ANALYSIS: Egypt’s Al-Rawdah mosque attack and the fear of the unknown

CAIRO – 27 November 2017: Reverberations of terror shook the world once again on Friday as Egypt’s North Sinai was struck by the deadliest attack in Egypt's recent history. The Rawda Mosque, located just west of the city of Arish, was targeted during noon prayers on Friday as upwards of 25 attackers led an assault against worshipers with explosives, and continued to shoot into the panicked crowd of men, women and children alike with automatic weapons.

Burning cars were used to block off exit routes while rocket propelled grenades rained down on those inside. The death toll currently stands at 305, and is expected to rise in the coming days as over 100 people lie in hospital beds and at home recovering from physical injuries and unimaginable mental trauma.

While evidence and rumours thus far identify the motive for this attack as an anti-Sufi effort, the media’s obsession in referring to this specificity only helps spread the narrative of intolerance advocated by such terror groups. The anti-Sufi motive propounded by the media appears to have forgotten that non-Sufi leaning, Sunni Muslims also attend these mosques, and fails to recognise the pluralist reality of the congregation. Feeding into the narrative advocated by such terror groups, the media is helping entrench this distinction instead of condemning the attack for what it was: an attack on the Egyptian people.


Click on the arrow to follow the timeline



To this extent, no group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack. Egypt’s prosecutor general’s office released a statement describing the militants as carrying the infamous Islamic State flag. Although this is yet to be independently verified, it fits the assumption that the attack was carried out by the Islamic State or one of its known affiliates – most likely Wilayat Sinai.

According to the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, Wilayat Sinai claimed an average of 34 attacks per month in North Sinai during 2016, killing and injuring more than 420 security personnel and 53 civilians. This being said, Wilayat Sinai is the most active militant group operating in North Sinai. Combined with its history of targeting Sufis – who they consider heretical – and the nature of the attack, its involvement is presumed.

However, if an attack on Sufi “unbelievers” was the motive behind what happened on Friday, then why has no group stepped forward and claimed responsibility? It is not uncommon for an attack to go unclaimed; especially one of this size. The bombing in Mogadishu, which killed over 350 people on October 14, is also yet to be claimed, which counters the usual trend of all active groups in an area claiming responsibility in a bid to heighten their notoriety.


A blood trail on the veranda of Al-Rawda Mosque in Bir Al-Abd northern Sinai, Egypt. AFP

As an important tool of asymmetric warfare, many groups resort to devastating hit-and-run covert attacks in the absence of a traditional military. Consequently, claiming, or distancing oneself from an attack can have a powerful impact.

While claiming attacks may proliferative fear and a sense of power, anonymous attacks have the ability to sow seeds of distrust and deepen fear in a population. A fear of the unknown is greater than a fear of the known – a powerful psychological weapon. Not only are unclaimed attacks more effective in spreading fear, they also make the government, in the eyes of the population, appear outclassed by the actions of a group of fanatics.

The attack on Friday was the worst terror attack in Egypt’s modern history. The sheer number of fatalities is a strong motive for withholding admittance. Much like the bombing in Mogadishu last month, a high number of civilian fatalities can rightfully sway public opinion and diminish a support base. The backlash to the attack has been so intense that many militant groups have spoken out in condemnation of it.

While claiming responsibility helps in power promotion, projection and communication, there is a fine line between polarising the public to establishing a support base, and alienating society as a whole. This attack serves as a stark reminder that Muslims are the main victims of terrorism.

In order to achieve its goals, groups usually require some level of public support to legitimise its actions. Friday’s attack in Egypt is a perfect example of how to NOT enhance a support base. As Stathis Kalyvas proposes, although indiscriminate violence may be useful at first, it quickly becomes counter-productive. In the case of an insurgency, selective violence remains the only sustained way of achieving control since it helps alienate the other, while unifying the aggressor.


An Egyptian military vehicle is seen on the highway in northern Sinai, Egypt, an area that has become the base of operation of an ISIS-linked militant group known as the Wilayat Sinai. Reuters

There is also the necessity of safety. Admitting responsibility immediately improves the position of the authorities, and in this case would allow the Egyptian military to track and target locations known to said group. After Friday’s attack, Egypt retaliated by targeting known terror hotspots in the Sinai Peninsula.

This may lead you to question why, if these locations were already known, they were not targeted previously. Undoubtedly the government has a better access to information than the average person, however the immediate reaction seems like one of the heart, and not one of the head.

Claiming responsibility for an attack helps to provide a window into the mind-set of the combatants. A claim of responsibility not only shows what incentivises a group, but also indicates the extremities a group is willing to go to. Although the general consensus remains that the attack bears the hallmarks of the Islamic State affiliate – Wilayat Sinai – the truth remains uncertain; the Egyptian population, the government, and the world, remain wary and paranoid.




Twitter:

Joseph Colonna