A Fresh Perspective: The shattering of Western myths by IS

A fresh perspective

By DAN ILLOUZ
A man from the minority Yazidi sect stands guard at Mount Sinjar. (photo credit: REUTERS)
A man from the minority Yazidi sect stands guard at Mount Sinjar.
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Many people were shocked when they first heard of the Islamic State (IS), a small terrorist group that took over large parts of Iraq and Syria and declared itself a new caliphate in June 2014. The rise of IS-inspired terrorist activity in France, Canada and Australia has only enhanced this shock.
However, those who heard the constant warnings coming from Israel about the dangers of the Middle East have anticipated such an event for a long time.
In this article, I want to look at the various lessons that the rise of IS can teach us about the Middle East. One can quickly discern that these are exactly the things Israel has been talking about for the past few decades, shattering many Western myths.
1. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the central conflict in the Middle East.
For the past few decades, the Western world has acted as if the root of all problems in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If only we could solve this one problem, they thought, we could bring about peace in the Middle East.
The events of the past few years prove that the problems in the Middle East are much deeper than the one conflict between the Jewish state and the Arab world.
The struggle between Sunnis and Shi’ites far predates the struggle between the Arab world and Israel. It is specifically this struggle that is at the heart of the battle between IS and the government forces in Iraq. The struggle between secular and religious forces lies at the heart of many of the conflicts in the region, including the conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian government, and the internal conflict in Syria. There is also an age-old battle with various groups in the region trying to gain some form of autonomy, or at least some equal rights: the Kurds, the Alawites, the Yazidis, the Druse and the Christians.
These historical conflicts, some dating back over 1,000 years, are much deeper than the Jewish-Arab one. These conflicts were silenced by strong dictatorships in the region that did not allow for any opposition. However, with the Arab Spring and the weakening of these dictatorships, these conflicts are now coming back to life.
In just the past few years, hundreds of thousands have died in these conflicts – many more deaths than resulted from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Let us make what is already clear even more blunt: The building of Jewish houses in the Jewish historical homeland of Judea and Samaria, in Israel, has absolutely nothing to do with these conflicts, and no peace deal between Palestinians and Jews could ever help solve them.
2. Territorial withdrawals strengthen terrorism.
For the past few decades, many analysts have claimed that territorial depth has stopped being an important factor in wars, which have become far more technological in nature. This meant that territorial withdrawals should not be feared, since technology could compensate for the loss of control over territory.
However, recent experience shows that there is no substitute for actual control over a territory.
The United States completed its withdrawal from Iraq on December 18, 2011.
By June 2014, IS had already taken over large parts of Iraq, and the Iraqi government was left defenseless. The vacuum left by the withdrawal of a Western army from a territory leads to chaos, which encourages extremist elements to take over. This is also what happened after Israel withdrew from Gaza in August 2005, with Hamas taking over in January 2006. When Western democracies leave behind a territory without proper preparation and stability, terrorists take over.
In the 2008 elections, the Obama administration ridiculed presidential candidate John McCain for claiming that US troops might have to stay in Iraq for over 100 years. McCain claimed that the troops had to stay “as long as it takes,” even if it was in smaller numbers. He gave examples of other conflicts in which American troops stayed for decades as passive forces ensuring stability.
He said, back then: “If we had withdrawn six months ago, I can look you in the eye and tell you that al-Qaida would have said, ‘We beat the United States of America.’ If we’d gone along with Harry Reid and said the war is lost to al-Qaida, then we would be fighting that battle all over the Middle East.”
Barack Obama won the presidential election, as the Iraq war was incredibly unpopular then. However, looking back, it is clear that McCain was right, and that Obama is the one who should have been ridiculed for his rush judgment and his lack of understanding of the region. As soon as America left Iraq, Islamists started gaining strength and slowly took over.
Yes, Obama’s rush judgment was what led to the rush withdrawal of troops, to the strengthening of IS and to all the horrors that have now landed on our television screens: attempts at genocide, beheadings, mass graves and more.
On August 8, 2014, Obama, the greatest advocate of territorial withdrawal, announced that he had authorized an air strike in Iraq. Even the most non-interventionist president in recent history was forced to intervene in Iraq to deal with the chaos that had ensued from the withdrawal of American troops.
It is no surprise that Israel, too, nine years after the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, went back into Gaza in Operation Protective Edge, defending itself against rocket attacks from a vicious terrorist organization whose stated goal is to kill as many Israeli citizens as possible.
Territorial withdrawals are dangerous.
Those done without proper preparation lead to disasters. They strengthen extremist organizations that thrive in chaotic situations and give them an opportunity to take control.
3. Iran needs to be stopped.
As we see IS’s violence, we must remember that there is little difference between Islamic State and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both are led by radical Islam. Both want to apply Shari’a law in their territories and are huge human-rights violators. Both are also trying to expand – Islamic State through traditional expansion, Iran via proxies such as Hezbollah.
The only reason for the conflict between Iran and IS is that one is Shi’ite and the other is Sunni.
Allowing Iran a nuclear bomb is exactly like giving a nuclear bomb to IS. This is an existential threat not only for Israel, but for the whole world. It has to be stopped.
4. Israel must stand up to pressure.
As recent events have shown, experts from around the world who tend to pressure Israel with their utopian worldviews have been proven wrong.
It is specifically Israel that has been proven right, with its reticence to leave territory that is under its control, its insistence that Israel is not the root cause of the troubles in the Middle East, and its call for the international community to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.
Instead of pressuring Israel, the world should start listening to Israel. Until then, Israel must stand up to international pressure.
■ The writer is an attorney and a former legislative adviser to Knesset’s coalition chairman; he previously served in a legal capacity at the Foreign Ministry. He is a graduate of McGill University Law School and Hebrew University’s master’s program in public policy