Middle East Press on Islamophobia in France, Politicisation of Religion and Hate against Rohingya: New Age Islam's Selection, 4 November 2020
By New Age Islam Edit
Desk
4 November
2020
• Mainstreaming Islamophobia In France
By Talha Kose
• Why Has The West Turned Against Islam?
By Muhittin Ataman
• Confronting France’s Muslim Problem Should Be
Through Dialogue
By Osama Al-Sharif
• World Leaders Should Stop Politicizing
Religion
By Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib
• Biden, Not Trump, Is The Leader America Needs
Now
By Anthony Pahnke
• Syria Braces For War But Peace May Be Given A
Chance
By Talmiz Ahmad
• The Rising
Tide Of Hate Against The Rohingya
By Dr. Azeem Ibrahim
-----
Mainstreaming Islamophobia in France
By Talha Kose
November
03, 2020
People
gather on the Place de la Sorbonne to watch a live broadcast on a giant screen
of the national tribute to the French history teacher Samuel Paty, who was
killed in a terrorist attack, in the capital Paris, France, Oct. 21, 2020.
(Photo by Getty Images)
-----
AFrench
high school teacher, Samuel Paty, was brutally murdered by a young,
Russian-born Muslim of Chechen descent, Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov. This
heinous terrorist attack caused outrage in French society. The murder of Paty
was not the country's first such incident. France had also previously suffered
Daesh violence and the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack. Many leaders, including those
from Muslim countries, demonstrated solidarity with France in the aftermath of
those acts but Muslim communities and institutions were still put under
surveillance and heavy pressure.
French
President Emmanuel Macron's response to Paty's murder changed the nature of the
discussion in France. Macron, rather than using a nuanced comment and
condemnation, put Islam and Muslims at the center of this unfortunate incident.
He said that "this is a typical Islamist terror attack" and portrayed
the murder as a threat against the country's freedom of speech. His statement
"Islam is a religion globally in crisis" and his arrogant call for a
reform in Islam angered Muslim leaders.
Macron's
efforts to connect and associate a marginal terrorist attack with Islam's
essence outraged Muslims. French authorities continued the debate by portraying
cartoons desecrating Islamic values and the prophet of Islam in public
buildings.
This
practice of desecrating Islamic values and symbols under the "freedom of
speech" banner has created an outcry all over the Muslim world. French
Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin ordered that the Grande Mosque de Pantin be
closed for six months even as any Muslims and religious leaders in France and
elsewhere condemned the attacks against Paty and those in Nice and Avignon.
The recent
responses of the French bureaucracy are likely to have a disturbing impact on
Muslims living in the country. The collective punishment of their community
because of a terrorist attack is a dangerous development that may further
marginalize Muslims.
The hatred
against Islam and Muslims is becoming a mainstream practice in France. Rather
than condemning the acts of small groups that are spreading hate, intolerance
and violence, French authorities target the essence of the Muslim belief system
and question its compatibility with modern values.
There is a
gamut of underlying reasons behind the spread of radicalism and violent
extremism among the Muslim communities. In Europe and elsewhere, social
scientists published thousands of papers and hundreds of books about the
complexity of "Islamist extremism," and the radicalization and the spread
of "violent extremism."
French
officials' characterization of attacks committed by Muslims and their quick-fix
solutions contradict the scientific evidence. This populist and biased way of
depicting terrorist acts and hate crimes just targets the Muslim communities
and marginalizes even the more moderate voices.
French
authorities are assuming that people committing those brutal murders are
Muslims that represent the mainstream understanding of Islam. The research on
"Islamist violent extremism" has demonstrated that those who commit
these heinous acts are either not knowledgeable about the Islamic religion,
value system and practices or do not have proper training about the faith and
adequate understanding of Islam.
Humiliation,
discrimination, economic and social marginalization and exposure to trauma are
more relevant predictors of resorting to radicalization and violent extremism
among many identity groups including Muslim immigrants.
This
practice puts Muslims of all views on the spot. Islamophobia is becoming
mainstream thought and state policy in France but this view used to be a
marginal approach pursued by the extreme right and xenophobic circles in France
because marginalizing and disenfranchising Muslim communities will lead to
grave consequences.
Muslim
communities all over the world do not generate security problems or support
terrorist activities. Extremists worldwide are not pursuing their political
goals with violence against non-Muslims or violence against Muslims who have
different views.
What is
more dangerous in these developments is that extremists of the French radical
right and extremists continue to feed each other and benefit from this
polarization. Voices of the moderate majority from all sides are silenced under
the rubble of terrorist attacks. We know the possible consequences of
demonizing a particular community and belief system from our experiences of the
1930s and 1940s in Europe.
It is time
to increase the dialogues between the moderate voices and strengthen the
cooperation and solidarity among them for a more inclusive and tolerant society
in France and elsewhere. There is sufficient scientific evidence and research
related to the underlying sources of radicalization and violent extremism.
Populist politicians should not distort the reality and scientific evidence for
their political agenda.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/mainstreaming-islamophobia-in-france
-----
Why Has The West Turned Against Islam?
By Muhittin Ataman
November
04, 2020
A
Muslim walks inside Grand Mosque of Paris, Paris, France, Oct. 29, 2020. (AP
Photo)
-----
Historically,
Western governments prefer liberal values and principles in their foreign
relations only when they enjoy a competitive advantage. When the governments
experience crises and find themselves in a disadvantaged position, hatred,
alienization and otherization increases. This has been the case recently with
the Western world knee-deep in political, social and economic crises.
As a
result, they hold others responsible and accountable for the problems they
face, just like when they blamed Jews in the first half of the 20th century. If
they do not face a real threat, Western governments will construct one – or at
least the illusion of one.
Since the
collapse of the Soviet Union and communism, the Western perspective of Islam
has increasingly become negative. There are many reasons for vilifying Islam
and Muslims over the past several decades. In this text, I will mention some of
these factors.
First, the
West needs a political enemy to survive. For decades, dominant Western
countries fought fascism, with the main representative being Germany's Adolf
Hitler, during the first half of the 20th century and communism, mainly
represented by the Soviet Union, during the second half of the 20th century.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West replaced the "red
menace" communism with the “green menace,” Islam.
Even though
Muslims do not constitute a real political or military threat to the world,
i.e. the West, Western countries continue to politicize Islam and Muslims as
their main opponent. In the past, they considered fascism or communism a threat
to their way of life; nowadays, they claim the same thing for Islam.
Second,
using an anti-Islam and “Islamic terrorism” jargon is one of the easiest ways
to assert dominance over governments in the Muslim world. The West does not
prefer independent governments to manage the Muslim world. Colonial powers want
to maintain their direct and indirect control over these countries.
France, in
particular, has been exploiting the resources of African Muslim countries such
as Mali, Niger, Senegal, Chad, Gambia and Mauritania. For instance, today
France and some other Western countries prefer putschist Gen. Khalifa Haftar,
who is determined to preserve French interests, to rule Libya.
Third, the
cost of using anti-Islam rhetoric is quite low. Western countries could not and
cannot otherize other countries like India or China. The interdependence of the
West and China or Russia is stronger than that between the West and Muslim
countries, making the cost for Western global powers' rifts with Beijing and
Moscow quite high.
Therefore,
the otherization of Islam is more practical. It is easier to mobilize the world
behind Islamophobia, since China, Russia and especially India, which host
Muslim minorities and control historically Muslim-majority territories, have a
traditional enmity against Muslim countries.
On the
other hand, controlling the Muslim world will determine the global rivalry
between the West and others. Whoever controls the Muslim-dominated regions such
as the Middle East, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Central Asia and South
Asia will gain the advantage and become superior.
Fourth, the
governments in the Muslim world have strong political discourse and a wide
reach. With devoted followers all over the world, Islam is a global phenomenon
and has the potential to unite influential countries across the globe. Muslims
constitute the second-largest religious group, and Islam is the fastest-growing
religion in the world. Therefore, Western countries feel threatened by Islam
and Muslims. It has become the second-largest faith in many European countries,
including Belgium and the Netherlands.
Today the
number of Muslims living in the European countries exceeds 20 million, and
their presence in the West grows every year in the continent's streets. Muslims
have begun to shore up different sectors of European societies. Likewise, the
refugee wave continues from the Muslim world, heading toward Western Europe.
That is, the number of Muslims living there will only increase.
Last but
not least, Western governments, most of which have no respect for religions, do
not respect sacred figures, including Jesus, who plays a central role in
Christianity. Many Western media platforms have no redline in terms of
respecting religions and faiths; therefore, they draw cartoons even insulting
Jesus. If this is the case, we cannot expect someone who does not respect their
own sacred personalities to respect the sacred personalities of other people.
By
targeting Prophet Muhammad, they contribute to the radicalization of some
Muslim groups who are ready to react to these insulting moves in the West. The
more governments pursue anti-Islamic policies, the more it contributes to the
polarization; and the more polarization, the more social and political tension
will rise in Western countries. Islam and Muslims are not outsiders in Europe
and the West; they are a part of it.
Since
otherisation and alienation of Islam and Muslims will sooner or later lead to
the destabilization of Western societies and states, the current anti-Islamic
policies will be counterproductive. That is, Islamophobic policies are a
lose-lose strategy; Western politicians such as French President Emmanuel
Macron may save the day but not the future of the West.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/why-has-the-west-turned-against-islam
----
Confronting France’s Muslim Problem Should Be
Through Dialogue
By Osama Al-Sharif
November
03, 2020
French
President Emmanuel Macron presents his strategy to fight separatism, in Les
Mureaux, near Paris, France, October 2, 2020. (Reuters)
------
Religious
extremism is not exclusive to Muslims, as demonstrated by the actions of
Buddhist zealots in Myanmar, Jewish fundamentalists in Israel, and Christian
white supremacists in the US.
There are
other examples but the focus in the past two decades has been on the various
Islamist movements that have embraced a revisionist and violent dogma that is
shunned by the majority of Muslims around the world. Neither Al-Qaeda nor Daesh
is a true representation of what more than a billion Muslims believe and
practice every day.
When French
President Emanuel Macron last month said that “Islam is a religion which is
experiencing a crisis today, all over the world,” he was in fact generalizing
and creating a stereotype that is false, insulting and misleading. He is no
authority on Islam as a religion and should draw a line between the faith that
is embraced by billions of people, and what is now called “political Islam,” in
its various manifestations.
What Macron
should focus on instead is the state of France’s 5 million Muslim citizens,
most of whom were born in the country. What he should investigate are the
causes of radicalization among the nation’s Muslim youths.
His remarks
angered Muslims all over the world and triggered calls for a boycott of French
products. Sadly, on Oct, 16, not long after Macron’s speech, a young Chechen
murdered a French teacher who had shown blasphemous cartoons to his students.
On Oct. 29, a Tunisian immigrant attacked worshippers in a Catholic church in
Nice, killing three of them.
These are
revolting murders that are condemned by all, especially French Muslims. Nothing
can justify the killing of innocent people in the name of religion — any
religion.
Following
the two incidents, Macron should have shown the moral leadership that is needed
in a polarized society. Even before the terrible murders, he should have
initiated dialogue with Muslim organizations in France with the aim of
addressing the challenges a majority of French Muslims face, especially the
state’s failure to integrate many of them into society. The mainstream
organizations have embraced the principles of the Republic, including the
separation of church and state, but those on the fringes feel left out and so
are easy prey for extremists.
France has
a Muslim problem and has had it for some time. There have been 36 terrorist
attacks in the country attributed to Muslims in the past eight years. This week
Macron said he understood the feelings of Muslims about the offensive cartoons.
“I
understand and respect that we can be shocked by these caricatures,” he said.
“I will never accept that we can justify physical violence for these
caricatures and I will always defend in my country the freedom to say, to
write, to think, to draw.”
Finding a
common ground on which the principles of the Republic and freedom of worship
can coexist is something that must be arrived at without foreign interference.
It must be done through dialogue and cooperation, rather than incitement.
This week
more than 20 European Muslim organizations called on the French president to end
his “divisive rhetoric” and show moral leadership. In an open letter, they said
that “maligning Islam and your own Muslim citizens, closing mainstream mosques,
Muslim and humanitarian rights organizations, and using this as an opportunity
to stir up further hatred, has given further encouragement to racists and
violent extremists.”
The main
issue for French Muslims is socioeconomic and has to do with schooling, social
integration and economic opportunities. The state is right to curtail foreign
intervention but it must also provide alternatives and give young French
Muslims the opportunity to succeed. Even Macron, in his controversial speech,
admitted that the country’s Muslim citizens have been let down by successive
governments. He said that France has created its own “separatism” by dumping
poorer people in suburban ghettos with poor-quality housing and few jobs.
Macron
should be wary of unleashing waves of Islamophobia in France that would target
millions of moderate and law-abiding Muslims. According to studies, only a
minority of French Muslims embraces a radical, paranoid, anti-Western version
of Islam.
For Macron
and his ministers to talk about civil war, a fight to death and France under
siege is not the right way to resolve the nation’s Islamist crisis. Dark clouds
are looming as the far right prepares to attempt to take over in coming
elections, banking on rising hatred and distrust within French society.
On the
other hand, one should not fall for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s
opportunistic rhetoric targeting Macron. His tussle with the French president
transcends religion and is purely political. Erdogan’s incitement is both
dangerous and reckless. His controversial approach to regional politics has
undermined his credibility both at home and abroad. His use of religion to
mobilize followers seeks to divide and serves no good purpose.
Last Friday
the French Council of the Muslim Faith circulated a sermon to mosques that said
this: “The law of the Republic permits these cartoons but obliges no one to
like them. We can even detest them. But nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies
murder.”
This is the
kind of message French Muslims should embrace.
----
Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political
commentator based in Amman.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1758071
----
World Leaders Should Stop Politicizing Religion
By Dr. Dania Koleilat
Khatib
November
01, 2020
We have
seen in the past month a dangerous trend of politicizing religion, starting
with French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech in which he described Islam as a
religion “in crisis” and accused French Muslims of “separatism.” This was
followed by a counterattack from Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who accused
Macron of insulting Muslims. Regardless of the motives behind this escalating
rhetoric, it should stop before it leads to another wave of terrorist attacks,
as was witnessed in 2016 following the rise of Daesh.
In the
French president’s controversial speech, the positive points — namely his
intent to teach Arabic in schools, his plan to promote Islamic culture, and his
confession that Muslim immigrants have been left isolated by the state in
ghettos of “misery and hardship” — were overshadowed by the strong overall
tone. This offered the chance for Erdogan to position himself as the defender
of Islam and to garner popular sympathy, especially amid the boycott campaign
he is facing in Arab countries in response to his intrusive policies in the
region. The initial verbal battle between Erdogan and Macron was followed by a
gruesome terror attack, in which a teacher was beheaded for showing Charlie
Hebdo’s blasphemous cartoons.
Following
this incident, Macron doubled down on his position and the cartoons were
projected onto the facades of French government buildings. Shortly after, two
Muslim women were stabbed next to the Eiffel Tower. The poster of the offensive
cartoons prompted Muslim leaders, who had so far remained quiet and refrained
from interfering in what they viewed as internal French affairs, to condemn
their publication. Erdogan again jumped on the bandwagon and reiterated his
attacks on the French president. Another gruesome terrorist attack occurred
last week in a church in Nice, where an assailant slaughtered three people.
The French
authorities have started clamping down on Islamic organizations, even
threatening to close one that fights Islamophobia. Far-right pundits have taken
the opportunity to push for their theory of the “great replacement,” predicting
that the white European population will be replaced by immigrants. Essayist
Eric Zemmour called for the French to fight for their country’s “liberation”
from the “colonizers.” The question is where does it end? This quest by
politicians to raise their popularity and visibility by politicizing religion
and by raising the rhetoric is very dangerous and could lead to another wave of
violence. This is why former President Francois Hollande called for an end to
the controversial rhetoric and the adoption of an appeasing tone through which
social cohesion can be ensured. Canadian President Justin Trudeau added that
liberty of expression has no meaning unless it has limits. The calls of Trudeau
were echoed by Archbishop of Toulouse Robert Le Gall, who called the cartoons
an insult to Muslims and Christians, adding: “We all see their results.” Amid
those wise, calming calls, Charlie Hebdo made an irresponsible and immature
statement, claiming that it was proud to provoke Islamists despite the
violence.
Officials
should be careful when choosing their words. Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin
showed discontent with the fact that French stores have dedicated aisles that
cater for different religions, saying this contributes to the isolation of
minority communities. Following the Nice attack, Macron said, “there is only
one community in France — the national community.” This message, which was
intended to stress France’s national unity, should not be interpreted to mean
that communities no longer have the right to their own peculiarities. Hence,
the French state should be very clear that it is protecting its people from
terrorism and fighting extremism, not adopting identity politics. Calls for
conformity negate the concepts of diversity, plurality of opinion and personal
freedom, on which the liberal world relies. Also, the state should make sure
that Muslims do not feel targeted. Accusations of separatism that mention them
exclusively can instigate feelings of persecution, creating a fertile ground
for extremists; hence the severity of the situation.
France
seems to be realizing the violence that might snowball because of this
escalating rhetoric. On Saturday, the president gave a TV interview in which he
distanced himself from the blasphemous cartoons and said that he understands
the reaction of Muslims. The same way Macron toned down the rhetoric here,
other leaders should follow suit, while it is also the role of religious
authorities to give guidance to Muslims on how they should react to and counter
such incidents in a manner that is in line with the laws and regulations of
their respective countries. The world’s political leaders, religious leaders
and the media should all make responsible statements that lead to appeasement
and reconciliation in order to prevent the violence from spiraling further.
----
Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in
US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She is the co-founder of the
Research Centre for Cooperation and Peace Building (RCCP), a Lebanese NGO
focused on Track II. She is also an affiliated scholar with the Issam Fares
Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American
University of Beirut.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1757016
------
Biden, Not Trump, Is The Leader America Needs
Now
By Anthony Pahnke
3 Nov 2020
Radical
socialist, corrupt, inept – these are just some of the labels that the campaign
of United States President Donald Trump has tried to pin onto Joe Biden over
the past few months. Still, polls show
Biden with a significant lead as Americans vote on Election Day.
Four years
ago, it was Trump who seemed impermeable to attack, as controversy after
controversy did little to shake the loyalty of his supporters.
Four years
later, the tables have turned, with Biden not only maintaining a lead over the
incumbent, but even causing worry among Republicans that states such as
Georgia, Arizona and Texas may be in play.
Trump’s
barrage of attacks has failed to connect with voters for a variety of reasons.
From the
administration’s failed attempt to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, to the
fact that Biden is viewed positively by most Americans, on Election Day, the
country is poised to end its failed experiment with Trumpism and the
Republicans’ politics of hate, division and chaos.
To start,
the Trump administration’s ability to deal with the coronavirus pandemic has
left many frustrated. Suburban voters who reside in areas around major cities,
in particular, are fed up with the economic uncertainty that business and
school closures have caused in their communities. Additional stimulus payments
would be well received, but discussions over another round have ground to a
halt as Republican leadership in the Senate has ended negotiations.
Where has
Trump been during all the commotion? He has not been forging alliances,
brokering deals – despite his supposed aptitude as a dealmaker – or providing a
soothing, calming voice to the thousands who have lost loved ones during this
health crisis.
Instead,
Trump has been on the campaign trail, railing into Biden, stoking fears that if
the Democrat wins, then the Supreme Court will be fundamentally altered and
cities will burn.
Never mind
that it has been on Trump’s watch that cities have been burning as protests
take place against racial injustice, or that his party essentially forced a
nominee onto the Supreme Court despite the fact many Americans would have
preferred to wait until after the election to fill the seat of the late Ruth
Bader Ginsburg.
Biden,
meanwhile, has not been on the campaign trail as much as Trump for the simple
fact that he is following coronavirus protocols. Where Trump leads mega rallies
with maskless followers, Biden speaks at events that feature people sitting at
a safe distance from one another in their cars.
Some say
that one of the best ways to see how candidates would be as presidents is to
see how they run their campaigns. This is especially true now, when daily case
counts of coronavirus shoot up around the country, and Biden is leading a
campaign that is cautious when it comes to the wellbeing of his supporters and
calming when it comes to widespread anxiety.
These
qualities also show how Biden’s campaign mirrors his character. To illustrate,
just look at how Trump has consistently tried to make Biden the centre of a
corruption controversy that revolves around the Democratic nominee’s son’s
dealing with the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.
The former
vice president has taken the opportunity that the Burisma scandal has created
to showcase his empathy. Reports document that even when on the campaign trail,
Biden takes the time every day to call his son to check in. The reason is quite
simple – Biden’s son, Hunter, is recovering from drug addiction, and his dad
wants to see how he is doing.
This
picture of a caring, calming figure has come to characterise Biden over the
years. It was early in his political career when his first wife and daughter
were killed in a car accident. When Biden was serving as vice president in the
administration of former President Barack Obama, Biden’s son Beau died from
brain cancer.
It is true
that Biden is a career politician with more than 50 years of experience. What
is also true is that over this time, the Democratic nominee has learned a
significant amount from his trying experiences of loss and pain.
At a time
when thousands around the US are reeling from the loss of loved ones, Biden is
the candidate who has over the years developed an authentic sense of
compassion.
Four years
ago, high unfavourable ratings characterised both presidential candidates
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. This time around, the polls show something different.
While many continue to see Trump unfavourably, a majority of Americans view
Biden positively. That Americans see the Democrat this way is in part due to
his personal history and character.
There has
been much speculation about what a Biden administration would entail. Some see
a series of progressive policy proposals, whether to address climate change,
the infrastructure needs of a country that is seeing its bridges and roads fall
into disrepair, or our flawed healthcare system. Others see in Biden a moderate centrist who
would introduce no radical changes if elected.
Regardless
of the outcome, what is shared by American voters is real displeasure with how
four years of Trump’s divisive rhetoric – whether the target is immigrants,
Democrats, or Dr Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases – has led the country headlong into chaos.
The country
wants a president who will help us resolve our many problems, not contribute to
them. And it is Biden – not Trump – who has the personal history and vision
that this moment in time requires.
----
Anthony Pahnke is an Assistant Professor of
International Relations at San Francisco State University, in San Francisco,
California. His research deals with social movements and protest, development,
and trade policy.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/11/3/biden-not-trump-is-the-candidate-america-needs-at-the-moment/
----
Syria Braces For War But Peace May Be Given A
Chance
By Talmiz Ahmad
November
01, 2020
Two events
over the last two weeks suggest that Syria could soon be seeing either a
two-front war or, surprisingly, the prospect of peace.
On Oct. 20,
Turkey removed its troops from the Morek observation post in northern Idlib. In
a separate development on Oct. 26, Russia launched a massive air attack on the
Faylaq Al-Sham militia, which is one of the largest rebel groups backed by
Turkey.
The Morek
base was set up by Turkey following its Sochi agreement with Russia in May
2018. This agreement enforced a truce covering Idlib, with the two countries
setting up “de-escalation zones” in the area and jointly patrolling the M4
highway that links Aleppo with Latakia, via Idlib. Turkey was to use this truce
to remove all radical groups from the region.
Turkey then
set up 12 observation posts, including Morek, to monitor the cease-fire. Not
surprisingly, instead of identifying and eliminating the extremist elements of
Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), Turkey sought to project them as “moderate” and
co-opt them into the Syrian National Army (SNA).
In the face
of Turkish recalcitrance, Syrian government troops, backed by Russian air
support, launched an attack in December last year and took large parts of the
countryside surrounding Idlib city. This fighting, which ended in March, left
four of Turkey’s observation posts, including Morek, surrounded by Syrian
troops. This made the Turkish presence untenable, particularly in a conflict
with the Syrian armed forces. Following its departure from Morek, the other
three posts are expected to be vacated by Turkey by early December.
The
withdrawal from Morek is not, however, a Turkish setback. The evacuated troops
have been redeployed in the area and Ankara has beefed up its presence with
several thousand vehicles bringing in military equipment — tanks, artillery and
air defense weaponry — to support the 15,000 troops it has deployed there.
Turkey
continues its efforts to incorporate the HTS into the regional “military
council” it has set up with the rebel forces — the SNA and the National
Liberation Front — in northern Syria. Meanwhile, HTS has made every effort to
shed its extremist identity and project itself as a moderate political
grouping. To this end, it last month severed its ties with its erstwhile
ideological mentor, Abu Mohammed Al-Maqdisi. It announced that its Shariah
Council had disavowed his “ideology and behavior.” In response, Al-Maqdisi
referred to HTS’ alleged affiliation with Turkish intelligence, recalling the
recent attacks by Turkish and American forces on the radical group Hurras Al-Din,
which had broken away from HTS in 2018.
Turkey’s
consistent failure to distance itself from extremist groups in Idlib is perhaps
the reason for Russia’s lethal attack on Faylaq Al-Sham. In fact, this divide
between Russian and Turkish interests compounds their differences in Libya and
in the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, where Ankara has deployed Syrian
fighters to back Azerbaijan.
In Syria,
the failure to open the M4 highway, an economic lifeline for the beleaguered
country, has been a major cause of frustration for Russia and its Syrian
partners. Due to constant attacks from extremist groups, Russia even ceased
participating in the joint patrols of the highway in August.
Turkey has
made it clear that its principal desire is to control the entire Turkish-Syrian
border up to a depth of 40 km. In this context, after the Russian air attack,
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s warning was directed not at Russia but
at the Kurds. He referred to the Kurdish presence close to the border as that
of “terrorist organizations” that are “not under our control,” warning that, if
the areas are not cleared, “we have the legitimate right to mobilize once
again.”
Thus, to
free the M4 highway and rid the region of rebel forces, the Syrian army has
been mobilized at different points around Idlib — at west Aleppo, south Idlib
and northeast Latakia — while Turkey has complemented its own forces by
providing new equipment and training for the militias it controls in the
region.
The chances
of a two-front war — one against the Kurds in northeast Syria to take the
border areas under their control and the other against Syrian government forces
around Idlib — are therefore very high.
But
countervailing forces are also in play. Russian President Vladimir Putin, while
referring to differences between Turkey and Russia, thoughtfully noted recently
that Erdogan “is a flexible person and finding a common language with him is
possible.”
This
observation suggests that Erdogan, with his usual approach of going to the edge
of the abyss and then drawing back at the last moment, will not jeopardize his
country’s ties with Russia, particularly when his differences with the US,
regardless of who is in the White House, are so deep.
Thus,
instead of war, we could actually see Russia and Turkey work on arrangements in
north and northeast Syria that serve all parties’ interests and finally set up
dialogue between Turkey and the Assad government. As the Russian intervention
in Syria enters its sixth year, this would be the best outcome of Putin’s
diplomacy.
-----
Talmiz Ahmad is an author and former Indian
ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE. He holds the Ram Sathe Chair for
International Studies, Symbiosis International University, Pune, India.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1756996
-----
The Rising Tide Of Hate Against The Rohingya
By Dr. Azeem Ibrahim
November
04, 2020
Evidence is
beginning to emerge that the Myanmar military, the Tatmadaw, is once again
instigating a campaign of propaganda against the Rohingya. Observers on the ground
are convinced that violence will surely follow once again.
Of the 1
million Rohingya who were in Myanmar in 2016, about two-thirds were pushed over
the border to Bangladesh during the military’s “clearing operations” in 2017
and 2018. It was an act of genocide that is being prosecuted in the
International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Most of
those who remained were already in camps for internally displaced people as a
consequence of communal violence in 2012 and 2013 or, for some, even earlier.
Indeed, the main reason why there are still so many Rohingya in Myanmar at all
is because those in the camps could not easily flee.
Now it
appears that the federal authorities in Myanmar are intent on finishing what
they started. The Rohingya are once again portrayed as a threat, which is an
absurd charge given that hardly any remain free in society at large, even in
their former Rakhine state heartland, and that those held in the internal camps
are largely cut off from any interaction with the rest of the country. Occasionally,
some manage to escape from the camps — but the first thing they do is try is to
find a way out of the country.
But the
mentality that drives a genocide such as this is not bound by reality any more
than it is bound by compassion and humanity. A genocide is almost always also a
ritual of “purification.” Merely reducing a people to non-relevance is not
enough: They must be destroyed and removed entirely, otherwise the
“purification” will have failed.
For that
reason, the handful of Rohingya remaining free in Myanmar — and certainly the
hundreds of thousands effectively imprisoned in “refugee” camps — remain an
affront to the project of “purification” pursued by the military. At the very
least, it is unfinished business. More likely, it is perceived as an
infuriating act of defiance that must be crushed.
Unfortunately,
it appears that even the ICJ trial has not succeeded in deterring further
hostility toward the Rohingya. The more optimistic observers had hoped the
legal action would be the first step toward redress for the Rohingya and might,
in the longer term, mean that they could return to the land of their birth. The
most that can be said of the trial now is that it might have slightly delayed
the final act of the genocide.
It seems
the Tatmadaw are once again getting restless and that they no longer appear to
feel in any way restrained by global opinion or the censure of international
law.
Perhaps
they believe that all the reputational and economic damage they might have
feared as a consequence of the genocide has already happened, and so no
practical impediment remains to them finishing what they started. Or perhaps
they feel that reigniting this issue might help them entrench themselves in an
election year by providing them with a bit more power in the ongoing tug of war
they have with the civilian government.
Whatever
the case may be, the only thing that can prevent this situation from escalating
and resulting in another wave of refugees, or even mass murder, is a robust and
proactive response from the international community. And, once again, such a
response is unlikely to be forthcoming.
There are
only three international powers that have the clout to intervene and stop what
is coming: The UN, the US and China. It is more likely China would veto any UN
action on the genocide.
That leaves
the US, which might have intervened in the halcyon days of the 1990s — but now
is a country entirely consumed by internal instability in the wake of a
bitterly divided and fraught election.
Once again
the world can see a genocide coming. And once again, the world is failing to do
anything about it.
-----
Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is a director at the Center
for Global Policy in Washington, D.C.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1758131
----
URl: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/middle-east-press-islamophobia-france,/d/123362
New
Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism