Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Congress Expects Islamic Dawa to Support Israel, Condemn Hizbullah
Dawa's Unsavory Past


The AIPAC Democrats in Congress came after Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki on Tuesday, condmening him for his refusal to condemn the Lebanese Hizbullah. Al-Maliki had on the contrary complained (quite rightly) about naked Israeli aggression on Lebanon and had called for a cease fire. At his news conference on Tuesday he dodged questions about the issue and said his main concerns were humanitarian.

I respond with a golden oldie from March, 2005.

The US Congress, aside from a strange inability to recognize the disproportionate use of force when it sees it, does not seem to realize that the Dawa Party of Iraq, from which Nuri al-Maliki hails, is a revolutionary Shiite religious party not that much different from the Lebanese Hizbullah.

The members of Congress also don't seem to realize that the Iraqi Dawa helped to form the Lebanese Hizbullah back in the early 1980s. The Dawa was in exile in Tehran, Damascus and Beirut and it formed a shadowy terror wing called, generically, Islamic Jihad. The IJ cell of the Dawa attacked the US and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983, in an operation probably directed by the Tehran branch, which was close to Khomeini.

My understanding is that Nuri al-Maliki was the bureau chief of the Dawa cell in Damascus in the 1980s. He must have been closely involved with the Iraqi Dawa in Beirut, which in turn was intimately involved in Hizbullah. I am not saying he himself did anything wrong. I don't know what he was doing in specific, other than trying to overthrow Saddam, which was heroic. But, did they really think he was going to condemn Hizbullah and take Israel's side?

And if he did, do they think that the Shiite religious parties that backed him would let him stay in office (they are the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Islamic Dawa, and the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr)?

Here is what I said the first time a Dawa Prime Minister was brought to power by US-sponsored elections, last year. I kept telling Americans that this was a mixed picture, not an unadulterated feel-good story, and I got nasty mail about raining on their parade. Now you see what I was talking about:

=====

Things have changed, and I am not at all suggesting that a vindictive attitude is appropriate, but Dawa has a background as a terrorist organization. While in Tehran, it spun off a shadowy set of special ops units generically called "Islamic Jihad," which operated in places like Kuwait and Lebanon. The Dawa's Islamic Jihad appears to have been at the nexus of splinter groups that later, in 1982, began to coalesce into Hezbollah (the 1983 truck bombing of US Marines is often blamed on "Hezbollah," but that organization barely existed then.) The current al-Dawa leadership repudiates these anti-West actions, and blames them on cells of al-Dawa temporarily taken over by Iranian elements. The arrest lists do not support this excuse. No one seems to want to bring up the following:


U.S. News & World Report

December 26, 1983 / January 2, 1984

The New Face of Mideast Terrorism

A new brand of terrorism confronting the U.S. in the Mideast was demonstrated in the closing days of 1983 when a suicide bomber wrecked the American Embassy in Kuwait.

Actions that once were hallmarks of Mideast radicals -- takeovers of buildings, hijackings of airliners and seizing of hostages -- are waning. In their place: Terrorism sponsored by governments -- notably Iran and Syria -- and carried out by Moslem fanatics fired by hatred of the U.S. and a desire for martyrdom.

Prompted as much by current issues as by ideology, the new terrorism is more lethal, widespread and harder to contain than terrorism of the 1970s.

U.S. officials blamed the December 12 bombing of their embassy in Kuwait on ''Islamic fundamentalists'' of the Shiite sect, backed by Iran and Syria.

The Americans charged that the attack was ''clearly connected'' to three disastrous bombings in Beirut -- one in April that killed more than 60 people at the U.S. Embassy and two suicide attacks in October that killed more than 240 American servicemen at the Marine barracks and 58 soldiers at the French peacekeeping headquarters. Shiites also are blamed for a bomb that killed 61 persons at an Israeli command center in southern Lebanon in November.

Suspicion for the attacks in Lebanon centered on one group -- the Islamic Jihad [Holy War], a secretive Shiite unit based in Syrian-controlled eastern Lebanon. It is closely linked to the Iranian regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who calls the U.S. the ''great Satan.''

The terrorist who detonated the truckload of explosives at the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait was identified as a 25-year-old Iraqi belonging to an outlawed Moslem unit, the Iranian Dawa Group.



And this:


The Associated Press

February 11, 1984, Saturday

Trial Of Bomb Blast Defendants Opens

By ALY MAHMOUD (KUWAIT)

Twenty-one defendants accused of bombing the U.S. and French Embassies last December were formally arraigned today, as their trial began under extreme security.

To be tried in absentia are four defendants who are at large, the prosecutor general said.

Five people were killed and 86 injured in the rash of bombings on Dec. 12. Besides the U.S. and French embassies, four Kuwaiti targets were bombed.

The prosecution has demanded the death penalty for 19 of the defendants. The others are believed to have played a lesser role in the bombings in and around the capital of this oil-rich Arab nation . . . Of the other defendants, 17 are Iraqis; two, Lebanese, three, Kuwaitis and two are stateless. Most of them said they belonged to Al-Dawa (Islamic Call) Party, an Iraqi movement of Shiite Moslem fanatics who are pro-Iranian, said court sources who asked not to be identified.



And this:


The Associated Press

September 21, 1986, Sunday

Underground Iraqi Group Threatens French Hostages

BEIRUT, Lebanon

An Iraqi opposition group warned Sunday that French hostages in Lebanon will suffer if two Iraqis deported from France last February are not allowed to return to Paris soon. The statement was issued by the Beirut-based regional office of the Dawa Party, which is made up of Iraqi Shiite Moslems and supports mainly Shiite Iran in its 6-year-old war with Iraq. Iraq's government is made up mainly of Sunni Moslems. France deported the two students, Fawzi Hamzeh and Hassan Kheireddin, reported to be Dawa members, along with 11 other Middle Easterners after a series of terrorist bombings. The pro-Iranian Islamic Jihad organization, which has close ties with Dawa, said in March that it killed French hostage Michel Seurat in retaliation for the deportation. His body was not found . . .



and this:


The Associated Press

December 27, 1986, Saturday

Five Groups Claim Responsibility; Iraq Accuses Iran

BYLINE: By HAFEZ ABDEL-GHAFFAR

DATELINE: DHAHRAN, Saudi Arabia

BODY:
Five groups in Lebanon claimed responsibility for the attempted hijacking of an Iraqi jet, but conflicting accounts remained of what happened before the jetliner crashed, killing at least 62 people. Iraqi Airways flight 163 was en route to Amman, Jordan, from Baghdad, Iraq, on Christmas Day when it crash landed in northern Saudi Arabia. The death toll was thought to be the highest in a hijacking or attempted hijacking in the history of air piracy . . . Another an anonymous caller to a Western news agency claimed responsibility on behalf of Islamic Jihad, or Islamic Holy War, a fundamentalist Shiite Moslem faction loyal to Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini . . . He told a Western news agency the hijackers acted in cooperation with the Dawa party of pro-Iranian Iraqi Shiites. The caller demanded the release of two hijackers he said were arrested after the crash.

. . . I am just saying that the Dawa Party has a history that must be recognized if we are to assess the meaning of it coming to power in Baghdad today.

8 Comments:

At 7:48 AM, Blogger Mytwords said...

The AIPAC Democrats in Congress came after Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki on Tuesday, condmening him for his refusal to condemn the Lebanese Hizbullah. It's enough to make one sick: here in Illinois a "liberal" senator like Durbin has signed on to a letter demanding al-Maliki to kneel and profess support for Israel. I'll be on Durbin's phone lines complaining about this and AGAIN demanding a cease-fire for what good it'll do...

 
At 11:23 AM, Blogger Zachary said...

A couple questions:

What was the role of Moussa Sadr in the radicalization of the Shias of S Lebanon and how connected was he to the Sadrs in Iraq? (they were cousins I think but what was the ideological relationships)

One history of I read states that:
"Hizbullah's ideology, as formulated by Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah and other Shaykhs, is derived from the political writings of Ayatollahs Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and Ruhollah Khomeini and the experience of the Iranian revolution."
http://almashriq.hiof.no/ddc/projects/pspa/hamzeh2.html
How accurate is this and is the even closer connection with the current Sadr significant?

The Wikipedia entry on Nasrallah states:
"[Nasrallah] spent periods of his life studying at religious centres in Iraq. In the mid-1970s he moved to a Shiite Hawza (Islamic Seminary) in the Iraqi city of Najaf to study Qura’anic divine sciences [citation needed], completing the first stage of his studies in 1978 before being forced to leave by the Iraqi authorities"
While this was awhile ago the combination of his being in Iraq and being kicked out by Saddam seems like it would have resulted in some personal ties to other Iraqi Shias? Is this significant or are there enough people who have studied in Najaf that the connection would not really relate to how things will play out in Iraq?

One last question. Hezbollah's current support is mainly nationalist and not Islamist? If so is the main issue that brings them support (aside from their social programs) their opposition to the underrepresentation of Shias (who tend to be poorer?) in Lebanon's confessional political system? If so would much of the support then be in some sense populist and based around class divisions as much as religion?

 
At 2:24 PM, Blogger Guidonia said...

Prof. Cole,

Do you think it's possible that Democrats do understand that the Iraqi PM is not going to condemn Hizbullah? I lament that the Democrats' approach to Israel is so uncritical. But I suspect that with this move they are merely trying to point out the hypocrisy of the Bush administration, which is talking out of both sides of it's mouth. One side supports Israel uncritically, while the other side pretends that the Dawa PM is a great friend of the US, and oh what an achievement is was that we brought him to power. I

 
At 4:41 PM, Blogger Professor Zero said...

Just to say great post, thanks for doing this.

 
At 9:49 PM, Blogger James-Speaks said...

"But, did they really think he (al-Maliki) was going to condemn Hizbullah and take Israel's side? "

Well, yes, they did. Remember, these guys bought into Douglas "Let's bomb Bolivia" Feith's nonsense.

 
At 10:51 PM, Blogger ohdave said...

I think the point dems are trying to point out is that here Bush is supporting the Isreali attack on Lebanon and at the same time the PM of Iraq cannot even be brought to criticize Hezbollah, which all civilized people should be able to do, regardless of the conduct of Israel. His inability to do so completes puts the lie to Bush's and Rice's assertion of a "new middle east" which disavows terrorism. They want to point to Iraq as a new path in the middle east, when in fact Iraq is firmly in line with Hezbollah, and it points out once again the complete and utter failure of what the Bush administration claims it is accomplishing in Iraq.

That said, the dems are nevertheless completely in the pocket of AIPAC as are the Republicans. So I am not disputing that point at all. But calling on Maliki to condemn Hezbollah simply points out the absurdity of the Bush claims about what he has accomplished in Iraq.

 
At 9:51 AM, Blogger Praguetwin said...

I guess that is why the media likes to say that Maliki's history is "clouded in mystery."

Now it all makes sense. Thanks.

 
At 9:51 AM, Blogger Praguetwin said...

I guess that is why the media likes to say that Maliki's history is "clouded in mystery."

Now it all makes sense. Thanks.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home