perils of tolerating terrorists

lebanon is learning at a huge cost the consequences of tolerating a terrorist group. after hezbollah kidnapped two israeli solders (after killing three) in a cross border raid on 12th (last wednesday), israel started attacking lebanese infrastructure (including power stations, fuel storage, bridges, and air port). about 100 people (almost all civilians) have died in lebanon so far. continuing hezbollah rocket attacks have killed about 12 civilians in israel.

while israel's actions may be disproportionate (peaceniks in sri lanka should do well to compare that with sri lankan government's restraint in the face of far greater provocations), they are also understandable. even if this crisis is resolved, as long as an armed terrorist group like hezbollah controls southern lebanon future flare ups are inevitable. terrorists who refuse to give up violence will always prefer violence to get what they want. their lip service to democracy, freedom, human rights, and justice, will always remain suspect as long as they do not explicitly give up armed struggle. all those who believe that they can buy peace by appeasement should be ready to suffer the same fate as the lebanese.

if this is true about hezbollah- a group that engaged in normal politics, contested elections, tolerated opposition to an extent, and maintained an extensive social service infrastructure for the benefit of population under its control - how much more will it be true about liberation tigers of tamil ealam? ltte does not tolerate any opposition, it annihilates them and it insists on being the sole representative. its idea of politics is preventing people voting by force. and whatever welfare services people under its control have access to ( from education to heath ) are in fact maintained and paid for by the government, with ngos (mostly ingos like unhcr, not the peacenik ones) pitching in a little bit.

terrorists and peace
appeasing terrorists will not result in peace here anymore than in lebanon. as long as ltte remains what it is, peace wont dawn here. no peace agreement will work if there isn't any effective way to control breaches by ltte. make no mistake, like hezbollah it will choose violence to get what it wants, when it wants, agreement or no agreement. after all, for an organization that routinely kills innocents as a policy, breaking a clause or two in an agreement is nothing.

it is only by facing down the terrorists and not giving in to their violence that we can effectively defeat or contain them. that does not mean we should try to defeat them militarily in an all out war. given the limited resources of the country (sri lanka is not israel) that would not work. rather it means refusing to bow down to ltte demands as long as it engages in violence, and deny people freedom, democracy, human rights, and justice. we should make that clear to them at all times, whether they are actively engaged in violence as they are now, or they are engaged in negotiations. while we should try to keep ltte at the table as long as possible if they come, we should also refuse to appease them.

it is up to them to decide, whether to continue with violence that will not bring any results (since we will face them down if they go down that path), to stagnate in a truce (that will progressively weaken them) while refusing to change, or to change fundamentally giving up terrorism permanently.

it is only when there are legitimate democratically elected representatives who are willing to work peacefully that sri lanka can satisfactorily address the very real and legitimate tamil grievances. trying to address them trough the self styled sole representative who believes in terrorism will only postpone (if that) violence, as in lebanon.
--

ps. its interesting to observe the bias in western media at times like these. i am not referring to the normal and understandable pro israeli bias, which they sometimes consciously try to avoid. rather i am referring to west centric world view. for instance, when reporting on evacuations of foreigners from lebanon all reports concentrate exclusively on western tourists and expatriates. even though statistics indicate that sri lankans alone (about 80,000) outnumber the reported number of western foreigners in lebanon. i am sure there are larger numbers from other third world countries. of course this is as it should be, main consumers of western media are western public and when it come to cnn international and bbc world the same sort of people as those being evacuated. it is our fault to believe that they cater to a wider audience.