Skip to main content

The far right is helping IS as it tries to destroy Western tolerance and liberalismby Robert Fisk

THERE is something infinitely naive in our pursuit of the identity of those behind the massacres which the IS is committing in Europe. Yes, we need to know the names.
اردو میں پڑہیں 》》》
Sure, we need to know what their wives or parents thought. Did they know? How did the perpetrator of Monday’s Berlin truck killings communicate with the IS? Or did he merely imbibe their political instruction manual? After the Bataclan mass murders and the lorry slaughter in Nice, we asked the same questions.
But we didn’t bother to ask what the IS was trying to do. Was it a tactic of “terror” — “terror” being the pejorative word that enables us to avoid all rational thought in the aftermath of any bloodbath — or a strategy, a thought-through political attempt to produce a profound crisis in the societies of western Europe.
And the simple answer is that it was a strategy. The “grey zone”, a phrase invented by the IS almost two years ago, first made its appearance in the group’s French-language publications, obviously intended for those Muslims who make up perhaps 10 per cent of the population of France — the nation with the largest number of Muslims in Europe. The IS wanted to eliminate “the grey zone” which it identified as those western — “Crusader”, “Christian”, etc — countries with a large Muslim immigrant community. Muslims should revolt against their European nations (or their host nations, if not actually citizens) and create conflict within the countries.
The intention was to provoke European states to “persecute” the Muslims within their frontiers in acts of reprisal for the mass killing of western Europeans — presumably non-Muslim — civilians. In fact, it didn’t matter to the IS if their victims were Muslims — since the latter were mere “apostates” who had accommodated to non-Muslim societies and adapted to their secular rules for economic or political advantage. In a mass flight from the vengeful “Crusaders”, according to a French edition of Dabiq in early 2015, the Muslims of Europe would migrate to the caliphate of the Islamic State “and thereby escape persecution from the Crusader governments and citizens”.
In other words, they wished to provoke the non-Muslim people of Europe to reject their millions of Muslim fellow-citizens. An uprising among IS followers — however few — would produce mass murder by the “Christians” of Europe. That was — and obviously still is — the strategy. And it has had some success. The rise of far-right parties in both western and eastern Europe has a strong anti-Muslim/anti-immigrant detonation, and the hunt for political power by those who wish to discriminate against Muslims (or “persecute” them) has been fuelled by mass killings carried out in the name of the IS. Thus Angela Merkel, the angel of the one million refugees who sought sanctuary in Europe last year, is herself now dressing in the dark robes of Mephistopheles (by objecting, ironically, to the dark robes worn by Muslim women). Faustus, of course, was a character of German folklore long before Christopher Marlowe wrote about him.
But the IS strategy has far more recent precedents than a man (or woman) who sells his soul to the devil. First a health warning: there is no connection between the IS and the man widely regarded as the Greatest Briton in history. But when Britain remained the only country still under arms against Nazi Germany in 1940, Winston Churchill believed that the occupied people of Europe should rise up against their Nazi occupiers. He believed — not without reason — that western Europeans under German domination were settling far too peacefully into the role of quiescent occupied peoples, making accommodation for — and creating collaboration with — Hitler’s army and Gestapo.
Churchill was right. Crushed by economic as well as military disaster, the people of France, Denmark, Holland and Belgium were far too busy trying to protect their families and feed their children to start an insurrection. Furthermore, they knew — as Churchill knew — that any armed resistance to German occupation would immediately lead to the murder of hostages, the destruction of villages, executions, deportations and mass murder — the sort of “persecution” which the IS obviously hopes, however vainly, would be visited upon the Muslims of Europe if they continue their attacks on the European continent and, indeed, in Britain.
But Churchill was ruthless. “And now, set Europe ablaze,” he told his minister of economic warfare, Hugh Dalton, who set up what was to be called the Special Operations Executive (SOE), whose extraordinary and courageous exploits of arms smuggling, ambushes and sabotage — clearly regarded as “terrorism” by many of Churchill’s associates — led to great losses, civilian reprisals, the death of many innocents and a history of defeat. Not of victory, as post-war monochrome movies about SOE’s daring-do would have cinemagoers believe. Churchill called his policy “a new instrument of war”. The Spanish had used just such an instrument during the Peninsula war, the “guerrilleros”. And as a student of history, Churchill well knew the terrifying results for civilians. Goya depicted their suffering for all time.
The happier side of this comparison, however, is clear. Churchill’s policy — justified for him at the time, however cruel — did not work. It took years, and the terror assaults by the Germans which they had used in eastern Europe, before armed resistance to their rule became a serious problem for Nazi occupiers. And today’s western Europeans, however much the right may try to earn their votes with their anti-Muslim hatred, are not Nazis — much as the IS may wish them to be. The “Crusaders” ceased to exist six hundred years ago. Millions of Muslims cannot be turned into “apostates” because the IS identifies them as such. They wish to live in Europe.
Besides, the Muslims of the Islamic world had their chance of joining the IS caliphate last year. They could have walked, marched or trekked across the deserts to Raqqa and Mosul to join the “caliph” al-Baghdadi. But they didn’t. Instead, they took the train to Germany. Which remains the greatest defeat the IS has suffered in more than two years. Europeans can maintain that defeat by turning away from those of their non-Muslim fellow citizens — in effect IS allies — who advance a policy of revenge and racism.
By arrangement with The Independent

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Knoweledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace
Peace Forum Network
Visited by Millions
Frequently Asked Questions <<FAQ>>
.                                   ......               .

Popular posts from this blog

A historic moment in the Arab world

لحظة تاريخية في العالم العربي
As a democratic revolution led by tech-empowered young people sweeps the Arab world, Wadah Khanfar, Al Jazeera's director-general, shares a profoundly optimistic view of what's happening in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and beyond. In the first talk posted online from the TED 2011 conference in California, Khanfar describes the powerful moment when people realised they could step out of their homes and ask for change. "كما ثورة ديمقراطية بقيادة الشباب التكنولوجيا ذات صلاحيات تجتاح العالم العربي ، وضاح خنفر ، الجزيرة المدير العام والأسهم وجهة نظر متفائلة بشكل كبير ما يحدث في مصر وتونس وليبيا وخارجها. وفي اول حديث له نشر على الانترنت من مؤتمر تيد 2011 في ولاية كاليفورنيا ، خنفر يصف لحظة قوية عند الناس أدركت أنها لا يمكن الخروج من منازلهم ونطلب من أجل التغيير." This talk was given on March 1, 2011 in Long Beach, California. TED 2011 is taking place between March 1 and Mar…

Our Captured, Wounded Hearts: Arundhati Roy On Balakot, Kashmir And India

With his reckless “pre-emptive” airstrike on Balakot in Pakistan, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has inadvertently undone what previous Indian governments almost miraculously, succeeded in doing for decades. Since 1947 the Indian Government has bristled at any suggestion that the conflict in Kashmir could be resolved by international arbitration, insisting that it is an “internal matter.” By goading Pakistan into a counter-strike, and so making India and Pakistan the only two nuclear powers in history to have bombed each other, Modi has internationalised the Kashmir dispute. He has demonstrated to the world that Kashmir is potentially the most dangerous place on earth, the flash-point for nuclear war. Every person, country, and organisation that worries about the prospect of nuclear war has the right to intervene and do everything in its power to prevent it.  Keep reading  >>>>

India has built around itself an aura of a global power whose time has come. For at least the last t…

Kashmir Jihad - Analysis & Options


Kashmir is an incomplete agenda of partition of India. Since 1947, India and Pakistan have fought three wars on this issue. According to UN resolutions, Kashmiris have to decide their accession to Pakistan or India through impartial plebiscite, which could not take place due to Indian reluctance. Recently, India revoked Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special autonomous status to Kashmir, it was done to unilaterally integrate occupied Kashmir. This is a violation of the UN resolutions and the Simla bilateral agreement, which demands to maintain status quo until the final settlement. The US and world powers are emphasizing that Kashmir should be resolved bilaterally, though India has refused to hold talks with Pakistan. In the present scenario, while India has turned Kashmir into the largest prison of 9 million people, denying basic human rights and oppressing the Kashmiris' who want freedom from India, Pakistan cannot watch as a silent spec…