IS STATE SPONSORED

ASSASSINATION THE MOST

EFFECTIVE WAY OF COMBATING
TERRORISM?

BY:

LAUREN ALYSSA
HANNAH BEN
JORDAN JILL
BEC JENNY

0
 INTRODUCTION
1
THE CONTEXT OF TERRORISM
2
THE MOSSAD AS A MODEL
4
THE ETHICS OF STATE SPONSORED ASSASSINATION
8
ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO APPROACHING TERRORISM
12
CONCLUSION
14
REFERENCES
15

1
 INTRODUCTION
Over the centuries, terrorism has developed, modernized and become a popular method for
extremist groups to make dangerous and harmful statements. Terrorism is defined by the US Code
of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of
political or social objectives.” Terrorist acts are committed around the world for different purposes
and can cause injury and death to those targeted.

For this reason, governments have been trying for many years to eliminate the threat of terrorism. A
method which has been considered is state-sponsored assassination, or targeted killing. This
involves the targeting of leaders and important people within terrorist groups in order to break
down the group and prevent it from continuing to spread terror. The question is: Is state-sponsored
assassination the best method of combating terrorism?

In order to answer this question, a number of things must be considered. The famous saying, “One
man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” raises the issue of ethics and punishment. To
understand a terrorist, the roots of terrorism must first be explored, as must other available
methods of combating terrorism.

This report looks at the context of terrorism, the use of the Mossad as a model for state-sponsored
assassination, the ethics of this method, and the alternative methods available.

2
 THE CONTEXT OF TERRORISM
As globalisation has occurred, civilisations and cultures have been exposed to each other after
millennia of separation. In this new global community, these cultures are forced to interact, despite
inherent ideological differences. As these cultures interact more and more, the differences have
become gradually more obvious. Some of these differences have been revoked, as societies attempt
to adapt, and be reconciled in this increasingly global community. But this is not always the case.
There are certain attributes that are intrinsic to certain cultures, but reviled by others, so much so
that they are persecuted for being enforced. It is these inter-cultural differences that have been
predicted to be the main cause for conflict in the coming years. Huntington's predictions in
particular have already begun to show. A political analyst, Samuel P. Huntington gained fame after
publishing his Clash of Civilisations in 1993, and then a revised edition in 1996. His work was a
thesis on the new post-Cold War new world, and his predictions for the political climate over the
coming years.

Clashes between Islam and the West, whose values are based upon Christian ideals, are prime
examples of cultures that struggle to co-exist, as they have been subject to violent clashes for the
last 1300 years, ever since the founding of Islam, and the ensuing Arab and Moorish surge west
finally stopped at the battle of Poitiers. For the next three centuries, the devout Christian west
launched crusades against the Muslims, until the Ottoman Turks turned the tables and forced the
crusaders from the Holy Land in the fourteenth century, and then expanded. There is a history of
bloodshed between the two civilisations, one that is not easily forgotten by either side.
Now, as conflict grows, driven by catalysts like the ongoing war on terror, the potential nuclear
threat of Iran, and that country's determination for its allies to acquire similar weapon technologies,
and the ever present wars waged by and against Israel, individual nations look to those countries
that herald from the same kind of civilisations, believing them to be more trustworthy than
outsiders. This is rarely a conscious decision, rather than being singularly racist, it is a result of
what Huntington defines as Kin-Country syndrome. Huntington suggests that when groups or states
belong to a certain civilisation, they will always attempt to gather support from other members of
their civilisation before going to outsiders. Huntington does say this in the context of his predictions
of clashes between civilisations, and his fear of a third world war. He believes that this is an
emerging trait, as recently developed as the Cold War.

An example of this is that when the Allied forces invaded Iraq, Safar Al-Hawali, the dean of Islamic
studies at Umm Al-Qura University in Mecca stated that, "It is not the world against Iraq, it is the
West against Islam." Similarly, despite the rivalry between Iran and Iraq, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
called for a Jihad, a holy war against the west for invading Iraq. He claimed that, "The struggle
against American aggression, greed, plans and politics will be counted as a jihad, and anyone who is
killed on that path is a martyr." It is a small wonder that soldiers fighting against the West often
seek refuge in Iran. There are many more examples of the Arab nations uniting against the West, the
most blatant being King Hussein of Jordan arguing about the West's intervention in Iraq, "This is
war, against all Arabs and all Muslims and not against Iraq alone." Huntington believes that the
rallying of Arab elites and masses behind Saddam Hussein caused those Arab governments in the
anti-Iraq coalition to moderate their activities and public statements. Arab nations distanced
themselves from the Western efforts to control the situation in Iraq, because when it came down to
it, they were all Arabs.

The kin country syndrome is one of the main reasons that terrorists are still able to conduct such an
efficient manner of guerrilla warfare. Nations like Pakistan are all for hurting the Western

3
civilisation that so brazenly invaded Iraq, killed its kinsmen, and could potentially even have designs
upon the rest of the Arab nations. Pakistan has been developing a reputation as terrorist central and
could potentially be a flashpoint for a larger scale conflict.

The West is currently in an extremely powerful position compared to the other civilisations. Its
superpower opponents have disappeared from the map. Military conflict between Western States is
virtually unthinkable, and the military power of the West is unrivalled. Other than Japan, there is no
economic rival to the West, and it dominates international political and security institutions, and in
the case of Japan international economic institutions. Global political and security issues are
essentially settled by a directorate of Britain, France and the USA, whilst economic issues are dealt
with by a similar coalition of the USA, Germany and Japan, all of which maintain extremely close
relations to each other to the exclusion of lesser and largely non-Western countries. The vast
majority of decisions made by the UN's Security Council, the only aspect of the UN to have any real
power other than simply being a forum for discussion, represent the interests of the West, although
they are presented in such a way that it can seem like a reflection of the desires of the world
community, rather than a certain ideological group. Huntington also realises that the phrase "world
community" has become so intrinsic with Western civilisation, that it has replaced the term "the
Free World" and gives global legitimacy to actions reflecting the interests of the United States and
other Western Powers.

Through the use of the International Monetary Fund and other international economic institutions,
the West has promoted its own economic policies, often at the expense of other non-Western
nations. This economic monopolisation has made it difficult for other states to compete with
Western nations, or find their way into this exclusive club.

Given these things, the difficulty to be economically competitive, and the near-impossibility of
comparing militaristically, it is possible to see exactly why so many of those that would compete
against the forces of the West would use guerrilla warfare and what has widely become known as
terrorism to fend off those who could buy their lives upon a whim. The West has been using similar
techniques for decades before they began to be utilised by those who would oppose the West.
During the Cold War, the USA and its daughter organisations like the CIA supported numerous
revolutionary organisations, training many individuals like Osama bin Laden to fight against Russia
and its communist advances. Al Qaeda was formed using money that the West had funded bin Laden
with to prevent the expansion of other, non-Western civilisations. The USA achieved its goal of
preventing the expansion of Russia, and ending the Cold War, but this left hundreds of well trained
Islamic soldiers without a cause. It was not until the Persian Gulf War that these soldiers again
found a cause to fight, and die, for. When the USA deployed its troops into Saudi Arabia, their
presence offended many Muslims who believed that their holy places of Mecca and Medina should
be sacrosanct, and not open to non-believers. Heedless of this feeling, the West responded by
deploying its troops in force, seemingly threatening the most holy sites of the Islamic religion,
something that the followers of Islam could do nothing but defend against, in any and every way at
their disposal

And lo, the modern era of terrorism came into the world.

 THE MOSSAD AS A MODEL

4
The policy of targeted killing has traditionally been the main counteraction from Israel in response
to the growing amount of terror activity in Palestine. Targeted killing is defined as the “intentional
slaying of a specific individual or group taken with government approval.” (1) Some would argue that
targeted killings are the same as state-sponsored assassinations; however the Israeli government
has refused to refer to their attacks as assassinations due to the fact that assassinations usually
concern the elimination of senior political officials. The majority of Israeli attacks are targeted at
people who merely plan the attacks – and these individuals are generally not senior officials in
Palestine. Most of the attacks conducted by Israel are generally assumptions because the Israeli
government usually do not officially acknowledge their roles in the attacks unless it is obvious that
there are Israeli forces involved. Attacks by Mossad are known for their sophistication in choice of
weapons, their efficiency, professionalism and their efforts to minimise innocent casualties.

The Mossad is known as the Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks, or “ha-Mossad le-Modiin ule-
Tafkidim Meyuhadim” in Hebrew. An Israeli organisation formerly known as the Central Institute for
Coordination and the Central Institute for Intelligence and Security, it was established by the then
prime minister David Ben Gurion in 1951 due to his realisation that intelligence was crucial to the
country’s security. “Since its creation [our state] has been under siege by its enemies. Intelligence is
the first line of defence,” he claimed, “We must learn well how to recognise what is going on around
us.”(2) Thus began the Mossad we know today – now not only responsible for human intelligence
collection and the undercover movement of Jewish refugees out of Syria, Ethiopia and Iran, but also
counterterrorism, placing its primary focus on Arab nations and organisations spread throughout
the world. Mossad agents are said to be active in the West, the United Nations and former
communist countries such as China and the former Soviet Union. The Mossad is divided into several
departments: Collections; Political Action and Liaison; Special Operations Division or Metsada; LAP
or Lohama Psichlogit; and the Research Department. The Collections Department is the largest,
responsible for espionage operations, and has several offices of both diplomatic and unofficial cover
internationally. The Political Action and Liaison Department carries out its namesake with foreign
intelligence services Israel is friendly with, as well as with nations whom it does not have normal
diplomatic relations. The Metsada unit is responsible for the highly sensitive assassination,
paramilitary, sabotage and psychological warfare projects. The LAP Department carries out
psychological warfare, and missions involving the use of deception and propaganda. Finally, the
Research Department is responsible for the production of collected intelligence – it is organised into
specialised “desks”, each in charge of a significant nation such as the US, Canada, Western Europe,
Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Former Soviet Union and China. This department also has a “nuclear” desk
responsible for issues associated with what is termed “special weapons”. (3) In addition to this,
Israel’s intelligence system itself is specialised, with the operation of Shin Bet – in charge of internal
security – and Aman – in charge of military intelligence – besides that of the Mossad. (4)

The debate over whether the anti-terrorist techniques used by the Mossad, i.e. assassination of key
figureheads of well-known terrorist groups, is appropriate has amassed growing support in recent
years, especially following the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in
the US. The main rationales justifying the assassination of terrorists are pre-emption, retaliation

5
and revenge – that is, to assassinate the terrorist suspects before they can harm the national
security; to prevent further terrorist behaviour; or to perhaps bring some comfort to the loved ones
of the innocents, who deserve closure. (5) Terrorists have frequently been the target of Mossad
agents, and several assassinations have successfully been made. An apt example of such covert
operations would be the reaction to the Munich Massacre in 1972, where eleven athletes of the
Israeli Olympic team were killed by Arab radicals known as the Black September Group.
In response to this outrage, the prime minister of the time, Golda Meir, authorised the Mossad’s
formation of several “hit teams” to assassinate those responsible, each with specific mission
constraints. One used standard Mossad operating procedures whilst the other was placed outside
the control of the government, with the aim being to provide covert financial support to the latter in
order for complete anonymity to complete their mission. The former, using normal channels, failed,
whilst the latter managed to fulfil their objectives and did not compromise their operation. (6) This
case demonstrates the effectiveness of fully decentralised and flexible operations, which would
allow agents the freedom of action as their situations may dictate, rather than being held back by
governmental red tape – thus increasing the chance of success in an assassination. In his paper
discussing the Munich Massacre, Calahan claimed, “In this respect they attacked the problem from
varied angles, hoping to develop an interlocking information net which terrorist targets would be
unable to avoid. If one method was ineffective or missed a lead, another team would probably fill the
gap.” (7) To take up this case in point, establishing a government agency similar to what Mossad has
done with decentralised authority plus a clear understanding of tactical techniques and “tradecraft”
– that is to say, methods of espionage and undercover operations, will increase the efficiency of
eliminating the terrorist threat to national security, whilst allowing for innocents to be unharmed
and ignorant. The year 1995 saw the successful assassination of Palestinian Jihad head Fathi
Shikaki, without whom the Islamic Jihad organisation was thrown into relative chaos for several
years due to there not being a competent successor. Yehiya Ayyash, better known as “the Engineer”,
is another prime example of quick and efficient targeting: he was killed in 1996 with a bomb
implanted in his mobile phone, ending a “reign of terror” which took the lives of several hundred
Israelis. (7) It is believed though that Shin Bet was responsible for this particular target.

Whether for revenge, pre-emption or retaliation, the fact remains that the assassinations of such
radicals will prevent them from (further) damaging Israel’s national safety. Certainly, decentralised
power should not be limitless, lest personal grudges cloud one’s judgement. Using Israeli law as an
example, any targeted killing by organisations such as the Mossad may be restricted by first
fulfilling three terms: the Palestinian Authority – or in the case of Western societies, any such
country from where the terrorist in question has been identified – has to ignore any appeals for the
arrests of the terrorist; Israel must deduce that an arrest of the terrorist of its own is impossible;
and the killing must be done out of a wish to avoid an impending or future terrorist attack rather
than out of revenge or self-decided “justice”. (8) In summation targeted assassination is, at least, in
theory, cheaper, quicker and can avoid the mess of political operations with its covert nature.

Of course, the Mossad is not without its own failures. One of the more infamous botched operations
is the mistaking of Moroccan waiter Ahmad Boushiki in Norway as one of the masterminds behind
the Munich Massacre, Ali Hassan Salameh. The latter was later killed in 1979 in a car bomb
explosion, which may be attributed to Mossad agents. Still, this case of faulty intelligence was a
highly embarrassing episode for the institution, even as agents responsible were tried before a

6
Norwegian court. The Mossad also stirred up the wrath of Jordanian authorities when two of their
agents failed to kill one of the top leaders of the radical Hamas organisation, Khalid Meshaal, in
1997. (3)(8) Israel’s unsuccessful attempt to poison Meshaal in Jordan, a previously friendly Arab
country, has led to strained relations between the two countries, and required not only the
supplying an antidote but also the release of Sheik Ahmad Yassin – the founder of Hamas in order
for the agents to be released. Likely, Jordan was also resentful of the foreign assassinating
individuals residing in their country, as would be expected. (5) Canada too was infuriated with
Israel for having their agents use Canadian passports – tarnishing their name, perhaps – to enter
Jordan for their attempt at assassination. Possibly the most significant effect these failures had on
the Mossad was to destroy the impression of the institution as “invincible” and “shrewd”. (8) Such is
the risk which establishing an organisation for intelligence and targeted killings: besides receiving
condemnation from countries around the world, just one bungled operation would lead to the
ruining of one’s country’s reputation. (5) No doubt, by identifying these causes for error a stronger
defence of intelligence and anti-terrorism campaign can and will have been built. It should also be
acknowledged that the Mossad has been accused of targeted killings which have not been proven to
link to it. By substitution, one can infer that any organised institution Western societies may choose
to make responsible for targeted assassinations would be similarly cast under suspicion, putting the
country in a bad light internationally.

Targeted killing is effective as it is a counter offensive action against terrorism, which is an offensive
action. It is too difficult to defend or to deter attacks in places where they might occur since there
are literally tens of thousands of areas where terrorists could attack. It would require too much
effort to defend all of these areas. Deterring terrorists is particularly difficult when there are
individuals ready to die for their cause. In this case, the best approach is to eliminate the terrorists
before they attack. As mentioned above there have been many successes with this method. There
are also many benefits; one being that targeted killing has caused disarray in the hierarchy within
many terrorist organisations. There are only a certain amount of people available who carry the
skill and expertise to plan and conduct these attacks. When these people are eliminated the ability
to mount terrorist attacks is diminished.

Targeted killings also force terrorists to keep on the run. The Israelis usually inform the Palestinian
Authority on who they are after and the information is then generally passed onto the suspected
terrorist. The focus of the targeted individual is then to avoid the Mossad and more effort put into
avoiding the Mossad means less effort is taken into causing terror and destruction. Targeted killing
may also in some cases work as a deterrent because even though there are some people out there
willing to die for their cause, there are also some people out there not ready for martyrdom.
There is also evidence that a targeted killing is so effective that it alters the behaviour of some
terrorists. When the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon met with three other Arab leaders, he asked
them about their priorities and what they wanted from Israel. The first thing they replied with was
to put an end to the targeted killings. Islamic Jihad and Hamas promised to stop launching attacks in
Israel (pre 1967) if Israel would stop killing their leaders. Although this ceasefire didn’t last long, it
goes to shows the deterrent power of targeted killing.

Although there are a number of successes with targeted killing, there is also a big price to pay for
killing selected individuals. This policy has understandably been met with condemnation from
around the globe. Human rights groups within and out of Israel such as Amnesty International,
Human Rights Watch and B’tselem have all described the killings as “extrajudicial, unlawful” and “an
excessive, disproportionate [and] negligent use of force.” (9) The Secretary General of the United
Nations, Kofi Annan, has urged Israel to end the killings as he believes that it violates the

7
international law and disrupts any chances of peace in the Middle East. Former US Secretary of
State Colin Powell has also criticized the policy of targeted killings saying that, “We continue to
express our distress and opposition to these kinds of targeted killings and we will continue to do
so.” (9) Although criticisms from the US has been reduced after the September 11 attacks, the
European Union and the Arab States are outspoken in their condemnation about Israel’s approach
to combating terrorism. This was especially the case when fourteen innocent Palestinians were
killed in an operation in 2002 when the Hamas leader Shehada was assassinated. Nine of the
victims were children.

Targeted killing also disrupts diplomatic relations and any chances of negotiations between Arab
countries in Palestine for peace in the Middle East. Peace negotiations in the Middle East can be
intensified and disrupted due to the attacks. For example in 1998, the Mossad succeeded in
assassination of Yasser Arafat’s (the President of the Palestinian National Authority) second in
command, Abu Jihad. They didn’t only eliminate a person suspected of several attacks, but they also
killed a person who many believed was capable of making negotiations and peace compromises.
Israel’s refusal to drop the policy has also disrupted many attempts for ceasefires.

Killing selected individuals may also encourage more attacks and more potential terrorists. Each
time a person is killed, a “martyr” is created. Palestinian organizations have initiated propaganda,
displaying pictures and posters of the bombers, portraying them as heroes and romanticizing them.
At their funerals, it is common to see mourners who are willing to die in their place and become
suicide bombers. Among terrorist organizations it is seen as an honour to be killed by the Israelis
and the organization to which the terrorist belongs gains popularity after their death. It is believed
that more media coverage of particular terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Jihad has
encouraged them to launch more attacks to increase their popularity.

Arafat’s organizations have also stepped up on the amount of their attacks to compete with the
success of Hamas and Jihad. An unofficial deadly competition has developed to see which
organization could launch the deadliest attacks against Israel. Due to this reason, targeted killing
has encouraged what it was made to stop.

Lastly, one of the most obvious cons to targeted killings is that it increases the amount of Israelis
killed. It provokes more retaliation which arguably leads to more deaths than it saves lives. It is also
believed that targeted killing promotes destabilisation in many individuals thus provoking more
aggression and violence. As mentioned earlier, over fifty Israelis were killed by suicide bombers
after the slaying of Ayyash. Also in 2002 after the assassination of a Tanzim leader, Raed al-Karmi,
the ceasefire declared by Yasser Arafat the previous month broke. During this ceasefire, terror
activity had been at its lowest ever since the second infintada in 2000. Karmi’s death unleashed a
massive wave of suicide bombers. What was worse was that his death led to the formation of
another organisation, the Al-Aksa Bridafe; whose aims are to pay respect to Karmi and engage in
suicide bombings.

THE ETHICS OF STATE SPONSORED ASSASSINATION

By state-sponsored assassination it is meant that the State or government has provided a form of
funding towards the resources for an assassination, or has directed or agreed to the actions to be
partaken in for the purpose of counter-terrorism. In this context assassination is defined as murder
in surprise attack for the purpose of protecting the wider community. On many occasions

8
assassination has proven to be a successful tactic in protecting large numbers of people, as
illustrated by intelligence organisations such as the Mossad.

What constitutes war has changed over time. In the past, the requirements of war were battle-lines,
guns, trenches, and each side in uniform, etc. but in today’s modern world, parties present
themselves in new ways. As Adolf Hitler once said, “Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise,
terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.” (10) With today’s technology, it is likely
to be able to identify who will win a war if the war is fought traditionally. For this reason those
parties that are less likely to win the war fight in a new kind of war; one which has no boundaries.
Terrorism is one of the most commonly employed techniques of small groups. This small group can
injure many innocent people while terrorising a population, to accomplish gaining political
advantage, or whatever aim they are attempting to obtain. The other group is faced with the
challenge of opposing these terrorists, and there are a number of ways in which they can do so. For
example, there is traditional war, blockades, pressure groups and assassination.

War may not always be practical when fighting terrorism. There may not be a point to invading an
entire country when there is only a small group of people that need to be eliminated. For this
reason, governments turn to alternative ways of fighting terrorism. Blockades are one of these
alternative ways, but not always effective in eliminating a small group of terrorists. Pressure groups
can be effective but at times they are dysfunctional. Sometimes the only option is to hunt the
terrorists; it is the only practical solution.

State-sponsored assassination involves the planning and taking of one or more lives without a fair
trial for the purpose of counter-terrorism. For this reason state-sponsored assassination can be
viewed as murder, a small-war, and a violation of the respect for human life. However, on the other
hand for the purpose of counter-terrorism, the elimination of one or a few leaders can save the lives
of many. A large debate regarding state-sponsored assassination is whether it can be justified or
not.

For many religious and personal reasons people believe that state-sponsored assassination is
immoral and unethical. There is a large moral deliberation on the sanctity of life and the intentional
killing of a human being.

There has been much debate over the ethics behind the idea of state-sponsored assassination and
for many aspects it can be seen as a positive method towards reducing the death count associated
with terrorist actions. That is, by preventing the terrorists from completing their roles in an
organisation, it could potentially save lives; saving the many lives, at the cost of one. There is a
significant ethical argument that lies behind this murder of individuals with state consent and
whether it can be morally justified.

State-sponsored assassination can be viewed as having no respect for human life. It kills someone
without subjecting him or her to a fair trial. It is based on the opinion of a few people, giving a great
amount of power to these leaders, but also breaches respect for the terrorist’s lives.

As there is no trial it can be seen as undemocratic and unjust. It is sometimes thought that if the
assassins can find the terrorists and have enough time with them to assassinate them, then they
should be able to arrest them, although this view is opposed with the laws of jurisdiction. When
discussing the idea of trial for terrorists, it can be argued that the terrorists do not subject their
victims to a trial either, but this does not necessarily make it ethically correct.

9
 Another issue to do with assassination is the misuse of power and possible corruption. If a system
were to be corrupt, there is potential for the abuse by the government as well as the assassins. The
government has the power to choose who is assassinated; if this system were corrupt, the
government could direct the assassins to kill whoever they like. Most commonly, in countries where
their legalised system may be corrupt, there is a potential for discrimination of particular races,
religions or social groups. It is likely that specific groups may be targeted, and consequently they
may be subject to an unlawful death without a fair trial proving the guilt for such terrorist actions.
In more developed nations there are ethics regarding fair trail, where law and justice should play a
key role in deciding the fate of a single life. Whether this only applies to people who do not follow
the same laws is another argument.

There is a huge degree of human error in society, which is likely to have an impact of the
effectiveness of the operations. There is a high chance of mistakes and inaccuracy with the decisions
and objectives, which could potentially lead to the unnecessary death of innocent bystanders. An
example of human error in identifying targets is the accidental killing of an 18 year old male in
Palestine by an Israeli death squad at the Bureij refugee camp on the 22nd of August 2001. The
Israelis sought the boy’s father, however by a turn of events killed the boy in a car bomb. This was
referred to as “collateral damage” and was dismissed by the Judeo-Masonic organization in America.

Having multiple assassination organisations can cause unethical issues such as competition
between agencies. Having multiple agencies can have two outcomes; one is that the organisations
can work together to have more efficient and effective work. The other possible outcome is agencies
competing against one another to have the best and fastest organisation. Although this competition
could be healthy, there is risk that the work could be rushed and complications of agencies targeting
the same person or group of people could arise. The competition can create a race-like environment
that is dealing with the life and death of certain people. It is unethical to “race” other agencies in
eliminating people, as is the possibility of the ethics and values of the agency submerged by the
need for a swift assassination.

When starting a state sponsored assassination organisation, money, weapons and training are
required. Training a person to kill, and to be secretive and lie isn’t seen as being ethically correct.
There is a major issue in the idea of trust associated with state-sponsored assassination, as it is
hard to put all of society’s trust into an assassin who is being paid to kill another person. The
agencies are provided with resources by the government to complete an act that is not condoned by
all of society. In a murder trial, a unanimous decision is needed to find the accused guilty. Using this
idea it isn’t right to assassinate someone without the unanimous decision of a whole society or
country.

By 1980 it was reported in the Washington Post that the mujahedeen were receiving arms from the
U.S., although former CIA director Robert Gates admits that the support actually began in 1979.
Throughout the U.S. aid to the mujahedeen, approximately $3-6 billion was invested into recruiting
and training both mujahedeen fighters and others from the three million Afghan refugees in
Pakistani and other Islamic countries. According to Pakistani General, Mohammed Yousaf, by 1983
10,000 tons of arms and ammunition had been provided. One of the many recruits was Osama bin
Laden, who resulted in recruiting 4,000 more volunteers and working closely with the CIA. “In 1988,
with U.S. knowledge, bin Laden created Al Qaeda (The Base): a conglomerate of quasi-independent
Islamic terrorist cells spread across at least 26 countries,” wrote Rahul Bhedi, an Indian journalist.
Osama bin Laden was later blamed for the 9/11 terrorist attack, after being recruited, trained, and
provided with resources by the U.S. The Los Angeles Times reported that a U.S. diplomat in Pakistan
stated, “This is an insane instance of the chickens coming home to roost, you can’t plug billions of

10
dollars into an anti-Communist jihad, accept participation from all over the world and ignore the
consequences. But we did.”

The Osama bin Laden case is an extreme example of the consequences of how providing training
and weapons to people can have negative effects, and the risk involved with trusting someone to not
deceive. State sponsored assassination requires training and resources similar to the bin Laden
case. The aim is to fight terrorism, but to fight it with terror (hence fighting fire with fire).
Essentially the U.S. created a terrorist, and there is a risk of history repeating itself, even if it is not
as large scale as the bin Laden case. It can be viewed as unethical to train a killer to kill a killer, or to
promote the use of terror. Anti-state sponsored assassination groups would view the duty of
assassins as unethical and hence instilling unethical morals and values in the assassins.

It could be argued that retaliation by state-sponsored assassination would be a fair move as

terrorism is an example of an asymmetrical war, meaning that the terrorists have the upper hand,
having planned it out and with all of the resources, whilst there is no indication when they are going
to attack and there is no provocation by the rest of society who are to bear the attack inflicted on
them.

Assassins are trained to be expert liars to the outside world. Not only is it morally wrong to lie, but
it can also create conflict within agencies, “Agents and case officers, working under false identities
over long periods of time, develop different perceptions of the ‘truth’ or ‘truths’ in plural… Lies, half
truths or omissions can endanger lives, wreck operations and worse of all, could taint assessments.”
Assassins are required to potentially risk the lives of accused terrorists and innocent bystanders
and adopt an unethical role of lying.

Although there are many unethical arguments against state sponsored assassination, there are also
ethical reasons for it. The assassination of a terrorist can save the lives of potential victims, and
choosing assassination over war can save the lives of soldiers.

Agencies such as the Mossad aim to eliminate important figures within terrorist organisations. In
completing this aim the terrorist organisations become unstable and difficult to operate, i.e. without
a manufacturer or weapons, there are no bombs or guns, and without a leader there are no
directions as to who to target in attacks or who to recruit. It is for this reason that only one or a few
are targeted by these organisations. The assassination is not just spontaneously carried out, much
planning and investigating goes into the procedure. This ensures that the most possible lives are
protected from the harm that may be incurred to other victims. It keeps casualties to a minimum
while saving the lives of many potential victims. Another result of this is the lives that may be ruined
by recruitment in the terrorist organisations are protected. The lives of potential bombers are
saved, as well as the lives of their families and the families of potential victims are protected from
being shattered. The death of this one terrorist may cost one life, but at the price of thousands of
others that will consequently remain unharmed.

It can be argued that assassination can be more effective than going to war. It has fewer targets, and
fewer casualties, as well as having less of an economic effect, and similar goals can be accomplished.
Assassination can save the lives of the soldiers who would be sent to fight (from both sides of the
war) if war is chosen. Some argue, that the U.S. should have chosen to assassinate Saddam Hussein
over going to war. If this had happened, many of the soldiers who have been fighting in the war may
still be alive or at least lived longer. Choosing assassination over war could potentially save many.

11
If there were to be a state-sponsored assassination organisation, there would need to be ethics
standards, similar to that of the Israeli Intelligence ethics standards. The Intelligence ethics in Israel
have four main components, they are truth, protection of source internally and externally, resisting
internal cover-ups, and respect for religions.

The core of effective intelligence work is trust, truth, and true and full reporting. Intelligence is full
of expert liars and is hence is a danger. Lying can endanger lives; wreck operations and can taint
assessments. It is one of the standards that all Intelligence agents lie outside, but tell the truth
inside.

Agents are required to resist the temptation to use a source too much or too many times. When a
source is used, he or she increases the risk of exposure. Agents must be able to identify when not to
use a source and deny demands from high positions that could over-exploit the source.
Every intelligence agency strives to keep mistakes secret from the public, and especially, the media.
However, the agency must be punishable by law for failing to prevent a problem.
During training, agents are taught about different religions and are expected to respect all religion,
even in physical interrogations or operations. The main key religious principles are “He shall live by
them (the laws)”, “He who comes to kill you, you shall kill him first”, “Thou shall not stand idle while thy
friend bleeds”, and “Thou shall make war by cunning”. The latter is the most common justification for
Intelligence operations. It recognizes that ‘dirty tricks’ may be required in extreme circumstances
such as terrorism, when they would otherwise be viewed as unacceptable.

ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF APPROACHING TERRORISM

There are other approaches to stopping terrorism other than state-sponsored assassination.
However, nearly all of them are either set in place to prevent terror attacks from occurring or are
about using diplomatic means such communication and compromise. In the United States, the topic
of how to combat terrorism is leading the mainstream news agenda and has been a very important
issue in the lives of US citizens since the September 11 attacks in 2001, otherwise known as 9/11.

However, this new attention to effectively stopping terror campaigns may have mislead most
Americans, and indeed everyone else, about the genuine acts of terrorism – for instance, an analysis
by START (the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism)
revealed that of the fifty-three foreign terrorist groups deemed to be “the most dangerous to the

12
United States”, ninety-seven percent of their attacks were not on American soil. This provides
another problem to having alternative approaches to the terrorism threat other than state-
sponsored assassination; the question of the jurisdiction certain countries are allowed when
dealing with terrorists. Where does the jurisdiction of superpowers such as America end, and who
could possibly have the task of handling it? State-sponsored assassination does not have the same
drawback, because if every state had a group that sought to fight terrorism then the “red-tape” of
politics would not be troubled as the jurisdiction would be clearer.

The biggest field in making sure countries are kept safe from radical violence from extremist groups
is the area of counter-terrorism. Counter-terrorism are all the practices and tactics that such groups
as the government, military and police departments adopt in order to prevent or in response to
terrorist actions and threats. The measures that have been put in place under counter-terrorism
ideals have become stricter after the events of 9/11. Some of these include increasing the amount of
intelligence and surveillance, passing firmer anti-terrorism legislation, and increasing police power.
The current campaign that America, with support from the United Kingdom and other NATO
countries, has against the Middle East, dubbed the “War on Terror”, is a mix of defence policies and a
series of goals to accomplish in ridding the entire world of terrorism. Other points that the “war”
wishes to achieve, from the American point of view, are and have been:

 Defeat terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroy their
organizations
 Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations
 Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists
 End the state sponsorship of terrorism
 Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating
terrorism
 Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism
 Work with willing and able states
 Enable weak states
 Persuade reluctant states
 Compel unwilling states
 Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists
 Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens
 Diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit
 Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent
(re)emergence of terrorism
 Win the war of ideals
 Defend US citizens and interests at home and abroad
 Implement the National Strategy for Homeland Security

Surprisingly, one of the objectives that America has in this list of policies is to end the state-
sponsorship of terrorism, which is relatively similar to the model of state-sponsored assassination.
In saying this, however, the Bush administration claimed to want to achieve the destruction of
several terrorist figures and groups, through the use of the US military. Most would argue that war
in this form is just like the state-sponsored terrorism that they want to end, with their country
handing out weapons and money to fight for the rights of the nation.

It is hard to take the other option of peaceful reconciliation as a method of solving terrorist
conflicts because the conflict of ideologies and thoughts is by far a greater enemy to international

13
relations than any physical weapon. Reconciliation is one of America’s many objectives listed above,
as they want to “compel unwilling states” to help them in their war on terror. However, it is not very
clear how the United States would, theoretically, influence those nations or states on to their side of
the war through diplomatic means. Of course, in theory, diplomatic discussion would appear to be
the best plan to opt for, but once put into practice, compromise with terrorists will inevitably end in
loss of liberty and freedom, maybe even more so than using assassins to fight those battles.

There are numerous arguments for and against the use of either strict policies put in place to
prevent terror attacks or using ambassadorial methods in order to achieve peace. One major
problem with the two measures is that they lack any real effectiveness, because they have not
stopped terrorism completely, although it is doubtful that any technique could end the threat of
terror once and for all. State-sponsored assassination also has numerous negatives, such as the cost
of maintaining a group for the sole purpose of assassinating terrorist groups and the morals
questioned by such a method but, when compared to other methods, state-sponsored assassination
has the potential to work effectively to combat terrorism.

CONCLUSION

From the evidence provided, it can be seen that although there are negatives and complications to
combating terrorism with the use of state-sponsored assassination, the positives far outweigh
these.

The Mossad is an excellent example of the use of state-sponsored assassination in a real context.
Many of their missions have been successful and have saved many people from injury and death.
Ethics is, and will remain, an issue in this on-going worldwide debate, and each individual is likely
to have different opinions. However, at the heart of the matter is the number of lives potentially
saved by the loss of a single person who made little contribution to society.

14
It can also be seen that the other available methods of combating terrorism are impractical and will
never succeed in eliminating the threat of terrorism. Before launching into a campaign of anti-terror
using trained killers, this method must be carefully planned and monitored, as the killing of anyone
is never done lightly, and the training of professional killers has the potential to be dangerous. If
mistakes are made, they are irreversible. This is not to say, however, that this method should not be
employed by governments. With enough care anti-terror assassination groups could be established.

Of all the methods which could be used to disband terrorist groups, state-sponsored assassination
is the most effective and the most practical of all. This is one method which truly could eliminate
terrorist groups worldwide.

 REFERENCES
Books
(1) Colonel Peter M. Cullen, The Role of Targeted Killing in the Campaign Against Terror
(2) Matt Webster, Inside Israel’s Mossad: The Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks
(3) Richelson, Jeffrey T.(2002) When Kindness Fails: Assassination as a National Security
Option, International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 15: 2, 243 — 274
(4) Calahan, Alexander B. (1995) Countering Terrorism: The Israeli Response to the 1972
Munich Olympic Massacre and the Development of Independent Covert Action Teams
(5) Herb Keinon, Janine Zacharia, Lamia Lahoud, UN, US: Stop Targeted Killings, Jerusalem
Post
· Amnesty International, Israel and the Occupied Territories: State Assassinations and Other
Killings, Amnesty
 

15
World Wide Web
(3) http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/israel/mossad.htm
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Bet
(5) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/hits.html
(6) http://biu.ac.il/Besa/david.pdf
(7) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_hitler.html
(8)http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/28/911-misleads-americans-view-of-
terrorism/
 

16