|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Using American Force Bears Fruit
| Article
# : |
10347 |
|
|
Section : |
Current Issues
|
| Issue
Date : |
12 / 1986 |
2,815 Words |
| Author
: |
Narayan Keshavan
Narayan Keshavan is a freelance writer who specializes in
United Nations affairs. |
If asked to name one person who could take credit for opening the eyes of the West to the pernicious dangers of terrorism and methods to combat it, many specialists on the subject would name Benjamin Netanyahu, the charismatic ambassador from Israel to the United Nations. In two separate interviews with this writer, Netanyahu, who many in the Likud party believe has potential to emerge as a future prime minister of Israel, spoke on terrorism with passion and verve. Excerpts from the interviews follow:
Has there been a reassessment on your part of the phenomenon of terrorism since the United States bombed terrorist targets in Libya?
There has been a confirmation that the very basic thesis of combating terrorism is correct: Mainly that when terrorism is challenged it recedes. There is no question that both Libya and Syria dropped several planned operations because of the American action in Libya. Libya's [Muammar] Qaddafi and Syria are scurrying and trying to distance themselves from terrorism, especially after they were caught red-handed in several instances.
You mean the instance in London?
Yes. London and elsewhere as well. The exposure and the belief that some sort of a military sanction was coming has caused a reduction in terrorism activity by not supporting, even euphemistically, terrorist attacks.
Would you specifically attribute this change to the U.S. action in Libya?
Definitely. The American action in Libya was a turning point. It was, first, a major Western country--in fact, the leader of the West--showing that it was prepared to act militarily against an offending state to combat terrorism. You had the application of military force in certain isolated previous cases by Western states. For instance, in the case of the hijacking to Mogadishu, which was done with the consent of the Somali government. There were other instances of action by Britain and the Dutch, but on their own soil.
But this [the U.S. action] was different. It was not an application of force on your own soil or with the consent of a friendly government. This was an application of force against another government, which was shielding terrorists and had been a launching pad for terrorists. Other than Israel, you are hard pressed to find in the last two decades any
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
