Appeasing evil
Israeli policy in the occupied territories, says John Denham (‘Israel’s actions affect our security’, 24 September) ‘is not simply a matter of foreign policy, it is a matter for British domestic security policy too’.
His logic seems to run as follows: the Palestinians suffer from their conflict with Israel, their plight is heeded by ‘young Muslims [who] very much identify with Palestinians’, some of whom express their dissatisfaction by self-immolation in locations chosen to ensure the maximum death toll among British civilians. Therefore, if only we could appease the Muslim extremists by adopting a more hostile attitude towards Israel, the global jihadists groups would lose their cause célèbre and their network of terror will simply wither away.
It seems like an easy solution. It’s almost surprising that more governments haven’t taken it on board. But as with most easy solutions, it is also wrong, for the simple reason that al-Qa’eda is not driven by a rational political agenda.
The word ‘jihad’ may be literally translated as ‘striving’. It is an important clue because, in the distorted perspective of global jihadists, waging war against ‘the West’ is not a means to an end — it is an end in itself. Political objectives secured in the course of struggle may be a welcome bonus but they are not the spiritual or intellectual point. Global jihad long ago abandoned any perception of itself as the pursuit of politics by other means. It is nihilistic, a death cult fuelled by maniacal hatred.
Quite simply, al-Qa’eda cannot be placated by adjustments to foreign policy. Anyone would realise that if they reflected on recent events, such as the massacre in Bali. Is Indonesia also alienating its Muslim population by being too sympathetic to Israel and keeping occupation forces in Iraq? What anti-Western measures should Jakarta take in order to appease al-Qa’eda’s Southeast Asian tentacle?
Note also that ‘the Jews’ rank second to ‘the Crusaders’ on al-Qa’eda’s target list. It has paid relatively little practical attention to Israel and the ‘evil of Zionism’. Almost all of its attacks have been against targets representing ‘the West’. It may be convenient for some Europeans to believe that militant Islamist hatred is directed primarily at the Jewish state and only contingently at European interests. But it would be more helpful to understand that al-Qa’eda’s loathing of Israel fundamentally derives from a perception of it as a bastion of Europe.
Beyond that, al-Qa’eda’s modus operandi in Europe centres on isolated ‘disposable’ cells. Classic guerrilla movements relied on wide popular support. It does not. So any hope that addressing the perceived political grievances of the Muslim community will make the al-Qa’eda bogeyman go away is as illusory as it is misguided.
But John Denham is right about one thing. There are important links between domestic and foreign policy which he might want to invite the home affairs select committee to address. Among the most pressing questions is how European policy relates to the continuation of violence in the Middle East. The financing of terror, much of which is carried out from Europe, is a crucial concern. If more rigorous attention were dedicated to financial conduits, Europe might diminish Hamas and Hezbollah’s efforts to undermine peace and improve the lot of Palestinians and Israelis alike. Turning a blind eye to financial lifelines that sustain Palestinian rejectionists only hinders the legitimate cause of potential Palestinian statehood.
British foreign policy is committed to pursuing the vision of a Palestinian and a Jewish state living side by side. It has long understood that peace and security are essential preconditions for that solution. Any proposal to change this implies either that these guiding principles are wrong or that they should be sacrificed to placate fanaticism. Neither should be acceptable, but the second option is all the more tragic because it rests on the fantastical delusion that global jihad is a force susceptible to reason. For British domestic or foreign policy to be based on such pipe-dreams would require a novel and unwelcome rejection of the good judgment her friends have come to know and appreciate.
Zvi Heifetz
Ambassador
Israeli Embassy, London W8
Roman’s tax haven
Dominic Midgley (‘Oiling up to the oligarchs’, 8 October) misses the zillion-rouble reason that Russian — and other — billionaires prefer moving to Britain, rather than to the US. As long as they retain their foreign domicile, they are taxed only on their UK income. By bringing in capital, not income, Roman Abramovich, for example, can pay zero income tax here — assuming Chelsea FC remains in the red. Even low-tax America considers this unfair.
Joseph Palley
Richmond, Surrey
Tories need Clarke now
Two months ago hardly anyone had heard of David Cameron; now Bruce Anderson is asking us to believe that he is a political genius to rival Tony Blair (‘The next Tory prime minister’, 8 October). Come off it. Mr Cameron is a talented man, but he is not in the same league as Blair when it comes to charisma and political nous. One suspects, for example, that Tony Blair would have had this election stitched up by now.
Without Blair and his hinterland, Gordon Brown will look a very different figure. The Tories need a heavyweight like Ken Clarke to attack this government on its weak points — truth and competence — and, moreover, they need someone to do it now. The electorate can’t wait for ever.
Chris Nancollas
By email
Charles Moore represents the worst of Conservatism; obsessed with bashing Europe and supporting George Bush at any cost. Enough. These issues may appeal, at the expense of everything else, to those who don’t have to worry about being treated in a filthy NHS hospital or having to send their children to wretched local schools but, generally speaking, the long-suffering British public cares more about good healthcare and education.
Mr Moore should just stick to his foxhunting, and give us all a break. The fact that he looks for any petty reason to attack Ken Clarke tells me that Clarke is the right man to win back those who have chosen to vote Labour and Lib Dem at the last three elections.
Jason Dack
Woking, Surrey
The export of people
Aidan Hartley shows in his highly perceptive and deeply disturbing article (‘The terror threat from Mogadishu’, 8 October) that Somalia is now a breeding ground for all sorts of international outlaws, as the tatters of its sovereignty are fought over by an array of shadowy actors. Meanwhile, its people suffer and, unsurprisingly, have become their country’s major export. The lunacy of spending millions on refugees rather than promoting development in Somalia is well anatomised by Hartley. This is not only bad economics, it is bad politics. One consequence for this country, as we are seeing, is that some poorly integrated and alienated British Somalis are being driven into the arms of militants.
The consequences of the collapse of a state — even in a continent where few states have complete control over all of their territory — have never been adequately analysed, let alone acted upon, by the international community. If the world were the British political system, we would have a Hutton or a Butler to examine the full extent of this catastrophe and to try to prevent its recurrence. Something like that is needed to help the world understand the full consequences of what happens when state sovereignty is allowed to wither away.
David Stephen
Representative of the United Nations
Secretary-Genera
l for Somalia, 1997–2002,
London SW1
England vs Bulgaria
While it is true that Bulgaria has its problems, in particular its judicial system, and it is right that Tom Walker should point this out, his article (‘Bulgar and nasty’, 8 October) gives one a very jaundiced view of the country. Your readers should ask themselves:
When was the last time I holidayed in England? Do I feel comfortable in my town centre at night? Do I get value for money when I eat out?
Mr Walker gave the impression that Bulgaria is a mafia-run banana republic where you’ll probably die in crossfire on the street. Yet it is a wonderful place for a holiday and one of the safest countries I know. You don’t get fights outside pubs here and, as a rule, life is relatively cheap and of good quality.
Some of the other points he made are hypocritical. Walker says that British football fans have been ‘pelted with bottles and glassed in Burgas’. But, I believe England is still the biggest exporter of football thugs as will no doubt be shown next summer. And the involvement of suspect Russian money in British football is well known.
Finally, Walker imagines that capitalism started differently in Britain or the US. The capitalism that gave the world rotten boroughs, famine in Ireland and Dickensian London?
Neil Connolly
Sofia, Bulgaria
Praying for the sick
We have previously made clear to church authorities that it is not an offence under the Data Protection Act for a priest to pray for a living person by name during mass, and we will reiterate this point. Common sense prevails. The Data Protection Act mainly covers personal information held electronically. It is very unlikely that this sort of information about members of the local congregation would be held on computer and so it wouldn’t be covered by the Act. However, if someone had specifically asked not to be mentioned by name in prayers, priests should respect that decision.
The Data Protection Act gives us all important rights, including the right to know what information is kept about us and the right to have wrong information corrected.
Jonathan Bamford
Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wilmslow, Cheshire
Off target in Dresden
If, as M.R.D. Foot says (Books, 1 October), Dresden was ‘an important centre for the German armament industry and a key knot in communications towards the eastern front’, why was the historic centre of the ‘unarmed cultural jewel’ deliberately targeted by the British and Americans rather than its industrial areas and lines of communication?
David Woodhead
Leatherhead, Surrey
Sheep to the slaughter
I saw a killing of a sheep in a churchyard in Tbilisi in Georgia similar to that witnessed by your correspondent Donald Roy (Letters, 8 October), but it was not a ‘sacrifice’; nor, I believe, was the one he saw. The sheep I saw was to be the wedding feast, killed after the religious service was over. Just as there are feasts after weddings in this country — only the butchery is done out of sight of the public, in abattoirs, and the meat is purchased at Tesco.
Brian Robinson
Brentwood, Essex
If you would like to email letters for publication, please send them to letters@spectator.co.uk, including your postal address and telephone number.
Comments