Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Better late than never - The Gaza effect
January 24, 2009 | Posted by Londonstani - 7:29pm | 96 Comments
A week out of internet range means that Londonstani is doing a lot of his Gaza catch up and blog reading this weekend.
As ever, AM has been on the case and hit the nail on the head. Londonstani has been quite surprised by the way the British government has reacted to Gaza '09 compared to Lebanon '06.
Instead of backing Israel come what may, the government has been careful to show that is unhappy with Israel's actions. By the by, that stance has been mirrored in the media, where even usually quite pro-Israel publications have run articles critical of Israel's policies in general and its actions in Gaza in particular.
Londonstani did wonder whether the sands had shifted because of the obviously high death toll, or whether a certain sensitivity for British Muslim sensibilities had suddenly kicked in.
Then, government officials issued statements that basically said, "hey, didn't you all notice how we've changed our tune."
For example: "Ms Blears said the UK has called Israel's bombings "disproportionate", but added: "We're not all brilliant at [expressing this] and I think we have to really, really try now to explain that so that people don't feel that there's hypocrisy and double standards."
And another: "Speaking to the Guardian, Malik expressed alarm that the vast majority of British Muslims were drawing no distinction between current UK government policy and that held by Tony Blair when he failed to condemn immediately an invasion of Lebanon by Israel in 2006."
The online and real world campaigns over Gaza launched in the UK (specifically in London) built upon an infrastructure that had its foundations laid in the anti-war demonstrations of 2003. With every new incident to whip up anger, Londonstani has noticed an upgrade in capability and capacity.
The comments show that the point being made by the British official AM spoke with has been realised on the highest political levels. Londonstani can imagine that if a lynching-happy rag like the Daily Mail got hold of AM's info, there would be all sorts of furious headlines claiming "Government changes foreign policy to appease Muslims" or some such other crap. But this totally misses the point. In the real world, it seems to Londonstani like a threshold moment with short term and long term effects.
In the short term, the unsaid fear seems to be that the government might be pushed into pulling out of Afghanistan, for example, because that's what newly politicised Muslims in Britain want. Now, it maybe true that is indeed what British Muslims want in a knee-jerk sort of fashion. But it in reality, despite the newly squeaking voice, British Muslims have little of the cash, organisation and contacts that translate into real political clout. The F1 racing lobby has much more influence. It's much more likely that the British government uses British Muslims as a fig leaf to do something they would really like to do anyway (like pull out of Afghanistan).
However, in the long-term, there is a good chance that the British Muslim community (or communities) will have a bigger voice in foreign policy. Now, before anyone gets all worked up about "benefiting from terror", remember that it wouldn't be the first time a community pressure group to say "of course, we are trying to control our angry young people. but, if you don't give us X, they will do something silly that we can't control". In fact, Londonstani has had conversations with the fluffy secular Polisario people in southern Morocco/Western Sahara that sound very similar.
In the long run, the process can't be a bad thing. Feeling that your anger will be heard and registered forestalls the sense of angry hopelessness that extremism feeds off.
Londonstani just wishes someone had reminded the American official that it wasn't too long ago that tensions in N. Ireland affected immigrant groups in the U.S., which reciprocated by funding terror in Britain.
Update: Abu Muqawama here. Let me just add to that last sentence that Rep. Peter King (R, NY) -- after 9/11, one of the most outspoken public officials against Islamist terrorism -- was, pre-9/11, one of the IRA's most enthusiastic supporters in the U.S. Congress. Sigh.
As ever, AM has been on the case and hit the nail on the head. Londonstani has been quite surprised by the way the British government has reacted to Gaza '09 compared to Lebanon '06.
Instead of backing Israel come what may, the government has been careful to show that is unhappy with Israel's actions. By the by, that stance has been mirrored in the media, where even usually quite pro-Israel publications have run articles critical of Israel's policies in general and its actions in Gaza in particular.
Londonstani did wonder whether the sands had shifted because of the obviously high death toll, or whether a certain sensitivity for British Muslim sensibilities had suddenly kicked in.
Then, government officials issued statements that basically said, "hey, didn't you all notice how we've changed our tune."
For example: "Ms Blears said the UK has called Israel's bombings "disproportionate", but added: "We're not all brilliant at [expressing this] and I think we have to really, really try now to explain that so that people don't feel that there's hypocrisy and double standards."
And another: "Speaking to the Guardian, Malik expressed alarm that the vast majority of British Muslims were drawing no distinction between current UK government policy and that held by Tony Blair when he failed to condemn immediately an invasion of Lebanon by Israel in 2006."
The online and real world campaigns over Gaza launched in the UK (specifically in London) built upon an infrastructure that had its foundations laid in the anti-war demonstrations of 2003. With every new incident to whip up anger, Londonstani has noticed an upgrade in capability and capacity.
The comments show that the point being made by the British official AM spoke with has been realised on the highest political levels. Londonstani can imagine that if a lynching-happy rag like the Daily Mail got hold of AM's info, there would be all sorts of furious headlines claiming "Government changes foreign policy to appease Muslims" or some such other crap. But this totally misses the point. In the real world, it seems to Londonstani like a threshold moment with short term and long term effects.
In the short term, the unsaid fear seems to be that the government might be pushed into pulling out of Afghanistan, for example, because that's what newly politicised Muslims in Britain want. Now, it maybe true that is indeed what British Muslims want in a knee-jerk sort of fashion. But it in reality, despite the newly squeaking voice, British Muslims have little of the cash, organisation and contacts that translate into real political clout. The F1 racing lobby has much more influence. It's much more likely that the British government uses British Muslims as a fig leaf to do something they would really like to do anyway (like pull out of Afghanistan).
However, in the long-term, there is a good chance that the British Muslim community (or communities) will have a bigger voice in foreign policy. Now, before anyone gets all worked up about "benefiting from terror", remember that it wouldn't be the first time a community pressure group to say "of course, we are trying to control our angry young people. but, if you don't give us X, they will do something silly that we can't control". In fact, Londonstani has had conversations with the fluffy secular Polisario people in southern Morocco/Western Sahara that sound very similar.
In the long run, the process can't be a bad thing. Feeling that your anger will be heard and registered forestalls the sense of angry hopelessness that extremism feeds off.
Londonstani just wishes someone had reminded the American official that it wasn't too long ago that tensions in N. Ireland affected immigrant groups in the U.S., which reciprocated by funding terror in Britain.
Update: Abu Muqawama here. Let me just add to that last sentence that Rep. Peter King (R, NY) -- after 9/11, one of the most outspoken public officials against Islamist terrorism -- was, pre-9/11, one of the IRA's most enthusiastic supporters in the U.S. Congress. Sigh.
Add your comment