For the leaders of Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), the international outcry that has greeted their wanton destruction of the 2,000-year-old Temple of Bel in Palmyra will be most gratifying. Every atrocity Daesh commits, from the beheading of an octogenarian director of antiquities to the blowing up of some of the world’s most treasured archaeological sites, is undertaken in the name of propaganda. The more publicity their outrages attract, the greater the prospects of attracting impressionable young Muslims to its ranks, or so the organisation’s terrorist masterminds believe.
Thus, at a time when the world’s media is focused on the hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees trying to seek sanctuary in the European Union, the systematic destruction of the wonders of the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra is as good a way as any of forcing Daesh’s repulsive brand back into the headlines. Fears that Daesh would visit the same level of devastation on Palmyra as it has on other captured treasures, such as the ancient Assyrian site of Nimrud in Iraq, bulldozed by terrorists in March, have been growing ever since the group captured the complex of ancient temples and artefacts in May.
Initially, Daesh just used Palmyra’s Roman amphitheatre for public executions of captured Syrian soldiers, the most recent of these grisly spectacles being carried out by child executioners in July before a baying crowd. It was last month’s brutal murder of Khalid Asaad, the site’s 82-year-old director of antiquities, whose mutilated body, minus a head, was strung up from a lamp post, that provided the first indication that the group had no intention of leaving the ancient city intact.
It appears Asaad was killed because he refused to disclose where Palmyra’s priceless artefacts had been hidden before Daesh moved in. Once the militants realised there was no financial gain to be made from occupying Palmyra, the systematic programme of blowing up ancient monuments began in earnest. Just like the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge before them, Daesh fanatics are intolerant of anyone or anything that does not conform to their ideology, to the extent that not even sites like the temples of Bel and Baal Shamin, which were destroyed week before last, are spared, even though a wide range of Semite cultures, including Assyrians, Phoenicians, Jews and Arabs have used them as places of worship over the centuries.
Indeed, the deep-rooted culture of intolerance promulgated by groups such as Daesh, whereby those who refuse to accept their outlook suffer persecution or worse, is one of the major reasons that European border agencies are struggling to cope with the greatest refugee crisis the continent has faced since the end of the Second World War.
Many of the refugees who were on Tuesday involved in angry clashes with Hungarian security forces after they were prevented from boarding trains bound for other European Union countries originate from places like Syria and Afghanistan, where the repressive policies pursued by militants such as Daesh and the Taliban have led them to conclude they have no viable future in their homelands.
Effective plans
But finding a solution to this deepening humanitarian crisis will be no easy matter for British MPs when they make their brief return to Westminster next week, particularly if it means returning to the toxic question of taking military action to tackle the root cause of the migrant crisis in failed or failing states such as Syria, Iraq and Libya. Recent British efforts to draw up effective plans to tackle the chaos affecting much of the Arab world have been stymied by the 2013 Commons vote to block military action against the Bashar Al Assad regime in Syria.
Moreover, during the summer, the government’s room for manoeuvre when it comes to making a convincing argument for some form of military intervention has been further undermined by demands that no action should be taken before the findings of the long-awaited Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war have been made public. After the very public controversies surrounding Britain’s involvement in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can see why many British MPs take the parochial view that there are simply no votes to be gained from authorising military interventions.
Yet, it is equally true that, without decisive action in places like Syria, there is little prospect of Europe’s humanitarian crisis being resolved in the immediate future. Having rashly established the precedent that the Commons must have the final say on United Kingdom military action overseas, Prime Minister David Cameron now has to persuade sceptical MPs that, if Britain is serious about resolving the refugee crisis, it needs to tackle the militants who have forced families to flee from their homes. Otherwise, the wholesale destruction of historic monuments in the Middle East will be the least of our worries.
— The Telegraph Group Limited,
London, 2015
