Regardless of what one thinks of the arguments here (I agreed maybe 40%), this is a fascinating look into conservative and neoconservative views of terrorism in the 1980s. It is based on the proceedings of the Jonathan Institute's 1984 Conference on terrorism, which attracted seemingly all the big names of conservative thought as well as European and Israeli leaders and thinkers. The JOnathan Institute was named after Netanyahu's brother, who was the sole Israeli soldier to die in the Entebbe raid. This book expresses the deep moral outrage as well as the intellectual conceptions with which conservatives (and some liberals) in many countries approached terrorism. That makes it exceptionally useful for scholars of terrorism, thought, and politics. Plus, the essays are nice and short, which makes it a breeze to read.
Here's a list of some of the major themes that emerge in this book:
Terrorism as a struggle btw civilization and barbarism (they come close to saying this means East v West, but they don't quite say it. Still, this book is a bit clash of civilization-ish).
The legitimization problem: Terrorists use violence to gain publicity and a place at the political bargaining table. In short, there's a creep toward legitimizing them as just another political group (think the PLO). This book pushes hard against that trend, keeping them in the realm of criminality.
Root causes thinking: THis book totally rejects the idea that terrorism is an expression of social/political grievances, the denial of a formal political role/rights for a certain group, or that those are the root causes of terrorism. The writers in this volume see the root causes explanation as legitimizing terrorism by treating it as a means of resolving an injustice. They argue that terrorism is more often a first choice than a last resort and that terrorism emerges from radical ideology and the hunger for power, not out of root causes (huge difference with liberal ideas about terrorism here).
Terrorism as the Negation of Politics: You could see terrorism as the Clausewitzean continuation of politics by other means, but this book argues that terrorism negates politics in the sense of democratic political processes. Democracies are the main targets of terrorism bc they are more vulnerable and have a free press, but terrorists are inherently bypassing or seeking to destroy the peaceful, political means of achieving change. That makes them a huge threat to democracy.
Terrorists are Would-Be Tyrants: To the claim that "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter," this volume replies: no, terrorists are would-be tyrants. Their strategy is predicated on the denial of human rights and rejection of democratic processes and law, and when they take power they are almost always tyrannical, in large part because they have authoritarian or totalitarian ideologies. There are some exceptions (possibly Daniel Ortega), but I thought this was a compelling reframing of terrorism.
Terrorism is rooted in the revolutionary tradition: In this book, terrorism of the 70s and 80s springs from the revolutionary/totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century (Communism, Fascism, Maoism) applied by various contemporary leftist, nationalist, and Islamist groups. The key is that totalitarians argued that all things are political and within the writ of the state, that no one can be neutral, and terrorism makes essentially the same claim: there are no civilians, no one is innocent, everyone is a target. I thought this was a really interesting connection.
These are just a few of the many themes this book develops. I don't necessarily agree with them, but this book is a tremendous resource for scholars.