Comparative Analysis of Counter-Terrorism Strategies: USA and Israel

Introduction

The United States and Israel are two prominent global actors that have had to combat domestic and international terrorism throughout their histories, which has resulted in the development of counter-terrorism strategies. Due to their differences, the two nations approaches are unique. The U.S. is a large, multicultural federation with global interests and military involvement around the world; Israel is a small, somewhat homogeneous nation-state with distinct regional concerns. Yet, both nations share a strategic partnership, collaborating on security, defense, and intelligence matters. This paper provides a comparative analysis of the two states counter-terrorism strategies.

Threat Environment

The United States is a global superpower with wide-ranging interests and influence, faces a diverse set of threats from extremist groups around the world. International terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda have targeted the U.S. as a symbol of Western power and influence that they oppose. ISIS emerged in the early 2010s to take over large areas of territory in Iraq and Syria. It became notorious for its brutal violence and sophisticated use of online propaganda to inspire attacks worldwide. Al-Qaeda, which gained global prominence for its role in the 9/11 attacks, has been a persistent adversary, despite the U.S.'s efforts to dismantle it. In terms of terror threats, these have been the two main terror groups on the radar of the U.S. in the 21st century (Farag, 2020).

However, apart from these international groups, the U.S. also faces threats from domestic terrorists and homegrown violent extremists. These individuals or groups are based in the U.S. but may be inspired by foreign extremist ideologies. They encompass a wide spectrum of ideologies, on both the right and the left, and they tend to be anti-government extremists. Racial Islamic terrorists are also a threat. The 9/11 attacks were the most devastating the nation has faced, resulting in nearly 3,000 deaths and leading to significant changes in U.S. policy. In the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. adopted a much more aggressive counter-terrorism stance, leading to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and significant changes in domestic security policy. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the adoption of the USA PATRIOT Act, which expanded law enforcement's surveillance and investigative powers, are examples of these changes. 9/11 also led to a substantial reorientation of the U.S.'s defense and foreign policy, with counter-terrorism becoming a central focus. This shift has had enduring implications for U.S. engagements around the world and has shaped its military, diplomatic, and intelligence activities for the past two decades. The U.S.'s approach to counter-terrorism continues to evolve in response to the changing nature of the terrorist threat (Farag, 2020).

Israel's geopolitical location and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict have made it a constant target of terrorism since its founding in 1948 (Ganor, 2021). The threats it faces are primarily from regional actors and are intrinsically tied to broader political, ethnic, and religious tensions.

Hamas and Hezbollah are two of the most prominent groups that have carried out attacks against Israel. Hamas, a Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist militant organization, has been a significant actor in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has conducted numerous attacks against Israel, including suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and shootings. While it primarily operates in the Gaza Strip, its influence extends throughout the Palestinian territories (Ganor, 2021).

Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shi'a Islamist political party and militant group, poses a different but substantial threat. With the backing of Iran, Hezbollah has become a significant military force and has engaged in numerous conflicts with Israel, including the 2006 Lebanon War. It has also carried out numerous terrorist attacks against Israeli targets.

In addition to these groups, Israel faces threats from various other factions tied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and...

Israel has also adopted stringent homeland security measures and has less emphasis on diplomatic and economic counter-terrorism strategies due to its geopolitical situation. These measures encompass a wide range of practices, including strict security checks at public places, widespread surveillance, and highly trained reaction forces. The construction of the West Bank Barrier, a physical barrier along the West Bank, is an example of the extreme measures Israel has taken to prevent terrorists from infiltrating its territory. Given the pressing nature of its security situation, Israel puts less emphasis on diplomatic and economic strategies in its counter-terrorism efforts. This does not mean they are entirely absent, but rather they take a back seat to immediate defense and security needs (Ganor, 2021).

However, some aspects of Israel's strategy have raised concerns about potential human rights violations. For example, Israel has been criticized for its policy of collective punishment. In the context of counter-terrorism, this often means punishing not justthe individuals directly involved in terrorism, but also their families or broader communities. Examples include the demolition of homes belonging to the families of suspected terrorists. Critics argue that these measures are not only ethically questionable, but they can also fuel resentment and radicalization, potentially exacerbating the very problem they aim to address.

Conclusion

The US and Israel both prioritize counter-terrorism but their strategies reflect the unique challenges each country faces. The US, given its superpower status and global reach, focuses on a combination of hard and soft power strategies. Israel, dealing with persistent existential threats, leans towards militaristic and security-oriented tactics. The efficacy of counter-terrorism strategies is often context-specific, and what works for one nation might not work for another. Moreover, it is essential to balance security with respect for human rights and international law, as failing to do…