Is terrorism right or left?

This article tries to identify the causes of the home-grown terrorism, addressing the particular example of the recent terror attacks in Toulouse, France. It hits however an important point:
"Many French initially and secretly hoped that what happened in and around Toulouse would prove to be a repetition of the attacks in and around Oslo in 2011 – that the terrorist would turn out to be the product of the extreme right. Merah claimed to be acting in the name of fundamentalist Islam; in reality, he was the product of a bloody and deviant sect. How can a petty delinquent, a lost child of the French nation, fall prey to terrorist hatred of any variety?"

In short, we have by now witnessed equally horrifying attacks originating from the extreme right and from the extreme left. What causes the terrorism is not the part of the political spectrum that one belongs to, but how far one is ready to go in order to impress his/her views onto the others. 

About Gilad Shalit

There is general rejoicing in Israel due to a deal to free Gilad Shalit, who have been held captive for more than five by a Hamas-affiliated organizatuion in Gaza. This, however, is a kind of situation when one gets a strange feeling from the fact that some obvious questions are persistently evaded by the news sources, the commentators, and the public:

1. Isn't it a bit early to rejoice before the deal has gone through?

2. Does the government have any information about Shalit's physical condition? The report says that he has been moved to Cairo, but I shiver from the thought that his family and everyone else are assuming that he is alive and well without rally knowing it...

3. I would like to point out something that is commonly overlooked in the debate about exchanging Palestinian held in Israeli jails for kidnapped soldiers. It is commongly stated that such exchanges are motivated by moral and emotional arguments, whereas "logically" Israel endangers its own citizens by releasing the accomplished terrorists, and showing that blackmail works. This "logic" misses the important point: the ability fo Israel to defend itself is determined not only by the number of the enemy fighters, but also, more importantly, by the Israeli soldiers's willingness to fight for their country. Giving the soldiers credible promise that the country will to its utmost effort to protect them is the only way to convince them that this country is worth fighting for.

Middle-Eastern logical twists

In view of the recent violence in Israel and Gaza, there are some who perceive as strange the fact that Israel retaliated against the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC) in Gaza, despite the latter's denial of any complicity in the Eilat attacks.

While there may be no proof (in the open media) of the PRC responsibility for the attack, it seems that even the critics of the retaliation against PRC are so deeply absorbed by the situation that they take for granted many things that must seem awkward to an objective observer.

Let us try to evaluate the situation objectively:
A group of armed men from country A entered country B, murdered several people, and escaped back to A. Elsewhere this would be considered and act of war, and B would demand an investigation and compensation from A, threatening a just retaliation. A resolution by the UN Security Council would follow as well.

In practice:  
A (Egypt) demands an investigation from B (Israel), while B carries out strikes against C (Gaza). And even those who oppose strikes by B against C, agree that A has nothing to do with this, and don't mind A to mediate between B and C.

There is an underlying assumption here that the terrorists certainly were not Egyptians, but Palestinians. And curiously this is accepted without questioning even by those claiming that the strikes against PRC were unjustified.

Even those who agree with this, however, should not forget about the responsibility that still lies with Egypt: It is Egypt's obligation as a state to fight the crime in its territory, whether it threatens Egyptians or the citizens of other countries. And it is Egypt who has to prove that the terrorists were not Egyptians and that Egypt did not have hostile intentions towards Israel. And even then Egypt still would have the responsibility towards the families of the victims.

All this does not happen, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, has correctly hinted that Egypt is a failed state (just by definition of a state failing to exercise such state functions as fighting crime and protecting its borders.) Yet, in an awkward twist, it is Israel that has apologize for stating this fact. And it is Israel that has to carry out an investigation into the deaths of several Egyptian soldiers, who were caught in gunfire when the Israeli border guards chased the terrorists.

Let us note that the lack of the Egyptian complicity in the terrorist attack is far from obvious: some commentators claim that, in order to remain unnoticed by the Israeli guards, the terrorists infiltrated into Israel in front of an Egyptian outpost, with likely knowledge of the Egyptian army. The fact that the infiltrators were retreating towards a group of the Egyptian soldiers, which resulted in several Egyptians killed, raises questions regarding the Egyptian army possibly covering the terrorists's retreat.


However, the worst thing that has been made obvious by these events is the Israel's fear to alienate Egypt, which prevents Israel from demanding from Egypt the actions that are required by the international law (i.e. the investigation and the compensations to the victims.)
I don't blame the government for this - it just shows how bad the geopolitical situation is for Israel.