Terrorism Essay, Research Paper

Despite the end of the Cold War and the faltering beginnings of the peace process in the Middle East, terrorism still remains a serious threat to many countries, not surprisingly, given that the underlying causes of the bitter ethnic and religious struggles which caused the rise in terrorism pre date the Cold War, and most of these conflicts remain unresolved.

While the former Soviet Union sponsored terrorism on an opportunistic basis, the idea that all terrorism during the Cold War was drawn up by the KGB is clearly over simplification. The overthrow of the communist dictatorships did remove an important cluster of state sponsored terrorism. However, one of the main attractions of terrorism is that it is a low cost, low liability and potentially high yield weapon. The end of the Cold War has, however, had a decidedly negative affect on Terrorism. The removal of the communist one party rule has unleashed bitter and long suppressed ethnic conflicts.

WESTERN EUROPE

In Western Europe it is the historic separatists and republicans in Northern Ireland. The IRA, Irish Republican Army and the Loyalist Protestants in Northern Ireland have been fighting a drawn out guerilla war since Ireland was granted freedom from British Rule. Recently the IRA, Sinn Fein and British officials met a t a peace conference that led to a cease-fire and, hopefully, peace in Northern Ireland. However many historians feel that it may be impossible to keep peace in the area. This is a fragile peace and it must be guarded like a delicate glass vase, because one crack can lead to the vase crumbling.

EASTERN EUROPE

In the former Soviet Europe and the former Eastern Bloc countries, the removal of Communist rule has taken the lid off of many simmering ethnic rivalries and hatreds. The most horrific example of this can be seen in Bosnia. This war seems no closer to ending. (Seamen, 65-66)

TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES

Over the past few years the United States have become more vulnerable to

terrorist attacks. There have been newspaper headlines that described the World Trade Center bombing, the Unabomber’s arrest, and the bombings in Oklahoma City and Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta. Though investigators didn’t find evidence that an explosion caused the crash of TWA Flight 800 was a bomb, the airline security has risen drastically.

While the lawmakers debate which steps to take to prevent any future attacks, many Americans wonder what they may have to sacrifice to stop or at least lower terrorist attacks. Are air travelers going to be willing to wait longer in lines at the airport so they can use the high sensitive equipment to check for explosives? Are they willing to pay extra prices for the airline tickets so the new equipment can be bought? Are Americans willing to sacrifice their freedom of movements as well as privacy? Most of this is domestic terrorism.

The FBI defines domestic terrorism as the “unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. The number of terrorist attacks in the 1990s has made American realize the vulnerability among themselves. (Jenkins, 44-46)

In February 1993, a bomb exploded in the World Trade Center in New York City. The World Trade Center is the second tallest building in the world, where more that 100,000 people work and visit ever day. The bomb exploded in the parking area underneath the building, damaging the under lying base and the subway tunnels. Smoke reached the top of the building in minutes. Six people were killed; more than 1,000 were injured. The FBI joined the Joint Terrorist Task Force in the investigation. They ended up putting 22 Islamic fundamentalist conspirators on trial. At the end of the trial it revealed that they had major plans to ruin government facilities.

A Possible Breakthrough. In April 1996, federal agents arrested Theodore Kaczynski and charged him with crimes committed by what they called “Unabomber”. The Unabomber, who went after university scientists and airline employees, and others, had been disrupting authorities for over 18 years. The FBI said the suspect had killed three people and injured 23 others with package bombs. The Unabomber believed that new and more advanced technology had dehumanized society. That is why he went after scientists to release his anger.

The bombing of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April 1995 killed 168 people and injured more than 500 others. The trial of the suspects Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who are charged with murder and conspiracy began in the final months of 1996. The two were connected to the militia movement, which opposes the expanded powers of the federal government and believes that their right to bear arms was threatened. The Oklahoma City bombing occurred two years after federal troops stormed the Branch Dividian compound outside Waco, Texas. Federal prosecutors believe that the reason they did it is because of the government’s murder of 78 Branch Davidian in Waco militia.(Jenkins, 66-68)

During the Summer Olympic Games, in July 1996, less than two weeks after the TWA Flight 800 disaster, a pipe bomb exploded at Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, Georgia, killing two people and injuring more than one hundred others. The FBI said it looked like it was homemade with nails and screws attached to it. They suspected it was domestic terrorists, and some members of local militia groups, and they were questioned without any results. The FBI named a suspect Richard Jewell, a security guard who found the bomb. His name was given to the press as the main suspect and appeared in newspapers and magazines around the world. Recently a $500,000 reward was offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible.

Congress passed, and Clinton signed into law, the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, which grants the federal authorities $1 billion combat terrorism. Airlines are a major concern to the government and a gold mine to terrorist attacks. On July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800 exploded in the air off the coast of Long Island, shortly after taking off from New York’s Kennedy International Airport. The explosion killed all 229 passengers and crew. People began to wonder whether it was caused by a technical failure or a bomb. Airline security has received a great amount of money since the crash, even though no evidence was found that the explosion was a result of a bomb. Lawmakers have tried to respond to the fear that America is becoming more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The many attacks have resulted of great disappointment to the government. It has showed them where a giant flaw in the laws has occurred. (Clapp, 88-90)

TIMELINE OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM

1950 Assassination attempt on President Truman. Puerto Rican nationalist kills one District of Columbia policeman during an attempted assassination of President Harry S. Truman outside of Blair House in Washington, D.C.

1954 Shooting in the U.S. House of Representatives. Five members of Congress are wounded by gunfire during an attack by Puerto Rican nationalist on the U.S. House of Representatives.

1972 Fraunces Tavern Bombing. Four people die in this bombing at a historic tavern in downtown New York City. The Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN is blamed for the attack, one of the 49 bombings in New York attributed to them between 1974 and 1977

1975 LaGuardia Airport Bombing. Eleven are killed, 75 are injured in this attack by Croatian nationalists at this New York City Airport.

1976 Letelier Assassination. Orlando Letelier, the former Chilean ambassador to the United States, is killed by a car bomb in Washington, D.C. The bomb, planted by Chile’s Pinochet government, also kills one of Letelier’s associates while injuring another.

1981 Kennedy Airport Bombing. One man is killed when a bomb planted by a group calling itself the Puerto Rican Armed Resistance goes off in a men’s bathroom at New York City’s international airport.

1983 U.S. Senate Bombing. A bomb goes off in the cloakroom next to U.S. Senate in the Capitol Building. Two left-wing radicals plead guilty to the attack.

1993 World Trade Center Bombing

1995 Oklahoma City Bombing

1996 Olympic Bombing

1997 Abortion Clinic Bombing (Jenkins, 64-67)

INSIDE THE PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION

The PLO was set up in 1964 by an Arab League decision in response to growing signs of Palestinian unrest. The Palestinians desired to reclaim the lands occupied by Israel, which they felt belonged to them, as said in the Bible. In 1964 the Arab states created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). While it was supposed to represent the Palestinians, in reality it represented the views of President Nasser of Egypt, who guided the formation of the PLO. Its first leader made wild and irresponsible threats to drive Israelis into the sea, and had little support among Palestinians for he was seen as a puppet of the Egyptians. In the 1960s Palestinian students began to form their own organizations independent of control by Arab governments (although the Syrians, Libyans, and Iraqis continued to fund and control particular groups). Yasser Arafat founded an independent Palestinian-run party called Fatah. He is said to have the backing, for most of the recent past, of about 80% of the Palestinian people. The position of the Arab governments was that a PLO under Arab League supervision would be the best way of satisfying the demands made by an emerging Palestinian national consciousness. Also, it was felt that through such an organization Arab governments could control Palestinian political activities. (Pryce-Jones, 33-45)

Ten years after its founding, the PLO was raised to the status of government. And in 1988, the PLO’s status was to be raised again, this time to a state in exile. After several negotiations, Arafat became a Terrorist leader and administrator of self-rule in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

In the 1967 Six-Day War, the Arab armies did very badly against Israel, losing 67,000 square kilometers of land. Palestinians came to believe that if they were ever to have their land, they would have to do it themselves. After the 1967 war, the situation changed drastically. The resistance activities of various guerrilla organizations, in particular the Al-Fatah and the PFLP, gained the increasing support of the Palestinians. With Arafat at the helm from 1969 and a resistance-oriented leadership, the PLO was more effective and played a central role in mobilizing the Palestinians and in expanding its basis of support both at the local and international level. The PLO became an umbrella organization for the various guerrilla groups. (Kirisai, 76-88)

This increase in support was made possible because of the Al-Fatah’s ability to access to the growing numbers of volunteers from refugee camps, which were freshly swollen due to the 1967 war. Most of these refugees suffered the frustration of having been displaced twice in a lifetime. This generated, especially among the young, a mood of defiance, as they were ready to question the credibility of the idea of relying on Arab governments to liberate Palestine. Furthermore, as a consequence of the war a large proportion of the Palestinian community became territorially united. This brought the possibility of direct interaction between the various sections of the Palestinian community that had previously remained isolated from each other. On the other hand, the inability of the PLO’s conservative leadership to promote any effective resistance operations culminated in the eventual transfer of power to the armed-struggle orientated guerrilla organizations. Thus initially, the PLO had a broad base of support and represented the desires of the majority of the Palestinian people.

The origins of the Al-Fatah can be traced back to the mid-1950s to a group of Palestinians that had neither relinquished their national identity nor their belief in the necessity of liberating Palestine via Palestinian means, rather than relying on other Arab states. Yet, throughout the 1950s the attitude of the Palestinians remained largely skeptical if not uncommitted to Al-Faith’s ideology. It was in the 1960s that the situation began to change, enabling Al-Fatah to expand its organizational structure and base. Under the leadership of Arafat, Al-Fatah pursued an ideology, which simply stresses the nationalist struggle to liberate Palestine without dwelling too deeply on any theoretical speculations about the nature and form of the future Palestinian society. This tactic was essential in gaining support against other movements, and aided the rise of Al-Fatah to become the dominating faction within the PLO. (Calrocovessi, 100-135)

Militarily, the PLO has a broad base of human resources for recruitment, almost half a million. The PLO has established across-the-board conscription for all the Palestinian men between the ages of 18 and 30. As a result, the PLO is able to maintain three military forces. It could be said then that physically, it did indeed represent a cross-section of the population. However, even if they were significant in number, these lower-level members were not politically potent, and did not have their voices heard. Arafat continued on his policies, tending to brush aside differing opinions, leaving many disenchanted with his autocratic rule.

Even before the PLO was declared a state in 1988, it functioned much like one. This was reflected in much of the powers it possessed. The PLO has been able to exert what amounts to sovereign powers over the Palestinian people in war situations. The PLO represented the Palestinians in wars with Jordan and Lebanon, and during various incursions into Israel.

The PLO also exercises extradition powers, as on many occasions Arab governments have turned over to the PLO Palestinians charged with criminal activities. They were tried and sentenced by the PLO judicial system. In these ways, it was supposed to represent the people.

But various problems within the PLO undermined its legitimacy as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. Arafat’s ascendancy to power on the Palestinian issue had naturally provoked rivals to try the same tack in their own interest. As a result, maintenance of his supremacy within the PLO became Arafat’s full time preoccupation. Far from laying the basis for secular or democratic institutions that one day might serve as a nation, Arafat recruited Sumni Muslims like himself into a body known as Fatah, loyal to him on confessional lines. (Kirisai, 134-156)

Unity itself was a mere appearance, a show for the sake of recovering honor. Far from uniting behind the Palestinian cause as words might indicate, every Arab state in practice discriminated against Palestinians living in its midst and had differing slants upon the PLO. This was due to its nature as an umbrella organization, the PLO comprises a number of resistance organizations. These organizations entered the PLO as groups retaining their ideological and organizational identity. Consequently, PLO institutions are structured to reflect proportional representation of each organization in addition to the few independent members. This has turned PLO politics into coalition politics.

The flux of events between 1967 and 1982 offered Palestinians several chances to demonstrate en masse in favor of the PLO, if they had been so inclined. But they refrained, not due to fatalism or cowardice, but because they may be willing to pay lip service to Arafat, not much more than that. (Kirisai, 145-168)

Whether Palestinians outside the Occupied Territories would in fact accept the legitimacy of the PLO as their representative was put to test in Jordan in 1970. Jordanian frontiers were the result of British map-making, which left half of the country’s inhabitants Palestinian by origin. The rapid financing and arming by Arab power holders of Arafat’s mercenaries offered these Palestinians in Jordan a chance to repudiate King Hussein and declare themselves nationalists for the new cause. Unexpectedly, Arafat’s power challenge threatened to replace King Hussein with a PLO state in Jordan. After 18 months, while tensions were running high, the PFLP hijacked international airliners, three of which were brought at gunpoint to Jordan. Taking advantage of this anarchic jockeying between rival Palestinian groups, King Hussein ordered his army to subjugate the whole movement. Palestinians in Jordan and on the West Bank gave evidence of their real feelings by denouncing the PLO and PFLP activists to the authorities and occasionally even helping to round them up.

David Pryce-Jones observed that “wherever they live, they observe for themselves that the PLO is a means to enrichment and aggrandizement for the unscrupulous few, but death and destruction for everyone else”. Everywhere Palestinians have little alternative but to cling to this identity, as they continue to seek what freedom they can from power holders of different identity. In Syria, any Palestinian who attempted to form some independent grouping would be seen as a dangerous conspirator and summarily disposed of. This left many with no choice but to remain silent. (Pryce-Jones, 144-186)

Fatah itself was split by power struggles initiated by a growing number of young Fatah activists who were trying to gain positions of power in local society, in the process challenging the older generation of Fatah leaders. They felt entitled to positions in the structures Arafat was trying to create. The newest generation of people not only refuse to be cajoled or coerced, but also have acquired political organizing and networking skills in neighborhoods, refugee camps, Israeli jails, and above all, in the political bodies created during the Intifada (uprising).

The problem of factionalism has plagued the PLO from its formation. However, instead of adopting a policy of inclusion to accommodate the general goals of the people, he excluded not only the opposition but also the local Palestinians who had acted as his proxies before his return. He had promised he would be the leader of all Palestinians, but acted only like the President of his trusted lieutenants. Instead of speaking of tolerance and political pluralism, he spoke of respect for his authority.

On top of this, Arafat’s leadership was questioned. Arafat was criticized for filling his posts with loyalists whose professional qualifications are below average and whose reputations are tarnished. Other appointments brought more and more Palestinians to the conclusion that Arafat was mired in the past, and that he would continue to follow the policy plans he had formed long ago.

The Chairman’s primacy within the PLO had been seriously compromised as a result of the secret negotiations that had led to the September 13, 1993 agreement with the Rabin government. The relationship with the masses that the charismatic Arafat had enjoyed was diminished by the concessions he made to Israel. (Pryce-Jones, 190-201)

In modern day politics, he still remains a symbol of Palestinian nationalism, as does the PLO. But he faces much opposition. On the left various socialist groups think Arafat is too close to business and banking interests and too willing to negotiate with Israel or cooperate with America. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is one of these. It is led by George Habash, a Christian doctor. It opposes any negotiations. On the right some Islamic groups feel the PLO is too willing to cooperate with socialists and is too willing to negotiate with Israel. They feel there should be a united Palestine where Jews could live but which would not be governed by Jews. The largest of these groups is called HAMAS, the Islamic Resistance Movement. Several Palestinian radicals have their own military organizations. Abu Nidal is one of these. He is bitterly and violently opposed to the PLO for what he sees as its moderate positions. He has carried out airplane bombings and attacks on civilians and has tried to assassinate Arafat. He opposes any negotiation with Israel. He is probably funded by Iraq.

In the latest turn of events, Yasser Arafat has decided to scrap the anti-Israeli section of the PLO charter calling for its destruction. Some have said that this is due to Israeli pressure in the peace process, which demanded the change before new talks and settlements. Shimon Peres has called it the “most important ideological change of the century”, but it is sure to upset the Islamic fundamentalists, and those in the PLO who desire a completely pro-PLO solution. While there is so much contention and opposition to PLO decisions, the PLO cannot be called the sole representative of the Palestinian people, although it has a large following. (Kirisai, 200-221)

So in closing Terrorism has rapidly become a detriment to American society.

31a