Important in calculating the risk of Daesh

Since the appearance of ISIS in Iraq and Syria over the last few years, journalists have been analyzing the situation. However, the approach of much of the coverage focuses on the number of fighters and their nationalities, which suggests a misunderstanding of the region and its people.

Western journalists have preconceived notions about the universality of the concept of nation states and many fail to understand that nationhood is a relatively modern concept, particularly in the Middle East where society and culture is based on thousands of years of development, at the core of which is a tribal mentality. The history of the region is one of tribes, brought together at various times and in different forms by strong leaders to form region-wide civilizations and empires.

The relevant empire in this situation is obviously the spread of Islam where various methods were used to convert the populations and bring them under the rule of the Caliphate. Over hundreds of years Islam has been overlaid local cultures and customs such that the shared culture across the region is those inculcated through Islam, far more than any modern notion of nationalism.

ISIS is tapping into that shared religious and cultural history to appeal to people across the region. The modern borders that define nation states across the region are not the best frame through which to assess the success of ISIS’ recruitment.

Understanding the origin of the fighters is useful in a practical sense for law enforcement and national security agencies responding to growing levels of radicalization to understand factors such as upbringing and life circumstances, but this is only part of the puzzle. This is demonstrated by estimates that 1,400 people from France have travelled to the region to fight with ISIS, and according to UK Police numbers, 700 British residents who were fighting alongside ISIS are now back in the UK.

This phenomenon can be explained if seen through the lens of ISIS’ declaration of a caliphate creating a global movement that transcends national borders by tapping into the shared culture of Islam, albeit an entirely warped interpretation of the religion.

When journalists talk about the majority of ISIS fighters coming from Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey, and Jordan it is quite misleading. Yes, there is a problem with radicalization in a country like Jordan, and yes there are many Jordanians who are fighting with ISIS. But Jordan shares a border with Iraq and Syria, has high levels of youth unemployment and a majority population of refugees. However, according to official Jordanian sources the current number of Jordanian fighters in both Syria and Iraq is around 900 fighters, this obviously doesn’t the existence of the phenomena but shows that the numbers circulating today in some reports are not accurate.

In addition, while we often see estimates of the number of fighters from these countries, we don’t look at where they actually came from and very rarely hear that nearly 20% of fighters were residents or nationals of Western European countries.

The facts remain that the whole world is facing the risk of ISIS and radicalization. There are various levels of threats depending on proximity to the region and the profile of various countries as a target for ISIS, but let us not fall into the trap of creating stereotypes that do not consider the cultural or historical context and lead to an unfair demonization of a country that is otherwise key in winning this battle and distract us from those real threats.

Dr. Amer Al Sabaileh

As ideologies shift in Europe

We are facing increasing crises in the world today. In the Middle East, so far, it is a security crisis, but other countries around the world are facing a more existential crises from serious ideological threats.In Europe, we are seeing the old contine…

What after the Syrian Israeli clash?

The recent Israeli attack in Syria could be part of a rebalanced power dynamic in the region. During the Syrian crisis Israel has launched several strikes against Syrian targets, which they claim were Hezbollah convoys and personnel.

This recent attack is one of the few times that Israel has actually declared it with sirens in Israel. Perhaps because of the consequences, including debris from a rocket in the northern Jordanian city of Irbid.

Syria’s reaction of launching missiles and a strong statement from the military is entirely new. This suggests they had support in this response.

According to many experts the surface to air S-200 (SA-5) missiles used by the Syrian army were unlikely to shoot down the Israeli jets, although their S300 missiles could have been more effective. These Russian made Syrian missiles meant Israel had to use its Arrow 3 missile defense system for the first time to destroy what the IDF described as a ballistic threat.

This was not the first time that Israeli jets conducted a strike in Syria, but it was the first time that they faced a strong military reaction. This could be a turning point as Israel becomes more cautious in carrying out such attacks.

Interestingly, it wasn’t only the military response from Syria that was novel. The Russian Foreign Ministry summoned Israel’s Ambassador to Moscow to protest the Israeli raid in Syria. This is the first time that Russia has interfered in this kind of incident. It is especially interesting given how recently Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited Moscow, which does not appear to have impacted positively on relations between the two countries.

Russia’s long-term presence in Syria has already reshaped the balance of power. This will have implications for several countries, especially Israel who is not used to asking permission to conduct an attack.

While Russia is not an enemy to Israel, it sees Syria as an ally so Russia’s ongoing presence in the region could have wider impacts, including on regional settlement. Moscow is likely to engage in all of the issues that face the region, including the peace process. So perhaps Russia would like to see this confrontation lead to more constructive negotiations.

Dr. Amer Al Sabaileh

amersabaileh@yahoo.com

What after the Syrian Israeli clash?

The recent Israeli attack in Syria could be part of a rebalanced power dynamic in the region. During the Syrian crisis Israel has launched several strikes against Syrian targets, which they claim were Hezbollah convoys and personnel.

This recent attack is one of the few times that Israel has actually declared it with sirens in Israel. Perhaps because of the consequences, including debris from a rocket in the northern Jordanian city of Irbid.

Syria’s reaction of launching missiles and a strong statement from the military is entirely new. This suggests they had support in this response.

According to many experts the surface to air S-200 (SA-5) missiles used by the Syrian army were unlikely to shoot down the Israeli jets, although their S300 missiles could have been more effective. These Russian made Syrian missiles meant Israel had to use its Arrow 3 missile defense system for the first time to destroy what the IDF described as a ballistic threat.

This was not the first time that Israeli jets conducted a strike in Syria, but it was the first time that they faced a strong military reaction. This could be a turning point as Israel becomes more cautious in carrying out such attacks.

Interestingly, it wasn’t only the military response from Syria that was novel. The Russian Foreign Ministry summoned Israel’s Ambassador to Moscow to protest the Israeli raid in Syria. This is the first time that Russia has interfered in this kind of incident. It is especially interesting given how recently Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited Moscow, which does not appear to have impacted positively on relations between the two countries.

Russia’s long-term presence in Syria has already reshaped the balance of power. This will have implications for several countries, especially Israel who is not used to asking permission to conduct an attack.

While Russia is not an enemy to Israel, it sees Syria as an ally so Russia’s ongoing presence in the region could have wider impacts, including on regional settlement. Moscow is likely to engage in all of the issues that face the region, including the peace process. So perhaps Russia would like to see this confrontation lead to more constructive negotiations.

Dr. Amer Al Sabaileh

amersabaileh@yahoo.com

The road to a better future

The importance of building a national identity in Jordan is ever increasing, as waves of sectarianism invade the region.

The 1979 revolution in Iran was the first to adopt the religious title of ‘Islamic revolution’, but we continue to seen the progression of religious influence that began in WWII where modern political Islam began spreading its doctrine and influencing the people of the Middle East, predominately through the Muslim Brotherhood.

Following the Arab loss in Palestine in 1967, Islamist voices criticized secularism blaming it for the humiliating defeat. Jordan was one of the main countries affected by the unification that was also exported to the Gulf countries by the Muslim Brotherhood who had deep links into the education sector across the region.

By the time Sadat took power in Egypt, the Islamization process had already started and has been the major catalyst for the changing cultural identity in the region. Following Sadat’s death, the Iraq-Iran war was promoted as an Arab-Persian war and saw the beginning of the fragmentation of ethnic, religious and sectarian divisions through the propaganda of hate and war.

The growing sectarianism in the region and the increasing conflict and violence should give us pause to consider the alternatives. Constant and increasing psychological division doesn’t just create the risk of greater geographic division, but condemns the region and its people to continuous civil war, with the ongoing threat of increased conflict.

With the current levels of sectarianism, it is difficult to be optimistic about the future of the region. The people of the region are living in chaos and daily bloodshed, but they have the right to live their lives in peace. However, nobody in the region can live in peace while the dominating mentality is based on exclusion, and the constant desire to eliminate the other.

It is difficult to see how we can escape this vicious spiral without a serious national project to restore a national identity based on shared values. The cultural change must be based on pillars that unify rather than divide, so it cannot be based on religious or ethnicity. It should be a progressive secular vision based on diversity and respect for all people. This may be difficult to achieve, but we need to start somewhere and soon if we want our children and the next generations to have a better life.

To be successful it needs a long-term strategy with a clear and transparent vision based on shared outcomes. It will take political determination and persistent pushing and follow up. Above all of that it needs a realistic understanding of the risk that the region is facing given the dominant view of radical groups that do not recognize borders or national identities. Our national identity should be based on values such as respect for a diverse humanity, which cannot be achieved without a systematic plan that unifies our citizens and reestablishes a new culture of shared national identity.

Dr. Amer Al Sabaileh

amersabaileh@yahoo.com