Skip to main content

The Politics of Vengeance


A Jordanian pilot fighting the ISIS was captured in December 2014 by the Islamic State’s militants. The Jordanian government was on alert ever since, trying to develop a strategy to rescue the pilot whose life is in great peril. The IS threatened to slaughter the pilots well as the Japanese hostage if the notorious Al Qaeda terrorist detained in Jordan is not released. So what can the Jordanian government do? Re-open a channel of diplomatic communication with the terrorist state to negotiate a deal? Agree on a prisoner-swap based on “good faith”? Forget about the pilot and consider him a martyr on the job? Perhaps plan a covert attack and rescue Mr. Moaz Al Kassasbe?

A report recently being circulated in the media claims that Amman is indeed considering a deal to swap prisoners. However, should the IS decide to kill the pilot, the Jordanian government will sentence all prisoners accused of plotting terrorist attacks, having links to terrorist groups and related in any shape or form to the IS to death. Iraqi terrorist, Sajida Al Rishawi, who tried to kill hundreds of innocent people in a failed suicide bomb attack in Amman in 2005 tops the list. The news articles claim that the government sent a clear message to IS militants that it can easily and legally end the life of these prisoners, unless the pilot is returned.

I am not sure if these reports are valid, but for the sake of this article’s argument, we will assume that the plan is authentic. At first glance, one would be appalled to learn that a government that abides to the rule of law and is a signatory to all international charters on human rights and justice protocols would actually use people as a pawn. Should the detained individuals be actually guilty of terrorist crimes, then they should be fairly and legally tried before an impartial court and sentenced to serve sentence assigned by law according to the crime at hand. Sajida Al Rishawi for instance should not be used as a trade-off item. If the court found it just and legal to sentence her to death, the sentence should have been executed back then (or when scheduled) irrespective of external factors or any other considerations. Should the justice system become a player in the politics of international affairs and diplomacy, then its partiality, transparency and respect to justice will be forsaken for ever. The intelligence agency, a fourth pillar of power in Jordan, must no interfere in the justice system, as its role must be limited to transferring cases to courts that must rule fairly and justly.

Not quite partial myself on this nonetheless. Let’s see. A state that is dedicated to killing masses, enslaving women and children, terrorizing nations, expelling thousands of people from their lands and committing atrocities on a daily basis is not a state that responds to reason. Employing diplomatic measures and ethical codes in dealing with it is gullible and useless. Doing the right thing is always right, but sometimes right is not enough. Sinking to the level to IS is ludicrous and insulting, but necessary at the same time. If Jordan ever wants its pilot back, it has to use the same tactics used by IS thugs. When Sajida was detained in 2005 for failing to execute the terrorist attack, I was surprised she was not executed on the spot. I thought she was ready to kill herself along with hundreds of people; grant her the wish. Incarcerating her will serve nothing; she will not “repent” nor “adjust her conduct” nor work on reintegrating into the society as a sane, normal human being. Holding he prisoner in my innocent opinion back then was just cruel and pricey. One less crazy person in this world would have been a better scenario.

Recent events proved otherwise. The famed terrorist will be used in this “prisoner swap deal” or “vengeance act” depending on the IS decision. The tactic being employed (supposedly) is unethical; it reflects vengeance and deals with terrorists whilst abiding to no rule of justice or human rights. Nonetheless, it is necessary and crucial and effective, while no other “legal” and “respectable” strategy is. Vengeance, indeed, is a loud and impacting message that is internationally understood. And so is trade off. You kill my guys, I kill your guys. You free my guys, I free yours or (spare their lives).

It is true that “One should never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it”; but sometimes you need to get filthy and bloody even if the pig likes it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Just as Orwell Said

         George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and a new round of talks has been set for November.  
3 comments
Read more

Pan-Arabism vs. Middle Easternism?

             A rab Nationalism, a romantic concept that moved poets to write ballads, intellectuals to preach volumes, activists to passionately organize and the masses to cheer freedom. A concept introduced by students at the American University of Beirut in the last phases of the ageing Ottoman Empire and studied in secret societies. This concept developed and led, under western planning, to the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The slogans of Arab revival and freedom from Ottoman tyranny swept the Arab nations, where hopes of independence and self-rule were promised by the restoration of Arab control over the area. Then problems arose. Who are Arabs? What is an Aran nation? How does it extend geographically? Is it an area that encompasses people who speak the same language and share the same history? If so, why did the Lebanese Maronites reject the concept of Arab nationalism and insist on a Lebanese identity? Why did the Egyptians hesitate before including themselves under th
Post a Comment
Read more

Wishing You a New MENA

Journalist and author of A nd Then All Hell Broke Loose: Two Decades in the Middle East   said that “Everything changed with the First World War. The Middle East was reorganized, redefined, and the seeds were planted for a century of bloodshed.” He was not entirely right. Bloodshed lasted more than a century actually. Here we are in 2019, and the Middle East and North Africa region – the infamous MENA – is still a boisterous, rowdy zone of political recrimination, military coups, conspiracy theories, historic reminiscence, oil squabbles, and religiously-infused rhetoric. Blood shed of course as well. Well, here we are.  Algeria is set to head to the polls in April. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika will likely secure a fifth mandate. If not, Algeria’s powerbrokers, mainly the military and powerful business elites will enter into an expensive bargain of security versus social and economic stability. Having vested the long-enjoyed tranquillity on a political figure, rather than a
Post a Comment
Read more