Every time somebody blows himself up in a crowded market, it's done in retaliation for something else, like missiles being fired into some house in the West Bank, or a Palestinian village being bulldozed. I think that pretty much destroys the argument that killing terrorism will eventually end terrorism.
This is not a factual premise. This is an article of faith, based on the idea that nobody would ever blow himself up in a crowded market unless it was in desperation or for revenge.
In fact, we have all seen many other reasons, just as potent or more so: to wage jihad and throw "the Crusaders and the Jews" out from the Dar al Islam; to defend Islam from threats real and imaginary; to gain Paradise and 72 dark eyed virgins; to bring honor and rewards to one's impoverished family; for the sake of doing the right thing for Allah, as your imam has taught you.
The ideological reasons channel all the non-ideological reasons, give them form and potency; even supply them if they are lacking. For example, when demagogues needed a reason to create Arab riots in 1920's Palestine, when most poor Arabs had positive relations with the local Jews, they would spread the rumor that the Jews were about to destroy the Haram al Sharif or some other holy site, and Muslims must rally to defend Islam.
Terrorism will never be 'killed', for it is a weapon, not a cause. But the cause which uses it may grow more popular or less. As a general rule, causes which are seen to be winners grow more popular while losing causes grow less popular. By your reasoning, nobody should ever have fought fascism, which certainly came with its own list of grievances, not all imaginary, since fighting would only increase the desire for revenge. Well so it does; but surrender has its downside too. |
