Historians and political scientists may dissect and apportion blame on one side or the other, but it’s undeniable that preventing such impending travesties is crucial for fostering a peaceful world.
The Israelis being caught off guard, their intelligence failure, and the seemingly impenetrable iron dome proving vulnerable are just a few concerns. Another worry lies in the unfathomable manifestation and intensity of hatred towards Israelis—a deep-seated abhorrence harbored by extremists. Adding to the apprehension is the complacency induced by the winds of change in the Middle East, with the newly embraced modernity of prime Arab states and their polished image to the Western world. Most disconcerting is the dispelling of any doubts that terrorist acts are isolated and infrequent.
It proves that terrorism is incipient, lurking, and eager to destroy. Even more disturbing is the ambivalence displayed at the political, social, and cultural levels—whether to unequivocally label Hamas as a terrorist organisation or not. Even in a country like India, which has lost many lives to terrorist attacks, opinions were divided. In that light, long-term solutions should be found to address the subject of terrorism—not least at the diplomatic, social, and cultural levels.
The key reality that has emerged is that illegitimate, non-state actors can exploit and extract financing from legitimate state actors who use them and support them to wage a war by other means. The attempts to choke this nexus are far from successful, as the case of Hamas proves. To have thousands of missiles, heavy-duty military vehicles, munitions, and manpower requires serious funding. To be able to wage a war against a heavily equipped and competent state that is in a state of eternal battle-readiness requires resources, competence, and the backing of rich patrons.
The proficiency in managing high-intensity weapons has evolved due to the efforts of superpower armament companies, which actively promote the widespread dissemination of their innovations through clandestine channels. The omnipresent internet serves as another platform for sharing information and facilitating do-it-yourself capabilities. What should concern military strategists worldwide is the increasing ease with which the techniques and technologies of terrorist warfare, orchestrated by fringe groups, have become commoditised.
The world should unequivocally label terrorist groups. Surprisingly, entities like Hamas haven’t been officially condemned by the United Nations as terrorist groups. Even post-attack, there was political indecision on whether Hamas should be designated a terrorist organization or not – some argued that India hadn’t formally labeled them as such. Unfortunately, in the United Nations, motions can be easily vetoed on political grounds in the Security Council.
To address this, a new category, “Groups that Display Traits of Terrorism,” should be created for those arming themselves militarily, funneling funds illegally, and mobilising against sovereign states. After the Hamas attack and the revelation of year-long preparations, it’s clear that terrorist attacks aren’t spontaneous but premeditated. Waiting for a full-scale attack before labeling extremist groups as terrorists is risky; designating them as displaying traits of terrorism if they acquire arms and illegal funds is more prudent.
For the governments, it should be legitimate to emphasise groups with a history of terrorist activities as those displaying traits of terrorism. What traits of terrorism today carry a high probability of evolving into acts of terrorism tomorrow? These traits need to be addressed firmly and clinically. The world must acknowledge that such groups require unequivocal confinement and oversight.
Governments should build a globally substantiated case against them. If another nation obstructs these efforts, they should be required to provide assurance that the organisation in question will not engage in any act of terrorism on foreign soil. In this regard, India should not passively accept the Chinese veto in support of Masood Azhar; we should openly discuss China’s encouragement of traits associated with terrorism.
The National Anti-Terrorism Day, currently focused on building civil opinion against terrorism through a neutral oath on May 21 each year to commemorate the terrorist assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, should instead aim to specifically condemn those with terrorist traits. Regardless of the genesis and historical rationale of persecution, a murder is a murder, and a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack. Proactive state vigilance against extremist groups necessitates the state to transcend petty majoritarianism and uphold a rigorous, non-discriminatory rule of law.
The need of the hour is to initiate, encourage, and facilitate dialogue and confidence-building among communities and groupings. The body fabric of citizenry must remain undivided, as stately restraint involves sobriety, preventing domestic grievances from being exaggerated to a point where they become national issues. Only within an environment of domestic empathy can one undertake resolute and relentless action against terrorism.
(The writer can be reached at dipaknewslive@gmail.com)
