Islamic State

Islamic State

S P SETH

In a world plagued with multiple crises, the self-proclaimed Islamic State (of Iraq and Levant) has emerged as another lightening rod for a region that is already facing quite a few fires. Its rapid advance through Mosul and threatening Erbil at one point, the capital of Iraq’s Kurdish region, has sent shock waves bringing the US back into Iraq to contain this new threat. Indeed, the new Islamic army didn’t have to do much by way of fighting to occupy Mosul, because the Iraqi forces simply fled abandoning much of their American weaponry and equipment as a helpful contribution for the ISIL forces. The advancing forces also helped themselves to the vast treasury left behind. And the orgy of killings by the ISIS continued with gruesome pictures of those executed put on social media sites. While the enemy was advancing, the Iraqi political establishment was undecided, at that point of time, about who will govern the country. The elections held on April 30 had returned Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s party as the single largest group but nowhere near a majority to form a government. He will soon be replaced as Prime Minister by Haider al-Abadi.

Why has the Iraqi situation reached this critical point? The starting point, of course, was the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which simply opened up a Pandora’s box that refuses to be put together. The situation got even more complicated when the Maliki Government played divisive sectarian and ethnic politics, targeting Sunnis and being distrustful of the Kurds. Even though Maliki had suffered greatly under Saddam Hussein and spent many years in exile in Iran and Syria, as Prime Minister he was largely practicing his former tormentor’s politics of fear and terror against his presumed enemies, the Sunnis. The tribal Sunni coalition forged with American support and involvement against al Qaeda in Iraq, that eventually killed its leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroyed much of its structure, was allowed to dissipate under Maliki as he didn’t want to share power with the Sunnis. In other words, Maliki was a paranoid leader keen to centralize power under his control and his faction of the Shiite community. However, considering all the fault lines of Iraqi politics of sectarian and regional divisions, it was probably expecting too much of any Iraqi leader to create and lead an inclusive Iraq. Iraq was and remains a fractured state. Maliki simply made an already difficult situation worse.

Will Haider al-Abadi be able to do a better job of uniting Iraq’s fractured politics and society? A hopeful feature in this respect is that his selection was welcomed by both the United States and Iran separately. In the short term, therefore, there is likely to be much talk of a united government with better representation for the Sunnis and Kurds. An ‘inclusive’ government will mean more US military and humanitarian assistance, and greater Iranian support (of all sorts) for the new political order. But, considering the deep-rooted sectarian, regional and ethnic fault-lines, such unity is unlikely to hold for long. The sectarian violence seems to have its own momentum.

A hopeful by-product of ‘inclusive’ politics, if it works, is that it might help to detach Sunni tribes and other Sunni groups from the brutal Islamic State, as happened when they helped the US military to suppress the al Qaeda in Iraq in 2006 and 2007. Whether or not it will happen is a matter of conjecture and hope. But increased American involvement, being canvassed increasingly by powerful figures in the US after the beheading of an American journalist, is likely to contain the threat from the Islamic state. It seems to be already happening in northern Iraq with intense US aerial bombardment. A combination of Kurdish pesh merga (military) forces on the ground, supported by stepped up US aerial strikes, is producing results for the time being at least. They have, for instance, retaken the Mosul dam from the IS forces.

In any case, the potential for the self-proclaimed caliphate is rather limited. There is much talk of great economic resources at its disposal and looted weaponry helping its onward march. But, over an extended period, any state entity would need to create a governing structure with recurring revenues and ability to engage in trade with other countries like, for instance, to sell oil from its captured oil fields and refineries. And that would be quite daunting for the Islamic State under constant attack and international isolation. Which doesn’t mean it will cease to be dangerous. It will certainly continue to be a magnet for jihadists of all sorts within Iraq and Syria as well as radical Muslims from abroad.

An important question is how best to create regional consensus on the issue? For Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies, including Turkey, the over-arching regional issue has been and is the sectarian divide between the Sunnis and Shias, the latter identified with Iran’s ambitions to carve out a powerful role. And this has been the driving force behind them helping jihadist groups of all sorts. But with the Islamic State and the caliphate becoming a potent threat, these Gulf kingdoms might have to rethink their entire strategy. A militant expansionist Islamist movement, committed to spreading its own version of Sunni Islam under the overarching umbrella of caliphate, is as much a danger to Shia Iran as it is to Sunni monarchies in the Gulf. The US would very much want the broadest regional consensus and a united front to stem the rising tide of the IS. But will it be possible to bring together Shia Iran and the Sunni Arab states of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf kingdoms to fight this menace? It doesn’t seem likely, considering their history. And it is these contradictions that might give enough political space to the new Islamic State to maneuver.

In the US-led international response to the ISIS militancy, the Kurdish region of Iraq is understandably getting much more attention by way of humanitarian and military assistance. The humanitarian situation of the Yazidi people of the Sinjar region, under siege by the IS forces, seems improved. But other minorities are now being targeted. And the threat to Erbil, the capital of the Kurdish region, appears to have been contained after the US aerial bombing. But such US commitment to Kurdish security is likely to create resentment among the Shias. In the larger regional context, any strengthening of Kurdish autonomy in Iraq will have spill on effects, over time, creating pressure for a regional Kurdish homeland. In other words, there are multilayered fault lines in Iraq and the region.  And this could work to the Islamic State’s advantage.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

Israeli terrorism

S P SETH

Whether or not there is a ceasefire, Israel wants to continue the massacre in Gaza. Of course, there is the excuse/justification that Israel is simply exercising its right of self defence against incoming rockets fired from Gaza by Hamas and other associated groups. But there are only two Israeli civilians killed from rocket firing, while the Israeli bombing, at the time of writing, has killed over 1800 Gazans (and rising). And 80 per cent of those killed are civilians, many of them women and children. In other words, Israel is using the civilian population as ransom to crush the resistance movement spearheaded by Hamas. Undoubtedly, most Gazans and other Palestinians share the aspiration to become masters in their own homeland.  Who wouldn’t when your territory is besieged from all sides and the people are confined to a vast prison-like existence with all movements of humans and goods dependent on Israel’s mercy? And there is no hope in hell of any redemption, unless the world wakes up to the Palestinian misery.  By and large, the Arab world and the larger international community have abandoned the Palestinians. This is what Israel wants.  Every time it pounds the Palestinians in Gaza and/or West Bank, its narrative presents itself as the victim and much of the world seems to buy it.

What is this narrative? Essentially, it preys on the holocaust visited on the Jews and other pogroms they were subjected to when they lived in Europe. And the stereotypes created about them, reproduced also in the United States, have been a part of the mainstream European literature and culture. Its culmination by way of a ‘final solution’ under the Nazis, and European and American indifference to their plight, finally persuaded these countries to salvage their conscience by creating a ‘homeland’ for these people. And since the Zionist movement wanted to ‘reclaim’ their ‘homeland’ in Palestine, it didn’t seem a difficult proposition as the Palestinians were among the most powerless people in the world. Which would explain why the creation of the state of Israel got the stamp of approval from the UN Security Council. Against this backdrop of victimhood in which, incidentally, the Palestinians had no role to play, the state of Israel emerged as a ‘heroic’ tale of a people managing to return to their ‘lost’ land. And when this story had supporters among almost all members of the Security Council, it was not difficult to see how it became an ‘acceptable’ narrative.   

The problem, though, was that the people of Palestine didn’t want to be displaced and replaced from where their forefathers had lived forever. They, therefore, put up strong resistance and their consequent struggle, backed by some of the Arab countries, only resulted in greater misery. Israel, created and nurtured with US support, money and weaponry, proved too powerful for the Arab coalition. And in the six days war of 1967, Israel exponentially expanded its occupied territory, leading its defence minister Moshe Dayan to declare that Israel is now an empire. Since then this basic fact that Israel is an occupying power acting at will and constantly altering ground realities, is a constant. Notwithstanding the Oslo agreement of 1993 creating a framework for a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian issue, and subsequent efforts in that direction-- the recent one by John Kerry whom the Israeli government found so annoying--, Israel simply doesn’t want a political solution that will accommodate Palestinian aspirations. The entire façade, over the years, of a political solution is a gimmick to drag on the process to a point where it becomes pointless and fruitless. Israel wants total capitulation, with an acceptance of an even deeper state of apartheid than exists today. Better still, they would like to make the Palestinians’ existence so miserable that they would just exit their homeland like many did before.

Just look at what they are doing to Gaza.  Gaza is a vast open-air prison with its 1.8 million people as prison inmates, surrounded on all sides by Israel. Some Israelis have, at times, urged that it be reduced to ‘stone age’ or simply flattened. And at best, its residents should be kept at a bare subsistence level to keep them  occupied with their sheer survival. But the problem is that despite periodical flattening of parts of their territory and mass murder of their people from Israeli bombing and missile attacks, they still haven’t submitted to Israeli terror. Egypt sought to bring about a ceasefire on Israeli terms, which amounts to total surrender on Gaza’s part. In essence it would mean the demilitarization of the Gaza strip under Israeli control.

But Hamas hasn’t been willing to go so easily, and has kept up its barrage of rockets falling in Israel but without causing any real damage, while Israeli bombing is killing people on an industrial scale. Watching women and children in cries of despair is heart rending. But Netanyahu reportedly described them as the “telegenic corpses” of the Palestinian children. How sick! But the Israeli narrative, however grotesque and cruel, still is that they are bombing and killing Gazans as a defensive measure. And that is not the end of it. Its ground invasion is intended to destroy, according to Israel, the network of tunnels that are, in some ways, Gaza’s alternative lifeline. Israel wants to destroy the entire infrastructure that makes Hamas continue its resistance.

And Egypt under Sisi, like his predecessor Hosni Mubarak, is facilitating this task with even greater enthusiasm. Some of its journalists, working for the state-controlled media, reportedly are even appreciative of Israeli efforts to eliminate Hamas. Indeed, the defeating silence of the Arab world on the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip is a sad reflection on its state of affairs in the wake of the so-called Arab Spring. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies have no love lost for Hamas, regarded as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Which, in turn, has been banned as a terrorist organization in Egypt, with its entire leadership in prison and many of them sentenced to death or long prison sentences. Saudi Arabia is right behind the Sisi regime in its crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. Against this backdrop of politicking within the Arab world targeting Muslim Brotherhood, it is not entirely surprising that the Hamas finds itself so much isolated. And Israel is getting away with murder and mayhem. Still, Israeli forces might find the going hard to pacify Gaza Strip as even the inveterate Israeli warhorse Ariel Sharon found when he finally withdraw Israeli occupation and settlements from there.   

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au