State-sponsored terrorism: How it aligns with SWTRivalries employ state-sponsored terrorism as a tactic tofrustrate their rivals, creatingsecurity-related issuesfor the target state at aconstant rate.However,this strategy may increase thelikelihood of interstate disputes,escalating to warafter years.This might be because non-state actors maynot be able to create substantial destabilization, public panic, or economic losses at once, but their consistent attacks could make itpossible after years. For example,the continuous sponsorship by Arab states of non-state actors againstIsrael took years to createsubstantial problemswhichinstigated the likelihood of war.Israel andEgypt fought a war in 1956, but for the next 11 years, Arab states did not engage militarily with Israel; instead, they sponsoredseveral non-state groups against Israel: the formation of Fatah in 1959, the PLO in 1964 and subsequently its offshoots, for
example. They took significant time and conducted attacks to inflict economic and human losses on Israel. These attacks potentiallychanged the perceptions of the leadership of the target states and sponsoring states. Sponsoring states considered it an opportunityto hurt their rival with plausible deniability, while the attacks increased panic among the security personnel and civilians of the targetstate to such an extent that the target state took retaliatory actions and prepared its armed forces to meet with any eventuality.Moreover,state-sponsoredterrorismis anintermediary stepthatproducesthe behaviorthat isactually responsible forescalationin conjunction with other escalating steps,includingarmsracesandalliance formation.This is becauseterroristattacksand the target’s responseinfluencethe behaviorof the states involved, and alsoinfluence policymakers’ perceptionsof the otherstate’s intentions.6 Journal of Asian and African Studies 00(0)Thegrowing rivalrybetween Arabs and Israelgavemore space to distrust, and sponsorship by Arab states evenexacerbatedthe regionalsetting andenhanced the threat perception. These actionschanged the perceptionsofIsraelihardlinersand convinced themtobepreparedfor the worst.In this way state-sponsoredterrorismpushesstates to takeadditional escalating steps.Thus, state sponsorship of non-state actors is oneof the escalating steps, and aligns with SWT.Escalation on two frontsState-sponsored terrorism arguably works on two fronts. But how? The positional maneuvering of some Middle Eastern statescoupled with the gravity of disputes and grievances pushed them to provide critical support to non-state actors, which can be tracedto Middle Eastern rivalries.State sponsorship is mainly driven by the desire to create security challenges and weaken the rival state. In this way, sponsorshipplays the role of a double-edged sword. On one hand, it potentially creates unrest and fear among the population, and hamperseconomic activities. At this stage, the target state takes stringent actions against non-state actors directly, or supports another groupto counter them, escalating the conflict. For example, after a fierce battle in Jordan in the 1970s, the PLO leadership moved andestablished headquarters in Lebanon, and continued its attacks against Israel with the support of Syria. Its constant attacks createdpanic among the population, created security challenges, and frustrated Israel. Subsequently, Israel carried out aggressive strikes
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
End of preview. Want to read all 52 pages?
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
