A headline in the current Spectator made me blench:

‘Israel’s actions affect our security’

Here we go again – the Jews being blamed for Islamic terrorism in London. Which particular right-on leftist or paleo-rightist was making this poisonously warped and cerebrally-challenged claim this time? It turned out to be the Labour MP John Denham, described by his admiring interviewer Peter Oborne as ‘mainstream’, ‘courageous’, ‘quietly spoken and pragmatic’, ‘impressive’ and the possessor of ‘common sense ‘. He is also chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, which makes him

'perhaps the most influential and privileged Westminster observer of the domestic war against terror'

.

So what does this ‘mainstream’, ‘courageous’, ‘quietly spoken and pragmatic’, ‘impressive’, ‘influential and privileged’ British politician say about Britain’s Islamic terrorism problem?

He is sceptical about the banning of Islamic organisations, such as al-Muhajiroun, which allegedly promote terrorism. This is because, he says, a year ago the Home Office was advising against such a move and yet

'"there has been no change in the situation as far as the intelligence is concerned. It’s more that there’s been a change of mood that makes the government eager to be perceived to act against these organisations."'

Well, yes, and that mood might just have changed because Londoners just happened to get blown up, and just possibly the Home Office got it wrong a year ago, which contributed to Londoners being blown up, but is getting it right now. Not that the Denham common sense seems to encompass such a possibility.

He doesn’t seem to like any of the government’s proposals to counter terrorism, except detention without trial where he allows there may be some need to lock up some people for whom prosecution may be difficult; but he doesn’t see the point of acting against incitement to terrorism, or the groups doing the inciting, or throwing foreign inciters out of the country. This is because

'The government’s unremitting focus on legal measures aimed primarily at foreign radicals is in danger of distorting the counter-terrorism effort.'

And what should that counter-terrorism effort principally consist of? Engaging with young British Muslims, whose alienation has been ignored. Does he mean the alienation arising from the interpretation of their religion that they are taught and the hatred of western society in which they are steeped? He does not. He does not even mention any possible cause within their own culture. Instead, this alienation is the fault of the government for

'failing to give the ‘issues and concerns raised within the Muslim community any priority till after the London bombings'.

And so what are these 'issues and concerns'?

'"One of the reasons why people got so worked up about Zimbabwe is that they identified with the white farmers. In the same way young Muslims very much identify with Palestinians. We should recognise that areas like the Israel–Palestine conflict, Kashmir or Chechnya are of as much concern to these fellow British citizens as, say, the concern over the plight of white farmers in Zimbabwe to many in the majority population or as Israel’s security is to British Jews. The complaint that the suffering of Muslims in countries like Uzbekistan or Chechnya is given lower priority and lower concern does have a real foundation. The decision not to count civilian deaths in the Iraq war or Afghanistan causes deep offence. And the fact that these are not reported in the mainstream media does not mean that they are not well known and reported in the Muslim community. We need to recognise that some foreign policy has now a very direct impact on domestic policy. And we may well need to give [these things] higher priority and more energy, and indeed be prepared to change the emphasis of our foreign policy in order to safeguard our own security.'"

And so

'"It is no exaggeration to say that Israeli policy in the occupied territories is not simply a matter of foreign policy — it is a matter for British domestic security policy too."'

So what Israel does, or is perceived to do, to the Palestinian Arabs is the cause of Islamic terrorism against the British. Logic? All you need to grasp, to follow this reasoning, is that the perception of British Muslims is all that matters. If they say Israel is committing ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians or murdering their children, then that is the grievance which has to be addressed in order to quell Muslim rage and avert terrorism against, er, Britain.

It does not seem to occur to this ‘courageous’, ‘pragmatic’ and ‘impressive’ chairman of the home affairs committee that such opinions espoused by Britain’s young Muslims are based on demented hatred and lies, prejudice and blood libels against the Jews of Israel, that Muslim alienation is based on bigotry and that to give these ‘issues and concerns’ any credence whatsoever is to hand terrorism its greatest victory. Instead, Denham opines that

'terrorism is rarely defeated until serious efforts are made to engage with the political and social problems that give rise to it in the first place'

and that

'If a substantial section of the population believes that it is in any case subject to arbitrary injustice — at home or abroad — then it is much more difficult to win consent.'

But what if this ‘substantial section of the population’ believes — as it does — that the very existence of Israel is an injustice? Or — as it does — that Israel's attempts to protect its citizens from mass murder are an injustice? Or — as it does — that the Jews control America and thus the west? Or — as it does — that the West wants to take over and destroy the Islamic world? Does the ‘mainstream’, ‘courageous’ and above all influential chairman of the parliamentary committee charged with considering how to combat Islamic terrorism believe that it is these views that should drive our foreign policy?

This, of course, represents not an antidote to terror but its apotheosis. And it reveals Denham’s startling inability to understand one crucial fact. Yes, Israel and the Jews are indeed central to Islamic terrorism — but not in the way he implies. Israel is not the cause of Islamic terrorism, but its victim. Blind, bigoted, fanatical hatred of Israel and the Jews, along with the lies and libels that flow from this prejudice, are central to the Islamic hatred of the west which such extremists believe they control. This is nothing to with Israel’s actions, but its very existence. Those who fail to understand this will never grasp the nature and extent of the threat that everyone in the free world now faces. The fact that even the chairman of the home affairs committee fails to do so and seeks instead to appease such prejudice is a measure of Britain’s inability — even now — to connect to reality.

Posted by melanie at September 28, 2005