Divesting from PVE/CVE/CT Terminology
It has become recently clear that many subject matter experts in the West, as well as media leaders, are questioning the practicability and expediency of such terminology, that is not only antagonistic to local communities in the ME (Islamic label) but in view of rising white supremacist and anti-Semitic sentiments/movements in the West that we rid ourselves of such terminology and instead move on to conflict resolution (not only in fragile contexts) and peace building in communities. It is no longer a matter of 'prevention' or 'countering', rather a matter of 'diversity management', accepting the 'difference' and social peace. PVE/CVE initiatives have failed due to a security-centric approach, that not only alienates but divides communities. The latest attack in NZ is a proof to that. Governments, civil society and non-governmental organizations have to work together towards peace building rather than 'prevention' . We are all aware of the drivers of extremism. Lets see to it that we search for amends rather than confrontation. Contextualization is key as one-size does not fit all.
Mr. Khoury, I agree with many of your comments. In my former military life, we were focused on counter-terrorism (CT). I never liked the term because it was reactive vice proactive. A CT strategy's entire existence was contingent upon always having an enemy to counter. This led to a drastic oversimplification of the armed groups in the area lumping them all together as "terrorists," and ignoring the context of the situation. A far more viable approach, in my mind, is a promote stability strategy. This is more inclusive of the various methods needed to effectively resolve conflict.Reply