What, for instance, can we learn from the
Israeli experience? That people become inured to living
in a state of war. That retribution brings peace to the
soul, if not on earth. That the people, not the
government, choose the course their country will follow.
That while difficult, it is possible to reject taking a
hard line. That democracy is stronger than
dictatorship.
Millions of Jews perished in the
Holocaust, and many of the murderers managed to escape
punishment by emigrating to South America or changing
their names. Israel settled the issue of retribution;
though it took many years, the criminals were hunted
down and executed. In the 1970s, the terrorist brigade
that murdered Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics
met the same fate.
Those who take children hostage and blow
up apartment buildings deserve nothing less. The best
thing to do with the organizers of an attack such as the
one in Beslan last week is to kill them. The knowledge
that everyone directly involved was eliminated will
increase the chances for peace in the Caucasus. No
matter how many years pass, no matter what name the
terrorists go by or where they are hiding -- in Buenos
Aires, London or the Pankisi Gorge.
Their elimination should not be a matter
of honor but the routine work of the state. If Chechen
rebel leader Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev was indeed murdered
by Russian intelligence agents, then the real scandal is
not that they did it, but that they were left
defenseless when the operation didn't come off exactly
as planned. In a similar situation 10 years ago, the
Israelis found the will and a way to save their
agents.
The hard line proposed by Vladimir Putin
to restore Russian control in Chechnya was never the
only option, nor, perhaps, was it the best of those
available. But a majority of Russians approved this
policy at the ballot box in the 1999 parliamentary
election and the presidential election in 2000.
When the Israelis approach an election,
they know the alternatives. Advocates of a softer line
-- in the Israeli case, those who support making
significant concessions to the Palestinians -- may lose
at the polls, but the fact of public discussion helps to
legitimize government policy and to ensure that it
enjoys greater public support.
So long as a hard-line leader remains in
power that line tends to harden. The government of
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is a good example of
how a country can be drawn into a long cycle in which
ever bloodier terrorist attacks alternate with ever more
brutal reprisals. But where the failure of a hard-line
policy spells the end of the entire political system in
a nondemocratic country, in a democracy a hard line can
give way to a more peaceful approach.
Another lesson we can learn from Israel
is that democracy can triumph in conflicts with
authoritarian regimes -- even without cracking down on
criticism of the government and the security services.
Then again, it's not exactly clear why
Putin should come in for criticism. As you may recall,
he wasn't the one who chose to pursue a hard line in
Chechnya. The Russian people did when they voted him
into office.
Konstantin Sonin is an assistant
professor at the New Economic School/CEFIR.
.gif){kind=spacer}