Posts

Learning to Live with Islamism

One of the most depressing aspects of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, along with of course to the tragic and horrific loss of innocent Palestinian life, is the very limited chances of Israel emerging from the violence with … Read More

By / January 14, 2009

One of the most depressing aspects of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, along with of course to the tragic and horrific loss of innocent Palestinian life, is the very limited chances of Israel emerging from the violence with a clear, beneficial, long-term result. But fighting battles with Islamism that don’t bring obvious, instant results, is something we in the West are going to have to get used to.

The only positive aspect of the operation so far has been the welcome destruction of Hamas operatives, munitions and structures and this, it should be stressed, is no minor matter. Despite the bluster in this Hamas statement , the Islamist terrorist group have received some real blows – the elimination of key personnel, the loss of many weapon stations and arms. It remains to be seen whether their ability to launch rocket attacks at Israel will have been completely eliminated by the end of the hostilities but it is hard to imagine how the IDF will be able to declare victory on that front. One rocket fired, maybe a few days after a ceasefire, would be enough for Hamas to crow that they are still in business and for the rest of the world to declare Israel’s efforts, and the loss of life, to have been futile.

Even removing Hamas from power would not stop them from operating, in their usual, thuggish. bandit style, under a new Palestinian authority in Gaza or even under a fresh occupation. Hamas are going to be around for some time yet.

The tragedy of Israel is that, it is going to face violent opposition to it’s existence for many, many years to come for the simple fact that a Jewish state surrounded by Jew-hating Muslim Arabs has little chance of living in peace. The phrase ‘two state solution’ is redundant. Don’t get me wrong — two states are necessary, just and right and Israel should act to make them happen, but they are not a solution to Israel’s security problem, merely a possible start. Gaza has already given us an indication what kind of ’solution’ an Islamist Palestinian state would be.

The only hope Israel has of ever being secure, ever being confident that it can just get on with life without facing suicide bombers and rocket attacks on kindergartens, is if Islamists depart from the political scene in the region and any objective observation of the politics in that region indicates that is not likely to be happening in the near future.

Islamism is clearly going to be around for sometime — so it is worth studying the ideology, the history and the structures. We better had do because there seems to be no sign that it is going to be definitively defeated in our lifetimes. It took over 70 years for the menace of Bolshevism to be totally finished off in Europe and while there are no iron rules in these matters, it is worth remembering that the first Islamist revolution came just 30 years ago.

Many on the ‘Eustonian’ left, myself included, held out a hope that a liberal, democratic, secular, alternative would emerge in the Middle East in opposition both to Arab dictatorships and Islamism. The first sign that we might have over-estimated the strength of democratic forces came in Iraq, a country with a strong secular tradition. The overthrow of Saddam resulted in a bitter and violent battle involving varying degrees of Islamist organisations, ranging from relatively moderate types willing to govern under occupation to the Mahdi Army through to the extreme of Al-Quada. There were few signs of liberal democrats enjoying real support and the socialist left, which had some history in the country, also turned out to enjoy only a pitiful level of support outside of the stronghold of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Throughout the region it is clear that the main opposition to dictatorships – in Egypt and Syria for example, comes not from enlightened liberals but from even worse Islamists. In the Palestinian territories, the Arab-nationalists of Fatah were defeated not by progressives but by genocide-seeking Islamist terrorists.

Inside the Muslim communities in Europe, the horrors of Islamist terrorism in previously unimaginable locations such as Madrid and London, have not resulted in an awakening of a new, progressive voice among Muslims to challenge the extremists but have instead seen the continued rise of Islamist groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Those honourable attempts to challenge the extreme-right, whether it be from ex-Islamists or from ex-Muslims turned secularists, welcome though they are, are tiny and insignificant compared to the street-mobilising ability of the MB affiliates.

Disgusting and treacherous though the far-left’s alliance with Islamism is, the ex-Marxists are at least right in their belief that Islamism is a growing movement which, like them, is opposed to western democracy. Those who dismissed the blast of Islamist noise after September 11 as something that could be dealt with by a combination of good police and intelligence work and some gentle political appeasing, have been proven to be woefully optimistic.

All the indications, in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, suggest that Islamism, in both terrorist and less violent agitational form, is in the early stages of a rise in fortunes. The question then, is what can be done about it?

The depressing conclusion I have reached is that, western governments are going to have to start thinking of strategies to deal with Islamists in power given that there is no sign that radical Islam is going to fade away. This is going to have to involve a degree of pragmatism in the short term and some smart subversion in the longer term.

There is clearly a temporary, tactical need for western governments to continue giving limited support to strategically important non-democratic governments, such as Egypt’s, so as to avoid the nightmare scenario of a pro-Hamas state on Israel’s border at a time like this, for example. Likewise, unsavoury elements in Pakistan’s and Afghanistan’s current governments are preferable to Taliban-AQ elements taking control of such a sensitive region. In short, the cold-war ‘our son of a bitch’ approach, is, on occasions, a short-term necessity. The neo-conservative, liberal internationalist hope of a democratic revolution in the Middle East and wider Muslim world, remains a hope, but nothing more.

Longer term though, how can the position and strength of Islamist forces be weakened in Muslim majority countries? Support for liberals and reformists is important but it should be clear by now that it is not enough given their weakness. There clearly needs to be a massive change in the cultures in those countries to weaken the appeal of political Islam – that is going to take several generations and some intelligence from the west as we contaminate their cultures with some of the fruits of freedom, the temptations offered by liberty, which the Islamists, enemies of modernity, fear so much. There needs to be some imaginative thinking on this front.

Perhaps the only cause for optimism is the case of Iran where, 30 years after the revolution, many young people in Tehran are clearly bored with and sick of the Islamist state. It took such a short space of time for a generation to emerge which prefers freedom to the slavery of political Islam but it remains to be seen how long it takes for them to carry out a democratic transition in that country. Perhaps that is going to be the model, if there is to be one, of change in the Muslim-populated world – the Islamists come to power, prove to be brutal and repressive but ultimately useless in delivering to the needs of the population who gradually lose faith in them. The key will be to effectively deter the Islamist states from expansionist or nihilistic violence while fostering and nurturing the internal opposition. Which sounds, I have to admit, a rather similar strategy to the cold war.

The best case scenario would obviously be for these societies to leap the Islamist stage and go straight from dictatorship to democracy but there are few indication that is likely to happen.

Israel’s struggle, whatever you think of the tactical rights or wrongs of this particular battle, is our struggle because we cannot allow Islamists to defeat a liberal-democracy. Even if there are limitations on what we can do to defeat Islamists within non-democratic Muslim societies, we have to draw a clear line when they try to take our side on. There is also, clearly, an anti-fascist responsibility to stand by Jews when they face murderous Jew-haters.

But while Israel is fated to face the brunt of Islamist hatred for years to come, it won’t only be Israel that has to learn, in the absence of choice, to reluctantly to live with, deter and cleverly try to subvert Islamism until that wretched, inhuman creed follows its totalitarian cousins fascism and communism into the historical dustbin.

Tagged with:
  • Ella

    The problem with Islam runs deeper than politics. The very core is based on murder.  Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism teach that to get to heaven (or nirvanah if you’re Buddhist) you need to love your neighbour and do good. For example, the prophet Hosea tells us: "He (G-d) has shown you, O man, what is good and what He requires of you: to act justly, and to have mercy, and to walk humbly before your G-d." This  forms the basis of democratic or benign (tolerant) political systems in countries in which these religions predominate.

     In contrast, a Muslim is guaranteed heaven if (and only if!) he conducts holy war against the infidel, i.e. his religion commands him to kill all non-Muslims in order for him to be a good Muslim. As long as attaining heaven is equated in the Muslim mind with "holy" war or jihad, the notion of a democratic, tolerant Muslim society is simply wishful thinking. Hamas cannot care how many innocent civilians (including children) are killed, because  in their mentality each victim automatically goes to heaven.

    The best bet is secularization and exposure to western education, in other words, to produce a nominal Islam. Even then the propensity for violence is still present. 

  • jer

    I’m glad you’re suddenly concerned about international law! So surely you now stand against the colletive punishment of Gaza? 

    And, it’s still a non-sequitur to my actual point: it’s a strategy for Hamas and it’s working. Israel doesn’t benefit from dead Palestinian civilians.

  • Alcove-One

    "…if Hamas is hiding behind its citizens, it might actually, y’know, be doing that as part of its strategy."

    That’s a war crime.

  • jer

    Sorry, so the key to victory is for me to not care if civilians get bombed?

    Are you saying that Hamas can’t make warped moral judgements for themselves? I think you might want to restate that sentence.

    Anyway, now I get an again:

    I agree entirely that we should not do Hamas’s work for them. But consider that if Hamas is hiding behind its citizens, it might actually, y’know, be doing that as part of its strategy. As in, we help Hamas when we bomb away even if there are schoolkids in the way. We give them legitimacy and support in the Arab world, we drive recruitment, we build resentment against Israel, and we disenchant any voices for peace in the region. The benefits of a good ceasefire are the same as the benefits of a bombing, except without the moral cost, and without tarnishing the image of Israel in Palestine for another generation, making it that much more difficult to ever move towards real peace. If you could give me an example of a tangible benefit of this bombing campaign, maybe that would help. Explain in what way (and be specific), the world after this bombardment will be a better and safer one for Israelis. We’re at point A, you’re pretty clear on the path to follow, but what’s the point B? And how does sticking to your path get us there? Because now, all I have is that we should not care about civilian casualties because the people who support Hamas do care about those civilian casualties. That is not the most compelling argument, I’m afraid. 

  • Alcove-One

    "bombing of civilians"

    Try bombing of terrorists hiding behind civilians intentionally while Israel trucks supplies to civilians.

    Again, why do for Hamas what they cannot do for themselves like making warped moral judgements.

  • jer

    "Using the tactics of the last war to fight a new war is a well trod and catastrophic path [...] The Cold War fought like WW2 would have led to nuclear war; a new strategy was required." – Alcove-One

    "As for tactics, how about the kind used on Germany." – Alcove-One

    Based on this, I can only assume that using the tactics of the last war to fight a new war is catastrophic, but using the tactics of three wars ago is in fact the key to glorious success. If only our military planners in the ’40s had known this, we could have used the lessons learned in the American civil war to stop the Nazis that much sooner.

    More seriously, unless you think that Hamas presents the same type of threat as Nazi Germany, I don’t see how you can think that sixty-year old tactics that worked on a modern, mass army conquering territory will work equally well on a small, less-cohesive group of fighters who, as you’re so keenly aware, refuse to come out for a fair fight, and instead hide behind their borders and civilians lobbing rockets. If the Nazis had sheltered on their side of the Maginot line throwing artillery at France and Poland rather than invading, I imagine the course of the war would have looked very different from what actually happened.

    I assure you, flattered as I am to think that my opinion is necessary for the enemies in Vietnam (before I was born), Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza to win, I think it’s probably got more to do with the opinion of, to focus on the more recent cases, the major regional players in the Middle East. While I’d love to believe that the key to peace is for me to start agitating for the bombing of civilians, I feel like it’s the opinion of much of the Arab world that’s got to change for Hamas to be seen as illegitimate, and to lose its support. 

  • Alcove-One

    History proves you wrong.

    As for tactics, how about the kind used on Germany.

    Of course the Nazis did not have "good" people lile yourself trying to appeal to their non-existant moderate natures and thus encourage them to keep up the fight.

    The enemy in Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza owe a great debt to people like you.

    They could not prevail without you. The the long dead and despised Nazis must be jealous.

  • jer

    I mean, maybe it’s just me, but I sort of feel like a death cult would have no interest in political organization or governance, but would instead focus soleley on the distribution of, y’know, more death. Even if you think that the summer-long truce was nothing but a ploy, it still indicates that Hamas responds rationally to incentives; a true death cult would’ve said, "fuck a truce", and launched rockets anyhow. A true death cult would not have tried a power-sharing deal with Fatah ever. A true death cult looks like this. Or this. Hamas has definite political goals, and tries to meet them. That its goals are odious doesn’t change the fact that Hamas will act rationally to meet them. Hamas is dependent on the good-will of the Palestinian population, unlike a true death-cult. The important point is, not all of Hamas’s goals are about Israel; it also wants political power domestically, it wants support, and it wants money. Hamas does not favour just any means of pushing the Jews out; it has always resisted encroachment by other jihadi groups, such as Al Qaeda. In other words, it has sacrificed man-power, money, and materiel that could be turned on Israel in favour of other considerations. Hamas has sought to protect its own power at the expense of furthering its goal of removing Israel. It may well do so again. Moreover, it’s goals are tied to Palestinian popular approval, especially now that it’s been democratically elected (you know, like all those death cults that submit candidates for public office). If ordinary Palestinians change their opinions, Hamas can well be induced to change its aims. 

    Anyway, that’s why I used scare quotes around death cult. I’m aware that the description I provided isn’t compatible with a death cult, but you will recall that I thought the notion that Hamas is a death cult was "silly". So it’s not actually a contradiction. 

    Anyway, Hamas is a large organization, subject to all sorts of pressures. There are certainly moderates: those who favour a long-term truce are certainly more moderate than those who don’t, and different Hamas members have varying ideas about what must be exchanged for such a truce. Pressure can be put on Hamas to move truce-favourers towards full recognition and hardliners towards acceptance of a truce. Yeah, it won’t convince everyone, and yes it might fail, but it’s not like anyone’s seen much return from endless bombing runs over Gaza. I mean, I guess this time might be the time that the mortar to break Hamas’s back will be fired, but I’m not holding my breath or anything. 

    Without getting into the ins-and-outs of why there hasn’t been peace for sixty years, I’m just going to point out that the fact that Hamas hasn’t acted reasonably so far does not mean that sufficient political pressure and incentives will never make them act that way in the future.  

    And that still doesn’t answer my point about Israel’s tactics. Even if violence is all Hamas understands, do you really think tactics that have failed in Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon, and oh, all over the world will somehow succeed in Gaza? 

  • Alcove-One

    The Death Cult description is silly, huh?

    What do you call people who along with suicide bombings try to kill Jews and hide behind their own people who they hope will be killed for the viewing pleasure of the BBC. "Israelis love life and we love Death" is a common mantra. Wake UP!

    "…showing the "death cult" that we’re willing to be moderate and to make concessions….more moderate elements within Hamas will be empowered. Even death cults have adherents with differing levels of dogmatism"

    Do you read your stuff before you post it?

    Death Cults are by definition NOT moderate. And who are the more moderate elements of Hamas? Are they the ones willing to take a break and accept food and aid before resuming the killing at a time of their choosing?

    If these people were as reasonable as you think, there would have been peace for the last 60 years.

    I would like to think your pulling my leg but I know your serious and that is what’s tragic.

  • jer

    Gah. "height of folly", not "hight". Also, please mentally insert a space between "dogmatism." and "Isolate".

  • jer

    Yup! Well, more or less. The idea that Hamas is a "death cult" is extremely silly; but even ignoring that, the point isn’t that we should just live alongside the death cult peaceably and blithe to any danger, it’s that by showing the "death cult" that we’re willing to be moderate and to make concessions (and hardly unreasonable concessions; letting Gaza import food is only a victory for Hamas if we make witholding food and blockading Gaza part of our strategy) more moderate elements within Hamas will be empowered. Even death cults have adherents with differing levels of dogmatism.Isolate the true believers and bring the followers and hangers-on over to the other side.

    I fully agree with your point about armies always fighting the last battle. Except that Israel is fighting a modern form of warfare using tactics from the ’60s. Fighting Hamas like America fought in Vietnam is the hight of folly. Bombing hasn’t diminished violence and radicalism in Gaza yet, it failed against Hizbollah, and I doubt anyone seriously thinks that Gaza will be an oasis of peace and happiness at the end of this campaign…yet still we try the same old tactics, while Hamas (fucking Hamas!) is winning the propaganda war. 

    Hamas isn’t Hitler, and sending in the troops en masse is not going to work against Hamas like it did against Hitler. War has changed, yes, but people like you are the ones looking at a history of failed tactics and demanding more of the same. 

  • Alcove-One

    Learning to live with a death cult, huh.

    From Hamas and its reviving of the ancient practice of crucifixion to Iran and its feverish creation of nuclear weapons, this world is too small for all of us.

    Using the tactics of the last war to fight a new war is a well trod and catastrophic path. World War One was fought like wars of the 19th century except for chemical weapons and the advanced machine gun created disaster on no man’s land; a new strategy was required.

    World War Two was to be fought like World War One but mechanized warfare and the blitzkrieg led to disaster for France in one month; a new strategy was required.

    The Cold War fought like WW2 would have led to nuclear war; a new strategy was required.

    As so is true with this current conflict against Islamofascism or this too will end in disaster…and defeat.

  • jer

    I think something you might be missing in your analysis is the role that western interference plays in driving "Islamist" sentiment. How much less a hot-bed for radicalism and terrorism would Iraq be, do you think, if Saddam’s fall had not been at the hands of an American army, acting in its own interests?

    Similarly, how do you think Hamas’s popularity will fare relative to secular moderates in Gaza now that over 200 children have been killed in Israeli strikes?

    Popular support is at least as important to groups like Hamas as military support; killing a rocket-firing crew, but with some civilian collateral damage, is not useful if ten more Palestinians are inspired to join the movement because of the dead civilians. Blockading the borders of Gaza and keeping food and medicine out might also deny Hamas some weaponry, but it will drive Palestinians to support them in droves. I agree that we do have to live with Hamas, but I think that by living with them, we may actually help to moderate them; if our response isn’t all-out-war on them at all times, they will eventually take a similar position regarding us.