He was never even charged with a crime — not exactly surprising, given the Red Cross’s estimate that 70% to 90% of those arrested and detained in Iraq after the 2003 American invasion of that country were guilty of nothing. But like other survivors, his time at Abu Ghraib continues to haunt him, even though, nearly 20 years later in America, the lack of justice and accountability for war crimes at that prison has been relegated to the distant past and is considered a long-closed chapter in this country’s War on Terror.

The Abu Ghraib “Scandal”

On April 28th, 2004, CBS News’s 60 Minutes aired a segment about Abu Ghraib prison, revealing for the first time photos of the kinds of torture that had happened there. Some of those now-infamous pictures included a black-hooded prisoner being made to stand on a box, his arms outstretched and electrical wires attached to his hands; naked prisoners piled on top of each other in a pyramid-like structure; and a prisoner in a jumpsuit on his knees being threatened with a dog. In addition to those disturbing images, several photos included American military personnel grinning or posing with thumbs-up signs, indications that they seemed to be taking pleasure in the humiliation and torture of those Iraqi prisoners and that the photos were meant to be seen.

Once those pictures were exposed, there was widespread outrage across the globe in what became known as the Abu Ghraib scandal. However, that word “scandal” still puts the focus on those photos rather than on the violence the victims suffered or the fact that, two decades later, there has been zero accountability when it comes to the government officials who sanctioned an atmosphere ripe for torture.

Thanks to the existence of the Federal Tort Claims Act, all claims against the federal government, when it came to Abu Ghraib, were dismissed. Nor did the government provide any compensation or redress to the Abu Ghraib survivors, even after, in 2022, the Pentagon released a plan to minimize harm to civilians in U.S. military operations. However, there is a civil suit filed in 2008 — Al Shimari v. CACI — brought on behalf of three plaintiffs against military contractor CACI’s role in torture at Abu Ghraib. Though CACI tried 20 times to have the case dismissed, the trial — the first to address the abuse of Abu Ghraib detainees — finally began in mid-April in the Eastern District Court of Virginia. If the plaintiffs succeed with a ruling in their favor, it will be a welcome step toward some semblance of justice. However, for other survivors of Abu Ghraib, any prospect of justice remains unlikely at best.

The Road to Abu Ghraib

”My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture… And therefore, I’m not going to address the ‘torture’ word.” So said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at a press conference in 2004. He failed, of course, to even mention that he and other members of President George W. Bush’s administration had gone to great lengths not only to sanction brutal torture techniques in their “Global War on Terror,” but to dramatically raise the threshold for what might even be considered torture.

As Vian Bakir argued in her book Torture, Intelligence and Sousveillance in the War on Terror: Agenda-Building Struggles, his comments were part of a three-pronged Bush administration strategy to reframe the abuses depicted in those photos, including providing “evidence” of the supposed legality of the basic interrogation techniques, framing such abuses as isolated rather than systemic events, and doing their best to destroy visual evidence of torture altogether.

Buy the Book

Although top Bush officials claimed to know nothing about what happened at Abu Ghraib, the war on terror they launched was built to thoroughly dehumanize and deny any rights to those detained. As a 2004 Human Rights Watch report, “The Road to Abu Ghraib,” noted, a pattern of abuse globally resulted not from the actions of individual soldiers, but from administration policies that circumvented the law, deployed distinctly torture-like methods of interrogation to “soften up” detainees, and took a “see no evil, hear no evil,” approach to any allegations of prisoner abuse.

In fact, the Bush administration actively sought out legal opinions about how to exclude war-on-terror prisoners from any legal framework whatsoever. A memorandum from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to President Bush argued that the Geneva Conventions simply didn’t apply to members of the terror group al-Qaeda or the Afghan Taliban. Regarding what would constitute torture, an infamous memo, drafted by Office of Legal Counsel attorney John Yoo, argued that “physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” Even after the Abu Ghraib photos became public, Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials never relented when it came to their supposed inapplicability. As Rumsfeld put it in a television interview, they “did not apply precisely” in Iraq.

In January 2004, Major General Anthony Taguba was appointed to conduct an Army investigation into the military unit, the 800th Military Police Brigade, which ran Abu Ghraib, where abuses had been reported from October through December 2003. His report was unequivocal about the systematic nature of torture there: “Between October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force (372nd Military Police Company, 320th Military Police Battalion, 800th MP Brigade), in Tier (section) 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison.”

Sadly, the Taguba report was neither the first nor the last to document abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib. Moreover, prior to its release, the International Committee of the Red Cross had issued multiple warnings that such abuse was occurring at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

Simulating Atonement

Once the pictures were revealed, President Bush and other members of his administration were quick to condemn the violence at the prison. Within a week, Bush had assured King Abdullah of Jordan, who was visiting the White House, that he was sorry about what those Iraqi prisoners had endured and “equally sorry that people who’ve been seeing those pictures didn’t understand the true nature and heart of America.”

As scholar Ryan Shepard pointed out, Bush’s behavior was a classic case of “simulated atonement,” aimed at offering an “appearance of genuine confession” while avoiding any real responsibility for what happened. He analyzed four instances in which the president offered an “apologia” for what happened — two interviews with Alhurra and Al Arabiya television on May 5, 2004, and two appearances with the King of Jordan the next day.

In each case, the president also responsible for the setting up of an offshore prison of injustice on occupied Cuban land in Guantánamo Bay in 2002 managed to shift the blame in classic fashion, suggesting that the torture had not been systematic and that the fault for it lay with a few low-level people. He also denied that he knew anything about torture at Abu Ghraib prior to the release of the photos and tried to restore the image of America by drawing a comparison to what the regime of Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein had done prior to the American invasion.

In his interview with Alhurra, for example, he claimed that the U.S. response to Abu Ghraib — investigations and justice — would be unlike anything Saddam Hussein had done. Sadly enough, however, the American takeover of that prison and the torture that occurred there was anything but a break from Hussein’s reign. In the context of such a faux apology, however, Bush apparently assumed that Iraqis could be easily swayed on that point, regardless of the violence they had endured at American hands; that they would, in fact, as Ryan Shepard put it, “accept the truth-seeking, freedom-loving American occupation as vastly superior to the previous regime.”

True accountability for Abu Ghraib? Not a chance. But revisiting Bush’s apologia so many years later is a vivid reminder that he and his top officials never had the slightest intention of truly addressing those acts of torture as systemic to America’s war on terror, especially because he was directly implicated in them.

Weapons of American Imperialism

On March 19th, 2003, President Bush gave an address from the Oval Office to his “fellow citizens.” He opened by saying that “American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” The liberated people of Iraq, he said, would “witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military.”

There was, of course, nothing about his invasion of Iraq that was honorable or decent. It was an illegally waged war for which Bush and his administration had spent months building support. In his State of the Union address in 2002, in fact, the president had referred to Iraq as part of an “axis of evil” and a country that “continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.” Later that year, he began to claim that Saddam’s regime also had weapons of mass destruction. (It didn’t and he knew it.) If that wasn’t enough to establish the threat Iraq supposedly posed, in January 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that it “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”

Days after Cheney made those claims, Secretary of State Colin Powell falsely asserted to members of the U.N. Security Council that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, had used them before, and would not hesitate to use them again. He mentioned the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” 17 times in his speech, leaving no room to mistake the urgency of his message. Similarly, President Bush insisted the U.S. had “no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.”

The false pretenses under which the U.S. waged war on Iraq are a reminder that the war on terror was never truly about curbing a threat, but about expanding American imperial power globally.

When the United States took over that prison, they replaced Saddam Hussein’s portrait with a sign that said, “America is the friend of all Iraqis.” To befriend the U.S. in the context of Abu Ghraib, would, of course, have involved a sort of coerced amnesia.

In his essay “Abu Ghraib and its Shadow Archives,” Macquarie University professor Joseph Pugliese makes this connection, writing that “the Abu Ghraib photographs compel the viewer to bear testimony to the deployment and enactment of absolute U.S. imperial power on the bodies of the Arab prisoners through the organizing principles of white supremacist aesthetics that intertwine violence and sexuality with Orientalist spectacle.”

As a project of American post-9/11 empire building, Abu Ghraib and the torture of prisoners there should be viewed through the lens of what I call carceral imperialism — an extension of the American carceral state beyond its borders in the service of domination and hegemony. (The Alliance for Global Justice refers to a phenomenon related to the one I’m discussing as “prison imperialism.”) The distinction I draw is based on my focus on the war on terror and how the prison became a tool through which that war was being fought. In the case of Abu Ghraib, the capture, detention, and torture through which Iraqis were contained and subdued was a primary strategy of the U.S. colonization of Iraq and was used as a way to transform detained Iraqis into a visible threat that would legitimize the U.S. presence there. (Bagram prison in Afghanistan was another example of carceral imperialism.)

Beyond Spectacle and Towards Justice

What made the torture at Abu Ghraib possible to begin with? While there were, of course, several factors, it’s important to consider one above all: the way the American war not on, but of terror rendered Iraqi bodies so utterly disposable.

One way of viewing this dehumanization is through philosopher Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer, which defines a relationship between power and two forms of life: zoe and bios. Zoe refers to an individual who is recognized as fully human with a political and social life, while bios refers to physical life alone. Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib were reduced to bios, or bare life, while being stripped of all rights and protections, which left them vulnerable to uninhibited and unaccountable violence and horrifying torture.

Twenty years later, those unforgettable images of torture at Abu Ghraib serve as a continuous reminder of the nature of American brutality in that Global War on Terror that has not ended. They continue to haunt me — and other Muslims and Arabs — 20 years later. They will undoubtedly be seared in my memory for life.

Whether or not justice prevails in some way for Abu Ghraib’s survivors, as witnesses – even distant ones — to what transpired at that prison, our job should still be to search for the stories behind the hoods, the bars, and the indescribable acts of torture that took place there. It’s crucial, even so many years later, to ensure that those who endured such horrific violence at American hands are not forgotten. Otherwise, our gaze will become one more weapon of torture — extending the life of the horrific acts in those images and ensuring that the humiliation of those War on Terror prisoners will continue to be a passing spectacle for our consumption.

Two decades after those photos were released, what’s crucial about the unbearable violence and horror they capture is the choice they still force viewers to make — whether to become just another bystander to the violence and horror this country delivered under the label of the War on Terror or to take in the torture and demand justice for the survivors.

Copyright Maha Hilal 2024

Tomdispatch.com

In recent years, a new line of attack has emerged from many pro-Israel groups, conservative commentators, politicians and activists – the idea that “wokeness” and oversensitivity to giving offence are threatening free speech. According to this argument, left-leaning activists and their allies are trying to shut down any speech they disagree with by claiming it is offensive or hurtful. In the name of protecting marginalised groups, the reasoning goes, the “woke mob” wants to “cancel” anyone who challenges their orthodoxy. This is the basis of the moral panic gripping the right, a panic so preposterous as to suggest that all our institutions have descended into the abyss and the entire Western civilisation is on the brink of collapse because of the “woke mob”.

However, while the right-wing claims to be the victim of cancel culture and de-platforming, the reality is that the most significant silencing and censorship is being directed at pro-Palestine activists and critics of Israel. From academic institutions to political circles, those who speak out against the Israeli government’s policies and human rights abuses are facing unprecedented levels of suppression and harassment.

The latest example is the case of Asna Tabassum, a first-generation South Asian-American Muslim, who was set to deliver her valedictorian speech at the University of Southern California’s (USC) graduation ceremony on 10 May. However, due to a campaign of racist hatred and security threats from pro-Israel critics, USC decided to cancel Tabassum’s speech. In an official statement, the University cited safety concerns, stating, “While this is disappointing, tradition must give way to safety.”

Tabassum, who has been an outspoken advocate for human rights for all, expressed her shock and disappointment at the University’s decision, saying, “I am surprised that my own University—my home for four years—has abandoned me.” This incident is the latest of many, demonstrating that the so called “woke” playbook, which the right claims it is the main victim of, has in fact been weaponised against critics of Israel.

Eyewitness 7 NY Video: “Pro-Palestinian protest at Columbia University growing in size”

Like Tabassum, former Greek Finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis, faced censorship and suppression last week when he was banned from entering Germany to attend a three-day Palestinian Congress in Berlin. The conference, which aimed to discuss the ongoing struggle for Palestinian rights and Israel’s genocide in Gaza, was shut down by German police just moments after it began. Additionally, several speakers, including Palestinian cartographer, Salman Abu Sitta, were prevented from addressing the conference, even remotely.

Another prominent Palestinian, Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah – nephew of Salman Abu Sitta – who had also flown into Germany to speak at the Palestine Congress, was denied entry into the country. Upon arrival, the recently appointed rector of Glasgow University, was stopped at the German passport office. Abu-Sittah was then escorted down to the basement of the airport, where he was questioned for around three-and-a-half hours and then told he would not be permitted to enter German soil. Abu-Sittah was also warned that if he attempted to link up by Zoom or FaceTime with the conference, or send a video message, even if he was outside Germany, that would constitute a breach of German law.  Abu-Sittah was threatened with fines or even up to a year of prison.

In an interview with Democracy Now, Varoufakis shed light on the disturbing reality behind the suppression of the Palestinian conference in Berlin. He pointed out that the organisers, including progressive Jewish activists, were unjustly dismissed as Islamists. “They do not want a congress like ours, especially one that includes progressive Jews. That is the main thing that they detested, that they were Jewish demonstrators, Jewish activists, Jewish intellectuals, Jewish speakers with us, with one voice, saying one thing, one thing alone: equal political rights, civil liberties, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea,” Varoufakis said, highlighting the unified call for justice and equality that advocates of Israel are seeking to silence.

Varoufakis, who identifies as neither Jewish nor Palestinian, emphasised the universal obligation to demand equal political rights for all people in the region. “I think every single human person on this planet has an obligation — not a right, an obligation — to demand, from the river to the sea, equal political rights. And the German political establishment does not want to listen to this,” he asserted.

Furthermore, Varoufakis argued that the crackdown on pro-Palestine voices is part of a larger sacrifice of democratic principles in order to enable Israel’s actions. “The bourgeois, liberal, democratic rights and principles have all been sacrificed on the altar of enabling Israel to complete the genocide which is carrying out — that it’s carrying out not just in Gaza but, as we heard before in the news bulletin, in East Jerusalem and in the West Bank,” he said. Drawing parallels to the moral imperative to support Jews during the Nazi era, Varoufakis stressed that we have a similar duty today to end the genocide in Palestine.

The silencing of pro-Palestine voices is not limited to academic institutions and conferences. In the US, the House of Representatives, this week, passed a resolution condemning the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as anti-Semitic. The resolution, introduced by Rep Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.), passed with a 377 to 44 vote, with most Democrats supporting the measure and progressives opposing it.

The examples cited above, from Tabassum’s cancelled graduation speech to the shutdown of the Palestinian conference in Berlin and the House resolution condemning pro-Palestinian chants, all occurred within a single week, underscoring the relentless nature of the attacks on pro-Palestine voices, and silencing of speech critical of Israel. They lay bare the hypocrisy of right-wing commentators who have long railed against “wokeness” and over-sensitivity to giving offence against the left.

The hypocrisy of the right wing’s claims about cancel culture and free speech becomes even more apparent when contrasted with their own efforts, which are more vicious and more successful, in suppressing pro-Palestine voices. While they decry the supposed over-sensitivity of the left and the dangers of “wokeness”, they actively participate in the de-platforming and cancellation of those who speak out against Israel’s human rights abuses.

Moreover, the silencing of pro-Palestine activists is not merely a matter of hurt feelings or political disagreement. It is a systematic attempt to erase the voices and experiences of Palestinians, who have endured decades of occupation, dispossession and violence at the hands of Israel.

It is crucial that we recognise and resist the weaponisation of discourse that has evolved to defend the rights of the marginalised to support an occupying power and perpetrators of genocide. Accusations of “offence”, “hurt feelings”, “safe spaces” and anti-Semitism must not be exploited to silence pro-Palestine speech. We must demand that academic institutions, political bodies and society at large uphold the principles of free speech and open debate, even when it comes to controversial and sensitive issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The silencing of pro-Palestine voices is not a matter of over-sensitivity or hurt feelings, but rather a concerted effort by the establishment and the right wing to suppress dissent and maintain the status quo on Israel-Palestine. By exploiting accusations of anti-Semitism and the language used by marginalised groups to defend themselves against social injustices, they seek to censor and de-platform those who challenge Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights. It is our responsibility to resist this silencing, stand up for free speech and amplify the voices of those who are being suppressed.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

In recognition of Arab American Heritage Month and in light of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, UM-Flint, in partnership with the Arab American Heritage Council, invited historians Juan Cole, University of Michigan Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, and Melanie Tanielian, U-M associate professor of history, and Muna Tareh, a UM-Flint alum and political scientist, to provide context for understanding the region.

University of Michigan-Flint Video: “Palestinian History: Understanding the Past, Engaging with the Present” | April 15, 2024

The devastating war in Gaza is now in its sixth month, and the figures are alarming: more than 33,000 Palestinians have been killed. Almost one-third of the population is suffering catastrophic food insecurity and over two million (almost the entire population) have been displaced.

More than 9,000 Palestinians (including around 460 minors) have been imprisoned by Israel, and there are over 17,000 Palestinian children who have been separated from their parents. And most of the Israelis taken hostage by Hamas remain in Gaza.

As the war drags on, it threatens to spread to more countries. On April 1, Israel bombed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, killing Iranian military officials.

Since the war began, Israel has been engaged in an undeclared war against the broader Axis of Resistance which aims to resist the United States and its allies in the region. The axis, made up of Iran and allied armed groups in the region, aims to support Palestinian groups in Gaza by engaging Israel on multiple fronts.

In Yemen, Ansarullah (commonly known as the Houthis) have launched a blockade of the Red Sea targeting Israeli-connected vessels. While Iran-backed militias in Iraq have launched attacks on American troops in the region. Most notable however is the involvement of the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, which has been directly engaging the Israeli military along the Israel-Lebanon border for months.

Al Jazeera English Video added by IC: “Hezbollah continues to exchange fire with the Israeli army across the border”

Who are Hezbollah?

Hezbollah was established on Feb. 16, 1985 during the Lebanese Civil War. The group was primarily founded in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and occupation of parts of the south, as well as the disappearance of religious leader Musa Al-Sadr in 1978.

Since then, Hezbollah has grown to become a state within a state, developing a complex religious and sociopolitical structure. Its political wing holds seats in the Lebanese parliament, and the group provides vital public services in many parts of the country, thereby consolidating its support base. Militarily, it has a powerful armed wing of around 100,000 fighters, outnumbering the official Lebanese army’s 84,000 soldiers.

After the civil war ended, Lebanese armed groups agreed to disarm as part of the peace process. However, Hezbollah did not, asserting that it will disarm when Israel is no longer a threat to Lebanon and when Palestinians are free.

Israel’s 2000 retreat from southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah’s willingness to confront it, has gained the group the support of many in Lebanon and the broader Arab world.

Some western countries like the United States, Canada and Australia classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, while the European Union has designated only its armed branch as such since 2013. This stems from Hezbollah’s alleged links to attacks on U.S. and other western targets in Lebanon, although it has always denied any involvement.

Border clashes

In his first speech after Oct. 7, Hezbollah’s secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, stated the group had been engaging Israel since Oct. 8.

Hezbollah has deployed along the entire Lebanese-Israeli border, plunging southern Lebanon and northern Israel into a state of informal war.

The border deployment constitutes a violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war. While there have been skirmishes between Israel and Hezbollah over the past 18 years, they have always been contained and Hezbollah had not deployed along the entire border since 2006.

The group is not the only party to have violated Resolution 1701. Israel has regularly violated it including by destroying infrastructure.

Officials from Hezbollah and Israel have exchanged threats, heightening fears of a more destructive war. On Jan. 8, 2024, Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant threatened to “copy-paste” the destruction of Gaza onto Beirut if Hezbollah does not cease its attacks.

In a recent speech, Nasrallah labelled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “madman,” adding that Israel wants to wage war on Lebanon yet “can’t cope in Gaza.”

Nasrallah’s comments appear to be designed to indicate that any war in Lebanon could be just as disastrous for Israel. Hezbollah has the capability to target anywhere inside Israel with its missile arsenal.

Managing public perceptions

Lebanon is divided when it comes to support for Hezbollah. The country faces deep political and economic crises. The presidency has been vacant since 2022 amid political deadlock between political factions. Meanwhile, Lebanon faces an economic crisis that has pushed over 80 per cent of the population into poverty.

According to a November 2023 poll, 93 per cent of Lebanese Shiites had a positive opinion of Hezbollah, compared to only 34 per cent of Sunnis and 29 per cent of Christians. Support for Hamas was more widespread, with 79 per cent of Lebanese having positive opinions.

Since 2020, support for Hezbollah has strengthened among some Lebanese regardless of religious affiliations due to the welfare services it provides, however, that does not mean they agree with its politics or ideology.

The war creates more political instability, religious and social tensions, and further impacts the economy. As the economy and government services collapse, many Lebanese have turned to the humanitarian social services provided by Hezbollah.

This has maintained some stability and order amid the institutional disorder of the Lebanese state. Without these services, the system would risk further collapse, exacerbating the precariousness of the situation.

Pressure is mounting on Hezbollah to justify its strategy. To this end, Nasrallah has touted the impact of the group’s attacks, declaring that Israel was losing in the north. Over 200,000 Israelis have been displaced, with many refusing to return out of fear of Hezbollah attacks.

However, southern Lebanon is also paying a heavy price. Over 347 Lebanese have been killed by Israeli attacks, most of whom were Hezbollah members, but also over 50 civilians. According to the International Organization for Migration, almost 94,000 people have had to leave southern Lebanon to flee Israeli attacks.

The agricultural sector has suffered significant damage, with over 800 hectares of land damaged by Israeli bombings. This situation has a devastating impact on the economy of southern Lebanon where agriculture is a major industry.

Given this impact on civilian life, it is imperative to prioritize diplomatic solutions that end the violence, with special attention to securing food security and the agricultural sector in Lebanon. Simultaneously, efforts must be made to establish lasting peace among peoples exhausted by conflict.

Emilie El Khoury, Postdoctoral fellow at Queen’s University’s Centre for International Policy and Defence (CIDP), Queen’s University, Ontario

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The name Frantz Fanon has become inseparable from both the horrors of colonialization and the history of liberation movements. He inspired generations of militants to fight colonialism. Since the 1961 publication of The Wretched of the Earth, which has been called the “Bible of Decolonialization,” Fanon — the Black West Indian psychiatrist who fought for Algerian independence — has been idealized by activists in the global south and beyond. For them, Frantz Fanon is the uncompromising prophet of revolution.

In The Wretched of the Earth’s infamous first chapter “On Violence,” Fanon described colonialism as a pathological system — the complete imposition of violence by the settler on the natives, who are given a “colonial identity,” ”reduced to the state of an animal,” and thereby dehumanized. The colonist uses a “language of pure violence” and “derives his validity from the imposition of violence.” The colonial system, Fanon emphasized, was itself founded on “genocidal acts of dispossession and repression.”

Since Hamas‘s brutal October 7 attack, Fanon has been frequently invoked, seeming more popular than ever. Quoted in essays and social media posts, Fanon’s provocative ideas have been used by supporters of Palestine to contextualize or justify Hamas’s horrific assault as well as to castigate Israel’s colonial subjugation and genocidal obliteration of Gaza and its people. The Israeli bombardment has slaughtered more than 33,000 Palestinians with uncounted more buried under the rubble and has wounded over 75,000 people while starving the surviving population.

The ongoing calamity for Palestinians is not limited to the besieged Gaza Strip —  it also afflicts those in the occupied West Bank, which has been all but shut down since October 7. Road closures, checkpoints, and the increased risk of military and settler violence have kept West Bank Palestinians restricted to their towns and villages. As Israeli soldiers carried out a mission of dispossession, U.N. data showed that 2023 had been an especially deadly year for Palestinians, with Israeli forces killing more of them — 499 — than in any other non-conflict year since 2005. According to Hamas‘s leaders, this provided motivation for their attack. The pure violence of the Israeli Occupation has never been more clear.

“Colonialism is not a thinking machine,” wrote Fanon. “It is violence in its natural state, and it will only yield when confronted with greater violence.” The way out of colonial oppression and the colonized person’s “inferiority complex and his despairing attitude,” is through the “cleansing force” of violence. Fanon believed that violent resistance would restore the humanity of the colonized, elevate them psychologically to a position of equality, and deliver social justice: “The native discovers that his life, his breath, his beating heart are the same as those of the settler. He finds out that the settler’s skin is not of any more value than a native’s skin.”

Fanon’s concepts have become integral to the rationalization of Hamas‘s terrorism. On X, TikTok, and Instagram, Fanon quotes proliferated after October 7: “Decolonization is quite simply the replacing of a certain ‘species’ of men by another ‘species’ of men” and “Decolonization is an inherently violent phenomenon” among many others.

H/t Wikimedia.

An article in the Middle East Eye declared, “Don’t ask Palestinians to condemn Hamas – they are already condemned to live in hell on Earth” and concluded “those bearing the brunt of the onslaught today aren’t caught up in the semantic trap of condemnation. For Palestinians in Gaza and beyond, for the wretched of our shared earth, as for Fanon, ‘to fight is the only solution.’”

In a statement titled “Oppression Breeds Resistance,” Columbia University students began by mourning “the tragic losses experienced by both Palestinians and Israelis” but concluded with a Fanon quote: “When we revolt it’s not for a particular culture. We revolt simply because, for many reasons, we can no longer breathe.”

Many of Fanon‘s contemporary admirers have apparently not read past the first chapter of The Wretched of the Earth; or, they have ignored the final chapter “Colonial Wars and Mental Disorders” — a series of disturbing case studies that depict the debilitating and long-lasting effects of violence. By regurgitating his provocative phrases alone, Fanon’s devotees portray this complex and challenging thinker as nothing more than a sloganeer of political violence. In a timely new biography — The Rebel’s Clinic: The Revolutionary Lives of Frantz Fanon — author Adam Shatz, an editor at the London Review of Books, rescues Fanon from reduction while still agreeing that he wrote “some of the most memorable catchphrases of the liberation struggle.”

The Rebel’s Clinic elaborates the drama and contradictions in Fanon’s life story and political writings, striving to explain why he is such a compelling figure more than 60 years after his death. Significantly, Shatz points out that Fanon’s “practice as a healer” who pledged to do no harm contradicted his practice as a revolutionary, who advocated violence which is harmful to both the victim and perpetrator.

As a psychiatrist, Fanon believed that the violent struggle of the colonized for liberation was a kind of shock treatment that would “restore confidence to the colonized mind” and “overcome the paralyzing sense of hopelessness induced by colonial subjugation,” but “was only a first step toward the birth of a new humanity.” The Rebel’s Clinic provides a comprehensive perspective on Fanon — one that social media slogans cannot suggest. As for Fanon’s advocacy of violence, Shatz calls it “alarming” at one point but emphasizes the humanist side of Fanon — “a dashing and sophisticated intellectual who earned the admiration of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir.”

Though Fanon would eventually identify with the powerless, he was a child of empire — born into a middle-class family on the island of Martinique, a French colony. A fervent French patriot, Fanon eagerly joined the Free French Army. He fought against the Nazis in North Africa and Europe, even sustaining a shrapnel injury. Experiencing racism in the Army, his relationship to France and his own racial identity underwent a radical change – from French patriot who fought for empire to Black West Indian who rebelled against it. His first book Black Skin White Masks, published in 1952, diagnosed the pathological symptoms of racism in everyday life.

After completing his studies, Fanon directed a psychiatric hospital in colonial Algeria, where he discerned the many ways that French colonialism itself was the main cause of his patients’ psychological ailments. Algerians — like Palestinians today — were violently uprooted, their lands were confiscated, while their culture, language, and religion were denigrated. These experiences of dispossession, violence and alienation constituted a profound psychological trauma. Mental illness could never be divorced from racist social conditions, writes Shatz, so Fanon “approached psychiatry as if it were an extension of politics by other means.”

He turned against French colonialism, joined the revolt orchestrated by the National Liberation Front (FLN) in 1954, and fought for Algerian independence. Subversively, Fanon used the hospital as a hideout for anti-French fighters as well as a treatment center for all walks of colonial Algeria, including FLN militants who had been tortured by French forces.

The Martiniquais philosopher later incorporated his insights and experiences as a psychiatrist and a revolutionary into what would be his final book. The Wretched of the Earth was published in 1961 as Fanon, 36, lay perishing from leukemia in a Maryland hospital in the heart of the American empire he despised as “the country of lynchers.” He would never see a free Algeria, dying three months shy of its liberation in March, 1962. The Wretched of the Earth was the culmination of his thinking about anti-colonial revolution and, writes Shatz, “one of the great manifestos of the modern age.”

The Wretched of the Earth spread across the planet within a few years of its appearance transforming Fanon into a hero among leftwing and developing-world revolutionaries and inspiring radicals in the national liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s. It was translated widely — Che Guevara commissioned a Cuban version — and “cited worshipfully by the Black Panthers.” Huey Newton, for example, spoke of Black people as an occupied colony in imperialist America whose only option was revolutionary violence. According to Shatz, Fanon’s book helped galvanize the Black Consciousness movement in South Africa, Latin American guerrillas, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Islamic revolutionaries of Iran, Black Lives Matter activists, and “not least the Palestinian fedayeen in training camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.”

Helping to propel the book’s proliferation, especially in the West, was Gillo Pontecorvo’s 1966 movie The Battle of Algiers. Though not an adaptation, The Battle of Algiers functioned as a filmic depiction of The Wretched of the Earth. A strikingly realistic, politically radical film that sympathized with the revolutionaries, The Battle of Algiers reconstructs the oppressive colonial social conditions, the French brutality in response to anti-colonial demonstrations, the FLN attacks on French policemen, the torture of Algerian civilians, and the terror bombings that marked the four-year insurgency in the streets of Algiers leading to independence.

Summoning Fanon in support of Hamas implies that the war in Gaza is the battle of Algiers of our time. However, the Gaza catastrophe is less a reenactment of The Battle of Algiers, more Hotel Rwanda or Apocalypse Now. Israel cannot extinguish Palestinian resistance through indiscriminate violence any more than Palestine can win an Algerian-style war of liberation. “Palestine today is not Algeria in 1956,” notes Al Jazeera, “which was Fanon’s most important reference point. There will be no long-fought war of independence resulting in the vast majority of Jews” being evicted “from a reconquered Palestine.”

Further, the outcome in Algeria does not provide a model for a free and democratic Palestine. In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon stressed that mere violence as an end in itself, disconnected from any wider achievable political and social goal, would only reproduce the power relations of the colonizer. He suggested that liberation movements can become new oppressors once they attain power, thus exchanging one barbarism for another.

Though Fanon did not live to see it, Algeria descended into one-party rule built on state terror and religious fanaticism. Fanon’s warnings about the obstacles to post-colonial freedom: corruption, autocratic rule, religious zealotry, the enduring wounds of colonial violence, and the persistence of underdevelopment and hunger came to pass and still haunt liberation movements today.

“The militant who confronts the colonialist war machine with his rudimentary resources realizes that while he is demolishing colonial oppression he is indirectly building up yet another system of exploitation,” wrote Fanon. “Such a discovery is galling, painful, and sickening. It was once all so simple with the bad on the one side and the good on the other. The people discover that the iniquitous phenomenon of exploitation can assume a Black or Arab face.”

In a passage that none of his latter-day followers have cited, Fanon warned that “racism, hatred, resentment, and the legitimate desire for revenge alone cannot nurture a war of liberation — one does not endure massive repression or witness the disappearance of one’s entire family in order for hatred or racism to triumph.” Fanon — the authentic revolutionary — shows himself more doubtful of violent resolutions than his less courageous social media acolytes, who indulge in easy revolutionary talk from positions of comfort.

The social media application of The Wretched of the Earth to Palestine eliminates the aspirational aspects of his anti-colonial prescription. Fanon’s advocacy of anti-colonial violence cannot be separated from his belief in a revolutionary humanism, emancipated from colonialism and empire. He wrote that the overthrow of the colonial oppressors will inevitably lead to a “new humanism written into the objectives and methods of the struggle.”

Fanon asserted that a violent uprising by the native people would be the first step in a transformative process that would lead to a postcolonial society based on universalist ideas of freedom and equality for all — a society that might very well include the former colonizers. Palestine, however, is a long way from this social transformation that would deliver a political solution rooted in equality, dignity and justice for both Palestinians and Israelis.

The Caribbean thinker perceptively diagnosed the disease of colonialism that Israel continues to propagate as it replicates its primary pathology: the obliteration of Palestinians. As a new UN report states: “Israel’s genocide on the Palestinians in Gaza is an escalatory stage of a long-standing settler colonial process of erasure. For over seven decades this process has suffocated the Palestinian people as a group – demographically, culturally, economically and politically – seeking to displace it and expropriate and control its land and resources.” Fanon, the psychiatrist, did not enunciate a enduring cure for this vengeful colonial pathology.

Surprisingly, Fanon concluded The Wretched of the Earth in the same place as John Lennon in his utopian song Imagine, which conceives of “no wars and a brotherhood of man.” Fanon ended The Wretched of the Earth with an idealistic challenge to imagine a new world: “For humanity, comrades, we must make a new start, develop a new way of thinking, and endeavor to create a new man.” But Fanon did not clarify how we would arrive at this new, more equitable reality.

Despite this apparent disconnect, we read Fanon today for his startlingly prescient analysis of contemporary ills: the enduring trauma of racism, the persistent plague of white supremacy and xenophobia, the scourge of authoritarianism, and the savagery of colonial domination. Poetic, enraged, and insubordinate, Frantz Fanon gave voice to the anguish of the colonized voiceless and his words continue to resonate with a new global “wretched of the earth.”

(The Conversation) – Recent revelations that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the US have held secret talks as a way of resolving months of attacks by Tehran-backed Houthi rebels on shipping in the Red Sea have raised eyebrows. Surely the two countries have been implacable foes for decades? How could they be engaged in constructive negotiations?

On first glance this seems unlikely. Since its establishment following the 1979 revolution in Iran, the ideology of the Islamic Republic established in its wake has played heavily on anti-imperialism and the rejection of what is seen as “US hegemony”.

Tehran has tended to divide the international system in terms of what it sees as the “oppressed” and the “oppressors” with the US as the chief oppressor and the Islamic Republic the defender of the oppressed.

These ideas were an important part of political culture and debates among many Iranians before 1979 in response to what many people felt had been excessive foreign interference. Ayatollah Khomeini, the Islamic Republic’s first supreme leader, co-opted these ideas.

In practical terms, this meant a rejection of the Carter administration’s close involvement in Iranian affairs, despite human rights abuses under the Shah of Iran.

The desire to reject US influence was perhaps evident in the takeover of the US embassy in 1979 and the subsequent hostage crisis. With the Iran-Iraq War which broke out after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, defence against the US also became an integral part of the Islamic Republic’s ideology because it was perceived that Iraq had US support.

But to view the Islamic Republic’s relationship with the US simply in terms of Khomeini’s ideology – or without appreciating different approaches from within the Islamic Republic over the years – provides an inaccurate picture. Historically, pragmatism and dialogue have also played an important role.

Mohammad Khatami, who was elected president of Iran in 1997, was pragmatic, and considered dialogue integral to the Islamic Republic’s ideology. He sought to bring Iran out of the isolation from the international system that had been characteristic since the 1979 Revolution.

Hindustan Times video: “Iran-U.S. ‘Secret Talks’ Near Houthi Territory | Biden Pleading Tehran For Help In Red Sea? | ”

Khatami’s Dialogue Among Civilisations speech to the United Nations in 1998 drew on intellectual debates about the aims of the Islamic Revolution and reforming the Islamic Republic. His speech recommended designating 2001 as the year of dialogue among civilizations, a proposal that was unanimously adopted by a vote of the UN general assembly.

In 1998, Khatami addressed the American people on CNN, as a part of this dialogue. He drew parallels between the American war of independence and Iran’s search for a national identity, declaring: “We feel that what we seek is what the founders of the American civilisation were also pursuing four centuries ago. This is why we sense an intellectual affinity with the essence of the American civilisation.”

In 2001, Khatami condemned the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Under his direction, Iran also signed a secret deal to provide assistance to US forces in their campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan that year.

‘Axis of Evil’

But a combination of factors, including being labelled as a key member of George W Bush’s “axis of evil”, contributed to more strained relations with Washington under Khatami’s successor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Considered by many as a populist leader, Ahmadinejad’s policy towards the US (and Israel) was aggressive, ideological, and less pragmatic. With a dramatic rise in human rights abuses under Ahmadinejad, western concerns centred on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities and Bush’s “war on terror” rhetoric prompted a steady deterioration in the Islamic Republic’s relations with the US.

After Barack Obama took office as US president in 2009, reports of fraud in the Iranian presidential election of that year brought Iranians in big cites on to the streets. Obama condemned what he called the “unjust” violence against protesters. Meanwhile EU, UN and US sanctions hardened as a response to Iran’s developing nuclear programme.

Nuclear deal

At this stage Iran’s political establishment could see the need to restore the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy both with the Iranian people and internationally. The election of Hassan Rouhani as president in 2013 went some way to resolving both of these issues.

In contrast to Ahmadinejad, Rouhani promoted a policy of “constructive engagement”. A series of secret meetings between the Obama and Rouhani administrations contributed to the signing of the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA) – the Iran nuclear deal – in July 2015. This restricted Iran’s nuclear programme in return for a promised easing of sanctions.

The JCPOA was just one sign of this pragmatism between Tehran and Washington. The US and the Islamic Republic also cooperated in response to the rise of Islamic State (IS). The removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003 with the subsequent de-Ba’athification policy created a security vacuum in Iraq which allowed IS to grow.

Despite different priorities and their ongoing rivalry, the Islamic Republic and the US needed to cooperate against what each saw as the greater enemy. This sort of backchannel communication was seen again recently when the US secretly warned Tehran it had intelligence of a planned IS attack in Iran in January.

Ultimately, the Islamic Republic’s priority is its own survival. This is all the more pertinent following the massive “woman, life, freedom” protests.

The death in custody in September 2022 of the Kurdish-Iranian woman, Jina Mahsa Amini, for what the Islamic Republic’s morality police said was improper wearing of her hijab, sparked the largest protests since the 1979 revolution drawing horrific violence from authorities. An upshot was that many ordinary Iranians questioned the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic.

Given this crisis of legitimacy at home, it makes sense for the Islamic Republic to balance its ideological fervour with a degree of pragmatism in its relations with the outside world. Hence the indirect secret talks with the US – conducted with an Omani diplomat as the go-between – over the Red Sea attacks.

If pressure applied by the Islamic Republic and Washington on the Houthis and Israel respectively can bear fruit in some way, both sides increase their chances of coming out with a political win when they most need it.

Shabnam Holliday, Associate Professor in International Relations, University of Plymouth

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The US was rebuked by China, according to Akmal Dawi at VOA: “‘Security Council resolutions are binding,’ Lin Jian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said on Tuesday.”

Beijing is correct on the law, and the Biden administration is being disingenuous. If President Biden did not want a ceasefire resolution to pass, he should have vetoed it. By abstaining and letting the world community vote on the matter, Biden has elicited a binding decision, and his officials should stop dancing around it.

The law here is clear.

Article 25 of the UN Charter, to which the US, China and Israel are all signatories, says, “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”

Moreover, we could consider the actual language of the resolution, in which the UNSC

“Demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs, and further demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain”

You’d have to twist yourself into a pretzel to avoid concluding that the Security Council sees the ceasefire as binding, given the use of the verb “demand.” The UNSC isn’t suggesting. It isn’t hoping. It isn’t imploring. It is demanding.

BBC News Video: “Gaza: Fighting continues despite UN Security Council resolution calling for ceasefire | BBC News”

Washington’s hypocrisy on this matter is legendary and stunning.

After the Gulf War of 1990-1991 the UN Security Council passed resolutions demanding the disarmament of Iraq. We now know that Iraq complied. But the US and other major powers refused to believe Baghdad’s assertions or even documents in this regard.

One of the grounds that George W. Bush put forward for invading Iraq was precisely its failure to abide by those UN Security Council resolutions. He actually represented the US not as acting unilaterally for narrow American purposes but as upholding the authority of the UNSC.

Robert McMahon at Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty wrote in 2002, “Expressing frustration and alarm, U.S. President George W. Bush says Iraq’s long defiance of United Nations disarmament resolutions has placed the UN’s credibility in question.”

So disobeying the UNSC according to Washington is so serious a matter that it could get you invaded and your government overthrown. I guess that’s not non-binding.

In 2007, the UNSC, disappointed in Iran’s non-compliance with demands for it to cease its civilian nuclear enrichment activities, imposed an embargo on weapons sales by Tehran. To enforce economic sanctions against Iran, the UNSC even allowed the boarding of vessels on the high seas suspected of carrying Iranian weapons.

The UNSC also allows ships carrying North Korean goods to be boarded. Ordinarily freedom of navigation on the high seas is an absolute right in international law. But the UNSC can do as it pleases. It has placed extensive economic sanctions on Pyongyang.

The only real sense in which UNSC Resolution 2728 is “non-binding” is not a legal one but a practical one. Since the US has a veto, if the UNSC tries to sanction Israel for its defiance, as it did Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the Biden administration would use its veto to protect the fascist government presently ruling Israel. But that action is not high diplomacy, just arbitrary and disgusting partisanship that makes a mockery of international law and of ethical principles.

Finally, consider the legislative history. What did the UNSC members intend? The UN News tells us.

Russian ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia said, “‘Those who are providing cover for Israel still want to give it a free hand,’ he added, expressing hope that the wording contained in the resolution ‘will be used in the interests of peace rather than advancing the inhumane Israeli operation against the Palestinians’”.

He opposed the Biden administration’s granting of a free hand to Israel to thumb its nose at the resolution.

Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett of Guyana: “‘This demand [by the Council] comes at a significant time as Palestinians are observing the holy month of Ramadan,’ she said, noting continuing deaths in the enclave and a growing number of families left homeless.”

She called it a demand, and said that said that “after more than five months of a ‘war of utter terror and destruction’, a ceasefire is the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and others.

Doesn’t sound like a mere polite suggestion to me.

China’s Zhang Jun said, “The current draft is unequivocal and correct in its direction, demanding an immediate ceasefire, while the previous one was evasive and ambiguous.”

I note the term “unequivocal.”

Hwang Joonkook of South Korea said, “The situation must be different before and after this resolution. This will only be possible when both Israel and Hamas respect and faithfully implement this resolution.”

So, not voluntary. Binding.

Russia is reeling from the worst terror strike on its soil in a generation following an attack on March 22, 2024, that killed at least 137 concertgoers in Moscow.

The attack has been claimed by the Islamic State group. And despite Russian authorities expressing doubt over the claim, U.S. officials told The Associated Press that they believed ISIL-K, a South and Central Asian affiliate of the terrorist organization, was behind the assault.

It comes amid heightened concern over the scope of ISIL-K activities following recent terrorist operations in countries including Iran and Pakistan. The Conversation turned to Clemson University’s Amira Jadoon and Sara Harmouch of American University – terrorism experts who have tracked the activities of ISIL-K – to explain what this latest deadly attack tells us about the organization’s strengths and agenda.

What is ISIL-K?

ISIL-K, short for Islamic State Khorasan Province, is a regional affiliate of the larger Islamic State group.

The affiliate group operates primarily in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, although it has presence throughout the historical “Khorasan” – a region that includes parts of the modern-day nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, along with other Central Asian countries.

Established in 2015, ISIL-K aims to establish a physical “caliphate” – a system of governing a society under strict Islamic Sharia law and under religious leadership – in the South and Central Asian region.

What to know about ISIS-K, the group that claimed the Moscow attack • FRANCE 24 English Video

ISIL-K’s beliefs follow the ideology of its parent organization, the Islamic State group, which promotes an extreme interpretation of Islam and sees secular government actors, as well as non-Muslim and Muslim minority civilian populations, as legitimate targets.

The group is known for its extreme brutality and for targeting both government institutions and civilians, including mosques, educational institutions and public spaces.

Following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, ISIL-K’s key objectives have been to diminish the now-ruling Taliban’s legitimacy in the war-ravaged nation, assert itself as the rightful leader of the Muslim community and emerge as the principal regional adversary to regimes it deems oppressive.

Moreover, the Taliban’s transition from an insurgency group to a governing entity left numerous militant factions in Afghanistan without a unifying force – a gap that ISIL-K has aimed to fill.

Why was Russia targeted by ISIL-K?

ISIL-K has long framed Russia as one of its main adversaries. It has heavily featured anti-Russian rhetoric in its propaganda and has attacked Russia’s presence within Afghanistan. This includes a suicide attack on Russia’s embassy in Kabul in 2022 that left two Russian Embassy staff and six Afghans dead.

The broader Islamic State group has targeted Russia for several reasons.

They include long-standing grievances relating to Moscow’s historical interventions in Muslim-majority regions like Chechnya and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Russia’s partnerships with regimes opposed by the Islamic State group, notably Syria and Iran, have positioned Russia as a primary adversary in the eyes of the terrorist organization and its affiliates.

In particular, Russia has been a key ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since the beginning of Syria’s civil war in 2011, providing military support to the Assad regime against various opposition groups, including the Islamic State group.

This direct opposition to the terrorist group and its caliphate ambitions has rendered Russia as a prime target for retaliation.

Moreover, Russia’s cooperation with the Taliban – ISIL-K’s key nemesis in Afghanistan – adds another layer of animosity. The Islamic State group views countries and groups that oppose its ideology or military objectives as enemies of Islam, including actors who seek to establish relations with the Taliban.

By attacking Russian targets, ISIL-K in part seeks to deter further Russian involvement in the Middle East. But also, such attacks provide high publicity for its cause and aim to inspire its supporters worldwide.

As such, for the Islamic State brand, the Moscow attack serves as retribution for perceived grievances held against Russia, while also projecting global reach. This approach can provide significant dividends, especially for its South and Central Asian affiliate, in the form of increased recruitment, funding and influence across the jihadist spectrum.

What does the attack tell us about ISIL-K capabilities?

The mere association of ISIL-K with this attack, whether it was directly or indirectly involved, bolsters the group’s reputation.

Overall, the attack signals ISIL-K’s growing influence and its determination to make its presence felt on the global stage.

Being linked to a high-profile attack in a major city far from its base in Afghanistan indicates that ISIL-K can extend its operational reach either directly or through collaboration with like-minded militant factions.

The scale and sophistication of the attack reflect advanced planning, coordination and execution capabilities. This only reaffirms unequivocally ISIL-K’s intent, adaptability and determination to internationalize its agenda.

Similar to ISIL-K’s attack in Iran in January 2024 that left over 100 dead, this latest atrocity serves to reinforce ISIL-K’s stated commitment to the broader global jihadist agenda of the Islamic State group, and helps broaden the appeal of its ideology and recruitment campaign.

How does this fit ISIL-K’s strategy?

The attack in Moscow serves as a powerful recruitment and propaganda tool by attracting international media attention to the group. This allows it to remain politically relevant to its audiences across South and Central Asia, and beyond.

But it also helps divert attention from local setbacks for ISIL-K. Like its parent organization Islamic State group, ISIL-K has been confronted with military defeats, loss of territory and leadership and diminishing resources.

In the face of such challenges, ISIL-K’s potential links to the attack in Moscow remind observers of its persistent threat and adaptability.

By targeting a major power like Russia, ISIL-K aims to project a broader message of intimidation aimed at other states involved in anti-Islamic State group operations and undermine the public’s sense of security.

Additionally, operations such as the Moscow attack seek to solidify ISIL-K’s position within the broader Islamic State group network, potentially securing more support and resources.

More broadly, the strategy follows a process of “internationalizing” ISIL-K’s agenda – something it has pursued with renewed vigor since 2021 by targeting the countries with a presence in Afghanistan, including Pakistan, India, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China and Russia, marking a deliberate expansion of its operational focus beyond local borders.

The Moscow attack, following the January assault in Iran, suggests that ISIL-K is intensifying efforts to export its ideological fight directly to the territories of sovereign nations.

It is a calculated strategy and, as the Moscow attack has exemplified, one that has the potential to strike fear in capitals far beyond ISIL-K’s traditional base.

Sara Harmouch, PhD Candidate, School of Public Affairs, American University and Amira Jadoon, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Clemson University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What struck me in their report is how unhappy the Middle East is. The only Middle Eastern country in the top twenty is Kuwait (for the first time in this cycle). Kuwait has oil wealth and is a compact country with lots of social interaction. The high score may reflect Kuwait’s lively labor movement. That sort of movement isn’t allowed in the other Gulf States. The United Arab Emirates came in at 22, and Saudi Arabia at 28.

These countries are all very wealthy and their people are very social and connected to clans and other group identities, including religious congregations.

But everyone else in the Middle East is way down the list.

As usual, Gallup found that the very happiest countries were Scandinavian lands shaped by social democratic policies. It turns out that a government safety net of the sort the Republican Party wants to get rid of actually is key to making people happy.

Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden take the top four spots. Israel, which also has a Labor socialist founding framework, is fifth. The Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg fill out the top nine.

The Gallup researchers believe that a few major considerations affect well-being or happiness. They note, “Social interactions of all kinds … add to happiness, in addition to their effects flowing through increases in social support and reductions in loneliness.” My brief experience of being in Australia suggests to me that they are indeed very social and likely not very lonely on the whole. Positive emotions also equate to well-being and are much more important in determining it than negative emotions. The positive emotions include joy, gratitude, serenity, hope, pride, amusement, inspiration, awe, and altruism, among others.

Benevolence, doing good to others, also adds to well-being. Interestingly, the Gallup researchers find that benevolence increased in COVID and its aftermath across the board.

They also factor in GDP per capita, that is, how poor or wealthy people are.

Gallup Video: “2024 World Happiness Report; Gallup CEO Jon Clifton”

Bahrain comes in at 62, which shows that oil wealth isn’t everything. It is deeply divided between a Sunni elite and a Shiite majority population, and that sectarian tension likely explains why it isn’t as happy as Kuwait. Kuwait is between a sixth and a third Shiite and also has a Sunni elite, but the Shiites are relatively well treated and the Emir depends on them to offset the power of Sunni fundamentalists. So it isn’t just sectarian difference that affects happiness but the way in which the rulers deal with it.

Libya, which is more or less a failed state after the people rose up to overthrow dictator Moammar Gaddafi, nevertheless comes in at 66. There is some oil wealth when the militias allow its export, and despite the east-west political divide, people are able to live full lives in cities like Benghazi and Tripoli. Maybe the overhang of getting rid of a hated dictator is still a source of happiness for them.

Algeria, a dictatorship and oil state, is 85. The petroleum wealth is not as great as in the Gulf by any means, and is monopolized by the country’s elite.

Iraq, an oil state, is 92. Like Bahrain, it suffers from ethnic and sectarian divides. It is something of a failed state after the American overthrow of its government.

Iran, another oil state, is 100. Its petroleum sales are interfered with by the US except with regard to China, so its income is much more limited than other Gulf oil states. The government is dictatorial and young people seem impatient with its attempt to regiment their lives, as witnessed in the recent anti-veiling protests.

The State of Palestine is 103, which is actually not bad given that they are deeply unhappy with being occupied by Israel. This ranking certainly plummeted after the current Israeli total war on Gaza began.

Morocco is 107. It is relatively poor, in fact poorer than some countries that rank themselves much lower on the happiness scale.

Tunisia is one of the wealthier countries in Africa and much better off than Morocco, but it comes in at 115. In the past few years all the democratic gains made during and after the Arab Spring have been reversed by horrid dictator Qais Saied. People seem to be pretty unhappy at now living in a seedy police state.

Jordan is both poor and undemocratic, and is ranked 125.

Egypt is desperately poor and its government since 2014 has been a military junta in business suits that brooks not the slightest dissent. It is 127. The hopes of the Arab Spring are now ashes.

Yemen is 133. One of the poorest countries in the world, it suffered from being attacked by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates from 2015 until 2021. So it is war torn and poverty-stricken.

Lebanon ranks almost at the bottom at 142. Its economy is better than Yemen’s but its government is hopelessly corrupt and its negligence caused the country’s major port to be blown up, plunging the country into economic crisis. It is wracked by sectarianism. If hope is a major positive emotion that leads to feelings of happiness, it is in short supply there.

Some countries are too much of a basket case to be included, like Syria, where I expect people are pretty miserable after the civil war. Likewise Sudan, which is now in civil strife and where hundreds of thousands may starve.

Poverty, dictatorship, disappointment in political setbacks, and sectarianism all seem to play a part in making the Middle East miserable. The role of the United States in supporting the dictatorships in Egypt and elsewhere, or in supporting wars, has been sinister and certainly has added significantly to the misery. For no group in the region is this more true than for the Palestinians.