The debate that took place in the UK House of Commons last week ahead of the vote sanctioning British air strikes against ISIL in Syria was a milestone for one of the world’s most prestigious democracies, noted the London-based columnist Abdul Wahab Badrakhan in Al Ittihad daily, the sister paper of The National.
At the same time, debate echoed throughout the French national assembly and the German parliament about how to best confront the ISIL menace. Given the level of discussion in Europe, one wonders whether we could see a similar debate in the Arab world, where terrorism has become part of the fabric of everyday life for some countries, the writer said. “It is only through open public discussion, rather than fear and secrecy, that positions and their proponents are revealed, and an informed public opinion is forged,” he added.
During the 10 hours of debate in the British parliament, the term “Islam” entered the conversation many times. A number of representatives echoed the view of the British prime minister, David Cameron, that ISIL is neither Islamic nor a state.
Badrakhan added that there was nothing new to Arabs in that significant British exchange of ideas and arguments about the extremist group. However, Arabs did hear what confirms their own assessment of the situation on the ground and concerns along with the volume of responsibility they must shoulder going forward .
Evidently, the debates weren’t held to improve the security situation in Arab countries, but rather to preserve security in European cities and ensure business continuity without fear of extremists jumping out of nowhere to kill themselves and others in cafes and other public places.
The terrorist attacks in Paris, which were preceded by droves of refugees coming into Europe, were the main catalyst that helped forge public opinion demanding action be taken against ISIL.
The argument of some in the British opposition that air strikes against ISIL in Syria would be an invitation to murderers to turn up in the streets of London was not accepted.
The counter argument was that striking the terrorists would eventually decrease the number of refugees flocking into Europe.
For his part, the columnist Akram Al Bani wrote in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat that extremist groups haven’t stopped to assess the efficiency of their ways and the extent of damage they have caused to Islam and Muslims since the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Their threats to invade European cities shows that they have no sense of self-reflection.
The writer said it was high time for people in the Arab world to realise that the extremism option was useless in terms of reclaiming lost rights. “In fact, it may be the fastest way to perpetuate our defeats. The ideology that calls for terrorising the enemy has achieved nothing more than misery, destruction and chaos.”
If the purpose of arbitrary killings is to raise the banner of Islam and gain more supporters for ISIL, the gory images of bloodshed have failed to attract sufficient support to make their project a reality.
If their goal is to shock international public opinion and attract attention to the hardships of Muslims, then ISIL has failed. With repeated terrorist attacks, western citizens are no longer interested in the misfortunes of Muslim communities and are unable to distinguish between Muslims and a terrorist group that exploits religion for its own purposes. “The western mind can’t be blamed in this sense for fearing Muslims in their countries,” he said.
Translated by Racha Makarem
rmakarem@thenational.ae
