Democracies Fighting Terror 2: What Can Israel and the United States Learn from Each Other's Experience?

Michael Gelman, Chairman of the Israel Project; Board Member of American Friends of IDI (AFIDI), opened the seminar explaining how the war on terror is unlike any war the world has previously seen. Terror intentionally strikes civilians, aiming at frightening them and making them pressure their governments in order to gain political dividends. Our instinctive response is to deal with such acts of violence the same way we deal with criminals, but we found out soon enough that not only is this not effective, but the law, which still relates to regular wars in which armies were involved, doesn't address the new problem. And, when sending out armed forces to fight this new threat, we find out that it is very difficult to distinguish between combatant and civilian.

All these challenges put democracies in a very awkward position, Gelman explained. In order to find the terrorists and stop them, we sometimes resort to measures that question the mere essence of our democratic ideals and values. Profiling, detention without due process, tapping, etc. – all these seem like necessary methods to curtail the terrorists, but at the same time they undermine the human rights and civil liberties which are the core of our democracy, and of which we are so proud. And that is precisely the goal of the terrorists – to strike at the soft belly of democracy and take advantage of its friendly spirit, freedom of the press, and basic belief in the goodness of man.

In the struggle against terrorism, Israel has been spearheading the entire free world. Since its establishment, Israel has been under attack, and in the past decades, this aggression assumed the form of terror. Being a democracy, Israel has gone through several phases of this effort, walking the thin line between effectively fighting terrorists and maintain civil liberties and human rights.

Gelman explained that the Israel Democracy Institute initiated a project on National Security and Democracy, which took upon itself the task of crystallizing all the lessons and insights gained during this struggle. Sharing their experience with other democracies would be a significant contribution. Therefore, the IDI is now planning to initiate a consortium of major think tanks in democracies that stand in the frontline of the battle against terrorism. These think tanks will work together towards achieving a more proper balance between the need to effectively fight terror and the obligation to democratic standards. Special attention will be given to legislation, both in the countries themselves and in the area of international law.

Col. Uri Dromi, Israeli Air Force (Ret.) and Director of International Outreach at the IDI, spoke about the "5Ws of terrorism": Who is the enemy? No one and anyone. Where is the enemy? Nowhere and everywhere. Why is the enemy doing what it is doing? Well, Dromi declared, you can address the causes if you know the motivation. In this case, it is hard to get to what we should do. A military solution is not always best. Political pressure works (for example on the Hamas government when it was first formed). Defense and the fence are also means that have reduced terror and helped arrest terrorists. Plus, targeted killings in special cases, have also been an effective means of combating terror. Targeted killings along with Operation Defensive Shield are what broke the second intifada in 2002, i.e., the combination of conventional and unconventional methods. When will it be over? There is a reason why the war on terror is dubbed "the long war." In Israel, said Dromi, we don't actually call it that, or need to, but we know that there are no quick fixes. What we want to accomplish is dramatically reducing the level of terror by minimizing collateral damage – all while preserving democratic principles. And, given the circumstances, we're doing a pretty good job.

Dromi went on to explain the gravity of the situation in Israel. On a relative scale, having 1,000 people hurt in Israel is proportional to having 60,000 Americans hurt. In Israel, everyone knows someone that has been killed or injured by an act of terror. Israel has made its mistakes and it now takes a more middle-of-the-road approach. The US, on the other hand, has taken the matter too far, most likely due to the state of shock it felt and the lack of experience in this area, after being struck in their homeland in 9-11.

The purpose of this seminar, as is the purpose of the IDI's National Security and Democracy Project, is to share our insights on the matter with the US.

US army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (Ret.) spoke about mistakes and the lack of leadership. The army is required to do things it can't.

IDI Fellow Col. Daniel Reisner, former legal advisor in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in the Military Advocate General's Corps, and former Chief of the International Law Branch of the IDF's Legal Division, said that during the 2nd Intifada, Israel legally treated terrorists as criminals. But, Israel soon realized that these "criminals" were fighting as combatants in a war, and that it is indeed a war. Therefore, Israel moved to the military tribunal solution, but with certain limitations. Col. Reisner pointed out that there was no point in turning to International law on the matter since it lagged behind and is still based on WWII when there was a non-elusive enemy. Israel had to pioneer a new approach of dealing with combatants. Unlike the situation in Guantanamo, Israel has not curbed civil liberties. Everyone is entitled to a lawyer, and everything is under judicial review by the Supreme Court. In other words, the legal tools are in place.

Andrew G. McBride, Partner at Wiley Rein LLP and former Assistant US Attorney, presented his thesis – that the law in the US is ill-prepared to deal with terrorists. He stated that the US has tried to treat terrorists as criminals in civilian courts, but that is actually the worst setting for such cases since all evidence that was secretly collected, and the methods of collecting that evidence, must be revealed, and, usually the only way to nail down a terrorist is by secretly collecting evidence. If those methods were to be revealed, it will alert others. In short, the legal situation in the US does not adequately address the issue of terrorism.

Shmuel Rosner, Chief US Correspondent for Haaretz indicated that Israelis are involved and engaged in what they report. One cannot remain indifferent when reporting, for example, about the intifada. As an editor, he said, there are so many small decisions to make such as if to show close-up pictures of bodies, or if to speak to families which have lost their loved ones. He also pointed to the Iranian connection to the war on terror and how Iran finances, trains militants, and sends supplies "behind the scenes."

Laura Blumenfeld, National Reporter for the Washington Post, said that American journalists are not as attached personally and emotionally as are Israeli reporters. American journalists learn to detach and leave their agenda and affiliations aside. In Israel, it's different. For the most part, Israeli reporters served in the army, know people in the army, and they take sides. Blumenfeld also told that when she was in Israel, in July of 1989, when a Palestinian terrorist hijacked a bus en route from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, there was a Canadian reporter who was extremely happy to hear that there were Canadians on the bus – that there was a story to write. Reporters often become interested in their own petty causes, to the point of loosing sight of any personal connection.