Shafaq News

A single word spoken during a Christmas Mass in Baghdad has exposed how tightly Iraq’s political red lines now encircle public language itself. When Chaldean Patriarch Louis Raphael Sako referred to the need for “normalization in Iraq and with Iraq,” the reaction was not driven by foreign policy substance, but by the weight the term has acquired in a country where opposition to Israel has moved beyond diplomacy and into law, public discourse, and informal systems of political enforcement. The controversy revealed how intent has become secondary to interpretation—and how even religious space is no longer insulated from Iraq’s internal policing of meaning.

Rather than opening a discussion about diplomacy, the episode exposed a deeper sensitivity surrounding language itself in Iraq’s political climate.

A Term Burdened by Politics

In ordinary linguistic usage, “normalization” refers to restoring relations to their natural or functional state. In Iraq, however, the term has become politically charged to the point that intent often matters less than perception.

Iraqi politician Mithal al-Alusi argues that this shift has emptied the word of its broader meaning. Speaking to Shafaq News, he warned that rigidity and entrenched positions often deepen crises rather than resolve them.

Referring to the Sinjar agreement as an example, Al-Alusi noted that it aimed to “normalize” conditions inside the district and enable its communities to live safely and productively, away from chaos and attacks. In this sense, “normalization was framed as a practical mechanism for restoring stability, not a political concession.”

From that perspective, Sako’s remarks, al-Alusi added, reflected historical facts rather than political messaging: “Abraham, revered as the father of prophets, is linked to Iraq, and the Talmud was written in Babylon.”

“Iraq shines with the civilization of Mesopotamia,” he said, “and it is natural for such a country to need internal normalization among its components.”

From Misreading to ‘Internal Normalization’

That interpretation was echoed by political researcher Ahmed al-Yasiri, who argued that public understanding of the term has been distorted by years of politicization. According to al-Yasiri, Sako was referring to “internal normalization”—the restoration of national relations among Iraq’s components—rather than any external political alignment.

He added that the Patriarch’s message focused on preventing sub-identities from overshadowing a shared Iraqi identity. Al-Yasiri also stressed that the Catholic Church has historically distanced itself from supporting the establishment of Israel, suggesting that the current uproar reflects a recurring pattern rather than a substantive dispute.

“The noise we see today is an attempt to overshadow Christmas celebrations,” he told Shafaq News, noting that similar controversies emerge almost every year, often through symbolic objections to decorations or other expressions of the holiday.

Read more: Christians of Iraq: Where did they go?

From Foreign Policy to Internal Policing

Despite these clarifications, Iraq’s official stance toward Israel continues to shape the debate. The country maintains no diplomatic relations, and any public expression that could be interpreted as advocating normalization—regardless of political affiliation—is effectively constrained by law, given the legal penalties attached to such positions, particularly in the context of Iraq’s longstanding commitment to the Palestinian cause.

That position hardened further in 2022, when parliament passed a law criminalizing normalization and the establishment of relations with Israel, imposing penalties ranging from fixed-term imprisonment to life sentences.

While the law targets explicit diplomatic, political, economic, or cultural engagement, its broader impact has been societal. Court rulings—including convictions for promoting normalization on social media—have reinforced the perception that even indirect or ambiguous references may invite legal consequences. As a result, a term once used in administrative, social, and constitutional contexts now triggers instinctive alarm.

It is this shift that explains why Sako’s remarks were debated less for their substance than for their wording, highlighting how Iraq’s Israel taboo has migrated inward and begun shaping public language itself.

Read more: Zero-sum game: Can the Iran-Israel conflict push Iraq toward frontline?

Constitutional Language, Legal Clarification

Legally, the term “normalization” is not foreign to Iraq’s constitutional framework. Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution uses the term explicitly in reference to resolving disputed territories through “normalization, census, and referendum,” describing a process aimed at reversing past policies and restoring conditions that allow communities to determine their future freely.

Legal expert Mohammed Jumaa stressed that, by this definition, the term carries no foreign-policy implication. He said Sako’s reference to normalization with Iraq carried “no criminal or legal weight, as it did not mention Israel.”

“For normalization with the Zionist entity [Israel] to be criminalized, it must be explicit and clear,” Jumaa explained, adding that using the term in its internal or legal sense does not violate Iraqi law. “Attempts to impose alternative interpretations reflect a misunderstanding of both legal and linguistic principles.”

Religious Space under Political Scrutiny

Beyond legal debate, the episode highlighted the narrowing space for religious and cultural discourse in Iraq. Sako’s comments came during Christmas celebrations, among the few public occasions where Iraq’s Christian community asserts its presence and heritage.

That such a setting became the focus of political controversy points to a broader trend in which religious platforms are increasingly judged through geopolitical lenses. Christian representatives warned against drawing the church into factional disputes, stressing that the Patriarch’s message centered on Iraqi identity and coexistence.

Similar controversies have surfaced in past years around Christian holidays, suggesting a recurring pattern in which symbolic or cultural expressions become politicized. This dynamic, however, is not confined to Christians alone.

More broadly, it reflects an environment in which non-political spaces—religious, academic, or cultural—are increasingly monitored for perceived political implications, particularly on issues tied to Israel and Palestine.

State Messaging and Factional Vigilance

Against this backdrop, the government sought to contain the controversy. Caretaker Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, who attended the Mass, stressed that normalization “is not in Iraq’s dictionary,” while emphasizing coexistence and adherence to the constitution.

Immigration and Displacement Minister Evan Faeq Jabro rejected “any statements or positions that call for or justify normalization with the Zionist entity in any form.” Jabro—herself a Christian—said such views do not represent the will of the Iraqi people across their religious and national components.

In a Facebook post, she added that Iraq, “both government and people, has remained steadfast in its support for the just Palestinian cause and its rejection of all forms of occupation and aggression,” citing national, humanitarian, and historical commitments to justice.

At the same time, influential political figures adopted a sharper tone. Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Patriotic Shiite Movement, reiterated that calling for normalization is a crime punishable by law and that no one is immune from accountability.

Palestine: Consensus and Instrument

Support for the Palestinian cause remains one of the few points of near-universal consensus in Iraq, cutting across sectarian and political lines. Officials, clerics, and minority representatives alike invoke it as a defining national position.

The Chaldean Patriarchate itself stressed that even when Pope Francis visited Israel after a trip to Jordan, Sako—who was accompanying the pontiff—declined to enter Israel “out of respect for the Palestinian cause.”

However, the new Sako episode illustrated how this consensus can function as a political instrument. By framing controversies through the lens of Palestine, actors can assert moral legitimacy while delegitimizing alternative interpretations. The issue is not the validity of Iraq’s stance, but how it is deployed domestically to enforce conformity and silence nuance.

Iraq’s position on Israel is unlikely to change. What the debate surrounding Cardinal Sako’s remarks has shown, however, is how firmly that position now shapes domestic discourse, to the point where a single word can ignite controversy regardless of intent or context.

Written and edited by Shafaq News staff.