|
Israel strives to import America's war on terror
By Aluf Benn
12/18/2001 "Haaretz" -- -- The Israeli political-security
establishment is coming to the conclusion that the terror attacks on
September 11 granted Israel and advantage; at a time when Israel was
under increasing international pressure because of the ongoing
conflict with the Palestinians.
Osama bin Laden's September 11 attacks placed Israel firmly on the
right side of the strategic map with the United States. At the same
time it put the Arab world at a disadvantage as it now faces its own
difficult decisions about its future. That's the impression left by
the speeches given by Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy and National
Security Council chairman Maj. Gen. Uzi Dayan, at this week's
Herzliya conference on national security.
Dayan said yesterday that the global reality resulting from
September 11 gives Israel and the U.S. "the chance for victory over
a common enemy." Halevy spoke about "a world war different from all
its predecessors" and about global agreement that "combined all the
elements of Islamic terror into one clear and identifiable format,"
creating "a genuine dilemma for every ruler and every state in our
region. Each one must reach a moment of truth and decide how he will
position himself in the campaign."
Last weekend, a top-level Israeli delegation, led by Minister
without Portfolio Dan Meridor, was in Washington for a "strategic
dialogue" meeting with the U.S. government. Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon wanted Meridor and his colleagues to find out what the U.S.
government has in mind for "Phase Two" of the war on international
terror and to report to the Americans on Israeli ideas and concerns.
Meridor's entourage included Dayan; Amos Yaron, the Defense Ministry
director general; Danny Ayalon, the prime minister's political
adviser; Yoav Biran, the Foreign Ministry deputy director general;
and David Ivry, Israel's ambassador to Washington.
The American team, headed by Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary
of state, told the Israelis that Washington hasn't yet decided on
its course of action for the next phase. The speedy victory in
Afghanistan surprised the administration, which expected a much
longer campaign.
But the first stage is not yet over. After Afghanistan, the
Americans plan to hunt down Qaida cells worldwide (the network is
estimated to be dispersed over 60 countries), and only then to start
looking forward.
According to the Israelis who were in Washington, President Bush is
daily more determined that the campaign against terror proceed to
the next stages. The American officials explained that the
administration is of two minds about which way to go. One direction
is "dealing with the difficult cases, first," with the intention
being Iraq. The other approach proposes going from the periphery to
the center, eliminating terror cells in countries like Somalia and
Sudan, before moving on to more difficult targets.
The Israelis spoke about the dangerous connection between terrorism
and the development of unconventional weapons and missile systems.
"Those who use terror, will also use weapons of mass destruction if
they can. This is a matter of the means, not the will," said Dayan,
in his Herzliya lecture yesterday.
Dayan identified what he called the appropriate targets for the next
stage of the global campaign: "The Iran, Iraq and Syria triangle,
all veteran supporters of terror which are developing weapons of
mass destruction." He said that "they must be confronted as soon as
possible, and that is also understood in the U.S. Hezbollah and
Syria have good reason to worry about the developments in this
campaign, and that's also true for the organizations and other
states."
During the Washington discussions, one of the Israelis proposed a
new direction for the Americans to consider: "Syria first." The
intention is not for the U.S. to bomb President Bashar Assad's
palace or the Syrian Scud missile bases, but rather for Washington
to apply political pressure. The Syrians are sensitive to U.S.
opinion much more than the Iranians or Iraqis, and they can be
pressured to give up their relationship with the Hezbollah and the
Palestinian terror organizations based in Damascus.
The Israelis wanted to know if the U.S. is making approaches to
Iran, as has been signaled since the September 11 attacks. The
Americans said they are interested in a dialogue with Tehran, but
have not succeeded yet, and meanwhile haven't uncovered any real
change in the behavior of the Iranian government.
Israel is sticking to its official position that there is no
difference between the moderates and the conservatives in Tehran and
no real significance to the positive attitudes expressed by Iranian
President Mohammed Khatami, since he has no real power in
formulating his country's foreign policy. On this issue, Mossad
chief Halevy appeared to be the lone dissenter in the Israeli
establishment, noting in his speech that there are signs of
potential change in Tehran, with some key figures indicating that if
Israel and the Palestinians reach an agreement, Tehran would not
oppose it.
In his lecture yesterday, Dayan presented a sweeping view of a model
for a global campaign against terrorism:
* Five coordinated and integrated efforts - diplomatic, military,
economic, legal and educational - in a campaign that will not be
decided by the occupation of land or the destruction of opposing
forces, as in classic warfare.
* Three circles - one being immediate reactions and defense, the
second a widening campaign against states and organizations with
enforcement of the rule that terror is illegitimate, and a third to
deal with the the roots of conflicts and preventing the creation of
the conditions that foster terrorism, what Dayan referred to as
"drying the swamps," a clear hint about political processes and
local peace agreements in places that tend to violence.
* Three levels - independent action by lone states, bilateral
actions (like U.S.-Israeli efforts) and multinational efforts, in
which many states with similar approaches to terror engage in joint
efforts.
"This is a fight for values, and victory is necessary," Dayan
declared, offering the following definition for terrorism: "Any
organization that systematically harms civilians, irrespective of
its motives."
© Copyright 2005 Haaretz. All rights reserved
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
