The Warped Mirror: The terrorists' calculus

The sense of shock and overwhelming sadness, the heartbreak of families and friends gathering at yet another funeral for a victim of a terrorist attack are all too familiar emotions for Israelis and Jews around the world. But beyond the shared grief, there is the deeply divisive question of how to react. Revenge and retaliation, or restraint and careful reasoning about how to proceed, about how best to put an end to the recurrence of yet another terrible tragedy? When it comes to answering this question, it is perhaps best to first ask another question: what did the terrorist want to achieve beyond the killing of as many of his chosen victims as possible?

There is little reason to disagree with Calev Ben-David's analysis that "the goal was to outrage the general public and to inflame that particular segment of it most skeptical of the possibility of Israel one day coming to terms with its most immediate Arab neighbors".  And sadly, judging from the Sunday papers, it looks as if the terrorist might well have achieved this goal. As the British Observer already reports: "Israel's far-right settler movement has set itself on a renewed collision course with the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, declaring that last week's massacre in a Jewish religious school had targeted them directly and vowing to build a new illegal outpost in the West Bank for every one of the killed students."

The fact that a foreign newspaper would already highlight the tensions between "Israel's far-right settler movement" and the government illustrates that not just the terrorist attack itself made news around the world, but that its aftermath, and particularly Israel's reaction, will also be watched closely and indeed very critically. This is of course because, like any terrorist attack, also the one that targeted Jerusalem's Mercaz Harav Yeshiva was meant to have a political impact - in this case, to disrupt the already difficult negotiations launched in Annapolis last autumn.

Whatever your views on the prospects for success in these negotiations, the question is obviously if one should allow a terrorist to derail the efforts to come to an agreement that would end the long and bitter conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and would thus pave the way for a normalization of relations with the wider Arab world. In this context, it is worthwhile to recall a point once made by Tony Blair in a related speech, where he suggested that the importance of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is best illustrated if one asks who wants it least. His answer was: Iran.

And it is hardly a coincidence that in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack, both Hamas and Hizbullah rushed to praise the attack as a heroic act of revenge: for Hamas, it was "revenge" for the latest IDF incursion into Gaza, and for Hizbullah, it was "revenge" for the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus on February 12. In the streets of Gaza, crowds gathered to celebrate - and for once, the international media did not ignore these celebrations.

This should not be taken lightly, because for the longest time, it was a taboo in politically correct circles to mention the spontaneous celebrations that erupted in Palestinian towns on 9/11. Indeed, the attacks on Washington and New York not only resulted in the "war on terror", but also in a determined search for excuses for terrorism. And the apologists for terrorism did not miss their chance to show off their skills after last weeks attack, but there were also signs that give reason to hope that they are fighting a loosing battle.

This hope seems justified not least by the fact that the Jordanian authorities took a dim view of the intention of relatives of the man who perpetrated the attack in Jerusalem to "celebrate" his "martyrdom" publicly. Of course, everyone immediately commented on the irony that the Jordanian relatives where prevented from holding a public gathering, whereas the perpetrator's relatives in Jerusalem were free to erect a mourning tent to receive condolences or, depending on one’s views of "martyrdom", congratulations.

While the measures of the Jordanian authorities might be criticized as authoritarian, they should arguably also be appreciated as a resolute step to de-legitimize the glorification of jihadism and "martyrdom". And it turns out that this was not the first time that Jordanian authorities intervened to prevent such "celebrations": As a representative of the Jordanian Ministry of Interior noted, "Jordan would not permit any group or individual to harm its national security by holding events that publicly support violence against civilians". Moreover, it was reported that in February, also Kuwaiti authorities had moved to prevent Palestinians and Lebanese from publicly honoring the assassinated Hizbullah terror mastermind Imad Mughniyeh.

Israel has of course long argued that if the Arab world was serious about peace, the glorification of terrorism would have to stop. To be sure, measures such as those adopted by Jordan and Kuwait are largely motivated by the realization that Islamist terrorism is not just a problem threatening Israel, but this does in no way diminish the importance of the apparent resolve to finally tackle the problem in a very visible manner that sends a clear signal to people who might feel sympathy with the terrorists. And if these measures are in addition motivated by the realization that Iran is both the big benefactor and the big beneficiary of terrorism in the region, all the better.

Israel can obviously least afford to ignore the question who stands to gain from an ill-considered reaction to the attack in Jerusalem. Israel also cannot afford to ignore how its reaction will be perceived abroad. Especially when it comes to terrorism, it is still the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which is widely viewed as providing Islamist terrorists with an all too easy "excuse" for their murderous ideology. And one thing is for sure: the mullahs in Teheran do all they can to keep this conflict going, since it provides them with a convenient way to distract the world from focusing on Iran's ambitions to rule the region.