all the issue that was all along at the front of her mind--her disagreement with our automatic support for Israel.

The trouble this has caused us is not limited to the terrorism directed against us, but has a history going back generations, and is one of the reasons our relations with the UN have been so strained and difficult. Without debate of any kind, our policy is determined by a small minority of our citizenry, who hold over our heads the atom bomb of accusations--anti-Semitism.

Our leaders are quite willing to link 9/11 to Saddam, where there was no connection, but totally unwilling to link 9/11 with our foreign policy respecting Israel, where there is a very real connection.

Participant
These days, Walt, "being Wilsonian" is a pejorative term.

Participant
Wilson had his personal and political faults, certainly, and I think people tend to look back on him as a somewhat foolish character. But he had a vision for the world, and he projected an image of America that was more than just: You're either with us or against us. We need some of that.

Participant
Agreed. I think he is seen as foolish now by some for thinking there could be a successful international body to handle disputes.

Participant
In the eighteen months between the time Netanyahu was defeated by Barak and the Camp David meetings with Clinton there was not one suicide bombing. When the US plays a more "evenhanded" role, both parties move closer to peace. That relatively optimistic mood was broken when Sharon went to the sacred Temple Mount with a thousand armed police and military. That act provoked Intifada II, and it has been downhill ever since. His leadership has worsened the situation day by day. Everything our leaders have done in the past three years only legitimized or actually supported his militant posture. Shouldn't we be dealing with these rather significant issues as we discuss a strategy to reduce terrorism?

Participant
I'd like to join Walt in defending Woodrow Wilson's "vision thing."

There's no doubt that his idealism skewed his political judgment, both in dealing with the European "realists" of his day and in not bringing along that "little band of wilful men" in the US Senate who torpedoed US membership in the League of Nations. Moreover, we have learned in the intervening 70+ years that "self-determination of nations" leads away from the lesson US history could have taught (and could yet teach) the world about the virtues of in-country pluralism.

Nevertheless Wilson launched and popularized some ideas that eventually contributed to the abolition of colonialism -- and became part of the international human-rights doctrines which I once described as "the first superstar in the history of political philosophy." Not so bad for a guy who started as a Princeton professor of public administration!

Participant
Harlan, you Princeton public administration alums always stick together!! Actually, Wilson is one of my heroes. I just mentioned that his name is now used in a pejorative way to those who desire international organizations.

Participant
ILF colleagues: I have been asked to write a longish article to serve as a lead piece for a forthcoming (Oct 9) issue of WorldPaper, which is edited in Boston but published as a newspaper supplement "in eight languages on five continents" -- and also distributed as a computer newsletter.

The theme is "Who's Winning the War on Terrorism?" I didn't pick the theme, and will probably want to argue with the question. I'm reviewing all the comments in this Conference, and a lot of other current commentary besides. I would greatly value any suggestions any of you may have that help answer, or at least torture, the title question.

I need to have drafted my article by the end of this month at the latest -- so any input from ILF Fellows would be especially valuable by the end of this week.

The news of each day seems to complicate the question further -- so I'm not looking for THE answer, but rather for insights you think would be helpful in writing about this subject for a worldwide non-American audience.

Thanks in advance........Harlan.

Previous Page        Next Page

top