Conspiracy theories only serve to avoid some home truths

The problem with conspiracy theories is that it can be difficult to convince those who believe in them that they just don’t make any sense, writes Peter Hellyer

A conspiracy theory suggests that Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed “Caliph” is, in fact, an agent of Israel’s Mossad, whose actual name is Shimon Ilyot. AFP

At times of political crisis, it’s natural for experts to scurry around trying to find explanations. They often come out of the blue, shaking preconceptions and analysis that has previously been accepted, if not always fully understood.

At such times, it’s easy to look for “explanations” that fit these events into a structure that one already comprehends, even if this means that inconvenient facts get overlooked or pushed aside. Other facts or events, which are, in reality, completely unconnected, get linked up together, with the links often being pure figments of the imagination. Out of such artificial constructs emerge conspiracy theories, which suggest that somehow the events have been carefully orchestrated by hidden hands. When something has clearly gone awry in terms of political developments, I’m personally more inclined to accept the “cock-up” theory of politics, in which a collection of unintended mistakes, misjudgements and omissions lead to adverse results. It’s not always possible to explain how the mistakes were made, or how it was that things that should have been done were simply overlooked, but then politics and history are not exact sciences. They, like almost everything else in life, can be affected by chance or by simple bad luck.

The problem with conspiracy theories, of course, is that it can be very difficult to convince those who believe in them that they just don’t make any sense.

One example is the conspiracy theories that emerged to explain the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, 13 years ago next week.

There are still apparently educated people who believe that the Twin Towers collapsed because of a controlled demolition orchestrated by the US Government, or that Israel tipped off all Jewish people who worked in the Twin Towers so that they didn’t go to work that day – even though several hundred Jews died. Both suggestions have, of course, been disproved, although they remain commonly believed within the Arab world. For many, it appears to be much easier to suspend critical faculties and to believe in some kind of Israeli involvement than to accept that the 9/11 attacks were, indeed, carried out by Arabs aligned with Al Qaeda’s perversion of Islam.

Last week, I ran across a new conspiracy theory, based on what is claimed to be information collected by the Russian intelligence services. This suggests that Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed “Caliph” whose followers are wreaking mayhem across much of Syria and Iraq is, in fact, an agent of Israel’s Mossad, whose actual name is Shimon Ilyot. The “plan” behind the reign of terror and slaughter unleashed by ISIL is to destroy the neighbouring countries that threaten Israel’s long-term security through provoking conflict between Muslims, or so the theory says. Thereby, according to this line of thought, ultra-Zionist elements will be able to pursue their impractical dream of creating a “Greater Israel”, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates.

On social media, this theory is attracting a lot of attention, but little in the way of critical analysis. If the alleged Mr Ilyot is seeking to provoke conflict between Muslims, in the service of Israel, why are his followers devoting so much time to slaughtering those of other faiths, like Iraq’s Christians and Yezidis, along with many more Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, of course? How will Israel benefit if immediate neighbours like Lebanon and Jordan, now threatened by the spreading of the ISIL virus, collapse into the bloody chaos of Syria and Iraq, thereby bringing the virus closer?

Israel, clearly, has its own objectives, as we have seen in the conflict in Gaza, but the collapse of neighbouring Arab states can scarcely be beneficial to its own interests.

Why do so many people try to place the blame on an external enemy – Israel – for the wave of terrorist fundamentalism that is now spreading across the region? To rely on an utterly barmy conspiracy theory as an explanation is to evade the necessity of tackling Al Baghdadi head-on and the corrupted interpretation of Islam that he and his followers espouse.

To suggest that Israel is behind it all is simply a way of avoiding the truth: that a determined effort is required, from Muslim Arabs themselves, to uproot and eliminate those elements within the region that are seeking to pervert the faith of Islam and to consign the region to a long future of darkness.

Peter Hellyer is a consultant specialising in the UAE’s history and culture