Who exactly are the New Syrians
Dr. Halla Diyab/Al Arabiya/March 2 4/16/
As divided politicians gathered in a small white marquee pitched on a sweeping lawn at the UN’s Palais des Nations in Geneva, their division spoke of the shrinking hopes of finding a political route out of the overdue Syrian peace talks. Meanwhile, the shores of the Mediterranean were lined with hope for ships passing in the dark nightwith refugees and potential extremists. Five years on from the Syrian uprising, the international community is fixated on questions of how and when the two sides will agree on a political resolution. However, another question has received little or none of the world’s attention, which is “who exactly are the new Syrians?” The Syrian crisis has resulted in the largest refugee exodus in recent history. The armed conflict, which erupted five years ago, has forced over eleven million Syrians out of their homes, with 7.6 million internally displaced and four million fleeing Syria. According to the UNHCR data, in Europe alone Syrian asylum applications exceeds 897,645 and the continent has 4,812,204 registered Syrian refugees. Syrian refugees are in the top ten nationalities of Mediterranean Sea arrivals, which numbered 156,519 in 2016. And as thousands of native Syrians pour out of Syria, attempting to reach Europe across the Mediterranean, there are thousands of Europeans openly travelling to Syria to fight with the terrorist group ISIS – possibly over 6,000 according to one EU source. Unlike al-Qaeda, ISIS has established territorial existence in the heart of the Middle East, something which will facilitate the process of settlement and support its long-term goals of reconstructing the identity of Syria. This spatial and ideological crossover is remapping the Syrian existence and these interconnected journeys, together with the rapid territorial expansion of ISIS in Syria – 50 percent of which is reportedly occupied by terrorists– urgently beg the question whether this mass movement of people is a straightforward exodus of desperation for a better life and the desire for survival, or rather, a strategic ISIS orchestrated ploy to eliminate Syrians from Syria, and a war of Syrian extermination.
With the political instability, and increasing upheaval since the uprising, the mass departure of Syrians on boats and the rapid vacation of Syrian land is an opportunity for ISIS to reinforce its territorial existence in Syria by taking over the land and deserted houses. They can fill these with the European and foreign extremists who are flocking to the country, either immigrating with their families or being encouraged to start new families.
This process of extremist resettlement is not only taking advantage of the precarious situation in Syria but is also supporting the long-term goal of ISIS to rear the next generation of loyalists, who will not only be ideologically indoctrinated with the extremists’ narrative but will also be identified with the territorial existence of ISIS on Syrian land. Unlike al-Qaeda, ISIS has established territorial existence in the heart of the Middle East, something which will facilitate the process of settlement and support its long-term goals of reconstructing the identity of Syria by raising a whole new extremist generation in the county.
The breeding strategy of ISIS is based on offering generous financial incentives to the extremists to facilitate their family’s start up project, topped up with additional money for each child born. With ISIS’ influential propaganda machine successfully attracting thousands of foreigners to Syria, the group is achieving an acceleration of their program of eliminating diversity in the Syrian population and systematically transforming Syria into an ISIS’ state. This represents a gradual and internationally unacknowledged operation of cleansing and genocide of the Syrian people.
With estimates suggesting that the majority of Syrians will be located outside Syria in the coming years, relocating to different parts of the world and taking their culture with them, a territorial and cultural vacuum is being created. The ISIS is eradicating any traces of the most iconic Syrian cultural heritage and zealously pouring their own constructed culture into the void. The population shifts of militants and foreign fighters, and the generation that may follow it, will eventually become known as the new Syrians, with their culture not referred to as ISIS culture, but Syrian culture.
Transnational identity
ISIS transnational identity relies on the elimination of the Syrians’ national identity, but more significantly on the elevation and prioritizing of the rights and presence of Muslims from outside Syria above the indigenous Syrians. This ideological underpinning was manifested in the first audio speech of the group’s self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, where he encourages Muslims to immigrate to Syria as “Syria is not for the Syrians, and Iraq is not for the Iraqis … The [Islamic] State is a state for all Muslims”. The land is for the Muslims, all the Muslims”. History has an abundance of examples comparable to the Syrian scenario where people have had to leave their home countries en masse to survive war or oppression. In the 1970s millions of Indochinese took to the seas, fleeing conflict and brutal communist dictatorship; and many perished on these journeys of desperation. But the historical peculiarity of the Syrian situation is that it was sparked by an uprising which was aimed to bring a more politically and socially just society. However the uprising backfired and the country regressed into a state of collapse with the majority of its population fleeing their homeland. According to reports, 75 percent of Syrian refugees are men, 12 percent women and 13 percent children; Syria is gradually being emptied of its youth, and the possibility of viable political opposition thriving within the country is increasingly unlikely, The country is left a divided territory with armed factions fighting each other and al-Assad inside Syria, leaving no real hope for any political reform or rebuilding of the country’s destroyed infrastructure. The spatial exchange is causing the replacement of Syrians with foreign terrorists who have no emotional or national attachment to the country. This can play into the hands of ISIS’ brutality as it allows these fighters to ruthlessly carry out savage atrocities against Syria’s thousand years of ethnic and religious diversity, with the aim of constructing a Syria populated by extremists receptive to the extreme narrative of With the international community focusing its attention on the peace talks in Geneva, and the rising refugee crisis, we cannot afford to disregard the growing threat of ISIS gradually presenting themselves as the new face of Syria, and so we must not be allowed to be fooled into forgetting to ask in whose interest lies the emptiness of Syria of its people? And in what direction Syria is heading if the situation continues as it is now? And, most importantly, how will the world manage the increasing danger of the new Syrians?
Obama and Netanyahu: The final countdown
Yossi Mekelberg/Al Arabiya/March 2 4/16
Presidential election campaigns in the US tend to stretch longer than in the past and to consume every ounce of the country’s political energy. Spending this week in New York, really hits home how divided the society here is, ¬¬¬more than I can recall for a very long time. It is especially embodied in the vile and violent presidential campaign run by Donald Trump and his cronies. At the same time, it is also the final countdown for the eight years of President Obama in the White House, who seems to accomplish in his last year or so in office what he had not achieved in the previous seven years. Surprisingly enough, despite deep divisions in Washington and a Republican controlled Congress, in its dying months the Obama administration accomplished some notable foreign and domestic policy successes.
Reaching a deal with Iran over its nuclear program and then passing it in Congress, playing a major part in reaching the Paris climate change agreement and resuming diplomatic relations with Cuba after more than five decades of animosity, are quite a respectful list. However, one of the major failures for the current US president has been his inability to mediate peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, despite setting it as a major priority from the very early days of his presidency.
The dent of not advancing a peace in the Middle East cannot be separated from the problematic and gradual deterioration of relations between President Obama and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Last week Netanyahu,for instance, cancelled a visit to the US where he had been scheduled to attend the conference of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. Apparently, the cancellation of the visit was to avoid a meeting the American president.
Already in his first year in the White House, in a visit to Cairo, Obama expressed the supreme importance he attached to bringing about an end to the decades long Israeli – Palestinian conflict. He even became the first person to receive the Noble Peace Prize, the same year, for intentions to bring peace rather than actually reaching a successful peace agreement. His inexperience, even naivety, to be fair, were initially a major obstacle in his peace efforts. Later, and for the rest of his time in office, this inexperience was conflated with the gravest turmoil in the region, which made his efforts at peace increasingly more complex.
Painful learning curve
Nevertheless, much of the inability to overcome the fundamental causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted inside Israel and Palestine and the way it is played into US domestic politics. With the exception of short two months, President Obama has dealt with one Israeli prime minister only, Netanyahu, and this has been a steep and painful learning curve. Beyond becoming a national embarrassment for Israel, Netanyahu’s approach is harming Israel’s national interests and worse prolonging a conflict, which unnecessarily inflicts misery on so many Palestinians and to a lesser extent Israelis.
In a recent and wide-ranging series of interviews with American commentator Jeffery Goldberg for the Atlantic, Obama took off the gloves in portraying the way he sees Netanyahu’s leadership. As a matter of fact Obama expressed his general disappointment and disillusionment with leadership in the Middle East, but asserts that Netanyahu in this sense “…is in his own category.” Now that Obama is free of any elections, he articulates, one might argue vents, both personal distaste for the arrogance and condescending nature of the Israeli leader’s manner, as much as for his policies and lack of leadership.
Netanyahu has long made an utter nuisance of himself in lecturing consecutive US presidents on the complexity and pitfalls of the region, as if they were first year students in Middle East politics. This according to Goldberg, did not fail to irritate Obama to the point of clarifying to Netanyahu that reaching the highest office in the United States, especially with his background, should indicate that he was smart enough to understand the multilayered challenges of the Middle East. They do not see eye to eye on politics inthe region or even what is good for the Jewish state’slong-term survival.
It reminded of a story told to me some time ago by a former senior aide to President Reagan. He had met with Netanyahu in the early 1980s, when Netanyahu was a mid-rank appointee diplomat in the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC. Over lunch the young Israeli diplomat preached to this senior American official about the approach the US administration should follow in its foreign policy. Netanyahu sometimes sees this blunt approach as good old-fashioned Israeli ‘chtutzpah’, even charm, which helps him to get his way. This senior advisor, however, failed to see any charm in Netanyahu’s attitude and refused to see this budding politician ever again.
Beyond becoming a national embarrassment for Israel, Netanyahu’s approach is harming Israel’s national interests and worse prolonging a conflict, which unnecessarily inflicts misery on so many Palestinians and to a lesser extent Israelis. His approach toward negotiation with Iran failed colossally, and in his irresponsible efforts to undermine a US president on his domestic turf created an irreparable rift, at least until there is a new president. This compounded with intransigence on expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and imposing a blockade on Gaza, rendered the chance of any successful peace negotiations impossible. As much as one feels much sympathy for Obama’s frustration with the Israeli government, led by Netanyahu, one also cannot ignore Obama’s own responsibility for not showing firmer leadership and confronting Israel about the Palestinian issue the same way he did with the Iranian one. It is never easy for an American president to challenge Israel, considering the US domestic political configuration and the deep-rooted strategic and historical ties between the two countries. Unfortunately in failing to do so, he compromised the chances of achievingan historic peace in the Middle East to the detriment of Israeli-Palestinian and also his own country’s interests.
Why is Europe an ISIS target?
Maria Dubovikova/Al Arabiya/March 2 4/16
The terrorist attacks that targeted Brussels, the capital of Europe, carry several significant messages. It came right after the arrest of the mastermind of the Paris attacks – carried out on November 13 last year – which suggests that terrorists are proving to be unstoppable no matter how much efforts are made to catch them. For each fighter getting killed or captured, there are two that surface. This also suggests that this group of individuals don’t really need a leader and can carry out acts of terrorism more or less on their own. Terrorists are trying to undermine peace and security in Europe to derail its social development, target the center of the Union and end their liberty. They believe this will impact the future of Europe and dramatically weaken the West. At least that is what these terrorists aspire for. They are also intent on sending a strong message that they have a presence inside these countries and that they are in a position to strike at any time. This message is strengthened by the fact that they have managed to carry out attacks despite very high security measures. For months since the Paris attacks, Belgium has been living under the threat of terrorism. Yet the security agencies have failed and terrorists have managed to spread fear and panic. Responsibility for what has happened must be shared by many players. Those who are behind and responsible for these attacks are not just based in Belgium but have global presence and are also linked to each other.
ISIS propaganda materials always address its target audience. They highlight the “humiliating condition” of Muslims living in other countries. They also emphasize that Muslims have had to flee their homelands as life there had become unbearable due to outside intervention and that imperialistic policies of invading countries have destroyed the Muslim world.
Such messages are available in high quality visually attractive media packages and are delivered by means of colorful ISIS magazines, video messages and other components of ISIS media machine. They find resonance in the minds of the migrants, even those belonging to the second generation. Belgium adopted the most dangerous model of multiculturalism in which newcomers to their land, who had lost their natural surroundings, were not proposed to integrate socially, mentally, or culturally under the pretext of show of respect for their culture. Their minds, in the absence of a foundation of their own culture and without a firm background of their motherland, become susceptible to this propaganda. Brussels and Belgium have mostly been indifferent to what is happening with its Muslim communities. Extremist literature is sold openly in their bookshops. Activities taking place inside mosques and those of the preachers have not been monitored in the manner they should have been or have been entirely neglected. Belgium adopted the most dangerous model of multiculturalism in which newcomers to their land, who had lost their natural surroundings, were not proposed to integrate socially, mentally, or culturally under the pretext of show of respect for their culture. Apparently this respect didn’t include their dignity and equality of all inside the society. This problem is more or less common in other European societies. The West’s inadequate and shortsighted policies have brought the Middle East region to the brink of collapse, leading to conditions that give rise to extremism of all kinds based primarily on the immense hatred toward “non-believers”, as ISIS propaganda labels the West.
Failed policies
By continuing the same policy in the Middle East and trying to fight terrorism using insufficient means the West is aggravating the situation. This is causing migrant influx to Europe, which gets infiltrated by ISIS fighters. The process is perpetuated by the same failed policies on adaptation and assimilation fronts. All these put together make the current refugee problem a truly explosive mixture. In the current circumstances, Russia’s traditional “I told you so” position has a major significance for the Western counterparts. It is true that most of its predictions over the Western policies in the Middle East have come true. However, its own current policy now raises deep concerns and questions and it is time for all the sides to unite the forces to fight the terrorist and extremist threat. Russia could be an important element here taking into account its own experience of tackling terrorism and extremism on its territory.
Uniting forces should not only mean cooperation but also understanding that all lives matter. This approach of the whole world mourning victims of terrorism in the West is unacceptable. The lack of adequate response toward terrorist attacks killing tens and hundreds in the Middle East and the tragedies in Europe leave a feeling that most of the world still considers non-western world as one of another kind where lives are far less valuable than that of the “civilized Europeans”.Such an approach shows deep lack of trust and gives new alibi to extremists and their propagandists. The world should stand strong and united in its fight against extremism and work with the Muslim community on measures to counter the ISIS propaganda. We are all in one boat and if we start to sink nobody will survive.
