The West must find new ways to to engage with the Middle East

Changes in region tend to be presented in western mainstream discourse through the crudely reductive prism of extremism, argues Matthew Ayton

The reductive narrative on Islamic extremism in the Middle East must be deconstructed not only for the sake of politics, but also to encourage understanding of this very diverse and important region. Show more

The Middle East is experiencing some of the most profound moments of change in its modern history. Yet, these changes tend to be presented in western mainstream discourse through the crudely reductive prism of “Islamic terror”.

This approach has done little to aid understanding or tailor appropriate policy responses in the West towards the many pressing problems in the region. In fact, it has led to a policy of self-imposed ambivalence, wherein the factions the West now needs to engage with are the same organisations it has spent decades vilifying.

In order to yield significant change to its foreign policy, the West must begin a process of refashioning the narrative on Middle East conflicts.

Ever since the attacks of September 11, we have constantly been reminded of the growing threat of “Islamic terror”. This has made it possible to present all extremist groups around the world – regardless of their multiple differences – as somehow in cahoots, and part of the same body.

A good example of this occurred last year when Benjamin Netanyahu tried to equate ISIL with Hamas.

While definitely being guilty of atrocities, Hamas differs greatly from ISIL in its ideology and political doctrine. It does not, for example, believe in forced conversion to Islam. Hamas also takes part in elections while ISIL rejects democracy. In terms of strategy and operations too, Hamas is strictly localised, with a focus on the goal of the liberation of Palestine from Israeli occupation. In contrast, ISIL harbours a global strategy.

The above argument should not be conflated with a pro-Hamas line. It is simply to highlight a few of the manifold, and even competing, differences that are often overlooked by the mainstream.Unfortunately, the discourse not only presents these groups as largely the same, it cares little for the varying circumstances that nourished their growth in the first place.

Professor Richard Jackson, a scholar on terrorism studies, says that this discourse is “based on simplistic, appealing narratives and dichotomies that resonate with popular culture – such as the good versus evil narrative”.

The West has now reached a decisive moment in its foreign policy and has been presented with the opportunity to engage with regionally significant players. Two of the most important of these interactions are with Iran and with the Hamas political leadership.

Relations between the West and Iran have, until recently, been full of rancour for decades. But Iran, like the West, has at least some interest in quelling extremism. With regard to Hamas, there were suggestions last month of indirect talks with Israel to secure a five-year ceasefire agreement.

To yield political change, the West must decide whether to engage with these actors in the long-term.

To do so may lead to solutions to some of the region’s most intractable problems. The alternative is hardly encouraging. To not engage, is likely to entrench the same politics of denial that have led us to this point.

In order for any new policy towards the region to be effective, a multilayered approach is required. On the one hand, dialogue on a political and diplomatic level, on the other,demonised organisations must gradually be demystified.

In other words, the reductive narrative on “Islamic terrorism” in the Middle East must be deconstructed not only for the sake of politics, but also to encourage understanding of this very diverse and important region.

Matthew Ayton is a freelance writer and researcher in the West Bank