A New Formula in the Battle for Fallujah: New Age Islam's Selection, 26 May 2016
New Age
Islam Edit Bureau
26 May 2016
• A New Formula in the Battle for Fallujah
By Michael Knights
• Will Taleban Chief's Killing Force Group To Join Talks?
By Josh Kenworthy
• Why Is Egypt Calling On Israel To Release Marwan Al-Barghouti?
By Ahmed Fouad
• Where Next For Russia in Syria?
By James Denselow
• Netanyahu Swerves Right Out Of Control
By Yossi Mekelberg
• Yin and Yang: Racism and Tolerance
By Nawar Fakhry Ezzi
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
A New Formula in The Battle For Fallujah
By Michael Knights
25 May 2016
On May 22, the Iraqi government announced the opening of the long-awaited battle of Fallujah, the city only 30 miles west of Baghdad that has been fully under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group for the past 29 months. Fallujah was a critical hub for al-Qaeda in Iraq and later ISIL in the decade before ISIL's January 2014 takeover.
On the one hand it may seem surprising that Fallujah has not been liberated sooner - after all, it has been the ISIL-controlled city closest to Baghdad for more than two years. The initial reason was that there was always something more urgent to do with Iraq's security forces.
In January 2014, the Iraqi security forces were focused on preventing an ISIL takeover of Ramadi next door. The effort to retake Fallujah was judged to require detailed planning and a hasty counterattack seemed like a pointless risk.
In retrospect it may have been worth an early attempt to break up ISIL's control of the city while it was still incomplete.
Inconclusive Siege of Fallujah
Then came the loss of Mosul and the battles for Haditha, Samarra, Tikrit, and Baiji. The battle to free Ramadi was fought throughout the length of the war until its recent liberation.
The Iraqi security forces, mainly Shia elements of the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), settled into a long and inconclusive siege of Fallujah.
For the PMF, which experienced disappointing battlefield results from the spring of 2015 onwards, Fallujah became a way to give the impression that it was still a key player on the Iraqi battlefields.
This siege has caused tremendous material damage to Fallujah, which was never fully rebuilt after the great battles of 2004, when US Marines cleared the city in highly destructive block-by-block fighting.
As importantly, around 70,000 civilians out of the city’s 350,000 original residents remain in the city out of choice or because they are too scared to try to escape.
Shortages of food and medicines within the Fallujah pocket have caused civilian illnesses and deaths that would be preventable under normal circumstances.
The current offensive to liberate Fallujah seems to have been driven by a combination of factors: the mass-casualty bombings in Baghdad during May, the pressure on Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to show positive results in any field, and the hiatus between the end of the battle of Ramadi and the likely start of the battle of Mosul in the late summer or autumn.
Shortages of food and medicines within the Fallujah pocket have caused civilian deaths and illnesses that would be preventable under normal circumstances.
Lessons from Previous Battles
In theory, there is space for a quick Fallujah operation before Iraq begins to isolate Mosul from the south and west in the autumn and then assault Mosul city itself in the winter. But will it be quick?
The much publicised beginning of the broader Mosul operation launched in March 2016 gave the impression that the city itself was close to being liberated: In fact the fighting was more than 100km from Mosul city.
In Fallujah the relieving forces are much closer - often 5-10km from the edges of the city - but the publicity surrounding the opening days of the offensive have raised expectations of an immediate entry into Fallujah a little too high.
This first week of Iraqi operations have been aimed at rolling back ISIL's control of outlying areas to the north of Fallujah at Karma, and to the east and south of the city.
The Iraqi Air Force has mounted its most intensive operations of the war to selectively strike ISIL targets in Fallujah with its US-supplied F-16 and AC-208 precision-strike aircraft, Chinese armed CH-4 drones, Russian-supplied attack helicopters and new Czech-supplied L-159 jets,
The operation clearly shows that the Iraqi government, the PMF and the coalition have learned important command-and-control lessons from previous battles.
The Iraqi government, supported by the US-led coalition, is coordinating the battle for Fallujah. They are picking the targets for aerial strikes and commanding the broad framework of the operation.
The PMF, which includes Sunni PMF from the rural areas around Fallujah, are fighting a loosely connected battle that is focused on Fallujah’s rural outskirts.
Some PMF elements, such as Kataib Hezbollah or Asaib Ahl al-Haq, will not receive US air support, but Iraqi aircraft will be on call to help. Importantly, Badr's leader Hadi al-Amiri said on May 24 that PMF units would not enter Fallujah city.
This division of labour is the product of lessons learned in the battles of Tikrit, Bayji and Ramadi. The PMF cannot “go it alone” in such battles and do not achieve good results in intense urban fighting where coalition intelligence and strike capabilities are critically important.
But Iraq's security forces and the coalition have learned that the PMF are pretty good at clearing and occupying the rural zones around contested cities and preventing ISIL reinforcements from arriving, which is a necessary part of any effort to liberate a city.
The Iraqi government has learned that excluding the PMF entirely, as in Ramadi, can cause resentment. Time will tell how quickly and how effectively ISIL resistance in Fallujah will be overcome but the formula being used at Fallujah represents a positive evolution for the war in Iraq.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/05/160525084652172.html
-----
Will Taleban Chief's Killing Force Group To Join Talks?
By Josh Kenworthy
May 26, 2016
President Barack Obama on Monday lauded the United States drone strike that killed the Afghan Taleban's leader as "an important milestone."
Counterinsurgency experts don't think the strike, by itself, will bring the Taleban to the bargaining table, as Obama urged in his statement. And some warn that even at their most successful, such targeted killings leave behind hatred that may later re-emerge in more damaging forms.
But some experts see drone strikes as a useful if controversial tool - and one of the few at the Obama administration's immediate disposal - to pressure the Taleban.
At a time when the Taleban controls more territory than at any time since 2001, the killing of Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Pakistan on Saturday is a symbolic victory for the US and Afghan forces in their effort to stabilise Afghanistan.
Such strikes can help achieve several objectives, experts say. At the very least, they divert the focus of insurgent groups, forcing them to protect their leaders or to engage in leadership struggles. Senior Taleban leaders are trying to move quickly to name Mansour's replacement, in the hope of preventing major fissures, according to reports.
In some instances, strikes against key terrorist leaders can cause the organisation to collapse, draining it of expertise and leadership faster than it can be replenished.
"The Taleban should seize the opportunity to pursue the only real path for ending this long conflict - joining the Afghan government in a reconciliation process that leads to lasting peace and stability," Obama said.
But that is not likely to be the case with the Taleban, and Obama made no pronouncements that this was a game-changing moment.
Strikes such as the one Saturday can also bring challenges. They can be a boon for a terror recruitment, leading to more aggressive leaders and retaliation. Collateral damage to civilians, and killing terrorist leaders without due process, also can put the US in a negative spotlight.
Avi Dicter, former head of Israel's internal security service, has made the case for killing terrorists when possible because there is a limited number of effective leaders - there is a "bottom to the barrel."
But "the Dicter philosophy requires that the 'barrel of terror' be drained more quickly than it is refilled from the well of resentment," Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation, wrote in a commentary last year.
So the effectiveness of drone strikes may hinge partly on how long-established a group is.
A comprehensive study of targeted capture or kill strikes on insurgent-group leaders concluded that the strikes have played a significant role in diminishing the life of insurgent groups, wrote Brian C. Price at West Point's Counter Terrorism Centre in a 2012 column in Christian Science Monitor.
But his research also showed that this tactic was most effective when the groups were new - within their first 10 years. After 10 years, the effects were cut in half, and after 20 years such efforts were likely to have no effect on a group at all.
Based on those metrics, targeting the Taleban leadership might not be very effective as a core strategy. After being routed by US and Northern Alliance forces in 2001, the Taleban regrouped in 2003 and, especially since the drawdown of US forces in 2014, has continued to target US and Afghan forces.
The US adopted the tactic of assassinating high-profile leaders of terror groups at the beginning of the war on terror, following a strategy Israel used after the start of the second intifada in 2000.
"Israel dramatically stepped up its targeting of Palestinian terrorists, killing more than 200 of them. This campaign worked. Targeted killings - combined with the security barrier, military operations, and improved intelligence - reduced Israeli deaths from a high of 172 in 2002 to less than 40 in 2005," wrote Daniel Byman, director of the Centre for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, in a 2006 Los Angeles Times op-ed. "Even more telling, this decline in deaths occurred during periods when the number of attempted attacks by Hamas increased, suggesting that the organisation became less capable even though its hatred did not diminish."
But since then, other instances have shown how, if hatred does not diminish, terror or insurgent groups often splinter and morph into newer and more violent forms. Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has seen the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq and now Daesh.
Still, in key places where the US is seeking to counter terrorism, governments often aren't viable partners - making drone strikes something of a last resort.
"Too bad a silver bullet is exactly what the US is counting on in countries like Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, where a lack of reliable partners on the ground make other strategies impossible," Slate's Joshua Keating wrote.
Source: khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/will-taleban-chiefs-killing-force-group-to-join-talks
----
Why Is Egypt Calling On Israel To Release Marwan Al-Barghouti?
By Ahmed Fouad
May 25, 2016
“Running for President.” “A Nobel Peace Prize.” “Egyptian efforts to secure his release.” “Establishing strategic relations with Hamas.” “Reformulating the relationship with the occupation.” All are phrases used in connection with Palestinian Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, imprisoned since 2002 in the Hadarim prison in Israel and serving five consecutive life sentences for charges of murder and attempted murder.
Calls for his release over the last several years have never stopped. If anything, they have grown more frequent of late to an unusual degree — perhaps owing to the recent revelation by his wife, Fadwa Barghouti, in a televised interview Feb. 25 with the i24news channel that he plans to run for president in the coming Palestinian elections, repeating statements by many in the media. His intention to run was connected to his proposal for a new vision — which he declared in an interview April 18 with the Hamas-affiliated Palestinian Center for Media — about establishing strategic relations with Hamas based on 10 main principles, and it also was connected to another proposal for a new vision published in the Journal of Palestine Studies on May 9 arguing against negotiations as a means of dealing with Israel. This stands in marked contrast with the policies of Fatah.
On April 5, president of the Tunisian Human Rights Defense League Fadhel Moussa presented the Nobel Peace Prize medal — won in 2015 by the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet — to Fadwa Barghouti, who accepted the gesture on behalf of her imprisoned husband and announced his support for attempts to release him. Members of the Palestinian Legislative Council launched a campaign April 12 to nominate Barghouti for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Complementing the extraordinary groundswell of calls for Barghouti’s release, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry announced April 17 its desire for the Israeli authorities to release him, after a meeting between Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukri and Fadwa Barghouti that same day. This came within the context of her trips to various countries to build up international support for calls to release her husband.
The fact that the Egyptian announcement that Cairo sought to see Barghouti released coincided with his wife’s statement that he intended to run for the presidency perhaps indicates his candidacy has Egypt’s blessing, given “[Barghouti’s] … wide-ranging popularity as well as his ability to convince Palestinian organizations to work with him," according to statements to Al-Monitor from a former official at the Egyptian Embassy in Ramallah.
Barghouti’s role in Fatah has not been limited to political work, like most of the current crop of leaders such as Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), president of Fatah and head of the Palestinian Authority, and Saeb Erekat, a member of the Central Committee. His role extended to military operations against Israel during the years of the second intifada before he was arrested — particularly 2000, 2001 and the beginning of 2002. He was one of the founders of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah’s military wing. The brigades’ military activity was suspended after the election of the Palestinian Authority in 2005, following Barghouti’s imprisonment.
Perhaps his absence from the movement was one of the reasons that Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades lapsed into inactivity. Following his arrest in 2002, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published audio recordings of Barghouti’s interrogations at the hands of the Shabak, Israel's security service. According to those recordings, Barghouti was one of the supporters of expanding the intifada’s anti-occupation military activities beyond the Green Line — in other words, beyond the territories that were occupied in 1967 and have yet to be recovered.
Dr. Yasir Tantawi, an expert in Palestinian affairs at the Al-Ahram Center for Political Studies, told Al-Monitor that occupied peoples generally tend to support leaders with a personal history of armed struggle, as is the case with Barghouti. All the more so as Fatah’s armed activity receded in Barghouti’s absence, and did so in a manner that ran contrary to the movement’s dominant vision during Yasser Arafat’s era. That vision viewed the struggle for the 1967 territories as necessary, even if it required the use of arms against Israeli forces and settlers.
Because of his popularity, the release of Barghouti has become something both rival Hamas and Fatah are competing to achieve, owing to the vast credit and accomplishment he could add to the stock of whichever party secured his release.
It should be noted that many Hamas leaders have stressed in statements to the press and televised interviews that Barghouti’s release is a top priority. This includes Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas’ political office, who said in a Nov. 4, 2015, interview that his movement was concerned with securing Barghouti’s release.
A former official from the Egyptian Embassy in Ramallah who asked to remain anonymous told Al-Monitor, "The popularity of Barghouti because of his armed struggles and imprisonment made him a hero and a symbol for the Palestinian issue, and both Hamas and Fatah can't block his political programs, as happened with Yasser Arafat, Ahmed Yassin and Abdul Aziz Al-Rantissi. He can convince the two organizations to unite under his presidency, because their refusal [to do so] may reduce their popularity compared with Barghouti’s popularity."
Fathi Qarawi, a representative in the Legislative Council for the Change and Reform Bloc and a leader in Hamas in the West Bank, issued a statement May 1 in which he said that Barghouti was acceptable both internally, internationally and regionally, and that the Egyptian desire to release him was the best evidence of this. He added that in his estimation the Palestinian people would support Barghouti's bid for the presidency without directly addressing whether Hamas would support Barghouti should he run.
The Israeli news site Walla, in a report dated April 11, 2015, noted that Barghouti had reached understandings through his intermediaries with both Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to combat Israeli forces in the West Bank on the day after Abbas leaves office.
The frequency of calls to release Barghouti, including Egyptian pressure to release him and support for his candidacy in the coming presidential elections, comes only a few weeks after a Hamas delegation visited Egyptian intelligence to put an end to the tension between the two parties that arose following the fall of ousted President Mohammed Morsi on July 3, 2013. This revived Barghouti’s name as a possible consensus candidate affiliated with Fatah, which has warm ties with Egypt, but also enjoying support in Hamas’ circles.
Khaled Okasha, head of the National Center for Security Studies in Cairo, told Al-Monitor that eliminating terrorism in Sinai requires blocking its source, namely the tunnels connecting the peninsula to Gaza. However, he noted that these tunnels may be needed for Palestinians to import vital necessities, especially in light of tensions around the official border crossing at Rafah after Hamas seized control of the Palestinian side of the crossing.
According to Okasha, this situation may not end until there's an elected and decisive Palestinian Authority that can protect the crossing from any organization — whether Hamas or others — and that can facilitate the Egyptian government's mission to destroy tunnels while helping Palestinians to improve their lives, so that the crossing will be the legitimate alternative for the tunnels.
Barghouti might be the most appropriate choice for heading this elected decisive regime, especially given his popularity and history that would push rival organizations to work together under his leadership.
Source: al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/05/egypt-call-release-marwan-barghouti-palestine.html
-----
Where Next For Russia in Syria?
By James Denselow
25 May 2016
A good means of predicting what Moscow's next steps in the Syria conflict is to listen to what Russian political and military leaders say and prepare for the opposite. While other actors on this most bloody of stages have been characterised by their preference for short-term tactics, the Russians have long had a strategy for their involvement in the country.
Moscow's strategy is born of its historic relationship with the Assad regime and its priorities for the future of a fast-changing Middle East. What is more, this is largely unchallenged and unaccountable.
Putin is aware that after five years of bloodshed in Syria what is and isn't happening on the ground at a granular level is an unknown to all but the most ardent observers. Into this swirling fog of war the Russians have decided to paint their own narrative, realising that by controlling and sticking to consistent lines they can both write the first draft of history while affecting the actions of others.
Last September the Syrian regime was on the back foot and there was increasing talk of a Turkish-sponsored "safe" zone in the north. Into this equation came the Russian air campaign that significantly changed the balance of power.
Narrative Control
Russian military hardware was unleashed, with retreating Syrian opposition forces claiming that they could distinguish Russian from Syrian warplanes by the fact that Russian planes mainly attack at night and are both more accurate and intense.
Warnings from observers that Russian bombs were killing hundreds of civilians were flatly denied, with Moscow brazenly claiming that "not one" had died.
As quickly as they arrived, the Russians apparently left. In March, they declared victory and announced a withdrawal, as well as releasing press statements showing the medals that awaited their forces back home.
The importance the Russians give to narrative control and general PR was reflected in their embedded tours of airbases, but what happened in Palmyra would take things to an entirely new level.
The importance the Russians give to narrative control and general PR was reflected in their embedded tours of airbases, but what happened in Palmyra would take things to a new level.
Conscious that the liberation of the famous historical site from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group (ISIL), would make global headlines in ways that other components of the conflict hadn't, the Russians went into overload.
Journalists who covered the story of the Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra performing in the Palmyra ruins where previously ISIL had executed prisoners told a story of hours of travel from Russia, more hours under heavy guard in Palmyra, for a performance that lasted only 15 minutes.
Resource and Effort
The resources and effort dedicated to the performance show how far Moscow is willing to go to tell the story of its support to a beleaguered government in its fight against terrorism.
Yet with US diplomatic efforts to hold Russia to its words in Geneva stalling, this could soon change.
Following the much-publicised Palmyra concert came leaked footage showing what appeared to be a Russian forward operating facility being set up near to the famous ruins.
The Pentagon confirmed that it was monitoring the facility while contradicting the story that the Russians had withdrawn, claiming its force numbers were fairly consistent with those before the announced departure.
A Russian Defence Ministry spokesman said that what was being reported in Palmyra wasn't an airbase which would be "economically unviable", but this measured argument was undermined when Russian Defence Minister Igor Konashenkov told the AP that it wasn't even a base at all.
There is an understandable sensitivity about the status of Russian bases in Syria, with a historic focus on Russia's only Mediterranean naval base in Tartus that was put into sharp perspective by Monday's ISIL attacks on the town and the ones in Jableh that killed more than 120 people.
Consistently Unpredictable
To date Russia has been able to call the shots because no other global power is willing to put as many chips on the table as them, or call their bluff. Yet simply saying that the Syrian war is won is different from winning it, and the one thing that has been consistent in this conflict has been its unpredictability.
Meanwhile the Americans have shown that they are capable of their own surprises with the unannounced 11-hour trip to Kurdish-controlled northern Syria on Saturday by General Joseph Votel, the commander of US Central Command, leading to speculation that, with peace talks failing, Washington is looking to increase its other means of leverage.
A more immediate challenge for Russia over whether it is or isn't building new military bases is whether it will support something tangible that it has already agreed to.
With a deadline of June 1 for the UN to lead airdrops of aid to besieged areas, something that surely is against regime interests, Moscow may be forced into revealing that its rhetoric is hiding a very different set of actions in the very near future.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/05/russia-syria-160524053816849.html
-----
Netanyahu Swerves Right Out Of Control
By Yossi Mekelberg
25 May 2016
When you think you have seen everything in Israeli politics and nothing could surprise you, think again – or better yet, think Netanyahu. If you thought no one could drag Israeli politics any lower, think again or better yet, think Netanyahu.
Being speechless is not a quality usually associated with one who writes opinion commentary, but the unscrupulous political twists and turns of the Israeli prime minister last week were breath-taking for all the wrong reasons. An extraordinary week that started with negotiations to bring the more centre-left Zionist Union party into the coalition, seems most likely to end with an even more extreme clerical-nationalist government to lead Israel over the next few years.
Instead of the Zionist Union, Netanyahu opted to lure the ultra-right Israel our Home, led by the ever bellicose Avigdor Lieberman, into his already very uncompromising religious-nationalist government. Most astonishing, was the way Netanyahu discarded the services of his Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, offering what is probably the most important and sensitive post, to the controversial and deeply divisive Lieberman.
Joining forces with the Zionist Union, which consists mainly of the Labor party, had its own merit. It is the second largest party in the Israeli Knesset with 24 MKs, and holds, ostensibly, a more moderate stand on the peace process. Consequently, it might have projected a more dovish image of Israel to the international community and an apparent readiness to resume peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
A more cynical view is that they would have served as no more than a fig leaf for a prime minister, who has no interest in making any of the required concessions to advance peace. It would have been no more than a ploy to ease some of the pressure to participate in the international peace conference, which the French are offering, diverting attention away from the expansion of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, or from the Palestinian’s request for recognition in the UN Security Council.
A mere exercise in biding time, which is the essence of Netanyahu’s politics in his never ceasing attempt to stay in power. Netanyahu is on a hell-bent mission to become the longest serving prime minister in the country’s history. David Ben Gurion, the only prime minister to have served longer than him, founded and built a country. Netanyahu is destroying the soul of this very country.
Netanyahu might find that this was one act of opportunism too far, ending in presiding over a government which swerves out of control to the right and is ravaged by personal discord
Cynicism And Opportunism
It is this very cynicism and opportunism that led him to shift attention and flirt with Lieberman, with whom he has a long history of mutual despise and distrust. Joining forces with the Zionist Union could have resulted in a mini-rebellion within his own Likud party and other members of the coalition. Netanyahu has long planned to expand his coalition, fearing that relying on the narrowest of majorities possible, of 61 MKs, will not be enough to survive a full term until the next scheduled elections.
A recent disagreement with his Defense Minister regarding the right of senior officers to express their opinion on the morality of military actions, gave him the pretext he was looking for to remove Ya’alon from his post. Ya’alon, a former general himself, jumped before he was pushed and resigned last Friday, but did not do so without an alarming parting shot.
In his statement following his resignation, he asserted that: “extremist and dangerous forces have taken over Israel and the Likud movement and are destabilizing our home and threatening to harm its inhabitants.”
Absurdly Ya’alon and the generals, who pro-actively lamented the decline of moral standards in the Israeli society and in its military, were “accused” of going soft, turning into lefty-liberals – an unforgivable sin – in the eyes of the current Israeli government. The outgoing minister has never been any of the above. He is a hardliner hawk, with little empathy for the suffering of the Palestinians.
But what separates him from the Netanyahus, Liebermans and Bennets of this world, is that he is a man of personal integrity and honesty. His calculations are not of a narrow political nature, focused on personal gains. In the bigger picture his actions, throughout his military and political life, contributed to perpetuation of the occupation and oppression of the Palestinians, probably more than many other members of the current Israeli government.
Nevertheless, as a professional soldier he could not turn a blind eye to instances such as the emptying a full magazine of bullets into a young Palestinian girl, or the cold blooded killing of a Palestinian assailant, while he was laying injured and defencelessly on the ground, actions that could only be regarded as war crimes and are rightly condemned by the military commanders. Netanyahu’s show of sympathy for those who commit these crimes reveals that he is neither a statesman, nor a military leader with any moral backbone.
Appointing to the position of Minister of Defense, one of the most contentious politicians of Israeli politics in recent history, with a cloud of impropriety constantly hanging above his head, can only be regarded as irresponsible. A defence minister who calls for the re-occupying of Gaza, transferring of Israeli Arabs, and advocates the death penalty for terrorists, will only lead the country to more conflict and bloodshed.
Netanyahu might find that this was one act of opportunism too far, ending in presiding over a government which swerves out of control to the right and is ravaged by personal discord.
Time will tell whether was this week’s act of political trickery will lead to the beginning of Netanyahu’s political demise. Or, if it was a further affirmation that the state of Israel and the Zionist dream of being liberal, democratic and living in peace with its neighbours, have further parted ways and in the process alienated its international allies. I will not be surprised that it might be a case of both.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/05/25/Netanyahu-swerves-Right-out-of-control.html
----
Yin and Yang: Racism and Tolerance
By Nawar Fakhry Ezzi
May 26, 2016
Many of us wish for a compassionate and peaceful world free of racism, discrimination and war. However, this will always remain an unfulfilled wish because such a world will never exist and whether we like it or not, we cannot achieve or even recognize one without the other. Whether on a personal level, in our relationships or as societies, we need opposing forces in order to grow and develop because monotony even when it is “good” would lead to stagnation. Thus, the injustice and destruction we witness will always be the strongest motivation that most of us need to value, seek and redefine justice and tolerance.
This is essentially the principle of yin and yang known in Chinese religion and philosophy, which describes the interdependence and connectedness of opposites in life even at the most basic level, such as female and male, night and day, death and life, and pain and pleasure. This principle is echoed in different forms in many religious traditions and cultures around the world, which can be found in the simple concept of the existence of good and evil.
The 2016 London mayoral election was a wonderful manifestation of yin and yang in politics. Labour party’s Sadiq Khan became the first Muslim mayor of London or of any major European city for that matter beating Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith. Although Goldsmith lead a very aggressive campaign against Khan in which he insinuated a link between Khan and Muslim “extremists” in an attempt to capitalize on people’s fears, insecurities and the stereotypes some of them have of Muslims, Khan’s campaign of hope, development and unity prevailed in the end. One could argue that his victory was not despite Goldsmith’s racist campaign, but it was because of it. The negativity of Goldsmith’s campaign garnered the attention of the tolerant majority of the population of London and motivated them even more to face this injustice leading to a large voter turnout, which earned Khan a tally that gave him the largest mandate of any politician in UK history.
Another political play of yin and yang is taking place in the the 2016 US presidential election where Donald Trump appears to be the Republican candidate. In his campaign, Trump has offended almost every minority group one could think of including African Americans, Latinos and Muslims.
Although he is gaining support among Republican voters, many Americans oppose him vehemently and some Republican politicians have refused to endorse him, such as the Republican Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Paul Ryan and several members of the Bush family.
Trump’s speeches and statements have fired up his opponents reminding many people of the quote of Martin Niemoller, the famous Protestant pastor in a concentration camp during WWII, who said: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Understanding yin and yang is not to justify racism and wars or even a naïve assumption that tolerance and justice will always prevail, but it rather puts the world into perspective. In the US as well as in many Western countries, racism and discrimination have been the force that for centuries has given many people the strength to advocate for better human rights, tolerance and equality, and it is difficult to comprehend how they could revert to racism, which, if it happened, would be the sign of their eventual demise. However, for those of us who are in the midst of disequilibrium and suffering from its destructive side effects, there is still hope that equilibrium will eventually be achieved if we have the courage to seek it.
Source: saudigazette.com.sa/opinion/yin-yang-racism-tolerance/
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/a-new-formula-battle-fallujah/d/107427