U.S. Terrorism Policy: Israel-Palestine, Jihad, and the War on Terror

Terrorism Before and After 9/11: The Role of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

The terrorism landscape before and after 9/11 differs considerably with respect to the role the Israel-Palestine conflict plays. Since 9/11, the majority of terrorist incidents in the United States have been committed by domestic, right-wing terrorists (Neiwert et al., 2017). The majority of "jihadist" terrorists are also domestic rather than imported, though a threat from the Middle East remains. Within the segment of homegrown jihadist-inspired terrorists, there were approximately 20 attacks carried out by about 178 people since September 11 (Jenkins, 2017). Among foreign-born terrorists who committed or plotted attacks in the United States, the largest number came from Pakistan, at 20, with the remainder from 39 other countries, most of them Muslim-majority (Jenkins, 2017). A study of documented jihadist ideology, drawing on cases from around the world, highlighted three common features: idealistic commitment to a righteous cause, individualism in interpreting religion, and a conviction that Muslims today are engaged in defensive warfare, or jihad al-daf (Lahoud, 2010).

Lahoud's (2010) study of jihadist ideology found that the most common arguments made by jihadists are actually that the United States defends oppressive regimes — regimes that, when they do not govern according to sharia, are seen as committing apostasy from Islam.

Prior to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the conflict in Palestine was one of the stated motivations for attacks, and certainly this was true of al-Qaeda, since anti-Israel sentiment forms a central pillar of al-Qaeda's ideology. Bin Laden (2002) published his letter detailing what drove him and al-Qaeda to carry out the 9/11 attacks. While the letter addresses several grievances, his primary statements concern the conflict in Palestine. His logic rests on the claim that Jews did not historically inhabit Palestine, arguing instead: "If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this."

Al-Qaeda was also responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. The group claimed responsibility and evidence of their guilt was established (Isikoff, 2010). Given that al-Qaeda's ideology strongly references U.S. involvement in Palestine and support for Israel, there is no compelling reason to believe the group's motivation for attacking an American military target was anything other than that ideological framework.

U.S. Policy in the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Taking Sides?

If anything in the complex, nuanced world of international relations can be oversimplified to "taking sides," then perhaps the United States skews toward favoring Israel — but the United States also lends a tremendous amount of support to many Arab nations as well, just not the Arabs living in Palestine. Some Americans favor Israel because they perceive the current conflict through the lens of a Crusade-style struggle over control of the Holy Land. Outside of those religious circles, many other Americans simply favor a state that promotes democracy and equality over what they see as the abuses of Arab authoritarian rule. Consider, for example, the position of a gay person who might be asked to support Palestine — where their very existence could subject them to the death penalty — over Israel. Israel's culture of democracy, education, and openness is far more aligned with traditional American values than that of many Arab states.

A "tilt" toward Israel is often pre-assumed in discussions of U.S. foreign policy, but in reality, America's role in the Israel-Palestine conflict reflects its broader power and interests in the region, not a desire to serve as a magically neutral third party. There is no truly neutral negotiator in this conflict; all parties have agendas and negotiate on the basis of those agendas and their relative power. Even the assumption that the United States wants or should be neutral is itself a questionable premise.

Would Peace in Israel-Palestine Reduce Terrorism Against the United States?

A peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict is in the interests of all parties. However, there is little reason to believe that a lasting peace would significantly reduce terrorism against the United States. Lahoud's (2010) study of terrorist ideology highlights several key commonalities, one of which is the belief in a defensive struggle — jihad al-daf. This defensive struggle is framed against many forces: in some cases it targets other sects within Islam, but it is also directed against perceived enemies and their allies. For example, Shiite Muslims have been locked in a centuries-old conflict with Sunni Muslims, and the United States has clearly positioned itself against the leading Shiite state, Iran, labeled a member of the so-called Axis of Evil. Some — though not all — Sunni actors would consider this sufficient reason to target the United States.

The United States also props up Gulf Arab regimes widely viewed as corrupt, has engaged in extended military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has backed other conflicts in which Muslims have suffered. Ultimately, it is that accumulated sense of Muslim suffering that drives the desire to harm U.S. citizens and interests. The Israel-Palestine conflict provides powerful imagery for recruiting materials and undeniably motivated Osama bin Laden, but if that conflict were entirely resolved, it would likely be revealed as the pretext it largely is. Other pretexts for violence would simply take its place. Jihadist terrorists are fighting a spiritual battle against anyone they can blame for their condition or for the condition of Muslim nations generally, and the United States, as the world's leading superpower, will attract that blame regardless of events in the Holy Land.