Ya Hala

The Syrian civil war – or proxy war – has been ongoing for far too long now. Three years of infighting, hatred, massacres, radicalism, vengeance, political schemes, betrayal, diplomacy and deals. Fear and sadness drove people out of their homes and left them at the mercy of the international community and good doers to house them and give them a refuge from all the ugliness that is happening in Syria. Those financially comfortable found a place in Europe; those desperate and cunning smuggled their way into Europe as well; and those with less financial means sought neighbouring countries. In arms wide open some countries took Syrian refugees in and gave them a temporary residence until things clear up and calm down back home. Jordan, and Jordanians, are one of those countries and people that stretched out a helping hand to fellow Syrians. Jordan – as in government- and Jordanians- the people- are housing one and a half million Syrians today. Government and citizens are playing host. Or are they both doing so?

Jordan is a poor country. Very limited are its resources and impoverished is a large proportion of its population. Unemployment is widespread and minimum wages are the common wage. Going into the reasons behind the economic situation and the unemployment rates is beyond the scope of this article. The focus of the article is however on why Jordanians agreed to house Syrians and how they agreed to that. The hospitality, generosity, solidarity and sense of brotherhood of Jordanians are not at doubt at any point, but such honourable attitudes must come from within rather than be enforced from without. Jordanian citizens would definitely help Syrian refugees in all possible means, but it would have been nice to first ask Jordanians if they can shoulder the burden before inviting the 1.5 million Syrians in.

Reports have indicated that Syrians’ presence in Jordan not only has cost Jordan (Jordanian taxpayers) huge amounts of money (to finance shelters, security, food, water, services, utilities etc.) but has also formed a new threat: that of cheaper – and more talented – labour force. Some Syrians are seeking shelter in Jordan not due to security factors but based on economic aspirations, judging that the Jordanian market and industries would give Syrians what they want: poorer salaries for skilled workers. A Syrian would gladly accept an underpaid job with an unfair wage, a job that would have been assigned to a Jordanian, instead of staying home and face unemployment and war. Although refugees’ presence in Jordan is officially confined in camps in the north of the country, it is no secret that many have escaped and found their way into central and southern cities in search of economic opportunities. The Jordanian host is not happy anymore. This brings us back to the main question: when the government “banged its chest” (literal translation of a Jordanian expression that means to offer with generosity) and allowed the entry of these Syrians, how did the decision come through? What was the decision process like?

The issue of refugees is one of great importance in the country and many other countries. The scope of dimensions it covers is wide: economy, culture, society, health, politics and the environment are all related to it. The government’s policy towards refugees is –unfortunately- that of limited scope. No one was consulted on whether Jordan was ready to accept these refuges. NGOS, political parties, civil societies, syndicates and other social institutions have not been consulted in that nor asked to study the issue. Consultation was required not to only reinforce and respect democratic practices, but also to reach sound policies. It seems that in Jordan public policy is still stuck in the realm of public administration. Instead of forming vertical and horizontal relations between institutions – formal and informal – to study issue from all angles and reach policies based on research and analysis, the policy towards refugees was one approached from a strictly single-minded diplomatic approach. Instead of having trained administrators in policy making, employees who can use numbers, theories, studies and analysis to draw best policy recommendations and scenarios, the rigid bureaucratic arrangement was followed. Public policy does not seem to exist in Jordan. The art of making policies is one limited to an elite circle. People and public employees are shut out of the process. Those who know best call the shots, avoiding the tedious process of studying policy options with fellow political actors, administrators and policy analysts and acting on decisions that have been decided on already. To conclude, policy making in our part of the world is a mix of Foucault’s conclusion: "political thought and analysis, we still have not cut off the head of the king" and the wise proverb: Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.

Love Thy Region

     

Spain’s Constitutional Court killed the Catalan dream, or perhaps let it lay in a coma for some time. The Court decided blocking the independent vote planned by Catalonia’s regional government, leaving the Catalan leaders no choice but suspending the November 9^th independence referendum. The Court argued that the 1978 constitution requires a majority of Spaniards to be consulted on any issue of sovereignty; since they were not, then the vote is simply unconstitutional. However, the regional government will not shy away from challenging the Court’s decision as it plans to appeal it. After all, the region's 5.4 million voters have been taken by the romanticized dream of independence from a lazy, impoverished and corrupt south – and west. What recently happened in Scotland was not a bad omen to the region’s enthusiastic separatists; over-confidence, pride, strong belief in the cause or sheer cussedness may explain the region’s will to fight for the referendum. Pro-independence citizens' groups in Catalonia are equally active, scheduling rallies to promote the referendum anyway.

     To force a group of people to be part of a state against their will is against every interpretation of a democratic and free society. Prohibiting a nation from establishing its own state also goes against democracy; it is equal to denying the right of Palestinians to establish their own state. But what is also an aggression to the free-will is the manipulation of a set of elite actors, intellectuals and positions of masses to rally around the cause of nationalism. First, a quick definition of a nation, quoting Montserrat Guibernau: “a human group conscious of forming a community, sharing a common culture, attached to a clearly demarcated territory, having a common past  and a common project for the future and claiming the right to rule itself. Thus, in my view, the “nation” includes five dimensions: psychological (consciousness of forming a group), cultural, territorial, political and historical”. Enjoying a common culture, language and tradition does indeed distinguish one nation or a set of people from the whole, but it does not necessarily feed the urge of marking the separation nor inventing the separation. Searching for symbols, myths of origin and a glorified inherited code-of conduct is a mechanism implied by separatists to inflame mass emotions and intensify their sense of pride in their separate being.

    Civicism or criticism – or belonging and loving one’s home-city – is a similar form of nationalism that is spreading, with global cities emerging and competing for the affection of their residents. Residents of these cities take pride in the particular ways of life of their own cities. A romantic Paris, an intellectual Moscow, a religious Jerusalem, a wild Ibiza or a fashionable Milan are trademarks to the city and its residents, their shared culture, their ethos and exclusive identity. Sweet so long as this recognition of distinctiveness is natural, unforced and un-manipulated. What is occurring these days is that a class of politicians and interested parties behind them are ignoring the fact that cultures are now mixed, that traditions change over-night, that a pure gene-pool is a stupid and offensive notion, that borders are receding and that what a nation enjoys in prosperity, wealth, art and culture is a result of centuries of interaction and exchange with nations. To unite the people by means of homogenisation is futile in our globalized world that is moving toward further integration. It is very commendable to have pride on one’s heritage and promote a territory’s a nation’s history, art and culture; but to obsess over employing the before-mentioned in a quest for distinctiveness and creation of a separated identity and self is an act of manipulation.

      John Breuilly once said that: “Nationalist ideology has its roots in intellectual responses to the modern problem of the relationship between state and society”. It is a problem, it does involve a society and the state, and it is an intellectual response.  Elie Kedourie suggests – as many others (as reported by Montserrat Guibernau) that “an elite of intellectuals captures the main  injustices endured by the mass of the population and constructs a nationalist doctrine whose aim is to eliminate the unjust situation shared by  all those belonging to the same nation, thus uniting elites and masses under a single banner”. The objective is to gain power in society and halt their alienation and exclusion from positions of honour and privilege. These intellectuals, perhaps present in modern day Catalonia, understand the delicate economic situation, the distribution of powers nation-wide and the benefits –both in terms of economy and status – they could reap with independence. Thus, masses must galvanize around the quest of independence and must be fed literature on the history, the culture and virtues Catalan’s inherited from their non-Spanish forefathers.

   Adolph Hitler (apologies for quoting him) said that “great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one”. Do fight for independence Mr. Más, but don’t trick people into it.

No More Iraqi Style Wars...Promise

   

The overarching pretext for the 2003 war on Iraq was discovered a sham one year later. In 2004, David Kay, the former UN weapons inspector and Chief of the Iraq Survey Group in Baghdad resigned and announced that he didn’t think former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had possessed any stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. Former Secretary of State Collin Powell told the Washington Post that he too was having second thoughts about the war based on Kay’s testimony and although he retracted his remarks one day later, the bombshell he dropped caused enough damage. “For many Americans, such candour from inside the intelligence established was both illuminating and devastating. It didn’t matter that the Survey Group had reaffirmed Saddam’s capacity to reconstitute his illicit weapons program, or that he had been developing ballistic missile systems that might deliver new weapons in the future, it didn’t matter that Saddam had killed or scarred tens of thousands of Kurds and Iranians with nerve agents or mustard gas, or that he had been twice discovered developing nuclear weapons….all that mattered in 2004 for many Americans was that they had been colossally misled”(Tyler, 2009: 6-7).

     Now the American political establishment is an intelligent one. It rarely repeats its mistakes and almost always learns from lessons from the past. After the immense amount of money poured out of the American treasury to finance two major wars in the Middle East, the sad number of lives lost in war zones and the counter effect that such wars bore (rising extremism and vindictive jihadism), the Americans are done. No more unnecessary wars, no more blood spilling and no more missionary acts to liberate and democratize the world. Unfortunately, the politics of a superpower cannot follow this logic, and constant and surly intervention in world affairs – in the name of whatever it is – is necessary. A pretext to carry out wars for higher ends than those announced is needed. And the USA managed to find one two days ago.

     The timing of Obama’s speech on the September 11^th thirteenth anniversary was just perfect. In that speech, he outlined the strategy to be followed by the USA and regional actors to eradicate the ISIS and end its acts of terror. His speech also stressed on the need for Middle Eastern countries to assume their share of responsibility and join efforts to fight IS off. And the region’s leaders came through. The foreign ministers of the regional alliance (composed of USA, GCC states, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey) against ISIS and other terrorist organizations met in Jeddah yesterday and confirmed its commitment to fight off ISIS, agreeing on who needs to do what. Their efforts will not end at launching a fully-fledged war against ISIS, but will also include actions to stop the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the IS. Most importantly, the Syrian opposition forces will also be trained, supplied with advanced weapons and financed, enjoying a major role in this alliance as it will ensure fighting off ISIS, securing the areas freed from the militants’ grip and prevent the Syrian regime from taking advantage of the strikes against ISIS for its own military and political ends. Considering that the Assad regime may take advantage of the war against ISIS to strike the opposition, the latter will be armed and supported so as it fulfil its mission without wicked intervention from a terrorist-harbouring regime. Both the USA and Saudi Arabia agreed in the meeting on the important role of the Syrian opposition and the need to train it and arm it.

   What a happy coincidence. Just when the world agreed that there can be nothing done to curb the Syrian regime’s tenacious will to remain in power, IS came along. Assad’s swift approval to rid Syria of its chemical weapons' stockpile, his holding of free elections as promised and his deviously intelligent message to the world of the dangers of a fragmented Assad-free Islamist Syria gave reason to the world in general and the American public in particular to oppose further military interventions. Let Syrians deal with their issues and as long as Assad is popular amongst some, well then let him be. However, things quickly changed when IS came to light, beheading Christians, enslaving women and children, abducting western journalists and slitting their throats in cold cold blood, expanding a radical and dangerous state, targeting religious minorities and burning down churches. These barbaric images not only enraged the world, but also scared it. What if this IS does expand? What if its population grows? What if it actually manages to train an army that could attack western interests and western nations? Action must be taken, and money must be spent, and blood must be spilled to stop that. While we are at it, and since it is all part of the same operation and serves the same end, let’s also get rid of Assad via military intervention. Sweet. Olé Obama.

Woooman!

   

    A Jordanian friend of mine, who happens to be living in the Middle Eastern business hub – UAE, made this comment yesterday as we were speaking over the phone: “In Amman, street harassment is becoming more and more common….the comments slapped on women walking down the street are just degrading and infuriating. I had to ask my wife to cover up to avoid problems on our vacation”. Now this issue hits a sensitive cord, especially since extremism in neighbouring countries – almost always being first manifested by attacking/controlling and objectifying women – is a phenomenon that may be contagious. This testosteronian craze taking place in regional countries is not only shameful, but also alarming. Egypt topped the ranking of the worst countries for women's rights in the Arab world, attributed to escalating sexual harassment. Salafism in Saudi Arabia is still prevalent and despite efforts to suppress features of womanhood under loose baggy dark garments, women do receive their share of street harassment, albeit contently. As for Iraq and Syria, the displacement of thousands and their refuge in camps have led to a rise in the testosterone level of men and their loss of control before the minimum display of a feminine feature. The Islamic State may have its street whistlers under control, but women of other faith are considered war spoils and are sold as sex slaves. These phenomena have a series of factors explaining them, but what these countries are passing through and the conditions that have attributed to this situation of out-of-control ogling and leering, are simply not present in Jordan. So what has happened?

   Jordan is suffering from economic woes, regional chaos, political (regional and to a certain extended local) turmoil and social unrest. Nonetheless, and despite rising extremism and fundamentalism, the society still is conservative and does not cross the line of over-harassing women. Street calling, whistling, ogling, gawking and catcalling are a reality, but it stops there- for now. The scary question is whether this innocent street harassment will persist or would it escalate to a serious situation where the side-walk would convert to a hostile and dangerous place for women. Will the Jordanian street become a lewd one? Men and boys are showing signs of sexual thirst, and whether this is something related to regional conditions, religious extremism (whereas indecent women deserve to be harassed), cultural confusion or social anger is unclear. What is clear however is the need to address this issue as soon as possible before it grows into something else and Jordan is ranked alongside Egypt in harassment polls.

Among the many steps that can be taken to address this issue is one to be taken jointly by the government and Jordanian expatriates. In search for economic opportunities or a chance to live in more peaceful and liberal countries, many intellectual, cultured and bright minds left Jordan and relocated elsewhere in the world. This class of people is reflecting a very positive image of Jordan in their host countries but is draining Jordan’s resources of progressive and moderate actors. The cultural role played by these individuals is of utmost importance, and the society is in much need of a boost of liberal thought and action to set itself back on track. The government in this sense has a major responsibility in luring expats back to Jordan. Take the example of India for instance, founding an entire ministry concerned with emigrants, or the case of New Zealand which established the Kiwi Expat Association- a PPP that connects New Zealanders in the world through social actions and keeps them connected with the mother land. France and Germany did not forget about their expats and reserved parliamentary seats for them. Jordan must follow the example and keep its citizens residing abroad within arm’s reach. Even if these expats chose not to return, their connection with Jordan and the role they place when on vacation in the country is also important. We need liberal independent women who refuse to be scared into covering up, who would face all street harassment with courage and determination to change this pathetic reality, who would carry with them the thoughts and ideals acquired abroad to the Jordanian street, and who would remind the male Jordanian youth the morals upon which the society was founded: that of respect to women and their bodies. Books and lectures will not suffice; action on the ground is a key requirement. 

To conclude, change must happen and must be led by the victims themselves who happen to be liberal uncovered women. Whatever this class of men is going through at the moment it would not disappear in an act of magic. Effort is required, and we are all responsible for this change. I will quote ma verse from the holy Quran (Chapter 13 sūrat l-raʿd (The Thunder)) that reminded people that for change to happen, people must change. 

"For each one are successive [angels] before and behind him who protect him by the decree of Allah. Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves. And when Allah intends for a people ill, there is no repelling it. And there is not for them besides Him any patron".

Gaza and Change

           

  The recent avalanche of studies, analysis, opinions, historic exploration, clarification missions and social media frenzy about the ever-so-popular and polemical topic of the Middle East all come against the backdrop of a brutal and senseless act of vengeance in the Gaza strip that is draped with a military façade of Israeli self-defence. The Arab world enunciated a Facebook war on the Israeli aggression and countless videos have been posted, shared and commented on by sympathizers. Newspapers, columnists, professors, journalists, scholars, bloggers and activists all had their share in the action. They all buttressed the same cause, that of saving innocent lives, but employed different angles to approach the issue. Some craftily penned their analysis of the situation only to reconfirm the status quo and the reasons behind this stalemate; others had better intentions at heart and tried to come up with explications to why things are the way they are. Interesting articles have been posted in prestigious publications, citing the example of The Economist, where a three-page-article explained why the Arab Spring failed and what has gone wrong in this region. This topic of course touched on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general, going back in time to colonial days and moving on to modern days of patriarchal rule, the political-Islam wave and socio-economic factors that hampered democracy building. The historic aspect is almost always present in any article of the same nature. Other interesting articles explained how Muslims should not be blamed for Jewish suffering, one even referring to Albanian charitable acts when protecting and hiding Jews in their household in the thirties and forties of the past century. Other op-eds and analytical articles tried to shed light on Israeli expansionist plans and every intention to Swiss-cheese the Palestinian territories and annihilate the entire Palestinian population slowly, and then defend/justify what is happening in Gaza. Islam, Al Qaeda, ISIS, terrorism, Arab nationalism, Fateh, Zionism, holy war, Nazis, Hamas, Egypt’s Al Sisi, Arab reactionary states and of course international oblivious attitude were amongst the most popular themes covered when addressing the Israeli attack. Young, indignant and heated Arabs’ calls for death to all Jews and fully fledge jihad against the Israeli state have been employed as a let -off-some-steam consoling and solidarity activity, which, as expected, was completely void and reaped zero results (and thank God for that).

   So now what? After all the posted videos, all the historical aspects of the conflict explained and all the injustices done to Palestinians portrayed, what is the end result? As useful as these studies and angles of explaining the conflict are, and as equally important the sporadic acts of support (via charities, NGOs, government initiatives, international intervention) are,  I think it is about time to admit what many (especially Arabs) hate to admit:

1: Israel won. Game-over. No re-matches. The state of Israel exists, it is democratic, it is blooming economically, its population is growing, it has been accepted by the international community as a partner, it hosts industrial plants for international mega brands, international player in the financial market, and it is flourishing in arts, music, sports and technology. It is also willing and working on expanding and annexing more lands, just like many countries across the universe, albeit indirectly and under other pretexts.

2: The myth of Arab nationalism and collective action must die. Let us all announce jihad on that please. Arab states never acted collectively for any cause, and will never do. Needless it is to mention that this is also applicable to Islamic states. Palestinians must act alone. Completely alone. PLO was recognized in 1974 as the sole legal representative of the Palestinians for a reason, the reason is crystal clear: Palestinians must assume the responsibility of their lands. Arab states did their share in creating this mess, so perhaps asking them to stay out of it would reverse some of the bad done.

3: Point two applicable to the international community as well. Leave Russians and Americans alone. If they want to get involved, fine, but do not cry out for their help or interference.

4: History is history. No need to go back to Salahil Deen’s wars and restoration of an all-encompassing Palestine. Nor is it necessary to demonize Germans and their European accomplices in the Jewish issue, and fret over how everyone was conspiring against Arabs in WWII. The damage is done. Deal with it.

5: Hamas, whether a militant organization, a militarized party, an off-shoot of Muslim Brotherhood or a puppet organization controlled by regional regimes is a failure. It failed on all levels. It has not brought any solutions on the ground. Gazans still suffer, no economic alleviation, no political advances, no democratic practices and not one fulfilled promise has been achieved. From a purely political perspective, no one should vote for Hamas in any election, and the organization must die-off slowly.

     So now that we established that Palestinians must act alone, no need for historic grievances, absolutely no need for Arab aid, Israel’s evil plans and plots can be ignored for a while and Hamas must go, something must happen. That thing is the secret to the solution of the problem once and for all. Political awareness and democratization. New parties with educated leaderships must start leading Gazans and Palestinians in general. Educated, informed, pragmatic and calculated visionary political actors are needed. Those will carry the much much needed task of raising public awareness, of telling people the truth, of galvanizing support to a political and arms-free solution and to make people believe that change is only possible when change is in fact initiated. Gazans cannot expect to employ the same failing techniques over and over again and expect change. Justice and injustice are not the issue here. Whether Hamas' cause is moral and its acts stem from all the wrong that has been done to the Palestinians is also irrelevant at the moment. Whether Israel if the devil itself is also irrelevant (noting that many Israelis oppose thier government's actions). What is relevant is a solution. A solution that is sustainable, that is achievable and that can save what can be saved.

     It pains me to defend surrender, but maybe surrendering a little bit is needed. Should we be living in a just world, Palestine would be free, and Jews and Arabs should be sharing the land and jointly and fairly administering it. They would be no apartheid states. There would be no injustices, there would be no more hundreds of thousands of orphans nor just as many grieving mothers. There would be no separation walls, no check points, no suicidal training camps, no human rights violations and no war seasons. But these do exist, and are tolerated by the entire world. The proof to that is that nothing and no one is stopping them. That is the reality of the issue. Should the popular belief that Israel would not stop before it chases away all Arabs from West Bank, Israel and Gaza, then maybe now is the time to change the strategy long followed and try a new approach. Just because Israelis successfully won their land in the 1940s by employing guerrillas attacks against Great Britain to gain independence does not mean that this strategy will work today. Change is needed, and it has to come from within.

So back to political parties. Some hope can be pinned on a system that nurtures democracy. Israelis will not suddenly lift all embargos from the Strip, allow free movement, free political prisoners and ease procedures to access Gaza and create businesses in it, but it will have to admit that Gazans are following demcoractic and peaceful means to solve the historic crisis. The rhetoric of killing all Jews and vengeance to every dead Palestinian would stop, and a more mature and reasonable political discourse would follow. Slowly, the population will catch on, and with correct management of funds and resources, education and awareness building will make Gazans more innovative and tenacious in their quest for independence and dignified lives. This can never be achieved without collective action, and that action needs to be addressed via activists with a political identity: parties. 

It is not too late. Change is possible. But it is not miraculous. That is why the first step is to get rid of the dominating political force that has failed to achieve any real goal, and create new leaderships that can create change. From there on, the tradition must carry on, just as a Portuguese proverb says: Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and all for the same reason. 

Where Can I Apply for an IS Visa for the Wife and Kids?

     

      The leader of the notorious Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has finally achieved the minimum requirements to establish his state: occupied areas in Iraq and Syria, controlled check points at regional borders, thousands of followers from salafists worldwide, access to oil and resources, decent weaponry confiscated from Americans and promised state/personal funding (controversial is the source). That is why the group’s leader’s announcement of his appointment as the khalifa of all Muslims, after having established/revived the Khilafa in the Levant, crowned the triumphant trajectory of the ISIS throughout the past year or so (as a fully independent group).

 

     The establishment of an Islamic State, led by the new Khalifa Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, and the call for immigration to the new State should be very worrying as the idea does appeal to many. The foundations of a state are present: land, check; resources, check; army, check; philosophical base of founding the state; check; promises of guaranteed economic well-being and social justice with the enforcement of divine rules, check; a political system based also on divine revelations and interpretations, also check. ISIS, after all , managed to achieve what other salafist groups, mainly Al Qaeda, failed to. It founded an Islamic state (and is not worried about UN recognition) whose foundations appeal to the oppressed and the poor, a state that gives hope to the many who have been done injustice, and promises dignity of a nation that has long been suffering oppression, utilization, exploitation and humiliation.

 

     The Sunday call of the Al Baghdadi on all Muslims to immigrate to the newly established state should be taken very seriously by regional and international authorities; signs of actual support and allegiance to the group have already been demonstrated with the affiliation of thousands with the Group….having a state where they can call the shots and practice/enjoy full sovereignty should be just as popular.  But then agaon, how worried should these countries be? When Muslims in the UK, Spain, France, USA, Jordan, Chechnya, Indonesia and other countries across the globe  who sympathize with the ISIS hear the call, how will they react? Will they pack and leave?

    The main question is the following: how attractive would it be for a jihadist to uproot his family from a safe and stable country (despite economic woos and other complaints) and start anew in the new Islamic State? When it comes to the practicality of the issue, when all rhetoric fades, when the urge to kill and put mortal combat techniques in practice dwindles, and when fighters choose to take a rest and go back home for a while (as many do), will the Islamic State still be an attractive alternative to one’s won homeland? Nearly one hundred years have passed since the existence of an all-encompassing Islamic Empire, during which nation-states have been up and functioning…do these one hundred years not have any impact on the preference of citizens’ lifestyles? Is it not too early to tear down borders and mesh people together under the name of Islam? Are these questions considered by ISIS followers and their families?

 

    The ISIS perhaps did not take into account the psychological aspect of human behaviour, considering that rhetoric and heroic slogans - as attractive as they may be -  reflect differently on actual day-to-day life styles. Did they not see how miserably the Taliban movement failed and how many rejected its doctrine? A movement – no matter how supreme and idealistic and acceptable its slogans are – should separate what people say and believe and what they actually are ready to do.

 

     The few coming months are critical; immigration to the Islamic State is possible as the ISIS controls many border check points and can, for a while, sustain an economy and provide basic services. Perhaps regional countries' dilemma would be whether they should let these enthusiasts leave and never come back, where they can suffer from their own poor choices and what becoming an IS citizen means, or, as always championed in this blog, try to win their people back by carrying out promised political and economic reforms, guaranteeing a dignified life and therefore rendering IS completely unnecessary. If not, then please expedite the inauguration of an IS embassy or a consulate for visa services.

Ps: please note that I am very proud of my Islamic heritage. Many Islamic states today, and most Islamic empires before, have contributed generously to the world, serving as the heartland of science, philosophy and art. Islam was, is and will always be an elegant and peaceful way of life…a divine revelation that blessed us. These fundamentalists will never speak in the name of Islam and will never represent believers. 

You Give Islam a Bad Name

    The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a Jihadist militant group established in the early years of the Iraq War and pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group, which launched a war against the regime in Iraq, the western forces, liberal leaders, Shiites, Christians, Jews, non-believers, capitalists…. in short a war against everyone has been gaining ground in both Iraq and Syria. Ironically, the Group’s initials coincide with the Egyptian goddess Isis who symbolized nature and magic and befriended slaves, sinners and the downtrodden.

    In April 2013 ISIS expanded its operations to include Syria, where nearly 6000 of its fighters are in Iraq and 5000 are in Syria. Its strict moral code has led to the killing of thousands and the crucifixion of dozens; its atrocities are out of the scope of this article and in all cases their posted videos suffice. The Group captured Mosul, most of Nineveh, towns surrounding Baghdad, Ramadai, Faluja, Tikrit and more, and managed to infiltrate into Syria just perfectly where it not only confronts the regime, but Jabhed Al Nsura (al Qaeda affiliate group) itself as well. Its radicalism has even been been criticized by the leader of Al-Qaeda himself who said, according to the Economist, that the Group’s violent habits of committing public beheadings and positing videos of its activities was giving al-Qaeda a bad name.

   Delving into what went wrong in the Syrian and Iraqi systems, the catastrophic consequences of the western intervention in the region and why radicalization has become very much entrenched in the Middle Eastern society is a bit too late right now and would not really serve an immediate purpose. It is what it is and no one can change the past. What is much needed at the moment nonetheless is a concentrated effort by local actors and the international community to change the course of events in the region. Sending more arms is only helping the weapons industry and the militants themselves who are a) multiplying by the second and b) not frightened of the idea of dying as martyrs for their cause. Neither weapons nor armies are strong or abundant enough to uproot a belief. In this case, the radical and manipulated version of an Islamic way of life is the motor behind the activities of such actors and their ideological and philosophical base. The excuse that ISIS fighters are using is that the situation in Arab and Muslim states is one of exploitation of citizens, diversion from the rules of God and complete obedience to western secular thought. To correct that, Islamic sharia (their version) must be applied. It is no coincidence that the Group picked Iraq and then Syria as their starting points for their Islamic empire, as the internal chaos is a perfect recipe to carry out a modern and fully-fledged Islamic futuuhat (conquests). Their argument is sadly true: most Arab regimes are corrupt, autocratic, unethical and straight out exploitive. Societies live in extreme poverty where differences in class and income are monumentally huge. The acceptance of the apartheid state of Israel as a given, the indifference to Palestinian suffering, the enslavement of the working class and the conversion of regimes into mere proxies for western powers are realities that no one can deny. ISIS' expostulations are valid. Their magical radical/fanatical Islamic solution nonetheless is not. And this is where the solutions to the ISIS problem should start from.

   The dual track that is being suggested to address these fanatics must start with changing the societies’ perception of what an Islamic state is, the way of achieving it and what it is really based on. Banning cigarettes, lashing offenders, crucifying traitors and terrorizing people are not the religion’s foundations. Muslim clerics, teachers, preachers and scholars must all agree – in coordination with the state and civil actors – on a curriculum to follow in their teachings of the true basis of Islam. Whether in schools, mosques, TV programmes, radio shows, local activity or any public debate, a clarification of what Islam is and was (when applied correctly centuries ago) must be employed. It may take some time, but a change in public understanding of the tenants of a religion and the way it has been manipulated will serve as the best counterattack. The number of affiliates and supporters of such fanatic groups would eventualy fall, and instead of guns, books would have even used. The other track would be a political one, where a serious international approach to help eradicate all undemocratic and autocratic regimes must be followed. Wealth distribution, welfare, public well-being, equality and political participation would bring an end to an era of enslavement and injustice. Systems need to be reformed so as for societies to grow and flourish and realize – by themselves – that such radical liberation movements are highly unnecessary. It cannot be that we still live in an age where masses are being pushed into accepting the idea of ISIS to save them from their politicians. A solution is needed, and it is needed right now.

Perhaps what is been suggested and projected is very optimistic, but as Winston Churchill once said: I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else.