Following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, I expected there would soon be a consensus across ideological, national and other lines that terrorism is wrong – that no political goal or grievance justifies intentionally murdering innocent men, women and children. I was wrong.
Last week, the Pew Research Center released the results of a poll finding that Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, is viewed favorably by 76 percent of the population of Pakistan, ostensibly one of America’s closest allies among those nations self-identifying as Islamic. Iran also is viewed favorably by 39 percent of Tunisians, generally regarded as among the most moderate of Arabs. In Egypt, 19 percent – a not-insignificant minority – have a favorable view of al-Qaida.
In America and Europe, fewer people smile on terrorists but many are determinedly nonjudgmental. Recall Reuters’ global head of news, Stephen Jukes, just after 9/11, saying that in his news organization's view, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
Canadian author George Jonas, with his customary verbal precision, called that “an adolescent sophistry.”
Now consider the Global Counterterrorism Forum, created under the Obama administration’s leadership to “provide a unique platform for senior counterterrorism policymakers and experts from around the world to work together to identify urgent needs, devise solutions and mobilize resources for addressing key counterterrorism challenges.”
Twenty-nine countries have been admitted, but Israel, arguably targeted by more terrorists than any other nation, has been excluded. In remarks to a meeting of the forum in Madrid last week, Under- secretary of State Maria Otero failed even to include Israel in a list of victims of terrorism.
Also in recent days: A U.S. Senate resolution introduced by Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla. – calling on the International Olympic Committee at the London Olympics’ July 27 opening ceremony to observe a moment of silence to honor the 11 Israeli athletes murdered by Palestinian terrorists 40 years ago in Munich – received unanimous support. But IOC members have refused. Is that because they are not sure whether those who slaughtered Olympians were terrorists? Or is it because they think it prudent not to offend any terrorists who may be summering in London? Could the fact that the victims were Israelis – or Jews – play a role?
In Denver last week, there was the grand reopening of the Counterterrorism Education Learning Lab, a unique museum intended to help teach the public about terrorism of all kinds (not just the Islamic variety), why it’s a threat to all civilizations (not just the West), and how it can be defeated (determination and vigilance are key). Before an audience of nearly a thousand, Denver Post publisher Dean Singleton moderated a discussion between former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and me.
Planted throughout the audience were protesters. Every so often, one would stand up and begin shouting. One yelled, “Terrorism is not real!”
Another proclaimed, “Bees kill more people than terrorists!”
Another angrily insisted that the FBI has no proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 – to which Chertoff replied that not only is there abundant proof of the al-Qaida leader’s guilt, it also happens that there “has been a landing on the moon.” The protestors were escorted outside, where they joined demonstrators holding a banner that read, “9/11 was an inside job.”
There were not many of these demonstrators, and they do not represent most people in Denver, America or the West. But, as noted above, anti-anti-terrorists are hardly a rare species. And aren’t the members of the IOC and Global Counterterrorism Forum closer in outlook to them than to people like Chertoff and me – people who believe that terrorists, their funders and supporters must be confronted and crushed, not appeased and accommodated?
In 1980, a generation before the attacks of 9/11, the great historian Paul Johnson lamented that we have “almost forgotten how to arm ourselves against barbarism. We can, in fact, do it in only one way: by stating that terrorism is always and in every circumstance wrong. That it must be resisted by every means at our disposal; and that those who practice it must not only be punished but repudiated by those who share their political aims.”
I’ve always found that logic compelling. I would have thought that by now most people – certainly those in the U.S. State Department and those dedicated to the Olympic ideal – would have grasped it. I was wrong.
