Is it really foreign policy, stupid?
This is a guest post by Garvan Walshe
The trilby hat and mackintosh once served to disguise an agent at a time when all other men wore coats and hats, then came to be his uniform. So it was with the blacked-out face shapes and letters used to designate senior intelligence officers. But now the mystery is itself alluring: obscurity no longer provides security. Now MI5 has equipped itself with a website. Now it’s Director General has given - perish the thought - an interview to the press.
The Guardian informed us that that the top spook had issued a warning:
“Israeli attacks on Gaza give extremists more ideological ammunition”
and
“the Afghan conflict and its outcome has a ‘direct impact’ on UK domestic security.”
The Pope is also Catholic.
But the Guardian selected those parts of the interview that bolster a narrative which we read interminably in its opinion pages. We have no record of the whole text, but its extracts and its characterisation of conflicts that began with attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians and by Al Qaeda on Americans give a very different picture from those quoted by The Times
It holds that “foreign policy” is or is chiefly responsible for Islamist radicalism and violence. Of course, it’s not just any foreign policy, but a particular kind of foreign policy. And it so happens that the foreign policy that Islamists are held to object to is also the foreign policy that part of the Western left dislikes.
This isn’t true. Islamists opposed the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. They wanted more, not less, military intervention in Bosnia; they appeared genuinely neutral in the summer’s Russia-Georgia war. Asked whether they favoured Putin - hanmer of Grozny - or Sakashvilli, allly of the United States they would have probably appropriated Henry Kissinger’s plaintive words “It’s a pity they can’t both lose.”
This part of the left believes that political morality can be reduced to one sentence of Foucault: virtue is to speak truth to power. And since power is America, virtue is to be anti-American.
Islamists on the other hand are in favour of themselves alone. If they can co-operate with the Vulgar Foucaultist Left that’s all to the good. But the time will come, they believe, when they can do without the VLF as Khomeini found he could liquidate Iran’s Tudeh (communist) party.
But this “It’s foreign policy, stupid” argument - that the way to deal with the radicalisation must always be to change the policy, not contest the arguments that the radicalisers make - is more pernicious. It treats Muslims as though they aren’t like the rest of us, amost as if they are robots on which Islamist radicalising messages act as commands. For the VLF this is self-serving - they think they have hit on the ultimate argument to persuade people who don’t share the opinions of the New Left Review editorial board to adopt its policies.
But its effect is to reinforce the dangerous belief, already gaining far too much ground that Muslims are different, that they have “two heads”, there is something inherently undemocratic about Islam; that a believing Muslim cannot also be a committed liberal or proud Westerner.
Even crude opinion polls show that most Muslims don’t fit the angry caricature- most British Muslims support a two-state solution; even if many no doubt sympathise with Hamas in the current Gaza war; though they opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, they don’t want Western troops to leave the country to the Taliban.
These positions are not consistent (poll responses rarely are), but if they see established organs of liberal opinion endorsing the populism with to which they are constantly exposed, it isn’t reasonable to expect them to have confronted that inconsistency. They deserve better.
Stop assuming that the radicals speak for all Muslims. Refute their arguments and reject the irresponsible hyperbole of people like Ken Livingstone (who made an entirely false comparison of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto). The stakes are too high.
Comments
| 7 January 2009, 2:43 pm |
Why should we care what 3% of the population think?
I’m not being nasty but if 3% of the population think that shops should close at 3:00pm on Friday would we give a f..k?
Hang on! If so-called leaders of this 3% said that we can’t hold our young radicals back from killing Brits on the Underground UNLESS you close shops at 3:00pm then that’s different because when the bombs rein in we know that WE are all to blame for not giving in.
When they say change Foreign Policy and you KNOW that whatever we do won’t stop Israel then we are f….d!
“Taxi to the Internment Camp for Mr Bukhari please!”
| 7 January 2009, 2:48 pm |
Were foreign policy to blame, we would be seeing terrorists from countries most screwed over by American interventionism, like Latin America or Vietnam. That this has not happened speaks to cultural differences between the mid-east and the others. Latin Americans have not created a culture, encompassing schools, media, church, and government, that demonizes and calls inferior all that is not like itself. Nor do Vietnamese monks or Nicaraguan bishops encourage their young men to bomb White Anglo Saxon Protestant train stations. It does little to say that ‘most Muslims’ are not fanatics when their societies are saturated with vile for the Other and they do nothing about it.
| 7 January 2009, 2:56 pm |
Stop assuming that the radicals speak for all Muslims. Refute their arguments and reject the irresponsible hyperbole of people like Ken Livingstone (who made an entirely false comparison of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto). The stakes are too high.
I agree and have been saying this to progressive leftists for years. In the same way that Nick Cohen questioned what is left of the politics of the progressive left …. answer not much.
I point to what is left of progressive moderate muslim politics. Answer hardly anything.
Both the progressive Left and moderate and secular muslims are caught in a pincer between facist Islamists and reactionary Leftists who in alliance believe that support for the other will bolster their own cause. And in the short/medium turn it will until the Islamists come to power.
Reactionary Leftists have know since the 70s that there is alot of milage for them in the Arab-Israeli conflict and especially in getting into be with Islamists.
They from Hugo Chavez, Guardian columnists, BBC correspondants, Oxfam voulanteers, down to the commenters here like TheIrie, Hasbara, Benjamin, … will find out as their Iranian counterparts did that when Islamists come to power only a noose will await them.
I wonder if Benjamin or TheIrie or any of there equivalents here have ever bothered to speak with an Iranian Communist or Mojahedin e Khalq supporter (or spottted one even) when they attend a pro Hamas and Hezbollah demonstartion.
Did it ever occur to you why your Iranian counterparts were not in attendance on such marches?
In part its because they lie in mass graves such as this one.
http://www.mideastyouth.com/2007/08/27/forgotten-massacre-of-1988-in-iran/
| 7 January 2009, 3:03 pm |
Putin - hanmer of Grozny
| 7 January 2009, 3:29 pm |
…countries most screwed over by American interventionism, like…Vietnam
I assume you’ve heard of Ho Chi Minh and hundreds of thousands of people that were murdered and sent to re-education camps under his orders?
| 7 January 2009, 3:30 pm |
“Report: Islamist site compiling list of U.K. Jews to target over Gaza op ” By Haaretz Service
“An Islamic extremist Web site is believed to be drawing up a list of prominent British Jews to target over Israel’s offensive against Hamas in Gaza, The Sun reported on Wednesday.
According to the British newspaper, Amy Winehouse record producer Mark Ronson and Foreign Secretary David Miliband were among names discussed on the online forum Ummah. ”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053520.html
Has there ever been a war in which one side targeted civilians in a third country because of their nationality or religion?
| 7 January 2009, 3:37 pm |
But its effect is to reinforce the dangerous belief, already gaining far too much ground that Muslims are different, that they have “two heads”, there is something inherently undemocratic about Islam; that a believing Muslim cannot also be a committed liberal or proud Westerner.
But that’s government policy; it’s called multiculturalism. The Grauniad is just one poisonous organ of the whole project.
It’s government policy that Muslims are educated, live and work in the awareness that they’re ‘different’.
| 7 January 2009, 3:43 pm |
“An Islamic extremist Web site…the online forum Ummah.”
The joke, or not, of it is, is that Ummah is fairly mainstream.
Try al-Hesbah or Shebaab for some incisive comment on which British Jews to target.
David Milliband
But isn’t he pro-Hamas?
| 7 January 2009, 3:45 pm |
Did it ever occur to you why your Iranian counterparts were not in attendance on such marches?
TheIrie has in the past actively *refused* to take part in an Iranian exile march litterally on his front door. But runs like an eager puppy to a Hamas/Hezbollah demonstration. Draw your own conclusions to that.
| 7 January 2009, 3:49 pm |
I wholeheartedly agree with the comments by Maven. The issue is one of democracy. If anyone or any group is unhappy about any government policy they have the right to demonstrate peacefully and to vote against that government. What is totally illegitimate is to say “if you do not change your policy, we will act violently”. This is blackmail. Pure and simple. No different to what the Nazis did prior to 1933 in Germany or the Communists in Eastern Europe immediately after the War.
As for the Left, to condemn a government policy because SOMEONE ELSE objects to it is simply racist against that particular group. If anyone is guilty of Islamophobia in the UK, it is in fact the radical Left…
| 7 January 2009, 3:57 pm |
Graffiti plastered all over Bradford within the last few days demands ‘free Gaza or face riot 09′. There was also a small bunch of leftist/Islamic activists out in the city centre yesterday, one of whom carried a placard demanding that we boycott Tesco, Marks and Spencers and Burger King? because they ‘promote murder’. I presume the reason these companies were selected is because they are perceived as being ‘jewish’ . You have to wonder how could any democratic society seriously adapt it’s foreign policy to appease such witless goons?
| 7 January 2009, 4:16 pm |
I see no reason not to remake who regions of western nations in the image of radical Islam. Let it implode. Let it fail. In a hundred years we’ll have levitating cities and they will still be squatting round the dung fire arguing about who’s turn it is to sodomize the stable boy.
| 7 January 2009, 4:28 pm |
During the Irish Troubles, it was believed that removing approx 600 agitators from the streets would bring peace. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how many islamic agitators should be removed today?
| 7 January 2009, 5:11 pm |
You have to wonder how could any democratic society seriously adapt it’s foreign policy to appease such witless goons?
But visit any of the Manchester campuses, Durham, SOAS, UCL, there are plenty of young activist Muslims dressed in authentic garb, ready to fight, demonstrate and campaign to get their agenda taken seriously.
It’s not just the inner city Islamists who are agitating for change but serious British Muslims with bright futures. With demographics being what they are, they will increasingly dictate foreign and domestic policy in the future.
| 7 January 2009, 5:21 pm |
During the Irish Troubles, it was believed that removing approx 600 agitators from the streets would bring peace. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how many islamic agitators should be removed today?
Start with the usual 100 that turn up for the worst of the worst, the Al Muhajiroun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2252361.stm
In Iran before the Islamist takeover in 1979 there were also many who believed that demonstrating thugs should be allowed to get up and let off a head of steam through violent demonstration.
We saw how that ended up.
When will people understand that Islamists have nothing in common with Irish nationalists.
| 7 January 2009, 5:40 pm |
“Israeli attacks on Gaza give extremists more ideological ammunition”
Funny. Didn’t Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 also give Hamas cause to pump up rocket volleys and other acts of war because, to paraphrase Osama bin Ladin’s observations on Americans, Hamas took the withdrawal as proof that if you hit Israel hard enough and frequently enough, it would run.
For Hamas and Hezbollah too, it’s not the Israeli “occupation” of the disputed territories, or the much whined about “cantonization” of Palestine, it’s about any infidels having any political control over lands that were previously under Muslim control.
I used sneer quotes around cantonization because Transjordan was created as an Arab homeland and accounts for nearly 90% of the what was formerly known as Palestine or Greater Syria. As for the Gaza Strip — it was, historically, more a province of Egypt.
| 7 January 2009, 6:25 pm |
“During the Irish Troubles, it was believed that removing approx 600 agitators from the streets would bring peace. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how many islamic agitators should be removed today?”
And that removal - internment - caused massive unrest in Catholic areas and provoked a surge in support for the Provisional IRA. It was the biggest strategic mistake made by any British Goverment during the 30+ years of the Troubles. Both Whitehall and the Army’s GOC Northern Ireland warned against its introduction, but to no avail.
If you really are looking to convince Muslims that the fight against Islamism is really a fight against Islam, then internment would be a surefire way to do it.
| 7 January 2009, 6:42 pm |
Didn’t Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 also give Hamas cause to pump up rocket volleys and other acts of war
Good chart here.
| 7 January 2009, 7:13 pm |
I used to go to Uni with this man…he was a bit of a loon back then…seems to have grown up now
| 7 January 2009, 7:13 pm |
“Stop assuming that the radicals speak for all Muslims. Refute their arguments”
That would be a lot easier if we stopped passing the radicals ammunition and reinforcing their twisted world view with our own actions, or those of our allies, whether that is in Afghanistan, Iraq or Gaza/West Bank.
| 7 January 2009, 8:39 pm |
That would be a lot easier if we stopped passing the radicals ammunition and reinforcing their twisted world view with our own actions, or those of our allies, whether that is in Afghanistan, Iraq or Gaza/West Bank.
So Ian Creswell doesn’t want us to do anything that might cause a bunch of nutters who already hate us….to hate us?
| 7 January 2009, 9:43 pm |
But its effect is to reinforce the dangerous belief, already gaining far too much ground that Muslims are different, that they have “two heads”, there is something inherently undemocratic about Islam; that a believing Muslim cannot also be a committed liberal or proud Westerner.
Er HELLO…there IS something ‘inherently undemocratic about Islam’. A ‘Muslim can be a committed liberal’; but this will be in the face of…despite ….their Islamic religion, not because of it, not even independent of it.
| 7 January 2009, 9:45 pm |
….in pretty much the same way that ‘A catholic can be a committed adherent of family planning’; but this will be in the face of….despite ….their Catholic religion, not because of it not, even independent of it.
| 7 January 2009, 10:22 pm |
Graham Steward wrote:
It’s government policy that Muslims are educated, live and work in the awareness that they’re ‘different’.
The fellow rather has a point!
| 8 January 2009, 5:45 am |
Nick, I don’t think it’s a good idea to tell Muslims what their religion tells them they ought to think. We’re not doing anyone any favours.
| 8 January 2009, 10:09 pm |
A good start woull be to stop saying and writing “radicalising” when it would be much better to write “reactionarising”.
| 9 January 2009, 10:10 pm |
Graham Steward @ 7 January 2009, 3:37 pm
“It’s government policy that Muslims are educated, live and work in the awareness that they’re ‘different’.”
No, that’s Catholics.
| 9 January 2009, 10:12 pm |
Nick (ex South Africa) 7 January 2009, 9:45 pm
A holiday group I was in some years ago included a Northn Ireland woman called Finola. She thought oppositon to contraception was something of a joke.
Write a comment