- ticket title
- أيبك تحقق صافي أرباح بقيمة 9.02 مليون دولار أمريكي في النصف الأول من العام 2020
- The Bermuda Stock Exchange and Parent Company Miami International Holdings, Inc. Announce $1.94 Billion Debt Listing for NCL Corporation Ltd.
- إطلاق موديلي سيارات من جي أيه سي معا! الشركة ستأتي بموديل السيارة الرياضية المدينية جي أس 5 والعربة المتعددة الاستخدامات جي أن 6 لسوق البحرين يوم 18 أغسطس
- شركة تشاينا إنيرجي في جنوب أفريقيا تنظم فعالية يوم مفتوح حول مشروع طاقة الرياح
- Powerful and Proven: Community Health Workers Can Build Health and Equity During Pandemic & Beyond
TerrorismWas al-Qaeda a winner or loser from the Arab uprisings?
Al-Qaeda’s ideology can be broken down into two parts: First, al-Qaedists believe that the Islamic world is at war with a transnational Crusader-Zionist conspiracy which includes states hostile to the Islamic world. Among them are the United States and the rest of the West, Israel, Russia, and even India and China. It is this “far enemy,” and not the local despots (the “near enemy”) who do its bidding that should be the target of jihad. Al-Qaeda also opposes the division of the Islamic world into individual nation states which, they claim, is a trick perpetrated by the Crusader-Zionist conspiracy to keep the Islamic world weak and divided. What is al-Qaeda’s current state? If one looks at al-Qaeda not as an entity but as a tendency within a broader jihadi movement, it might be argued that the groups that operate as al-Qaeda affiliates, wannabes, and copycats have profited from the Arab uprisings in terms of expanding their operations and digging in, although in the process many have jettisoned many of the central tenets of the original cohort. This might be evolution, but it is just as likely to mark the deterioration or even the dissolution of the al-Qaeda wing of the jihadi movement.
At first glance it appears that the Arab uprisings have strengthened al-Qaeda and similar groups that fly the black banner. With the possible exception of Tunisia, the rest of the “Arab Spring” countries have either experienced unprecedented repression (Egypt, Bahrain) or chaos (Libya, Yemen, Syria). Thus, many in the Arab world have come to believe that the removal of local autocrats hardly guarantees good governance – an argument al-Qaedists have been making for years.
The uprisings weakened the control of some Arab governments over their territories. This provided al-Qaeda affiliates with sanctuaries from which they might harass their enemies. From Tunisia to the Sinai to Syria and Iraq, affiliates, wannabes, and copycat groups proliferated, wreaked havoc on fragile transitional governments, and sometimes took the lead in ongoing struggles. One even established a caliphate of its own carved out of Syria and Iraq. Finally, uprisings in Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain seem to confirm al-Qaeda’s core belief that victory against oppression could be won only through violence.
Nevertheless, the proliferation of affiliates masks a phenomenon that would have been deeply troubling to the original al-Qaeda cohort. From its inception, al-Qaeda was not big on organization. Bin Laden himself once remarked there was no such thing as al-Qaeda. The term, he claimed, merely referred to what a bunch of guys hanging out in the Afghan badlands waging jihad called their headquarters, their base (al-Qaeda in Arabic). This was the term which Westerners latched on to and endowed with substance. More important than organization was ideology — the common bond that held al-Qaeda affiliates together and united them.
Al-Qaeda’s ideology can be broken down into two parts: First, al-Qaedists believe that the Islamic world is at war with a transnational Crusader-Zionist conspiracy which includes states hostile to the Islamic world. Among them are the United States and the rest of the West, Israel, Russia, and even India and China. It is this “far enemy,” and not the local despots (the “near enemy”) who do its bidding that should be the target of jihad. For al-Qaeda, local despots are merely the henchmen of the “far enemy” and have no power except that which the latter has endowed them with. Thus, once the “far enemy” is dealt a critical blow, the power of the “near enemy” would crumble.