Muslim community representatives demand a change in UK/US foreign policy, claiming that it is this that annoys the vast majority of Muslims, offends them, makes them feel victimised or whatever, and that it is this that leads to discontent and resentment, and thence in some cases to action that ultimately may in a few cases end in terrorist acts. To counter terrorism properly, they say, the underlying cause must be addressed and this lies in the foreign policy.
Well, the 'easy' answer to this might be to say that this effectively is holding a democratically elected government to ransom, when the proper course of action should be through accepted democratic channels (set up a Muslim Party of Britain, or something). Or are they saying that the ideological divide is so great that such an approach is not appropriate? In any case, on what is this close affinity with what is happening in Iraq based? Not, evidently - in the vast majority of cases - on the fact that Iraq is their homeland. Presumably then it is based on a perceived purely religious kinship, in which case, which camp do they feel most for, the Sunni or the Shiite? But let's put this line of argument aside and take the foreign policy complaint seriously.
Beginning in Afghanistan. What does their affinity with their Muslim brothers tell them here? Was the repressive Taliban regime the best thing they could hope for? Or is the current course perhaps preferable? I think I know the answer, but let them speak. Granted, the original motivation for the intervention in this country may have been quite different, but pragmatically we should surely assess what is best for the people there - this, or what they had before. If a change of policy is desirable here, what exactly should it be?
And then Iraq. The same question arises here as regards the original motivation and the actual change in society. But first of all, the Muslim community ought to bear in mind that very many westerners in the UK and the US were and still are in deep disagreement with the original action and with the continuing policy, so there is no need for Muslims to feel alone or isolated on this issue. For this reason alone, it is surely reprehensible to even seek to 'explain' terrorist acts against innocent bystanders. But looking again pragmatically at the current situation, what is the obstacle to rebuilding the country on (hopefully) better foundations? Of course, the constant terrorist bomb attacks - committed by whom? So maybe the action of the US/UK lead to this situation in the first place? Well, put simply, yes, of course! But let's be a little clearer about what has happened. Iraq too was under the yolk of a repressive regime, in this case headed by a ruthless tyrant. Was that the best the Muslim community wished for towards their Muslim brothers in Iraq? I hope not! Evidently, the removal of Saddam Hussein took the lid off a simmering interfactional rivalry and hatred - Muslim factions primarily, please note. Is the invading (liberating?) force to be entirely blamed for this? This primitive rivalry, whether between two shades of Islam or between regional 'war lords', is from a western perspective a medieval anachronism. If the US or UK did not foresee this problem I don't think they can be blamed too much. If, in the current circumstances, a change of policy is desirable here, what exactly should it be?
The recent (Oct. 2006) intervention of the head of the British army, General Dannatt, was interesting. He thinks the British army should get out of Iraq as soon as possible as it is probably exacerbating the problem and functioning only as a target. Maybe he is right, although the logic of cause and effect is unclear. His primary concern is for the safety of his troops, but of course, regrettable as deaths of British soldiers may be, this is quite insignificant compared with the number of Iraqis dying each day. And it's not British soldiers who are killing them. If the presence of British troops really does exacerbate the situation, the reaction is strange. Are indiginous Iraqis really saying in effect, "we don't like British troops being here, so let's kill more of our own people"? Again, if there is to be a change of foreign policy, we could do with a bit less Muslim rhetoric and a bit more logic.
And finally of course, the Palestinian question. Here too, there is a history which probably it is not very fruitful to examine, or we can just look at the situation as we have it. The prime players here are of course the state of Israel and the Palestinian people. True, both the US and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the UK traditionally exhibit a certain solidarity with Israel, although in recent years I think it is true to say that the plight of the Palestinians has been recognised more and more. Still it seems as though every questionable act taken by Israel is treated by the Muslim community as though it was carried out by the US directly, backed of course by the UK. But looking at the overall situation, a basic question for all Muslims is, do you think that Israel has the right of existence? If not, then it is more or less end of discussion. Assuming we can answer that basic question affirmatively, then we might look at the immediate environment in which the state of Israel has to function. Immediately neighbouring territories harbour organisations whose stated policy - reason for existence, even - is the eradication of Israel. This doesn't help anyone! It is admittedly unfortunate that Israel has the tendency to behave in ways that do not engender support - unilateral and disproportionate actions. But that is Israel, not the US. So, in summary, I would say to the Muslim community, if your are not happy about the Palestinian situation, feel free to suggest solutions!
I think it's also worth mentioning, if we are talking about Muslim concern for their spiritual kinsfolk, that they can conveniently restrict the argument to those regions in the world where the US and/or UK are involved to some extent, but what about other regions? What about Algeria for instance, and the slaughter and carnage that has taken place there in the name of Islamic fundamentalism? Do you have a thought for those victims or is that somehow different because you don't have the US or UK to blame?
I think the Muslim community should snap out of its collective paranoia. Stop feeling victimised every time the police make a raid, inevitably (in this day and age) on Muslim neighbours. It can't be helped. 30 years ago, it was people with Irish accents who felt victimised or discriminated against, but that was the nature of the threat at the time - and sometimes the police might get it wrong. What are we as a society supposed to do when faced with such threats? Do nothing for fear of treading on sensitive toes? And as for foreign policy, maybe it should change, but on a well-reasoned and logical basis. Certainly, the argument that foreign policy must change because that's what is causing some to resort to terrorism, is a weak, implausible and facile argument in my view.