Zarqawi and Zion

Posted by Cutler on June 08, 2006
Foreign Policy Factions, Iraq

Looks like news from the “war on terror” we are fighting “over there” in Iraq is about to temporarily distract Americans from doing battle “here” with the gay insurgents (insurgents? terrorists? dead-enders?) allegedly waging “war” on the institution of marriage.

Insurgent Leader Zarqawi Killed in Iraq.” If the headlines prove to be correct and Abu Musab Zarqawi–Jordanian-born leader of al Qaeda in Iraq–has been killed by US forces in a raid on a house north of Baquba, this marks a perverse kind of setback for Right Zionists visions of the war in Iraq. At the level of ideology, Zarqawi was best understood as the perfect foil for Right Zionists like David Wurmser who think of Iraq as the front line of a regional war. Zarqawi is the mirror image of Wurmser.

One of the most important battles within the Iraq war has been the struggle to define the central axis of conflict. According to the first axis–call it the nationalist axis–the US has been fighting in Iraq against a national liberation army defending itself against imperialist occupation. Along this axis, the signature moment might be the April 2004 rebellionsimultaneous and sometimes coordinated–of Sunni insurgents in Fallujah and Shiite insurgents (Sadr’s Mahdi Army) in Najaf. Along the nationalist axis, any fissures between Shiite and Sunni melts into a unified national resistance to foreign occupation. Not surprisingly, Right Arabists within the US foreign policy establishment prefer to think in terms of the nationalist axis because at the level of policy it tends to commend a resolution: give the insurgents their country back. Bring back the Baathists. Return the country to its rightful owners.

According to the second axis–call it the sectarian axis–the US has been fighting a regional war on terror by tilting the regional balance of power away from Sunni extremists and the Sunni Arab dominated regimes with which they are aligned and toward the region’s embattled Shiites. Along this axis, the signature moment might be the February 2006 bombing of the Shiite Askariya shrine in Samarra. This bombing shifted the axis toward a war between Sunni terrorists and oppressed Shiites. As Adel Abdul Mahdi, a leader of the Shiite SCIRI party, so aptly put it after the bombing: This is as 9/11 in the United States.” The logic of the bombing was to put Shiites and Americans in the same boat.

Nobody did more to identify, build and maintain the significance of Sunni/Shiite split–the sectarian axis–than Abu Musab Zarqawi. Zarqawi may have hated Zionists, but his importance in Iraq was that he also hated Shiites. It was in the mind of Zarqawi–like the mind of Wurmser–that Zionists and Shiites were united. Right Zionists will not shed a tear for Zarqawi, but they may miss him when he is gone. If he is gone. For Right Zionists, Zarqawi is really an indespensible enemy. As Zarqawi’s allies might say: the US may have killed Zarqawi, but it has not yet dismantled the sectarian axis.

4 Comments to Zarqawi and Zion

  • The split is an interesting one, and the fallout probably yet to be determined. One can also see this split reflected in Al-Zarqawi’s family, some of whom recently denounced Al-Zarqawi and severed ties with him. The AP has posted a story entitled Al-Zarqawi Now a Martyr, His Brother Says. While some family members seem to hope he will join the ranks of “other martyrs in heaven.” Yet the article to point out some of the divisions within Al-Zarqawi’s family:

    In newspaper advertisements, 57 members of the al-Khalayleh family _ including Sayel al-Khalayleh _ reiterated their strong allegiance to the king.

    After the news broke of al-Zarqawi’s death, his three sisters, all dressed in black, arrived grief stricken at the one-story family home in Zarqa. The sisters declined to talk to reporters as they entered the house.

    The husband of one sister said: “We’re not sad that he’s dead.”

    “To the contrary, we’re happy because he’s a martyr and he’s now in heaven,” said the husband, who identified himself as Abu Qudama and said he lost one of his legs fighting Russian forces in Afghanistan.

    Although this doesnt reflect the Zarqawi/Zion split, it represents an even more intimate split (within his family), clearly demonstrating the truly controversial/divisive nature of his role in the country.

  • [Zarqawi may have hated Zionists, but his importance in Iraq was that he also hated Shiites. It was in the mind of Zarqawi–like the mind of Wurmser–that Zionists and Shiites were united.]

    Yes, of course, Al-Queda hates lots of things. However, PR aside, they have very intricate concrete understanding of the situation. On the contrary, American neocons live in alternative conspiratorial reality where they don’t know, can’t know and don’t what to know what is actually going on. IMO, this difference is essential and can’t be ignored.

  • Of course, utilizing the old “them Jews is at fault for everything” canard is just what delusional and psychotic leftwingers like to do these days, when they are not rooting for the victory of bin Laden or the defeat of the United States.

    And even some of my Democratic friends say quietly, you people SCARE THE SHIT out of normal Americans. And God help us all – GOD HELP US ALL – if you whackjobs take control of this country. Because the next day bin Laden will be Secretary of State and everyone will have to support gay marriage or be shot.

  • “them Jews is at fault for everything” would be not only unsyntactical but downright stupid. The Hitlerian notion that there exists a separable bloc of ‘Jews’ ,distinct from the rest of the human species, and that all its members are somehow equally responsible for everything it does, is possibly good as propaganda, given that a decision to mobilise has been made, but intellectually it is absurd. ‘Jews’, like elementary particles, dissolve into indefinitude when examined closely.

    However, to say that the way that the Jewish world is organised, (in quite a large number of competing, non mutually responsible, aggressive pressure groups), is problematic, is perfectly logical, and I agree with it.

Leave a Reply