Terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy

The lack of a universally accepted definition of terrorism complicates efforts to combat state-sponsored glorification of untold terrorism.

- SANTISHREE DHULIPUDI PANDIT

The recent terror attacks on the fifitieth anniversary of the Yom Kippur war by Hamas aided with Hezbollah and supported by Iran is a dangerous signal. It displays the cowardice of attacking unarmed civilians, raping women and killing children and filming this savagery for showing it to the world. Which religion permits this? Whatever the cause no one can legitimize these actions. One is shocked all this is being done in the name of a people who are the silent majority who in their wildest dreams do not support. Terrorists are those who cannot win in a democratic process, hence they want to dominate by fear of untold violence. They are savages and it is necessary for all the civilized world to condemn such hate and violence on a people who are different and diverse. Terrorists are averse to a democracy where they will be held accountable; they would rather hijack a religion to legitimize their plunder, loot, rape and savagery.

Terrorism as a state tool involves the intentional use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve political objectives. It transcends borders and encompasses a spectrum of tactics, from proxy warfare to covert operation. The moral dilemma arises from the stark contrast between international condemnation of terrorism and states' pragmatic pursuit of strategic goals. States depict vast hypocrisy as they condemn terrorism in rhetoric while engaging in covert support for such activities. There are unintended consequences. Historical examples showcase instances where states, in supporting terrorism, faced unintended consequences, including blowback and instability. Pakistan is a great example. It sought to destabilize and terrorize India and its populace by fostering support to and actively funding terror groups but now bears the brunt of terrorism.