Today is
International Genocide Prevention Day. While the international
community is marking this event, Gaza is facing an ethnic cleansing. There is
documented intent, there are
multiple calls for elimination of Gaza by
current and
former Israeli officials, and
there is the practice of calling on civilians to evacuate and then
striking the evacuation routes.
The mood in Arab states, specifically Jordan, has been one of mourning, anger,
and frustration with protests, boycotts, and even
canceled holiday festivities.
اضافة اعلان
These weeks I have been troubled by some comments. ‘Westerners
are discussing ‘rising radicalization’. Attention is now being redirected
towards “radicalization” - why? Do they believe that organizations akin to ISIS
and Al Qaeda will emerge again? Or is this an ‘easy way out’ to dismiss public
discontent and criticism of Israeli and US policy?
We need to be very careful with terminology and not stick the
label of ‘radical’ on any and all positions, demonstrations, opinions which
question the narratives from Tel Aviv, the White House, and Brussels. Having
worked for years on preventing and countering radical extremism (along with
many of you) I know these concepts have definitions, methods of detection, and
strategies for prevention. But when the concepts get blurred because the word
is used as an umbrella under which to gather all unwanted opinions, we destroy
real work and make way for
real threats.
This is a day to denounce both the denials of past genocides and
the justifications of current ones. It is also a day to remember the victims.
As Secretary of State Blinken stated
on this occasion in 2021: “Victims of these crimes are
not merely numbers. They are mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, family
and community members, friends, neighbors, human beings. Our hearts break
for all victims, survivors, and families and loved ones affected by this brutal
and heinous crime.” (Conversely, Matthew Miller, State Department
spokesperson on
December 4, 2023: “I have not seen
evidence of their [Israel’s] intention to kill civilians”).
To contribute to the goal of today I wish to clarify an
issue.
Three things you should know
1. The Takfiri vs the radical.Pundits
and politicos often conflate the Angry Protesters with the Takfiri often combined through
the word ‘radical’. A single protest makes a person a protestor. What happens
after two months? If the injustice remains the response should not be expected
to go away. People engaged in long-term campaigns for Palestinian rights and
safety cannot be measured as ‘radical’ on any scale. Normally we would
ask, is X person or group moving out of our standard worldview, and
thinking? In Jordan, on the issue of Palestine, the answer is no. When
we, Arabs and Muslims, use the word radical we imagine the
Takfiri, more often associated
with ISIS, HTS, Al Qaeda etc. This is the radicalization we fear, and the
radicalization we mean. In the ongoing protests, Jordanians are not necessarily
getting ‘radicalized’ or joining in with this line of thinking.
The
issue here is mass social pressure in defense of Gazan lives and land, carrying
out lone wolf attacks, or targeting western interests out of anger. In fact, it
is a little offensive to group the protestors up this way. These two “radicals”
are very different and beckon different approaches. One of solidarity,
organization, and mass action, and the other of violence. Yet the solidarity
movements are painted as ‘concerning’ because of risks of radicalization. Why?
The Indian Farmers Protest was 18 months long, the French ‘Yellow Vests’ was 15
months, and the Occupy Wall Street protest was two months. There was no rush of
articles predicting a ‘Spring’ or a ‘risk of radicalization’. It is sloppy and
inaccurate to paste this on the current mood in the Middle East.
2. Have Jordanians changed? Yes and no. There
is no more ‘radical’ position in Jordan. There is more anger, as the protests
show, there is more organization as the boycotts of certain franchises
demonstrate. But in terms of opinion, Jordan has always supported a just
solution to the Palestinian issue. The King and Foreign Minister Safadi have
always been outspoken, firm, and determined in their calls for a two state
solution, and dignity of life. Jordan’s support for Palestine is unwavering. If
you look at Jordanian perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict you can
clearly see it has
fluctuated based on whichever
current event.
Jordan
is not the country that changed, but Israel has changed. As I pointed out last
week, the rise of the ‘settler state’ has outshone the ‘security state’ and
actually shifted policy. Western states have also changed as older
neoconservatives in power face masses of protesting youth in their own
countries and risk losing in future elections. There is no doubt that Gaza can
spark violence and that individuals already at risk may be driven to act. But
that does not logically allow the broad painting of all protestors as
‘radical’.
3. What we lose.
There
has been a lot of research and field work on radicalization done in Jordan
(examples are
here,
here, and
here). When ‘radicalisation’ is
used to describe the public outrage - anger at the Biden administration,
denouncing Israel breaking international law, despair at the high loss of life,
instead of looking at how these actions are justified by the speakers (or by,
you know, the facts), the sector loses. The
staircase model explains a person’s shift
towards radicalism through the steps and options a person faces. As the options
become narrower and narrower the person is directed to an act of terrorism.
This model,
backed by substantive
research, includes the context of
material conditions of the individual, availability of ‘voice’, economic
conditions, education, identity issues, and a feeling of ‘belonging’.
This is a
well-studied area. A person does not
watch the news, join a protest, boycott a coffeeshop and then become a radical.
We
cannot claim anger at Netanyahu or Biden or the IDF is radicalization. We
cannot dismiss the crowds singing songs about Hamas as radicals. Radicalization
is a deeper process that should not be diluted for political purposes of the
moment. We would spoil the years of research and work that went into actual
PVE. We lose the battle against actual radicalization -the “takfiris” - who also target our
people and our communities.
My Take:
Jordan has a very skeptical view of Western foreign policy (the
war in Iraq, the Abraham Accords, the lack of support for Palestinian lives,
etc.) while at the same time remaining a reliable ally of the West, stable base
and market, and a safe home for all. Jordan has done this by both being open to
cooperation with all, while standing by its own values. Being an ally does not
mean caving to every trend of every partner.
But this idea of claiming that Jordanian anger on this issue is
‘risking radicalization’ is dangerous besides being naïve, and poor partnership
in return. Please don’t turn an actual term about a real issue into a buzzword
that delegitimizes a movement - a movement that has shifted consumer behavior,
involved over two dozen political parties, multiple NGOs, several cities,
thousands of citizens over two months, and in line with the rhetoric of His
Majesty, the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Minister.
There is the threat of takfiri
recruitment. There is the threat of lone
wolf attacks like the recent
one in Egypt. These are real. The
recruitment is a multi-step process. It can be prevented, tracked, and
combatted. The lone wolf attack is after the breaking down of an individual.
Clogging up the system of preventing these two threats with breaking news and
quick takes and hot takes and whatever else, prevents real questioning and
actions.
Let me end with some requests. If a non-Jordanian friend starts
talking about risks of radicalization from the current mood, please correct
them. Let’s stop that conversation before it becomes a talking point for
politicians. If you want to ask me about risks of radicalization, then define
your terms and be technical. If you, non-Jordanians, ask your Jordanian friends
and colleagues if they condemn Hamas, do not be surprised at the
eye-rolling. It does not mean they are
Hamas fans or acolytes. It is just that we are exhausted. It is a form of
self-flagellation that we are expected to commit ourselves to, or else be
called radicals. It is reminiscent of post-9/11 when the first interview question
to Muslims would be, “Do you renounce violence?”
There is an irony that on International
Genocide Prevention Day a mass movement warning of possible genocide is seen as
a road to radicalization.
Katrina Sammour was first published on Full Spectrum Jordan, a weekly newsletter on SubStack.
Disclaimer:
Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Jordan News' point of view.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
