|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Hamas: Dangers May Be Greater Than Recent Casualties By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire The crude chemical weapons used by Hamas during two recent suicide bombings in Israel caused few casualties, but the psychological impact and the threat of state sponsorship may still make chemical weapons dangerous in the hands of terrorists, sources told Global Security Newswire last week. The two bombings, one in Jerusalem and one in the northern Israeli city of Haifa, are thought to have involved a crude attempt at chemical weapons, Israeli officials said last week. Tests conducted on bomb remnants detected traces of chemicals, which led officials to believe the bombs had been dipped in pesticides before they were used (see GSN, Dec. 10). Crude chemical bombs would likely not be any more effective than bombs made simply with conventional explosives, said Van Blackwood, a spokesman for the Federation of American Scientists Working Group on Biological Weapons Verification in Washington. “If this is the end of their technology, then there isn’t much concern,” he said. The heat from an explosion would likely neutralize any of the chemical weapons in a laced bomb, said Ian Lesser, a policy researcher for the think tank RAND in Arlington, Va. Blackwood said the failure of the Hamas attack to inflict additional casualties through the use of chemicals illustrates the difficulties for terrorist groups to make a biological or chemical weapon. “It’s not easy even for large terrorist groups [such as Hamas],” Blackwood said. Not Just Lack of Casualties The relative ineffectiveness of crude chemical weapons is not the only disincentive against using such indiscriminate weapons, Lesser said. For example, the close proximity of Arabs and Israelis living together makes the weapons less attractive. “An Arab trying to hit Israelis may not hit who you want,” Lesser said. Additionally, Israel might respond to the use of a weapon of mass destruction with more radical measures than it would use against conventional weapons, according to Lesser. He added that international support for such a reaction is also more likely. Lesser said these drawbacks may make the use of any more advanced chemical weapons unattractive to terrorist groups like Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Although there are fewer constraints on these groups than in the past, Lesser said, the two groups “don’t seem to have an apocalyptic agenda.” Fear Factor The more damaging effect of such crude chemical attacks may be psychological, experts said. “Terrorist groups understand that fear is as important as casualties,” Blackwood said. Lesser agreed that there was “no question” that the thought of chemical weapons scares people. The fear caused among the U.S. population by the recent crude anthrax attacks may have helped to inspire Hamas, an Israeli official in Washington said. “If anthrax was driving Americans crazy, the extremists see it as a good idea,” the official said. Lesser said, however, that the group may have looked further back for inspiration, to the Gulf War. While the Iraqi Scud attacks on Israel caused few casualties, he said, the idea that the missiles might have been equipped with weapons of mass destruction inspired fear, and fear of weapons of mass destruction has lasted in Israel. “If [terrorists] are looking for any kind of echo, it would be an echo of that,” Lesser said. The experience with Iraqi Scuds has prepared Israelis for nonconventional attacks, the Israeli official said. Every Israeli citizen has a kit that contains a gas mask and various medications effective against chemical and biological agents, he said. Still, he added, security professionals in Israel took the recent Hamas attacks very seriously. “It’s a transformation and we have to transform as well,” the official said. State Backing? A group wishing to conduct a more powerful chemical attack would likely need backing from countries such as Iraq or Iran, experts said. Even though the Hamas bombers acted alone, there was an organization behind them, Lesser said. “Logistical support would be needed.” State sponsors may be reluctant to give terrorists more powerful warfare agents, Lesser said. Weapons of mass destruction are a “symbol of power” for many states, he said, and added that the concept of deterrence is more of an issue for states than it is for terrorists. The prospect that groups like Hamas could receive state support for attacks with weapons of mass destruction still has officials worried. “The combination of a state sponsor, weapons of mass destruction and terrorists is a very dangerous equation,” the Israeli official said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
