Gershom Gorenberg: ‘This Is Your Brain on War’

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Gershom Gorenberg: ‘This Is Your Brain on War’ Gershom Gorenberg: ‘This is Your Brain on War’ The following is an abridged version of Israeli journalist Gershom Gorenberg’s column, dated July 23, at The American Prospect, “This Is Your Brain On War,” (“Why both sides in the Gaza conflict see irrational decisions as reasonable”): . The Israeli prime minister has several agencies that map the fissures between and within Palestinian organizations. But that advice has to overcome the monolith bias, which is usually fiercer on the political right. In June 1982, when Israeli ambassador to Britain Shlomo Argov was shot, intelligence officials told then- prime minister Menachem Begin that the Abu Nidal group—an extreme Palestinian faction bitterly opposed to the PLO—was responsible. Begin responded, “They are all PLO,” and broke a ceasefire with PLO forces in Lebanon. So began the First Lebanon War. Fast forward to last month: After the kidnapping of three Israeli teens, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid the blame on Hamas as an organization, ordered a massive round-up of Hamas figures in the West Bank, and asserted that the Palestinian Authority shared responsibility because the kidnappers, who subsequently murdered the teenagers, came from its territory. As former general Shlomo Brom told me this week: “There’s still no evidence that the attack was the result of an order from the Hamas military command or political leadership… All the signs point to it being local initiative.” That is, a group of militants acted on its own, possibly because it saw Hamas as becoming too pragmatic, too moderate. Netanyahu cynically exploited that terror attack to crack down on Hamas, but the blanket accusation fit his monolith bias. Second: Here’s another distortion, . : judging the decision in the narrow context of the moment in which it was made. For instance, the Israeli cabinet ordered the first stage of Operation Protective Edge, the air offensive against Gaza, after Hamas began firing dozens of rockets a day at Israeli cities. Look at that precise moment, orphaned from any chain of events, and it sounds reasonable that the Israeli government had to do something against the rain of rockets. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine any elected government telling citizens living with a routine of air-raid sirens, dashes for cover, and explosions that it has decided to just wait things out and pray that the missile defense system doesn’t miss a rocket en route toward a mall, hospital or bus. But there was a chain of events. To go back only a few weeks, there was the kidnapping itself, whose perpetrators quite likely sought to set off escalation. There was the Israeli response, which unwisely provided the escalation. Armed factions in Gaza that only sometimes accept Hamas authority exploited the heated atmosphere by launching rockets at Israel, violating a previous ceasefire. Israel carried out air strikes against those groups—but also against Hamas which, after all, governs Gaza and didn’t crack down on the free- lancers. Instead of restoring quiet, Hamas began firing its own rockets. If challenged on that decision, the Hamas leaders involved would undoubtedly respond: Did you expect us to do nothing? This points to another flaw in retrospective rationalization: Assuming that the only alternatives were the one taken and doing nothing at all. Last week, for example, the Israeli cabinet decided on a ground offensive in Gaza. Not only had Hamas rejected an Egyptian ceasefire proposal, a squad of its fighters used a tunnel from Gaza to surface in Israeli territory. Israeli troops thwarted that attack. But it concentrated attention on the threat from an unknown number of cross-border tunnels that Hamas has laboriously built—using Gaza’s scarce concrete supplies for offense rather than civilian needs or bomb shelters. Even Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, often the last responsible adult in the cabinet, concluded that the only option was to send ground forces into Gaza to find where the tunnels began. And many of them start inside the crowded buildings of Gaza’s Sajaiya neighborhood. Brom, the former head of strategic planning in the Israeli general staff, quietly points out that there was another immediate military option: to deploy more defensive forces within Israel near the Gaza border in order to foil attacks from tunnels. That would have risked Israeli losses, since gunmen surfacing at an unexpected spot have the advantage of surprise. But the invasion certainly risked losses. In fact, it’s when the army began suffering significant casualties. People don’t suffer equally from the biases I’ve described. A good working hypothesis is that they correlate with hawkish—which usually means conservative—politics. Alas, another cognitive reflex seems nearly as common among self-described progressives: assuming that if one side is wrong, the other is right. Call it moral zero- sum thinking: If Israel is ignoring the cost in lives of bystanders in Gaza, if it has for too long avoided a two-state agreement, so the flawed reasoning goes, then Hamas is justified in its actions. That perception also collapses with a moment of clear thinking. Hamas’s rigid political theology has done nothing to get Palestinians closer to a just political outcome. Its willingness to make the civilian population of Gaza hostage to its military strategy is indefensible. In a war—in this war—both sides can, in fact, be wrong. If all-too-human blindness to alternatives has led us into this tragedy, the proper response isn’t despair. It’s to look for better options, for diplomatic opportunities, that are being ignored right now. Read the entire article at http://prospect.org/article/your-brain-war-dispatch-jerusalem.
Recommended publications
  • Terrorism: Individuals: Atta [Mahmoud] Box: RAC Box 8
    Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Digital Library Collections This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections. Collection: Counterterrorism and Narcotics, Office of, NSC: Records Folder Title: Terrorism: Individuals: Atta [Mahmoud] Box: RAC Box 8 To see more digitized collections visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected] Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/ WITHDRAWAL SHEET Ronald Reagan Library Collection Name COUNTERTERRORISM AND NARCOTICS, NSC: Withdrawer RECORDS SMF 5/12/2010 File Folder TERRORISM: INDNIDUALS: ATTA [ITA, MAHMOUD] FOIA TED MCNAMARA, NSC STAFF F97-082/4 Box Number _w;:w (2j!t t ~ '( £ WILLS 5 ID Doc Type Document Description No of Doc Date Restrictions Pages 91194 REPORT RE ABU NIDAL ORGANIZATION (ANO) 1 ND Bl B3 - ·-----------------·--------------- ------ -------- 91195 MEMO CLARKE TO NSC RE MAHMOUD ITA 2 5/6/1987 B 1 B3 ---------------------- ------------ ------ ------ ----- ----------- 91196 MEMO DUPLICATE OF 91195 2 5/6/1987 Bl B3 91197 REPORT REATTA 1 ND Bl 91198 CABLE STATE 139474 2 5112/1987 Bl 91199 CABLE KUWAIT 03413 1 5/2111987 Bl -- - - - - --------- - - -- - ----------------- 91200 CABLE l 5 l 525Z MAR 88 (1 ST PAGE ONLY) 1 3/15/1988 Bl B3 The above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing Freedom of Information
    [Show full text]
  • Terrorist Links of the Iraqi Regime | the Washington Institute
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 652 Terrorist Links of the Iraqi Regime Aug 29, 2002 Brief Analysis n August 28, 2002, a U.S. federal grand jury issued a new indictment against five terrorists from the Fatah O Revolutionary Command, also known as the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), for the 1986 hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, Pakistan. Based on "aggravating circumstances," prosecutors are now seeking the death penalty for the attack, in which twenty-two people -- including two Americans -- were killed. The leader of the ANO, the infamous Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal (Sabri al-Banna), died violently last week in Baghdad. But his death is not as extraordinary as the subsequent press conference given by Iraqi intelligence chief Taher Jalil Haboush. This press conference represents the only time Haboush's name has appeared in the international media since February 2001. Iraqi Objectives What motivated the Iraqi regime to send one of its senior exponents to announce the suicide of Abu Nidal and to present crude photographs of his bloodied body four days (or eight days, according to some sources) after his death? It should be noted that the earliest information about Nidal's death came from al-Ayyam, a Palestinian daily close to the entity that may have been Abu Nidal's biggest enemy -- the Palestinian Authority. At this sensitive moment in U.S.-Iraqi relations, Abu Nidal could have provided extraordinarily damaging testimony with regard to Saddam's involvement in international terrorism, even beyond Iraqi support of ANO activities in the 1970s and 1980s. In publicizing Nidal's death, the regime's motives may have been multiple: • To present itself as fighting terrorism by announcing that Iraqi authorities were attempting to detain Abu Nidal for interrogation in the moments before his death.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Terrorist Organizations
    Order Code RL32223 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Foreign Terrorist Organizations February 6, 2004 Audrey Kurth Cronin Specialist in Terrorism Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Huda Aden, Adam Frost, and Benjamin Jones Research Associates Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Foreign Terrorist Organizations Summary This report analyzes the status of many of the major foreign terrorist organizations that are a threat to the United States, placing special emphasis on issues of potential concern to Congress. The terrorist organizations included are those designated and listed by the Secretary of State as “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” (For analysis of the operation and effectiveness of this list overall, see also The ‘FTO List’ and Congress: Sanctioning Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, CRS Report RL32120.) The designated terrorist groups described in this report are: Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade Armed Islamic Group (GIA) ‘Asbat al-Ansar Aum Supreme Truth (Aum) Aum Shinrikyo, Aleph Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) Communist Party of Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA) Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG) HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) Hizballah (Party of God) Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) Jemaah Islamiya (JI) Al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad) Kahane Chai (Kach) Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK, KADEK) Lashkar-e-Tayyiba
    [Show full text]
  • THE PLO and the PALESTINIAN ARMED STRUGGLE by Professor Yezid Sayigh, Department of War Studies, King's College London
    THE PLO AND THE PALESTINIAN ARMED STRUGGLE by Professor Yezid Sayigh, Department of War Studies, King's College London The emergence of a durable Palestinian nationalism was one of the more remarkable developments in the history of the modern Middle East in the second half of the 20th century. This was largely due to a generation of young activists who proved particularly adept at capturing the public imagination, and at seizing opportunities to develop autonomous political institutions and to promote their cause regionally and internationally. Their principal vehicle was the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), while armed struggle, both as practice and as doctrine, was their primary means of mobilizing their constituency and asserting a distinct national identity. By the end of the 1970s a majority of countries – starting with Arab countries, then extending through the Third World and the Soviet bloc and other socialist countries, and ending with a growing number of West European countries – had recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The United Nations General Assembly meanwhile confirmed the right of the stateless Palestinians to national self- determination, a position adopted subsequently by the European Union and eventually echoed, in the form of support for Palestinian statehood, by the United States and Israel from 2001 onwards. None of this was a foregone conclusion, however. Britain had promised to establish a Jewish ‘national home’ in Palestine when it seized the country from the Ottoman Empire in 1917, without making a similar commitment to the indigenous Palestinian Arab inhabitants. In 1929 it offered them the opportunity to establish a self-governing agency and to participate in an elected assembly, but their community leaders refused the offer because it was conditional on accepting continued British rule and the establishment of the Jewish ‘national home’ in what they considered their own homeland.
    [Show full text]
  • Is There a Military Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
    Issue 18 • September 2014 Is There a Military Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? IN THIS ISSUE Andrew Roberts • Thomas H. Henriksen • Kori Schake • Peter Berkowitz Victor Davis Hanson • Edward N. Luttwak • Bruce Thornton Editorial Board Contents Victor Davis Hanson, Chair September 2014 · Issue 18 Bruce Thornton David Berkey Background Essay Just the Start of an Age-Old Conflict? by Andrew Roberts Contributing Members Peter Berkowitz Featured Commentary Max Boot Burning the Terrorist Grass by Thomas H. Henriksen Josiah Bunting III Angelo M. Codevilla Military Means for Political Ends in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Thomas Donnelly by Kori Schake Admiral James O. Ellis Jr. Colonel Joseph Felter Related Commentary Josef Joffe What Israel Won in Gaza & What Diplomacy Must Now Gain by Peter Berkowitz Frederick W. Kagan U.S. Must Strongly Affirm Israel’s Right of Self-Defense by Peter Berkowitz Kimberly Kagan Edward N. Luttwak The Middle East’s Maze of Alliances by Victor Davis Hanson Peter Mansoor Sherman in Gaza by Victor Davis Hanson General Jim Mattis Walter Russell Mead A Stronger Israel? by Victor Davis Hanson Mark Moyar Winning a Lose/Lose War by Victor Davis Hanson Williamson Murray Why Obama, Kerry, Abbas, Hamas, BDS, and Hezbollah Will All Go Poof! by Ralph Peters Andrew Roberts Edward Luttwak Admiral Gary Roughead The Incoherent Excuses for Hating Israel by Bruce Thornton Kori Schake Kiron K. Skinner Israel’s Worst Enemy: Lies and Myths by Bruce Thornton Barry Strauss Bing West Educational Materials Miles Maochun Yu Discussion Questions Amy Zegart Suggestions for Further Reading ABOUT THE POSTERS IN THIS ISSUE Documenting the wartime viewpoints and diverse political sentiments of the twentieth century, the Hoover Institution Library & Archives Poster Collection has more than one hundred thousand posters from around the world and continues to grow.
    [Show full text]
  • Collection: Green, Max: Files Folder Title: Terrorism (5) Box: 27
    Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Digital Library Collections This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections. Collection: Green, Max: Files Folder Title: Terrorism (5) Box: 27 To see more digitized collections visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected] Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/ 5 August 1986 THIS PUBLICATION IS PREPARED BY THE AIR FORCE (SAF/AA) AS EXECUTIVE AGENT FDR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF KEY DOD PERSONNEL NEWS ITEMS OF INTEREST TO THEM IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO SUBSTITUTE FOR NEWSPAPERS, PERIODICALS AND BROADCASTS AS A MEANS OF KEEPING INFORMED ABOUT THE NATURE, MEANING ANO IMPACT OF NEWS DEVELOPMENTS. USE OF THESE ARTICLES DOES NOT REFLECT OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT. FURTHER REPRODUCTION FOR PRIVATE USE OR GAIN IS SUBJECT TD THE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS. 'Pgs. 38, 39, 40-48, 49-52, 53-55, WORLD&! · March 1986 56-63, 64-65, 66-69, 70-75, 76-80, 81-86, 87-91, 92-97, 98-102 A Publication of lfJe ~ington timff C.Orporation SPECIAL REPORT 2 9 23 TERRORISM TRAONG LIBYA'S SHADOWY · CASTRO'S aJBA1 CONDUIT TO This new global warfar. DEEDS GLOBAL nRRORISM has~ th. foe. of Yonah Alexander L. Francis Bouchey international politia, Is it just a series of 12 28 1pOnta11eous outbursts by independent opeiatives? ABU NIDAL-THE SPUNTER "nRRORISM'S TENAOOUS ROOTS Or is rt...
    [Show full text]
  • Section Two the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 1967-1993
    Section Two The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 1967-1993 There are two clear dimensions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the international dimension (involving Israel, the PLO, and nations in the region and beyond) and the domestic dimension (involving Israel, the PLO and Palestinians in the occupied territories). In reality, these two dimensions should not be separated, but for our purposes it is best to divide the post-1967 period into two sections. This section will mainly examine the conflict at the international level. Until the first intifada (or ‘uprising’) in the occupied territories beginning in 1987, most initiatives to end Israeli occupation came from the PLO leadership in exile. Other important actors at the international level discussed here, aside from Israel and the PLO, include the US, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. To keep this unit brief, we will give less attention to the roles of Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. Students, however, are strongly encouraged to further investigate the role of these states in influencing the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the domestic-level Israeli- Palestinian peace negotiations covered in Section Three. Before we examine the major international issues, actors and events of the post-1967 period, it is a good idea to briefly highlight the important role of the US in the conflict. Following the 1967 war, the US and Israel developed a close partnership. During the Cold War (1946-1991), US strategic goals in the Middle East focused on containing Soviet influence, in addition to maintaining regional political stability and Western access to oil resources. These last two goals continue into the present, and often mean that the US supports authoritarian Arab leaders who can contain their citizens’ opposition to US policies—leading to regional ‘stability’ but also to frustration among Arab citizens who desire both a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and greater democracy in their own countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Achille Lauro Affair: Towards an Effective and Legal Method of Bringing International Terrorists to Justice
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 9, Issue 2 1985 Article 5 An Analysis of the Achille Lauro Affair: Towards an Effective and Legal Method of Bringing International Terrorists to Justice Andrew L. Liput∗ ∗ Copyright c 1985 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj An Analysis of the Achille Lauro Affair: Towards an Effective and Legal Method of Bringing International Terrorists to Justice Andrew L. Liput Abstract This Note will propose five steps towards establishing an effective method of bringing terror- ists to justice. Part I of this Note will detail the facts surrounding the Achille Lauro incident. Part II will discuss the laws governing extradition, including the obligations of Egypt and the United States arising under the United States-Egypt Extradition Treaty, the Convention Against the Tak- ing of Hostages, and the doctrine of mala captus bene delentus. Part III will also discuss the international community’s historical inability to define terrorism. Part III will examine the legal precedent for acts of abduction. Part IV details the criticism of the use of abduction as an alter- native to extradition, and examines the threat abduction poses to the international legal system, which depends upon voluntary compliance to be effective. AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACHILLE LAURO AFFAIR: TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE AND LEGAL METHOD OF BRINGING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS TO JUSTICE INTRODUCTION On October 10, 1985 United States Navy fighter planes intercepted an Egyptian commercial aircraft' and forced it to land at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization 2 (NATO) airfield in Sigonella, Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • In 1798, Napoleon Entered the Land. the War with Napoleon and Subsequent Misadministration by Egyptian and Ottoman Rulers, Reduced the Population of Palestine
    In 1798, Napoleon entered the land. The war with Napoleon and subsequent misadministration by Egyptian and Ottoman rulers, reduced the population of Palestine. Arabs and Jews fled to safer and more prosperous lands. Revolts by Palestinian Arabs against Egyptian and Ottoman rule at this time may have helped to catalyze Palestinian national feeling. Subsequent reorganization and opening of the Turkish Empire to foreigners restored some order. They also allowed the beginnings of Jewish settlement under various Zionist and proto-Zionist movements. Both Arab and Jewish population increased. By 1880, about 24,000 Jews were living in Palestine, out of a population of about 400,000. At about that time, the Ottoman government imposed severe restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchase, and also began actively soliciting inviting Muslims from other parts of the Ottoman empire to settle in Palestine, including Circassians and Bosnians. The restrictions were evaded in various ways by Jews seeking to colonize Palestine, chiefly by bribery. The Rise of Zionism - Jews had never stopped coming to "the Holy land" or Palestine in small numbers throughout the exile. Palestine also remained the center of Jewish worship and a part of Jewish culture. However, the Jewish connection with the land was mostly abstract and connected with dreams of messianic redemption. In the nineteenth century new social currents animated Jewish life. The emancipation of European Jews, signaled by the French revolution, brought Jews out of the Ghetto and into the modern world, exposing them to modern ideas. The liberal concepts introduced by emancipation and modern nationalist ideas were blended with traditional Jewish ideas about Israel and Zion.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Times the Land That Now Encompasses Israel and The
    A History of the conflict between Palestinians and Israeli’s: Ancient Times--Present Ancient times The land that now encompasses Israel and the Palestinian territories has been conquered and re‐ conquered throughout history. Details of the ancient Israelite states are sketchy, derived for the most part from the first books of the Bible and classical history. Some of the key events include: Biblical times ∙ 1250 BC: Israelites began to conquer and settle the land of Canaan on the eastern Mediterranean coast. ∙ 961‐922 BC: Reign of King Solomon and construction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Solomonʹs reign was followed by the division of the land into two kingdoms. ∙ 586 BC: The southern kingdom, Judah, was conquered by the Babylonians, who drove its people, the Jews, into exile and destroyed Solomonʹs Temple. After 70 years the Jews began to return and Jerusalem and the temple were gradually rebuilt. Classical period ∙ 333 BC: Alexander the Greatʹs conquest brought the area under Greek rule. ∙ 165 BC: A revolt in Judea established the last independent Jewish state of ancient times. ∙ 63 BC: The Jewish state, Judea, was incorporated into the Roman province of Palestine ∙ 70 AD: A revolt against Roman rule was put down by the Emperor Titus and the Second Temple was destroyed. This marks the beginning of the Jewish Diaspora, or dispersion. ∙ 118‐138 AD: During the Roman Emperor Hadrianʹs rule, Jews were initially allowed to return to Jerusalem, but ‐ after another Jewish revolt in 133 ‐ the city was completely destroyed and its people banished and sold into slavery. ∙ 638 AD: Conquest by Arab Muslims ended Byzantine rule (the successor to Roman rule in the East).
    [Show full text]
  • La Organización Abu Nidal
    DOCUMENTO DE INVESTIGACIÓN 05/2014 COLECCIÓN: GRUPOS MILITANTES DE IDEOLOGÍA RADICAL Y CARÁCTER VIOLENTO REGIÓN “MENA” Y ASIA CENTRAL NÚMERO 04 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ LA ORGANIZACIÓN ABU NIDAL. Óscar Pérez Ventura Director del Departamento de Análisis del Terrorismo del Espacio Corporativo de Seguridad y Defensa (ECOSED) Resumen: La Organización Abu Nidal se formó en 1974 tras abandonar su fundador la Organización para la Liberación de Palestina (OLP) y abogar por la destrucción de Israel a través de la lucha armada. Sus numerosos atentados contra intereses israelíes y los interminables secuestros de aviones antes de que se generalizasen las medidas de seguridad actuales, fueron la pesadilla de las fuerzas de seguridad y servicios de inteligencia del mundo entero. A través de este documento, se realiza un análisis de esta organización terrorista actualmente inactiva, abordando sus objetivos, liderazgo, estructura, reclutamiento, financiación, atentados de relevancia y relaciones con otros actores terroristas. Palabras clave: Organización Abu Nidal, Sabri Khalil al-Banna, terrorismo, palestino, atentado. 1 Documento de Investigación del Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos (IEEE) Abstract: The Abu Nidal Organization was formed in 1974 after leaving the founder Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and advocate the destruction of Israel through armed struggle. His numerous attacks against Israeli interests and endless hijackings before the current security measures were widespread, were the bane of the security forces and intelligence services around the world. Through this paper aims to show an analysis is currently inactive terrorist organization is performed, addressing its objectives, leadership, structure, recruitment, financing, bombings relevance and relationships with other terrorist actors. Key Words: Abu Nidal Organization, Sabri Khalil al-Banna, terrorism, Palestinian, terrorist attack.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Palestinian Dream” in the Kurdish Context
    Article history: Received 1 Dec. 2014; last revision 31 Jan. 2015; accepted 24 Feb. 2015 The “Palestinian Dream” in the AHMET HAMDI Kurdish context AKKAYA Abstract Turkey’s rising leftist student movement in the late 1960s admired the Palestinian Fedayeen movement and considered it as a school for their own future struggle. In the late 1960s young Turkish-Kurdish leftist students went to Palestinian guerrilla camps in Lebanon to be trained in preparation for armed struggle in Turkey. That relationship gained new momentum following the 1980 military coup in Turkey, which heavily impacted Turkish and Kurdish radical move- ments. The Palestinian camps turned out to be a major retreat for these Turkish-Kurdish groups, among whom the PKK was a primary beneficiary. The PKK seized this opportunity not only for military training but also for organisational recovery which almost no other Turk- ish or Kurdish movement managed. This article aims to trace the relationship between Turkish- Kurdish radical movements and Palestinian organisations, focusing mainly on the PKK. I argue that the PKK has made use of this relationship in realising the so-called “Palestinian Dream” within the Kurdish context. Keywords: Kurds; PKK; Palestine; Lebanon; Turkey. “Xewna Felestînê” li meydana kurdî Hereketa xwendekarên çepgir ya Tirkiyeyê, ku di dawiya salên 60an de bihêz dibû, bi hijmekarî bal û nezera xwe dabûne ser hereketa “Feda’îyên Felestînê” û ew wek mektebekê didîtin ji bo têkoşîna xwe ya paşerojê. Dawiya salên 60an, xwendekarên ciwan ên çepgir ên tirk û kurd çûne nav kempên gerîlayên Felestînê li Lubnanê da ku xwe ji bo têkoşîna çekdarî li Tirkiyeyê amade bikin.
    [Show full text]