Black September and Controversial Counterterrorism Policies and Tactics

The intended goals of the Black September group was to cause high-scale attacks against Jordanian and Israeli.  It is worth saying that the Black September group achieved its intended goals in that they murdered Jordan's prime minister on November 1971 (Katz, 2004). On May 1972, four terrorists from the group hijacked an Airline jet and demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners. The group also attempted to murder other Jordanian politicians such as King Hussesign and Zaid al-Rifai. The group effectiveness or the capability of the group to accomplish the objectives was that the group was tied to Fatah and the latter gave the group support and security. Another tactic was that the group by involving innocent citizens in terrorism outside the Middle East (Katz, 2004).  They conveyed the message of terrorist tactics and the ideal tool to terrorist using mass media such as CNN.

 In analyzing the Munich Olympic attacks, the law enforcement and counterterrorism organizations learned the Munich Olympics attack occurred due to lack of international cooperation and poor security measures (Katz, 2004). For example, the Munich Olympics required public and private security personnel and high-tech security equipment. However, it was learned that there were no security checks and therefore, the pack became the prime target.  The security officials lacked enough preparation and therefore it was difficult for the respondents to offer an immediate response (Katz, 2004). Law enforcement and counterterrorist organizations learned that it is important to deploy adequate international security forces to combat threats and increase security. Law enforcement and limitary organizations established hostage-rescue units that could provide aggressive action against terrorist attacks.

 From the terrorists' perspective, I believe that the Munich terrorist attack was highly successful. This is because; the attack received intense media attention. Terrorists accomplished media victory and the group was able to proclaim the Palestinian resistance movement (Katz, 2004). Note that journalists, radio personnel, commentators, and television technicians recorded and disseminated the news to the whole world. Thus, terrorist believed that the public learned the Palestinian tragedy and therefore the media coverage made them achieve success.

 

The key reason as to why I believe counterterrorism policies are controversial is because the policies must address enhanced interrogation,  detention of suspects,  secret surveillance,  racial profiling,  data mining, and prosecuting terrorists (Furubo et al, 2013).  Focusing on these controversial counterpoise tactics, my viewpoint toward the policies is that all tactics are effective in detecting terrorist activities. I agree with their use in that all provide effective security at the individual level.  Each agency has a central role to play in disrupting the terrorists' networks.

 

Israel uses controversial counterterrorism tactics such as;

Bulldozing- the policy was implemented when Israel encountered suicide bombings. The argument for this policy is that the act would destroy the suicide bombers and as a result, the act would deter terrorism.  However, critics argue that the government wanted the grounds to be cleared so that it can build security fences to separate Israel from Palestine (White, 2014).  My position on this tactic is that bulldozing is not effective and it is immoral since many Palestinian residential became homeless and children were separated from their mothers. Besides, bulldozing does not deter crime but rather the act violates international laws.

Invading Lebanon.  Israel punished Lebanon as a strategy of disrupting Hezbollah operations.  The argument for the tactic is that Israel attacked Hezbollah but critics argue that the policies have caused mass killing of Lebanese and destruction of infrastructure (White, 2014).  My position to this tactic is that it is not effective since Hezbollah is politically secure and he has a strong governed. Therefore, Israel may not have the ability to threaten Lebanon. 

Selective assassination-Israel is using this policy to deter terrorism.  For example, opposition leaders such as Abu Jihad was killed. The critics argue that the policy might expand the conflict and some political leaders and human rights groups perceive it as a ‘gangster murders' (White, 2014).  Supporters argue that the policy is transparent since it passes through legal review and it has reduced terrorism. My position is that it is morally wrong and it violates international law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Katz, S. M. (2004). Jerusalem or death: Palestinian terrorism. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner

Publications.

 

Furubo Jan-Eric., Rist C. Ray, & Speer Sandra. (2013). Evaluation and Turbulent Times:

Reflections on a Discipline in Disarray. Transaction Publishers

 

White, J. R. (2014). Terrorism and homeland security. Cengage Learning,