Fighting the Causes of Islamist Terrorism

Avi Primor, Israel's former ambassador to Germany and Director of the Center for European Studies at the private university IDC Herzliya, explains in conversation with Eren Güvercin how best to tackle the root causes of Islamic extremism

Mr Primor, in your book "Mit dem Islam gegen den Terror" (With Islam against Terror) you argue in favour of conducting the war on terrorism together with Muslims. What exactly do you mean by this?

Avi Primor: The first thing is we must understand that when we talk about Islamism, fundamentalism or terrorism, this does not necessarily mean that these are linked to the Islamic religion, the Islamic community or Islamic ideals. That's the first thing we must understand, and not everyone does these days. Secondly, we have to understand where it comes from. Why does this terror exist?

Of course there are fundamentalists and terrorists who will not be persuaded. But there are also people who join terrorist campaigns because they are desperate and frustrated, because they have no prospects, and therefore follow false prophets. The way to approach this is to see how one can solve the problems of the civilian population, because in the end the population is the breeding ground for terrorism, even if that population does not support terrorism and rejects it.

What about joining forces with Muslim clerics or other representatives to combat terrorism?

Primor: I don't think you can fight terror with Muslim clerics alone, you also need the support of the majority of Muslim politicians, writers and thinkers as well as those individuals who have an influence on the population.

But there has to be a fundamental appreciation of the fact that the people have a problem. The Islamic community has for a long time now suffered a sense of humiliation, and it's not a new situation. It stems from the 16th century, but primarily from the 19th and 20th centuries – the centuries of colonialism.

Life is also very difficult for large sections of this population, people live in misery. And if these people do not have any prospects, this is when the community forms a breeding ground for terrorists. These problems can only be solved by engaging with the people, and not just targeting the terrorists, which is the current approach.

One has to try and solve the problems of the civilian population, or at least give them some hope – that's the key point. If the people generate a sense of hope, even if their living conditions don't change, if they know that things will improve at some point, then the situation will change completely.

Several analysts have criticised your views and described you as naïve, among other things. Are you not oversimplifying the situation?

Primor: I would very much like to know what my critics have in mind. How would they solve the problem? Do they really believe that if they defeat the terrorists, then the problem is dealt with? In the meantime we've had enough experience of this approach in attempts to combat terrorism.

Israel is the country that has applied the most efficient methods in the battle against terrorism. But we can never win this war. We fight terrorists, arrest them and defeat them – and still they keep on coming.

Why? Because we're not doing anything to address the fundamental problems facing the population. And this is why we are not winning. It's not a question of naivety, but of efficiency. Ending the misery suffered by the civilian population is the only way to isolate terrorists and fight them more effectively.

Your book analyses the historic development of fundamentalism. You outline the emergence of Wahhabism and certain forms of Islam. What is the ideological fundament of today's terrorist groups?

Primor: Basically, it revolves around a theory. People believe they possess the absolute truth, that theirs is the only correct religion and that it is both their aim and their duty to convince others of this, or to force them to join their "true religion". And if it doesn't work through powers of persuasion, then through violent means. If you continue to pursue such thoughts, you finally arrive at Al-Qaeda.

How do you assess current developments in the Middle East? Should Israel talk to Hamas? Hamas took tough action against an Al-Qaeda-influenced group in the Gaza Strip some months ago. Could a political process involving Hamas really change the organisation?

Primor: It's very interesting what happened between Hamas and Al-Qaeda. Why? Hamas is just as extremist, fundamentalist and fanatical in its views. But the difference between Hamas and Al-Qaeda lies in the fact that Hamas in the end represents a national, Palestinian movement. It does not want to operate globally, like Al-Qaeda.

And because Hamas is today a government that has to take care of its people, and which governs its own territory, it also has interests, just as all nations and governments do. If one considers these interests, then perhaps some common ground can be found. This is something we've already achieved several times in the past with Hamas, albeit in very particular circumstances. For example, the Gaza Strip pullout was negotiated behind the scenes with Hamas, with the approval of both sides.

But I actually don't think we're in a position now to negotiate – or that we would be interested in negotiating with Hamas. I think if Hamas is really going to participate in the political process, both opponents – the Palestinian government in Ramallah and the Fatah movement on the one hand, and Hamas in Gaza on the other – need to come together and find some common ground, which could then make negotiations with Israel possible.

These things have to occur step by step. But at some point we have to make progress, because we only have two options left when it comes to Hamas: either we remove Hamas, or we have to find some sort of compromise with Hamas. And we cannot remove Hamas.

Could the Islamic-conservative AKP government in Turkey serve as a role model for the Arab world, as a government that is on the one hand trying to push through democratic reforms, while at the same time apparently preserving its Islamic identity?

Primor: If you take a closer look at modern Turkish history, then it's not so easy to cast Turkey as a role model for other countries. Initially, if they couldn't do away with religion completely, the reformers wanted to at least separate it completely from the state. And as we are able to establish today, they didn't quite succeed in doing that. Religion has in the meantime returned to the picture, and today we have a government that recognises Islam, but no one really knows what its aims are.

For this reason I don't believe the Arabs need a role model. They must quite simply invest in developing their countries, above all in education. And when I talk about education, I mean modern forms of education and not the kind of schooling conducted in the "Madrasas", as is the case in countries such as Pakistan.

Interview: Eren Güvercin

Translated from the German by Nina Coon

Qantara.de

Commentary by Avi Primor
The Key to Peace Lies in Damascus
IIt's now official: Israel and Syria are holding indirect peace talks. A peace agreement between the two countries could break Iran's dangerous influence in the region, says Avi Primor, former Israeli Ambassador to Germany

Interview Khaled Abou El Fadl
Jihad Gone Wrong
Khaled Abou El Fadl is a prominent Islamic scholar and intellectual. In this interview with Novriantoni and Ramy El-Dardiry, El Fadl talks about suicide bombings, misinterpretations of 'jihad' and the humanist tradition of Islam

Comment on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Assaf Gavron
Ignorance on Both Ends
In the current climate of crisis, Israel is endangering its democratic character, says the Israeli author Assaf Gavron. At the same time, however, he says western media often deny the real threat Hamas poses for Israel