In their coverage of the recent bombings in Sinai, world media could not help but to ponder the significance of the timing and targets of these terrorist attacks. What concerns us here is not so much the identity of the perpetrators of these acts, which investigations will eventually bring to light, but who benefits. In considering this question, we must probe much further afield than Sinai and in so doing we should remove as many blinkers as we can. As appalling as they were, the aim of the bombings was not merely to target innocent civilians, and the perpetrators were not so stupid as not to realise the negative repercussions their acts would have on whatever their political or religious calling might have been. Nor is the beneficiary that difficult to pinpoint, and this may not be the perpetrators but rather the agency that propelled them to this course of action, whether or not there exists a direct cognizant relationship between the motivator and the instrument. We have a jigsaw puzzle to piece together. However, the terrorist operations are only some of the pieces, and only by standing back and considering larger aims and motives can we begin to see the whole picture. This may appear a curious line of approach, however, it not only rests on an internal logic, it is also one adopted by security and intelligence agencies throughout the world. The 20th century Middle East, in particular, has been a theatre for this ambiguous connection between the act and the interested party. Perhaps the Lebanese civil war (1975-1989) offers the prime example of the intricate and confusing interplay between standing armies, sectarian militias, armed resistance groups, terrorist groups, as well as the intelligence agencies from various quarters of the world, in the devastation of a country and the dissemination of chaos for many long years. While the Lebanese case is now history, Iraq following the US-British invasion offers a clearer more contemporary model of unwitting collaboration in the destruction of a nation. Anglo- American forces, Iraqi resistance groups, armed terrorist organisations parading under Islamic banners and, of course, intelligence operatives from various countries, are busily wreaking wholesale demolition of the political, economic and social infrastructure of an entire people. The human tragedy that took place in the normally peaceful Sinai resorts cannot be viewed in isolation from the endless chain of violence and counter-violence enveloping the Middle East. Indeed, in occupied Gaza, only a few kilometres way from Taba, Sharon's forces are killing dozens of civilians by the day and demolishing the homes of many more. That the Arab media meets this Israeli violence with an increasingly strident form of "holy war" rhetoric gives rise to the supposition that the perpetrators of the Sinai bombings may have been Arabs or Egyptians. Certainly, events in Palestine and Iraq and, more recently, the machinations revolving around Sudan have combined to breed the raw material or the willing tools that can be put to ready use by the many players in this region. The manipulation of the perpetrators of the Sinai bombings and other terrorist acts that seem to strike randomly around the world is clearly systematic in that it aims to maintain a state of disequilibrium and unrest. This may serve the interests of some party or parties, but it certainly does not serve the interests of the nations of this region, including Iran and Turkey. However, what is certain is that as long as parties in this region or abroad espouse policies that foster terrorism we are in for more horrors, and these can take place anytime, anywhere and against any nationality.
