7/7 & After
Running through discussions
in the aftermath of 7/7 is a common
thread: the ‘Muslim street’
includes Iraq and Israel while Downing
Street excludes Iraq and Israel.
Prime Minister Tony Blair continues
to insist that there is no connection
between Britain’s foreign policy
and the events of 7/7. Nonetheless,
UK’s leading think-tank, Chatham
House, in its report issued after the
London blasts of July 7, concludes that
Tony Blair’s role as George Bush’s
closest partner in the “war on
terror” has made Britain a “target
for attacks”. Just one month before
the attacks, according to The New York
Times of July 19, an intelligence assessment
by Britain’s Joint Terrorist Analysis
Center stated that “events in
Iraq are continuing to act as motivation
and a focus of a range of terrorist
related activity in the UK.”
In a poll taken by the Guardian newspaper
after 7/7, two-thirds of Britons believe
that there is a link between the London
bombings and Tony Blair’s support
and participation in the invasion of
Iraq. An about-to-be-published book
entitled “The Cost of War”,
by Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the then-UK
ambassador to the United Nations, describes
the US decision to attack Iraq as “politically
illegitimate”. The Blair administration
is reportedly trying to block the book’s
publication. Another odd fact is a news
item from the London daily, The Independent,
of July 18, citing reports from the
Israeli mass-circulation newspaper,
Maariv, that one of the alleged London
bombers visited Israel in 2003. This
has been corroborated by The Washington
Post of July 19.
The spotlight is focused on Britain’s
Muslim youth, who increasingly find
themselves jobless and powerless. Many
are estranged from their elders as well
as marginalized from the broader British
society. Some have sought succor and
relief by turning to religion. They
are misunderstood by family and disengaged
from society making it easier, therefore,
for vested quarters to prey on their
vulnerabilities. Even as mosque leaders,
Muslim politicians, and representatives
of the Muslim Council of Britain met
with Prime Minister Tony Blair to discuss
strategies on disaffected British Muslim
youth, some young Muslims complained
that they were left out of the discussions
and that the Muslim Council is “out
of touch” with their aspirations.
An award-winning 1999 British movie,
“My Son the Fanatic”, described
the predicament and perils of the situation.
I had shown this movie to former prime
minister Shujat Hussain as a precursor
of the shape of things to come.
According to Jorgen Nielsen, Professor
of Islamic Studies at the University
of Birmingham, Middle East politics
increasingly is being dressed in the
garb of religion.
Western hostility and the docility of
the Muslim Establishment are fueling
futility amongst Muslim youth who have
little or no stake in the system. It
is feeding and breeding zealotry.
Curbing extremism is a two-way street.
Extremist actions of the West are fueling
extremist Muslim reactions.
In effect, state terror is currently
pitted against privatized terror of
nihilistic individuals and groups. If
there is no counter-balance to this
unrelenting showdown, the momentum would
be all on one side – the side
of violence. This continued confrontation
represents a common threat to all.
The atrocity of 7/7 was a crime against
humanity. The answer lies not through
new xenophobic terror laws or the ‘blame
game’ of finger-pointing, but
through a thorough self-scrutiny and
strategic re-thinking of the present
path of mutual annihilation.
Thus far, the results of the philosophy
of ‘might is right’ are
self-evident. The time to test the philosophy
of ‘right is might’ is now.
That may be the real fight.
