Movie brings together Hollywood producers with first-time child actors from Jordan’s refugee camps
By Paul Tate
AMMAN — Mention Jordan and filmmaking and most people think of British director David Lean’s epic Lawrence of Arabia shot in the desert of Wadi Rum. But Jordanian director Amin Matalqa is determined to change all that.
The Los Angeles-based filmmaker is currently in town with a 60-strong crew to shoot the first Jordanian-made feature film in 50 years.
Set in Amman, Captain Abu Raed tells the story of an airport janitor who dreams of seeing the world but has to make do with books and brief encounters with passengers.
Back in his poor neighbourhood, however, word has it that he really is a pilot and local children gather to hear magical tales of distant lands, which he willingly relates until one day he discovers that behind the children’s dreams lie stark realities of poverty and destitution.
“I wanted to tell a tale of a man with limited means but big dreams, which he passes on to children who still have the time to turn them into a reality. It is ultimately a universal tale of friendship, hope and overcoming adversity,” said Matalqa.
The 30-year-old director, who himself comes from a family of pilots, told The Jordan Times that the idea was originally conceived back in 2005 with editor Laith Majali at a production studio in Los Angeles.
It was there that the two met producer David Pritchard of The Simpsons and Family Guy fame. Pritchard sent a copy of the script to producer Ken Kokin of the multi-Oscar winning The Usual Suspects, who in turn brought on board cinematographer Reinhart Peschki, renowned for such Hollywood blockbusters as JFK, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July.
“The whole thing just steamrolled and before we knew it we had an amazing crew of professionals,” said Matalqa, who managed to raise the film’s budget from Jordan’s business community.
The filming of the two-hour movie will begin on Tuesday and over the following four weeks will be shot at the Citadel, downtown Amman, a studio set in Ashrafieh and Queen Alia International Airport.
Matalqa said he spent the whole of last year trying to find the right locations and was taken aback by the sheer quality of the sites.
“It’s hard to believe that Amman has never been filmed before. People usually come to Jordan to shoot in the desert but there are so many other great locations here,” he said.
The film’s cast brings together an uncanny mixture of seasoned actors and complete novices.
Veteran Jordanian/British actor Nadim Sawalha of Syriana fame plays the lead role, with Rana Sultan from Jordan TV cast as a young female captain who befriends Abu Raed.
Sawalha remembers meeting a young Matalqa 15 years earlier on a flight from Los Angeles to Jordan with American director Blake Edwards when the two were shooting Son of the Pink Panther.
“Amin’s father was actually flying the plane and asked me if his son could come and visit the set. Fifteen years later he phones me up out of the blue and tells me he’s making a film and would I like to get on board,” said Sawalha.
“Here I am playing a poor janitor and in a few weeks I’ll be back in London playing millionaire tycoon Mohammad Al Fayed in Diana, A Disaster Waiting to Happen,” said Sawalha, amused at the irony of his situation.
The children of Abu Raed’s neighbourhood were chosen after Matalqa spent last July and August scouting Jordan’s summer camps.
He eventually selected 12 children aged 9-13, all but one from the country’s impoverished refugee camps and with not a jot of acting experience between them.
One of the film’s producers, Nadine Toukan, told The Jordan Times that apart from coming from desperately poor backgrounds, most of these children have only one parent and some don’t even have citizenship as their fathers are Egyptian.
“Coming from this background to star in a feature film has been a truly life changing experience for these kids,” said Toukan.
“Their families were thrilled at the prospect of their children being in a film and have been one hundred per cent supportive. Like any parents, they want the best for their children.”
Matalqa said he intentionally sought out youngsters from deprived backgrounds to prove that social status bears no relationship to talent, and also because it fits with the overall theme of the film about disadvantaged people attempting to realise their dreams.
“We were casting for over a year and some of these kids just stood out immediately,” he said, referring to Hussein Al Sous, who plays the leading child Murad.
Matalqa said he hopes the movie, which will premier in Amman at the end of this year, will motivate more Jordanians to develop an interest in filmmaking.
“It’s scandalous that not a single Jordanian feature film has been made for 50 years. This movie is intended to put the country back on the map while sending a strong message to Hollywood that this is a truly great place to film.”
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Women scoop BBC NewsMaker awards
AMMAN — Two young women in Jordan have been given the opportunity to broadcast to the BBC’s 42 million English-language listeners after winning the BBC NewsMaker competition for young journalists.
Lina Ejeilat, 24, and Sarah Badry, 21, will make and broadcast their programmes with BBC news journalists next month after their entries were chosen from among hundreds of nonprofessional English-speaking journalists aged 20-30 years old.
The winners were chosen by a panel of three judges, consisting of actress and TV presenter, Rania Kurdi, the BBC’s special correspondent and presenter, Lyse Doucet, and editor of BBC World Service News and Current Affairs, Liliane Landor.
“There was an exciting variety of subjects, and the winners came from a range of backgrounds. The entries showed that many young Jordanians are deeply concerned about issues that affect society as a whole, and are searching to find a unique identity for themselves,” said Kurdi.
Ejeilat’s winning entry explores what she describes as the emergence of a “truly Ammani music” that is distinct from both the strong influence of the West, and Arab musical traditions.
Speaking to The Jordan Times yesterday, the electrical engineering graduate, who is currently working in a telecommunications company, said she got the idea for her story after noticing a distinct change in Amman’s music scene over the past two years.
“I have always kept my eyes open for local artists and have seen more and more Jordanians forming bands and coming up with original material consisting of a fusion of various global styles.”
She believes this emerging musical form is providing Jordanians with a cultural identity of their own, distinct from traditional Arab sounds coming out of Egypt and Lebanon, who have long overshadowed Jordan as the leading musical powerhouses in the region.
“Things are changing here and this has a lot to do with young people now having exposure to the Internet and a wider cultural pool on which to draw,” said Ejeilat.
BBC special correspondent Lyse Doucet told The Jordan Times that Ejeilat’s endeavour to explore cultural changes through music was what gave her the edge over other competitors.
“I like the way Lina is trying to discover an “Ammani” music that can hold its own against all the strong cultural influences from other Arab capitals and the West. It’s also about the democratisation of culture through the Internet, about how young Jordanians can now have the world at their fingertips if they have access to computers,” she said.
For her part, Badry’s winning story revolves around the contemporary issue of Iraqi refugees in Jordan, which total more than 700,000 according to government figures.
The story draws upon her own experiences as a young third-year Iraqi medical student forced to flee her native Baghdad because of the ongoing violence and instability.
“I wanted to highlight the difficulties faced by Iraqi students here,” Badry told The Jordan Times yesterday.
When Badry arrived in Jordan she soon discovered that the universities were full and was forced to resort to e-mailing her friends in Baghdad for lecture notes to complete her studies.
“Many students that came here were unable to gain places. Some of them dropped their studies and took up low-paid jobs whilst others moved to Egypt until the government there stopped issuing visas. Others returned to Baghdad and continue to brave the violence.”
Doucet said Badri’s story provides a window on Iraq’s education system — once one of the finest in the Middle East, but now being torn apart.
“But we also hear how Sarah still hasn’t lost hope in her own country. She finds inventive ways to keep her courses in Baghdad going as she confronts the pressures now building on Jordan’s universities in the midst of this massive influx of Iraqis, “ she said.
Overall, the three judges described the competition as a fascinating insight into the perceptions of Jordanian youth.
“The winners have come up with challenging and exciting stories, and will tell them to our 42 million English-language listeners in their own words, with a fresh and engaging voice,” said Landor.
In addition to broadcasting their stories to a global audience, the two winners each won a laptop computer.
Ejeilat said the competition has given her the incentive to focus more on journalism and may well signal a career change.
“I have always been interested in a career in the media but put it on hold and focused on engineering instead. But the experience of the competition and the fact that my story won has now encouraged me to continue with journalism.”
BBC NewsMaker also awarded MP3 players to five runners-up: Maram Hamam on child labour, Manar Daghlas on Jordanian teenagers preoccupied with celebrity culture, Mohammad Nasser Eddin on the identity crisis of a Palestinian student in no-man’s land, Haitham Jafar on young managers battling with bureaucracy and Lina Samawi uncovering the secrets of the ancient city of Abila.
BBC World Service is an international radio and online broadcaster delivering programmes and services in 33 languages.
Friday-Saturday, April 27-28, 2007
Lina Ejeilat, 24, and Sarah Badry, 21, will make and broadcast their programmes with BBC news journalists next month after their entries were chosen from among hundreds of nonprofessional English-speaking journalists aged 20-30 years old.
The winners were chosen by a panel of three judges, consisting of actress and TV presenter, Rania Kurdi, the BBC’s special correspondent and presenter, Lyse Doucet, and editor of BBC World Service News and Current Affairs, Liliane Landor.
“There was an exciting variety of subjects, and the winners came from a range of backgrounds. The entries showed that many young Jordanians are deeply concerned about issues that affect society as a whole, and are searching to find a unique identity for themselves,” said Kurdi.
Ejeilat’s winning entry explores what she describes as the emergence of a “truly Ammani music” that is distinct from both the strong influence of the West, and Arab musical traditions.
Speaking to The Jordan Times yesterday, the electrical engineering graduate, who is currently working in a telecommunications company, said she got the idea for her story after noticing a distinct change in Amman’s music scene over the past two years.
“I have always kept my eyes open for local artists and have seen more and more Jordanians forming bands and coming up with original material consisting of a fusion of various global styles.”
She believes this emerging musical form is providing Jordanians with a cultural identity of their own, distinct from traditional Arab sounds coming out of Egypt and Lebanon, who have long overshadowed Jordan as the leading musical powerhouses in the region.
“Things are changing here and this has a lot to do with young people now having exposure to the Internet and a wider cultural pool on which to draw,” said Ejeilat.
BBC special correspondent Lyse Doucet told The Jordan Times that Ejeilat’s endeavour to explore cultural changes through music was what gave her the edge over other competitors.
“I like the way Lina is trying to discover an “Ammani” music that can hold its own against all the strong cultural influences from other Arab capitals and the West. It’s also about the democratisation of culture through the Internet, about how young Jordanians can now have the world at their fingertips if they have access to computers,” she said.
For her part, Badry’s winning story revolves around the contemporary issue of Iraqi refugees in Jordan, which total more than 700,000 according to government figures.
The story draws upon her own experiences as a young third-year Iraqi medical student forced to flee her native Baghdad because of the ongoing violence and instability.
“I wanted to highlight the difficulties faced by Iraqi students here,” Badry told The Jordan Times yesterday.
When Badry arrived in Jordan she soon discovered that the universities were full and was forced to resort to e-mailing her friends in Baghdad for lecture notes to complete her studies.
“Many students that came here were unable to gain places. Some of them dropped their studies and took up low-paid jobs whilst others moved to Egypt until the government there stopped issuing visas. Others returned to Baghdad and continue to brave the violence.”
Doucet said Badri’s story provides a window on Iraq’s education system — once one of the finest in the Middle East, but now being torn apart.
“But we also hear how Sarah still hasn’t lost hope in her own country. She finds inventive ways to keep her courses in Baghdad going as she confronts the pressures now building on Jordan’s universities in the midst of this massive influx of Iraqis, “ she said.
Overall, the three judges described the competition as a fascinating insight into the perceptions of Jordanian youth.
“The winners have come up with challenging and exciting stories, and will tell them to our 42 million English-language listeners in their own words, with a fresh and engaging voice,” said Landor.
In addition to broadcasting their stories to a global audience, the two winners each won a laptop computer.
Ejeilat said the competition has given her the incentive to focus more on journalism and may well signal a career change.
“I have always been interested in a career in the media but put it on hold and focused on engineering instead. But the experience of the competition and the fact that my story won has now encouraged me to continue with journalism.”
BBC NewsMaker also awarded MP3 players to five runners-up: Maram Hamam on child labour, Manar Daghlas on Jordanian teenagers preoccupied with celebrity culture, Mohammad Nasser Eddin on the identity crisis of a Palestinian student in no-man’s land, Haitham Jafar on young managers battling with bureaucracy and Lina Samawi uncovering the secrets of the ancient city of Abila.
BBC World Service is an international radio and online broadcaster delivering programmes and services in 33 languages.
Friday-Saturday, April 27-28, 2007
Author of fake honour killing book exposed in new film
By Paul Tate
AMMAN — Three years after Norma Khouri’s bestselling book on her friend’s honour killing was exposed as a fake, the Jordanian-born writer has taken to the silver screen to clear her name, but her efforts to salvage her reputation spectacularly backfired.
Khouri’s book, Forbidden Love, told the story of her childhood friend Dalia, a Muslim from a conservative family who was murdered by her father after he discovered she was engaged in a secret love affair with a Christian army officer.
The book, published in 2003, proved a big hit, selling half a million copies in 15 countries and turning Khouri into a self-styled champion of women’s rights.
But Khouri’s new found status was short-lived when it transpired that her story was fabricated.
Far from a growing up in the male-dominated society she described, Khouri had lived in Chicago since the age of three, held an American passport and was married with two children, a difficult feat for someone who claimed to be a virgin. What’s more, she never had a childhood friend called Dalia who was murdered in an honour killing.
The deception may well have gone unnoticed if it were not for the determination of a small band of women’s rights activists in Jordan who expressed doubts over the book’s authenticity.
“From the first few pages it was obvious that this woman did not know anything about Jordan, says activist and Joradan Times Reporter Rana Husseini, the driving force behind exposing Khouri.
Husseini, who is featured in the film, at first became suspicious on reading that the story was based around a unisex hair saloon set up by Khouri and Dalia.
“Everyone here knows that such places do not exist and are against Jordanian law. I then discovered that the book was full of factual errors such as the River Jordan runs through Amman and that the country shares borders with Egypt, Kuwait and Lebanon.”
Picking up the cause, the Jordanian National Commission for Women contacted the book’s publishers, Random House, to express their concerns. But despite repeated letters the publishers stood by Khouri, even refusing to reclassify the book as fiction.
Finally, in 2004, journalist Malcolm Knox ran a front page splash in the Sydney Morning herald exposing the full extent of the hoax. Random House immediately ordered the book to be withdrawn and Khouri went into hiding, or so everyone thought.
For the past two years Khouri has been making the aptly titled film “Forbidden Lies” with Australian director Anna Broinowski. The film premiered on February 25 at the Adelaide Film Festival and was Khouri’s attempt to clear her name.
Broinowski says she first met Khouri in San Francisco in 2005 and was taken in by her story that she had been the victim of a vicious smear campaign in the media.
“She utterly convinced me that she’d been maligned by the press, that her book was a true story and that she was not the con artist she’d been made out to be,” Broinowski told The Jordan Times.
But when Khouri invited Broinowski and producer Sally Regan to travel to Jordan to verify her story they soon realised all was not well.
“What happened in Jordan was astounding, says Broinowski. “Norma led us on a wild goose chase, changing the goals posts at every turn, failing to produce witnesses and relatives, taking us to dubious locations and refusing to show us the real unisex saloon where the core of the drama Forbidden Love takes place.”
During their stay, Broinowski says Khouri became increasingly paranoid, insisting her life was in danger and refusing to go anywhere without her bodyguard. She also refused point blank to debate with any of the activists who had accused her of being a fraud.
“We spent most of our time in a van with tinted windows or in hotel rooms away from extremists supposedly lurking behind every plant pot,” says Broinowski.
It was only when Khouri took the name of the real Dalia to be checked at the Forensics Institute in Amman that the film-makers knew for certain they had been duped.
“When I got back from Jordan I realised the film was now the portrait of a con woman whether I like it or not. I was disappointed Norma hadn’t proven her story but also fascinated by the woman I was getting to know,” says Broinowski.
Not one to give up easily, Khouri remains unfazed by the whole episode, revealing that she’d deliberately withheld Dalia’s real identity because she never trusted the film-makers in the first place.
As for Broinowski, despite being led on a wild goosed chase in search of a fictional Dalia, she appears to hold no grudges, recalling her time with Khouri with a certain fondness.
“I feel that she is genuinely committed to stopping honour crimes… she is brilliant, articulate, a born improviser and a naturally gifted actress… I wish she’d become a philosopher or fiction writer rather than getting embroiled in lies.”
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
AMMAN — Three years after Norma Khouri’s bestselling book on her friend’s honour killing was exposed as a fake, the Jordanian-born writer has taken to the silver screen to clear her name, but her efforts to salvage her reputation spectacularly backfired.
Khouri’s book, Forbidden Love, told the story of her childhood friend Dalia, a Muslim from a conservative family who was murdered by her father after he discovered she was engaged in a secret love affair with a Christian army officer.
The book, published in 2003, proved a big hit, selling half a million copies in 15 countries and turning Khouri into a self-styled champion of women’s rights.
But Khouri’s new found status was short-lived when it transpired that her story was fabricated.
Far from a growing up in the male-dominated society she described, Khouri had lived in Chicago since the age of three, held an American passport and was married with two children, a difficult feat for someone who claimed to be a virgin. What’s more, she never had a childhood friend called Dalia who was murdered in an honour killing.
The deception may well have gone unnoticed if it were not for the determination of a small band of women’s rights activists in Jordan who expressed doubts over the book’s authenticity.
“From the first few pages it was obvious that this woman did not know anything about Jordan, says activist and Joradan Times Reporter Rana Husseini, the driving force behind exposing Khouri.
Husseini, who is featured in the film, at first became suspicious on reading that the story was based around a unisex hair saloon set up by Khouri and Dalia.
“Everyone here knows that such places do not exist and are against Jordanian law. I then discovered that the book was full of factual errors such as the River Jordan runs through Amman and that the country shares borders with Egypt, Kuwait and Lebanon.”
Picking up the cause, the Jordanian National Commission for Women contacted the book’s publishers, Random House, to express their concerns. But despite repeated letters the publishers stood by Khouri, even refusing to reclassify the book as fiction.
Finally, in 2004, journalist Malcolm Knox ran a front page splash in the Sydney Morning herald exposing the full extent of the hoax. Random House immediately ordered the book to be withdrawn and Khouri went into hiding, or so everyone thought.
For the past two years Khouri has been making the aptly titled film “Forbidden Lies” with Australian director Anna Broinowski. The film premiered on February 25 at the Adelaide Film Festival and was Khouri’s attempt to clear her name.
Broinowski says she first met Khouri in San Francisco in 2005 and was taken in by her story that she had been the victim of a vicious smear campaign in the media.
“She utterly convinced me that she’d been maligned by the press, that her book was a true story and that she was not the con artist she’d been made out to be,” Broinowski told The Jordan Times.
But when Khouri invited Broinowski and producer Sally Regan to travel to Jordan to verify her story they soon realised all was not well.
“What happened in Jordan was astounding, says Broinowski. “Norma led us on a wild goose chase, changing the goals posts at every turn, failing to produce witnesses and relatives, taking us to dubious locations and refusing to show us the real unisex saloon where the core of the drama Forbidden Love takes place.”
During their stay, Broinowski says Khouri became increasingly paranoid, insisting her life was in danger and refusing to go anywhere without her bodyguard. She also refused point blank to debate with any of the activists who had accused her of being a fraud.
“We spent most of our time in a van with tinted windows or in hotel rooms away from extremists supposedly lurking behind every plant pot,” says Broinowski.
It was only when Khouri took the name of the real Dalia to be checked at the Forensics Institute in Amman that the film-makers knew for certain they had been duped.
“When I got back from Jordan I realised the film was now the portrait of a con woman whether I like it or not. I was disappointed Norma hadn’t proven her story but also fascinated by the woman I was getting to know,” says Broinowski.
Not one to give up easily, Khouri remains unfazed by the whole episode, revealing that she’d deliberately withheld Dalia’s real identity because she never trusted the film-makers in the first place.
As for Broinowski, despite being led on a wild goosed chase in search of a fictional Dalia, she appears to hold no grudges, recalling her time with Khouri with a certain fondness.
“I feel that she is genuinely committed to stopping honour crimes… she is brilliant, articulate, a born improviser and a naturally gifted actress… I wish she’d become a philosopher or fiction writer rather than getting embroiled in lies.”
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Evangelicals and Israel: unholy alliance
By Paul Tate
The Christian coalition in the US declared May 6th a ‘national day of prayer for Israel’. The date is the start of a month long rally across the US by evangelical Christian groups and begins at the White House where the bombed-out shell of Israeli bus no. 19 will be displayed for much of the coming month. In the run up to the US elections, the supporters of Israel are making their point loud and clear: hands off!
These groups backed by a whole infrastructure of churches, radio stations, websites and bible colleges teaching ‘Middle East history’ all share a common goal and a number one priority: the survival and expansion of the Jewish state. This is the one issue that unites evangelicals in the US. The welfare of a state 7,000 miles away is for them far more important than traditional domestic issues such as abortion, fornication and school prayer: this begs one question, why?
Well, since the late 19th century an increasing number of fundamentalists Christians have come to believe that the second coming of Christ is bound up with the political geography of Israel. However, in their literalist and selective interpretation of the Bible certain preconditions must be met before Christ will return. The first of these was the establishment of the State of Israel. Also included are Israel’s occupation of the rest of its ‘biblical lands’ and the rebuilding of the third temple on the site of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.
As the story goes, once these events have been completed the legions of the antichrist will then be deployed against Israel leading to the final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will then be given a choice, not much of one but a choice nonetheless: either burn in hell or convert to Christianity. Finally, after all this has taken place the Messiah will return to earth. According to the most influential of the Christian Zionists, Hal Lindsey, the valley from Galilee to Eilat will flow with blood and "144,000 Jews would bow down before Jesus and be saved, but the rest of Jewry would perish in the mother of all holocausts".
So what’s in it for the Christian fundamentalists? Well, the true believers (those who ascribe to this lunacy) will be raised to heaven before the final battle commences and get to watch the whole gory spectacle from a seated grandstand at the right hand of the Lord. Sound crazy? But I jest thee not, this is what these people actually believe. What’s more, these are the people who are holding the Middle East peace process to ransom. These are the people who sponsor Jewish settlement in the occupied territories, who demand ever more US support for Israel, not because they love Jews, far from it; the whole drama is rather like ‘a five-act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act.’ The result of this drama is the genocide of the Jews.
Given that the end result of this creed is the end of Judaism and the death of thousands of Jews who refuse to accept Jesus as their saviour, one would think that the ever zealous Jewish lobby would be up in arms. Not a chance. Far from opposing this twisted ideology which legitimises oppression, theft and genocide in the name of religion, the Israeli government and Jewish lobby groups in the US have long since exploited the connections with far-right US Christian groups. Far from being outraged, the Israeli embassy in Washington actually holds weekly Christian Zionist prayer meetings – not something they like to shout about for obvious reasons. What’s more, Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, accepts their support, as does AIPAC.
These fundamentalists, for surely if anyone deserves this title these people do, are courted at all levels of the Israeli government and have access to key Israeli politicians. US churches are encouraged to form links with Jewish settlers via email and to support them through fundraising, which they do in abundance. While moderate Christians, such as the Palestinian Bishop of Jerusalem, find it almost impossible to get an audience with Ariel Sharon despite repeated requests, the door is always open to southern Baptists and TV evangelists. Sharon and the beloved Bibi (Netanyahu) are the ‘rock stars’ of this creed. The fundamentalists rightly view the right-wing Likud leaders as their best chance of witnessing Armageddon: they need Israeli warmongers to fulfil their eschatological fantasies. Strange isn’t it? That such an influential bunch of Armageddonite fanatics, who have the ability to determine the fate of the Middle East in general, and Palestine in particular, are so completely ignored by the mass media. The crazed world of Christian Zionism is unknown to the average man in the street.
Although we may laugh at these people and dismiss them as cranks and fanatics, we should certainly not under-estimate them. For in the US today, there are 45 million evangelicals who believe this nonsense and they represent a crucial block vote for born-again Bush. American Christian Zionists claim they are now a more important source of support for Israel than American Jews or the traditional Jewish lobby. According to the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who claims to speak for them all, “the Bible Belt in America is Israel’s safety belt.” If a significant number of them become sufficiently disillusioned to abstain from voting, it could cost Bush the election. “There’s nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in this country down on this government like abandoning or opposing Israel in a critical matter,” Falwell says. The “Christian public” is, he notes, Mr. Bush’s core constituency.
So for the next month, the inhabitant of the White House will be waking up each morning to the shell of Israeli bus no. 19. And the message will be absolutely clear: if you want to win the election Mr President and get to sit at the right hand of God, you better back Sharon all the way. NOV 2004
The Christian coalition in the US declared May 6th a ‘national day of prayer for Israel’. The date is the start of a month long rally across the US by evangelical Christian groups and begins at the White House where the bombed-out shell of Israeli bus no. 19 will be displayed for much of the coming month. In the run up to the US elections, the supporters of Israel are making their point loud and clear: hands off!
These groups backed by a whole infrastructure of churches, radio stations, websites and bible colleges teaching ‘Middle East history’ all share a common goal and a number one priority: the survival and expansion of the Jewish state. This is the one issue that unites evangelicals in the US. The welfare of a state 7,000 miles away is for them far more important than traditional domestic issues such as abortion, fornication and school prayer: this begs one question, why?
Well, since the late 19th century an increasing number of fundamentalists Christians have come to believe that the second coming of Christ is bound up with the political geography of Israel. However, in their literalist and selective interpretation of the Bible certain preconditions must be met before Christ will return. The first of these was the establishment of the State of Israel. Also included are Israel’s occupation of the rest of its ‘biblical lands’ and the rebuilding of the third temple on the site of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.
As the story goes, once these events have been completed the legions of the antichrist will then be deployed against Israel leading to the final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will then be given a choice, not much of one but a choice nonetheless: either burn in hell or convert to Christianity. Finally, after all this has taken place the Messiah will return to earth. According to the most influential of the Christian Zionists, Hal Lindsey, the valley from Galilee to Eilat will flow with blood and "144,000 Jews would bow down before Jesus and be saved, but the rest of Jewry would perish in the mother of all holocausts".
So what’s in it for the Christian fundamentalists? Well, the true believers (those who ascribe to this lunacy) will be raised to heaven before the final battle commences and get to watch the whole gory spectacle from a seated grandstand at the right hand of the Lord. Sound crazy? But I jest thee not, this is what these people actually believe. What’s more, these are the people who are holding the Middle East peace process to ransom. These are the people who sponsor Jewish settlement in the occupied territories, who demand ever more US support for Israel, not because they love Jews, far from it; the whole drama is rather like ‘a five-act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act.’ The result of this drama is the genocide of the Jews.
Given that the end result of this creed is the end of Judaism and the death of thousands of Jews who refuse to accept Jesus as their saviour, one would think that the ever zealous Jewish lobby would be up in arms. Not a chance. Far from opposing this twisted ideology which legitimises oppression, theft and genocide in the name of religion, the Israeli government and Jewish lobby groups in the US have long since exploited the connections with far-right US Christian groups. Far from being outraged, the Israeli embassy in Washington actually holds weekly Christian Zionist prayer meetings – not something they like to shout about for obvious reasons. What’s more, Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, accepts their support, as does AIPAC.
These fundamentalists, for surely if anyone deserves this title these people do, are courted at all levels of the Israeli government and have access to key Israeli politicians. US churches are encouraged to form links with Jewish settlers via email and to support them through fundraising, which they do in abundance. While moderate Christians, such as the Palestinian Bishop of Jerusalem, find it almost impossible to get an audience with Ariel Sharon despite repeated requests, the door is always open to southern Baptists and TV evangelists. Sharon and the beloved Bibi (Netanyahu) are the ‘rock stars’ of this creed. The fundamentalists rightly view the right-wing Likud leaders as their best chance of witnessing Armageddon: they need Israeli warmongers to fulfil their eschatological fantasies. Strange isn’t it? That such an influential bunch of Armageddonite fanatics, who have the ability to determine the fate of the Middle East in general, and Palestine in particular, are so completely ignored by the mass media. The crazed world of Christian Zionism is unknown to the average man in the street.
Although we may laugh at these people and dismiss them as cranks and fanatics, we should certainly not under-estimate them. For in the US today, there are 45 million evangelicals who believe this nonsense and they represent a crucial block vote for born-again Bush. American Christian Zionists claim they are now a more important source of support for Israel than American Jews or the traditional Jewish lobby. According to the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who claims to speak for them all, “the Bible Belt in America is Israel’s safety belt.” If a significant number of them become sufficiently disillusioned to abstain from voting, it could cost Bush the election. “There’s nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in this country down on this government like abandoning or opposing Israel in a critical matter,” Falwell says. The “Christian public” is, he notes, Mr. Bush’s core constituency.
So for the next month, the inhabitant of the White House will be waking up each morning to the shell of Israeli bus no. 19. And the message will be absolutely clear: if you want to win the election Mr President and get to sit at the right hand of God, you better back Sharon all the way. NOV 2004
The privatisation of war
By Paul Tate
The abuse of prisoners that took place at Abu Ghraib was shocking. But equally as shocking was the revelation that the interrogation of prisoners had been outsourced to private contractors. The creeping privatisation of this conflict is only just coming to light.
It is estimated that there are now 20,000 plus private ‘enterprise soldiers’ in Iraq – one for every 10 soldiers. Indeed, there are more private military employees on the ground than troops from any one ally, including Britain. Private Military Firms (PMFs) are big business in the new Iraq. According to US army estimates, out of the $87bn that will be spent on US troops, a third of that, nearly $30bn, will be paid to PMFs, which carry out military roles from logistics and local army training to guarding installations and convoys, and as demonstrated by the incidents in Abu Ghraib - interrogating prisoners. Peter Singer, a Brookings Institute scholar and author of Corporate Warrior, aptly refers to the situation in Iraq more as, ‘the coalition of the billing, rather than willing”.
A number of factors have led to the growth of PMFs. The downsizing of the US military in the post cold war world has lead to an urgent need for hired guns for the overstretched US military in the post 9/11 world. Ex-military personnel now find they can earn $100,000 a year doing the same job they once did for peanuts. But the growth of private contractors has also been encouraged at the highest levels of the US administration. Back in 1991, when Vice President Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defence for George Bush Sr., he gave Kellogg Brown and Root (a Halliburton subsidiary) a contract to advise the US military on how to privatise the army. Since that time there has been a 10-fold increase in the number of private personnel working for the US military and the industry has recorded a staggering $100bn in revenue. The result is that a huge ‘conflict industry’ has grown up around the Pentagon. The proponents of ‘privatised warfare’, including Rumsfeld and Cheney, defend the increased use of PMFs on the grounds that they reduce overheads and therefore save the US government (taxpayer) money – given the number of private contractors now active and the vast sums involved, this argument is extremely debatable. It is true however, that short term contracts mean that mercenaries can be hired and fired at will. They can also be sent to conflict zones around the world at a moments notice and are currently active on all fronts in the ‘war on terror’ including: the hunt for Ben Laden on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border; the Philippines, Central Asia and what those on the industry now refer to as, ‘the goldmine’ of Iraq.
The use of “hired guns” clearly has many advantages. Private security contractors are not accountable to either military or Iraqi law for their actions. Although one US soldier has been given the maximum one year sentence and another six are facing court-martial for their role in the abuses at Abu Ghraib, employees of CACI International, harshly criticised by Major General Taguba in the military investigation, will face no such fate. This is due to the fact that ‘civilian contractors’ cannot be court-martialled under the military code of conduct. In addition, in June 2003, Paul Bremer issued a decree which specifically excluded PMFs from Iraqi law. Neither are they subject to US law given that criminal acts such as those witnessed in Abu Ghraib were committed abroad and in some cases by contractors working for the US military, but not US citizens. Examples of other criminal acts such as the human trafficking and prostitution rackets in Bosnia committed by DynCorp, another security contractor active in Iraq, highlight the dangers. In this case, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, the ‘civilian’ personnel responsible were simply ‘relieved of their duties’ and no criminal charges have been brought.
One can’t help thinking that the increased use of private contractors is rather convenient for US military chiefs attempting to cut corners in the ‘war on terror.’ As Phillip Carter, an ex-military US army officer now at the University of California (UCLA) notes, “the situation is analogues to that other legal grey zone in Guantanamo Bay”. Therefore, the more cynical among us may draw the conclusion that the very fact that these companies are operating in a legal loophole is what makes them such an attractive proposition to strategists in the Pentagon. They can be used to do the dirty work of the military and CIA, while still maintaining relative immunity. This makes them a very useful tool in the ‘war on terror’. The privatisation of US forces not only enables the US to wage wars by proxy using private militias recruited from around the globe, it also, as Peter Singer points out, “allows them to wage these wars without the hindrance of congressional or media oversight”.
Another interesting point is that the pentagon keeps no record concerning the amount of private mercenaries killed in Iraq. According to Singer, It is estimated that 350 mercenaries have been killed in Iraq since the start of the conflict and hundreds more injured. These figures are not included in the regular body count put out by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). This is very convenient for a White House increasingly concerned with US body bags in the run up to the elections. In addition, it is no coincidence that by the CPA’s own estimations, the number of private contractors will increase to 30,000 after the ‘handover of sovereignty’ on June 30, largely due to the fact that the Green Zone itself will then be privatised.
As Karim al-Gawahry of al-Akram newspaper has pointed out, “the Bush administration desperately wants to bring at least some of the boys back home during the forthcoming election campaign, hence the increase in private companies”. This will allow the White House to claim that US troops are being pulled out and thus divert media attention from the conflict. The body bags will still be arriving in the middle of the night but the cameras will be focused on the ‘grand homecoming.’
So here we have it, neo-liberal capitalism taken to extremes. What we now have in Iraq is a situation where private companies are operating with impunity – outside the scope of international law. Not only that, these companies are making billions of dollars, are not subject to any chain of command and as long as the money keeps rolling in have little incentive to leave. On the contrary, they have a vested interest in stretching out the conflict as evident by their ‘political activities’ in Washington. In 2002, $32m was spent by these firms on political lobbying and $12m was donated to political parties, with the George Bush’s Republican Party taking the lion’s share of the cake. And guess what? Among the largest donators was Dick Cheney’s old firm – Halliburton.
The abuse of prisoners that took place at Abu Ghraib was shocking. But equally as shocking was the revelation that the interrogation of prisoners had been outsourced to private contractors. The creeping privatisation of this conflict is only just coming to light.
It is estimated that there are now 20,000 plus private ‘enterprise soldiers’ in Iraq – one for every 10 soldiers. Indeed, there are more private military employees on the ground than troops from any one ally, including Britain. Private Military Firms (PMFs) are big business in the new Iraq. According to US army estimates, out of the $87bn that will be spent on US troops, a third of that, nearly $30bn, will be paid to PMFs, which carry out military roles from logistics and local army training to guarding installations and convoys, and as demonstrated by the incidents in Abu Ghraib - interrogating prisoners. Peter Singer, a Brookings Institute scholar and author of Corporate Warrior, aptly refers to the situation in Iraq more as, ‘the coalition of the billing, rather than willing”.
A number of factors have led to the growth of PMFs. The downsizing of the US military in the post cold war world has lead to an urgent need for hired guns for the overstretched US military in the post 9/11 world. Ex-military personnel now find they can earn $100,000 a year doing the same job they once did for peanuts. But the growth of private contractors has also been encouraged at the highest levels of the US administration. Back in 1991, when Vice President Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defence for George Bush Sr., he gave Kellogg Brown and Root (a Halliburton subsidiary) a contract to advise the US military on how to privatise the army. Since that time there has been a 10-fold increase in the number of private personnel working for the US military and the industry has recorded a staggering $100bn in revenue. The result is that a huge ‘conflict industry’ has grown up around the Pentagon. The proponents of ‘privatised warfare’, including Rumsfeld and Cheney, defend the increased use of PMFs on the grounds that they reduce overheads and therefore save the US government (taxpayer) money – given the number of private contractors now active and the vast sums involved, this argument is extremely debatable. It is true however, that short term contracts mean that mercenaries can be hired and fired at will. They can also be sent to conflict zones around the world at a moments notice and are currently active on all fronts in the ‘war on terror’ including: the hunt for Ben Laden on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border; the Philippines, Central Asia and what those on the industry now refer to as, ‘the goldmine’ of Iraq.
The use of “hired guns” clearly has many advantages. Private security contractors are not accountable to either military or Iraqi law for their actions. Although one US soldier has been given the maximum one year sentence and another six are facing court-martial for their role in the abuses at Abu Ghraib, employees of CACI International, harshly criticised by Major General Taguba in the military investigation, will face no such fate. This is due to the fact that ‘civilian contractors’ cannot be court-martialled under the military code of conduct. In addition, in June 2003, Paul Bremer issued a decree which specifically excluded PMFs from Iraqi law. Neither are they subject to US law given that criminal acts such as those witnessed in Abu Ghraib were committed abroad and in some cases by contractors working for the US military, but not US citizens. Examples of other criminal acts such as the human trafficking and prostitution rackets in Bosnia committed by DynCorp, another security contractor active in Iraq, highlight the dangers. In this case, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, the ‘civilian’ personnel responsible were simply ‘relieved of their duties’ and no criminal charges have been brought.
One can’t help thinking that the increased use of private contractors is rather convenient for US military chiefs attempting to cut corners in the ‘war on terror.’ As Phillip Carter, an ex-military US army officer now at the University of California (UCLA) notes, “the situation is analogues to that other legal grey zone in Guantanamo Bay”. Therefore, the more cynical among us may draw the conclusion that the very fact that these companies are operating in a legal loophole is what makes them such an attractive proposition to strategists in the Pentagon. They can be used to do the dirty work of the military and CIA, while still maintaining relative immunity. This makes them a very useful tool in the ‘war on terror’. The privatisation of US forces not only enables the US to wage wars by proxy using private militias recruited from around the globe, it also, as Peter Singer points out, “allows them to wage these wars without the hindrance of congressional or media oversight”.
Another interesting point is that the pentagon keeps no record concerning the amount of private mercenaries killed in Iraq. According to Singer, It is estimated that 350 mercenaries have been killed in Iraq since the start of the conflict and hundreds more injured. These figures are not included in the regular body count put out by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). This is very convenient for a White House increasingly concerned with US body bags in the run up to the elections. In addition, it is no coincidence that by the CPA’s own estimations, the number of private contractors will increase to 30,000 after the ‘handover of sovereignty’ on June 30, largely due to the fact that the Green Zone itself will then be privatised.
As Karim al-Gawahry of al-Akram newspaper has pointed out, “the Bush administration desperately wants to bring at least some of the boys back home during the forthcoming election campaign, hence the increase in private companies”. This will allow the White House to claim that US troops are being pulled out and thus divert media attention from the conflict. The body bags will still be arriving in the middle of the night but the cameras will be focused on the ‘grand homecoming.’
So here we have it, neo-liberal capitalism taken to extremes. What we now have in Iraq is a situation where private companies are operating with impunity – outside the scope of international law. Not only that, these companies are making billions of dollars, are not subject to any chain of command and as long as the money keeps rolling in have little incentive to leave. On the contrary, they have a vested interest in stretching out the conflict as evident by their ‘political activities’ in Washington. In 2002, $32m was spent by these firms on political lobbying and $12m was donated to political parties, with the George Bush’s Republican Party taking the lion’s share of the cake. And guess what? Among the largest donators was Dick Cheney’s old firm – Halliburton.
Jihadi groups alienate support base
By Paul Tate
Despite the best efforts of US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to recruit a new pool of terrorists for Al Qaeda, the atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Madrid, Istanbul and Iraq may contain the very seeds that have caused previous Islamist insurgencies to collapse.
The increasingly random, brutal and indiscriminate acts of Al Qaeda cells around the world appear to reveal an organisation that has fragmented into desperate groups of individuals with no overall command structure. A clear example of this is the organisation's change of tactics and its apparent inability to target high-profile symbols of US power. The foot soldiers of the organisation are still active and increasingly dangerous, but the brains are missing. Carefully selected targets representing US military and economic might have been replaced by so-called "soft targets". Drive-by shootings of Western civilians, beheading of hostages and blowing up of innocent civilians on commuter trains have become the order of the day.
Most damagingly for the militants, increasing numbers of Muslim bystanders are dying as a result. Of course, many Muslims died on Sept. 11 and in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, but the fact that the targets were chosen because they represented symbols of US power gave the militants a certain "credibility". As callous and barbaric as these attacks were, for many people, and not just in the Middle East, the fact that Al Qaeda was able to strike at such potent symbols of US economic and political power overshadowed the carnage.
The leaders of Al Qaeda were well aware of the "PR value" of these targets, something that cannot be said now. The murder and recorded beheadings of civilian contractors in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of commuter trains taking ordinary people to work in Madrid and the killing of innocent Muslim bystanders in Saudi Arabia, Istanbul and Iraq have done nothing for Al Qaeda''s credibility. In their lust for blood, the radical Islamists of Al Qaeda have failed to learn from their predecessors in the Egyptian Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah or the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria.
In both these countries, the militant groups were initially able to exploit widely held grievances not only against the ruling secular regimes, but also against the biased policies of the US towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now their support base has vanished and their activities all but ceased. This was not solely due to the repression suffered at the hands of the security forces, although this destroyed a large part of their leadership. To a large extent, it was also due to the fact that these groups, through their increasingly barbaric acts, destroyed any legitimacy they may once have had with the very people they claimed to represent. No terrorist organisation can operate without the tactic support of at least part of the local population.
The massacre at Luxor in 1997 was the final brutal act committed by the Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah. It sent waves of revulsion through the Egyptian population and caused increased hardship for those dependent on the tourist industry to feed their families. The terrorists in this attack were actually chased into the surrounding hills by enraged locals, with some reports claiming they were then beaten to death and their bodies set alight. Through their barbarity, the militants turned the very people they claimed to represent against them and found it increasingly difficult to operate.
Similarly, in Algeria, what started out as a "popular uprising" soon descended into an orgy of violence. The security clampdown fractured the command structure and the militant groups became disorganised, blood thirsty and indiscriminate in their attacks. The result was that the radicals alienated the majority of their original supporters, who turned against them and began reporting any suspicious incidents to the security services making it difficult for the militants to operate. As a consequence the violence eventually subsided.
Through their barbaric acts of violence, the above militant groups gained a reputation as psychopathic killers, as opposed to the heroic Mujahedeen. Their true agenda and complete disregard for the sanctity of human life became visible for all to see. There are signs that Al Qaeda is following an identical course. One wonders how much killing it will take in Iraq or elsewhere before a similar fate awaits the latest crop of militants.
Despite the best efforts of US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to recruit a new pool of terrorists for Al Qaeda, the atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Madrid, Istanbul and Iraq may contain the very seeds that have caused previous Islamist insurgencies to collapse.
The increasingly random, brutal and indiscriminate acts of Al Qaeda cells around the world appear to reveal an organisation that has fragmented into desperate groups of individuals with no overall command structure. A clear example of this is the organisation's change of tactics and its apparent inability to target high-profile symbols of US power. The foot soldiers of the organisation are still active and increasingly dangerous, but the brains are missing. Carefully selected targets representing US military and economic might have been replaced by so-called "soft targets". Drive-by shootings of Western civilians, beheading of hostages and blowing up of innocent civilians on commuter trains have become the order of the day.
Most damagingly for the militants, increasing numbers of Muslim bystanders are dying as a result. Of course, many Muslims died on Sept. 11 and in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, but the fact that the targets were chosen because they represented symbols of US power gave the militants a certain "credibility". As callous and barbaric as these attacks were, for many people, and not just in the Middle East, the fact that Al Qaeda was able to strike at such potent symbols of US economic and political power overshadowed the carnage.
The leaders of Al Qaeda were well aware of the "PR value" of these targets, something that cannot be said now. The murder and recorded beheadings of civilian contractors in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of commuter trains taking ordinary people to work in Madrid and the killing of innocent Muslim bystanders in Saudi Arabia, Istanbul and Iraq have done nothing for Al Qaeda''s credibility. In their lust for blood, the radical Islamists of Al Qaeda have failed to learn from their predecessors in the Egyptian Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah or the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria.
In both these countries, the militant groups were initially able to exploit widely held grievances not only against the ruling secular regimes, but also against the biased policies of the US towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now their support base has vanished and their activities all but ceased. This was not solely due to the repression suffered at the hands of the security forces, although this destroyed a large part of their leadership. To a large extent, it was also due to the fact that these groups, through their increasingly barbaric acts, destroyed any legitimacy they may once have had with the very people they claimed to represent. No terrorist organisation can operate without the tactic support of at least part of the local population.
The massacre at Luxor in 1997 was the final brutal act committed by the Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah. It sent waves of revulsion through the Egyptian population and caused increased hardship for those dependent on the tourist industry to feed their families. The terrorists in this attack were actually chased into the surrounding hills by enraged locals, with some reports claiming they were then beaten to death and their bodies set alight. Through their barbarity, the militants turned the very people they claimed to represent against them and found it increasingly difficult to operate.
Similarly, in Algeria, what started out as a "popular uprising" soon descended into an orgy of violence. The security clampdown fractured the command structure and the militant groups became disorganised, blood thirsty and indiscriminate in their attacks. The result was that the radicals alienated the majority of their original supporters, who turned against them and began reporting any suspicious incidents to the security services making it difficult for the militants to operate. As a consequence the violence eventually subsided.
Through their barbaric acts of violence, the above militant groups gained a reputation as psychopathic killers, as opposed to the heroic Mujahedeen. Their true agenda and complete disregard for the sanctity of human life became visible for all to see. There are signs that Al Qaeda is following an identical course. One wonders how much killing it will take in Iraq or elsewhere before a similar fate awaits the latest crop of militants.
Jihadi groups alienate support base
Jihadi groups alienate support base
By Paul Tate Despite the best efforts of US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to recruit a new pool of terrorists for Al Qaeda, the atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Madrid, Istanbul and Iraq may contain the very seeds that have caused previous Islamist insurgencies to collapse. The increasingly random, brutal and indiscriminate acts of Al Qaeda cells around the world appear to reveal an organisation that has fragmented into desperate groups of individuals with no overall command structure. A clear example of this is the organisation's change of tactics and its apparent inability to target high-profile symbols of US power. The foot soldiers of the organisation are still active and increasingly dangerous, but the brains are missing. Carefully selected targets representing US military and economic might have been replaced by so-called "soft targets". Drive-by shootings of Western civilians, beheading of hostages and blowing up of innocent civilians on commuter trains have become the order of the day. Most damagingly for the militants, increasing numbers of Muslim bystanders are dying as a result. Of course, many Muslims died on Sept. 11 and in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, but the fact that the targets were chosen because they represented symbols of US power gave the militants a certain "credibility". As callous and barbaric as these attacks were, for many people, and not just in the Middle East, the fact that Al Qaeda was able to strike at such potent symbols of US economic and political power overshadowed the carnage. The leaders of Al Qaeda were well aware of the "PR value" of these targets, something that cannot be said now. The murder and recorded beheadings of civilian contractors in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of commuter trains taking ordinary people to work in Madrid and the killing of innocent Muslim bystanders in Saudi Arabia, Istanbul and Iraq have done nothing for Al Qaeda''s credibility. In their lust for blood, the radical Islamists of Al Qaeda have failed to learn from their predecessors in the Egyptian Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah or the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria. In both these countries, the militant groups were initially able to exploit widely held grievances not only against the ruling secular regimes, but also against the biased policies of the US towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now their support base has vanished and their activities all but ceased. This was not solely due to the repression suffered at the hands of the security forces, although this destroyed a large part of their leadership. To a large extent, it was also due to the fact that these groups, through their increasingly barbaric acts, destroyed any legitimacy they may once have had with the very people they claimed to represent. No terrorist organisation can operate without the tactic support of at least part of the local population. The massacre at Luxor in 1997 was the final brutal act committed by the Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah. It sent waves of revulsion through the Egyptian population and caused increased hardship for those dependent on the tourist industry to feed their families. The terrorists in this attack were actually chased into the surrounding hills by enraged locals, with some reports claiming they were then beaten to death and their bodies set alight. Through their barbarity, the militants turned the very people they claimed to represent against them and found it increasingly difficult to operate. Similarly, in Algeria, what started out as a "popular uprising" soon descended into an orgy of violence. The security clampdown fractured the command structure and the militant groups became disorganised, blood thirsty and indiscriminate in their attacks. The result was that the radicals alienated the majority of their original supporters, who turned against them and began reporting any suspicious incidents to the security services making it difficult for the militants to operate. As a consequence the violence eventually subsided.
Through their barbaric acts of violence, the above militant groups gained a reputation as psychopathic killers, as opposed to the heroic Mujahedeen. Their true agenda and complete disregard for the sanctity of human life became visible for all to see. There are signs that Al Qaeda is following an identical course. One wonders how much killing it will take in Iraq or elsewhere before a similar fate awaits the latest crop of militants.
By Paul Tate Despite the best efforts of US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to recruit a new pool of terrorists for Al Qaeda, the atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Madrid, Istanbul and Iraq may contain the very seeds that have caused previous Islamist insurgencies to collapse. The increasingly random, brutal and indiscriminate acts of Al Qaeda cells around the world appear to reveal an organisation that has fragmented into desperate groups of individuals with no overall command structure. A clear example of this is the organisation's change of tactics and its apparent inability to target high-profile symbols of US power. The foot soldiers of the organisation are still active and increasingly dangerous, but the brains are missing. Carefully selected targets representing US military and economic might have been replaced by so-called "soft targets". Drive-by shootings of Western civilians, beheading of hostages and blowing up of innocent civilians on commuter trains have become the order of the day. Most damagingly for the militants, increasing numbers of Muslim bystanders are dying as a result. Of course, many Muslims died on Sept. 11 and in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, but the fact that the targets were chosen because they represented symbols of US power gave the militants a certain "credibility". As callous and barbaric as these attacks were, for many people, and not just in the Middle East, the fact that Al Qaeda was able to strike at such potent symbols of US economic and political power overshadowed the carnage. The leaders of Al Qaeda were well aware of the "PR value" of these targets, something that cannot be said now. The murder and recorded beheadings of civilian contractors in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of commuter trains taking ordinary people to work in Madrid and the killing of innocent Muslim bystanders in Saudi Arabia, Istanbul and Iraq have done nothing for Al Qaeda''s credibility. In their lust for blood, the radical Islamists of Al Qaeda have failed to learn from their predecessors in the Egyptian Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah or the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria. In both these countries, the militant groups were initially able to exploit widely held grievances not only against the ruling secular regimes, but also against the biased policies of the US towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now their support base has vanished and their activities all but ceased. This was not solely due to the repression suffered at the hands of the security forces, although this destroyed a large part of their leadership. To a large extent, it was also due to the fact that these groups, through their increasingly barbaric acts, destroyed any legitimacy they may once have had with the very people they claimed to represent. No terrorist organisation can operate without the tactic support of at least part of the local population. The massacre at Luxor in 1997 was the final brutal act committed by the Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah. It sent waves of revulsion through the Egyptian population and caused increased hardship for those dependent on the tourist industry to feed their families. The terrorists in this attack were actually chased into the surrounding hills by enraged locals, with some reports claiming they were then beaten to death and their bodies set alight. Through their barbarity, the militants turned the very people they claimed to represent against them and found it increasingly difficult to operate. Similarly, in Algeria, what started out as a "popular uprising" soon descended into an orgy of violence. The security clampdown fractured the command structure and the militant groups became disorganised, blood thirsty and indiscriminate in their attacks. The result was that the radicals alienated the majority of their original supporters, who turned against them and began reporting any suspicious incidents to the security services making it difficult for the militants to operate. As a consequence the violence eventually subsided.
Through their barbaric acts of violence, the above militant groups gained a reputation as psychopathic killers, as opposed to the heroic Mujahedeen. Their true agenda and complete disregard for the sanctity of human life became visible for all to see. There are signs that Al Qaeda is following an identical course. One wonders how much killing it will take in Iraq or elsewhere before a similar fate awaits the latest crop of militants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)