Shortly after the blasts in London on Thursday, George Galloway suggested that UK and US foreign policy had made the world a more dangerous place and was responsible (at least in part) for the outrage.
“Silence would be complicity. I am not prepared to be complicit when people in Iraq and London are paying a blood price for Blair’s bizarre special relationship with Bush,”
This time, he is off base. Whatever one’s opinion on the foreign policy relating to Middle Eastern affairs, that this is a cause of what is happening on our home soil is misguided. Even if George Bush broke off all links with the House of Saud, we left the Israel/Palestine situation to sort out itself and if troops were pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, it would not appease these attackers.
These matters are but a sideshow in something that goes much deeper and has been festering much longer than 20th Century events. Islam and Christendom are incompatible bedfellows. While the two faiths draw from the same origins, neither is tolerant of the other. The conflict can be traced back to the Crusades and the Moorish incursions into Spain. Indeed, much of Spain was part of the Islamic world until 1031. The people who pervert the qur’an into an excuse for Jihad hate what we are, what we stand for and our influence in the world. They despise our religion and our secularism, our consumer society and what they see as a lack of piety. They seek to destroy the infidel – that is, you and I.
Yet, before we sink into thinking that they are poor oppressed underdogs acting out of a sense of desperation, consider this point that Roger Scruton makes in the Times today. He draws comparisons with the perpetrators of terror elsewhere – from the Jacobins in France to the Bolsheviks in Russia, the people who ride on the back of the underdog, yet themselves are part of an educated and rising elite. The resentment against those who have success or position runs as a common thread throughout as a tool for exerting power and control for themselves. The Jihadis are merely tapping into this resentment – and drawing on 1000 years of religious hatred.
Despite words about being tough on terrorism and being tough on the causes of terrorism, the reality is that sometimes, doing so will involve talking to one’s enemy. Negotiation is occasionally the unpalatable reality as it was in Ireland, as it eventually will be in Palestine. However while it may be possible to negotiate with Irish Republicans over the autonomy of Ireland, it is not possible to negotiate with a group whose aim is as nebulous as that of the Jihadis. The only satisfaction that I can see for them would be submission to Sharia law for the west, the shutting down of Hollywood and the subjugation of women. Oh, yes, and I’d have to cut my hair…
Giving up what makes us what we are is not a negotiating chip.
Gorgeous George was on the tv yesterday and for once, he appeared reserved and respectful and positively contributed to the debate. I began to wonder whether I was viewing an impostor 🙂
I have to disagree with you here mate. Now ok I know I am a fan of your man George but I do not agree with everything he does politically however on this question he is on the money.
It is true there are those on the muslim side just as there are many more on the christian side who seem to believe only the eradication of all non-conformists will be the right path. These are very much a minority, altho’ the Western policy towards the Middle East has heightened their profile and appeal. Fundamentalists cherry pick from the Koran to suit their ends just as they do from the Bible it is a totally subjective view of religion.
I cannot believe that 2 religions so utterly similar in every way can be considered incompatible bedfellows, after all where it suits the 2 get on fine the Saudis being a prime example, friends of the US and yet the most repressive country in the Middle East far more so than Iran.
Perhaps it is the similarities that cause the problem in a struggle for individual identity. After all I have seen many people on the left battling it out politically amongst themselves with far more bile than they do in battles with those on the right and sometimes the details of differences are almost too insignificant to believe.
There will be a marginal group of religious fascists who will not be satisfied with constructive dialogue -just as there are still in Ireland but the engaging in dialogue at a workable levelmust be the first step. This cannot take place whilst a religious fundamentalist zealot is in charge of the largest power on Earth.
As a PS have you read what Chomsky has to say on the ‘clash of civilisations’?
”’Longrider replies: Indeed. And I find his argument persuasive. As you know, I am no fan of the current White House incumbent and am deeply suspicious of his motives. Hence my tendency to agree broadly with Chomsky. However, we cannot deny that the clash exists or that it has not been going on for a millennium. I don’t think our disagreement is that wide. While the here and now might be traced back to recent events, the twin towers attacks and the bombings of US embassies in Africa occurred before US intervention in Iraq. Indeed, Clinton was in the White House during the time of the embassy attacks and the first trade centre bombing and so far as I am aware has no family links with the House of Saud or the Bin Ladens.”’
”’It is arguable – and was the point I’m making in this essay – that sooner or later radical Islam will seek to superimpose itself on the west. Islamic leaders in the UK have said as much openly; Dr Siddiqui being one of them as long ago as a decade or more.”’
”’We could discuss why the radical minorities of both religions seek to overthrow the other and why they cannot put a 1000 years of history behind them, but ultimately their doctrines are mutually incompatible – they both claim the truth to the exclusion of all else.”’
I think your last point gets to the nub of it. Whilst most religious people do not see themselves as being incompatible with others of different beliefs the actual doctrine can and is often interpreted to be the ‘one truth’. Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is not a chronicle but the actual word of God, Muslims believe the Koran is the word of Mohammed who was the representative of God (they also of course believe in the same prophets as the Jews and Christians)
It does all remind me of a joke I remember – a protestant man goes to heaven and is met at the gates by St. Peter who shows him round. The man can’t help but notice a 20′ wall along one side and eventually his curiosity gets the better of him and he asks St. Peter why the wall. “Ah yes” responds Peter, “that’s the Catholics, they like to think they’re the only ones here!”
I agree that when the extreme views are taken religions will always lock horns, I just think it has been politically expedient for many powers to heighten that tension to suit their own ends. Whilst the World Trade Centre bombings may have been before the Iraq occupation and Afghan ones one must not forget that the US has been dabbling in the Middle East for a long time now especially when it comes to support of Israel one of the most aggressive nations on the planet.
Furthermore whilst the Afghan and Iraq wars may look like response to terrorism the truth is in fact far more simple. Look at the Caspian oil pipeline and where it goes and the history of it and add to that the background of the people currently in charge in Afghanistan as opposed to those who were before.
The clash of civilisations is a political football used as and when expedient to whip up some fear and loathing out of the failure to educate people to understand their neighbours.
”’Longrider replies: Oh, of course political and economic opportunism comes into play. Education also involves pointing out that there is an incompatibility between the doctrines and that while the vast majority of religious people are perfectly happy to rub along with their neighbours, there are extremeists who will exploit the “truth” for their own ends.”’
”’Ultimately man will only be most free when rid of such superstition, but that’s another discussion…”’