What Daesh call the ‘greyzone’ is the world at its best.
Surely there is nothing left to say. Or maybe there is but
by someone else. In the words of Philip Levine ‘[t]here is more to be said,/
but by someone who has suffered/ and died for his sister the earth/ and his
brothers the beasts and the trees.’ Not me. Not us - whoever that is.
So much has been said and yet not enough has been heard. The
voices of critics have overshadowed the ordinary, everyday voices of those who
have actually suffered due to the work of Daesh. Many of the people victimised
by Islamists worldwide are, of course, Muslim… Because they are not Muslim
‘enough’ or are the wrong kind of Muslim, or are fleeing the Muslims killing
them but not everyone wants to give them asylum because, well, they’re Muslim
and they’re not ‘like us’.
There has been so MUCH comment on this over the past week,
and yet I’m desperate to hear from voices that sound human rather than cynical.
I just can’t hear any more from some angry over-entitled bystander claiming the
‘chickens have come home to roost’ or that this is now a war against Muslims.
So I’m writing this post not so much with the intention of adding new ideas to
the debate but to make a plea for a more responsible and compassionate
attitude. And this includes the political rhetoric of those seeking revenge.
The drone attacks on Daesh in Raqqa seemed so fast
considering they were the most extensive air raids carried out by France in
Syria so far. But then Hollande had already declared "France will be
merciless towards these barbarians” the day after the attacks on Paris. It
smacked of revenge and of wanting to appear to do something, anything,
definitive in order to show strength at a time of generalised fear. And yet the
truth is that we do not know if there is any military strategy that can defeat
terrorists who do not fear their own deaths, and whose networks of influence
can extend to drug-dealers and bar owners in Paris with little prior engagement
with Islam.
Hollander's approach worries me, as does much of the debate
around the Paris attacks. Many have not paused to take a breath before stating
‘what they reckon’ in articles, speeches, political statements and even in
their posts via twitter and Facebook, adding to an already flooded terrain of
knee-jerk responses.
The problem with absolutist talk when it comes from
politicians or even activists is that it propagates a vision and attitude that
is alienating and dehumanising. Those of us sharing our views at this time have
a responsibility to offer more than propaganda. Why? Because otherwise we
implicitly agree to the black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us world that
Islamists and the racist far right want us to live in - one where normal life
and nuanced perspectives don’t exist.
Some have complained that Paris was over-hyped and that this
lack of perspective proves a racist attitude towards the non-white victims of
terrorism in other countries. Fine. That’s a view. But in some cases this was
done without even stopping to acknowledging the victims in Paris. I can’t help
feeling that if someone can skip over the significance of a death with such
ease, they have in truth done a disservice to all victims of terrorism
everywhere by showing the same callous disregard for life that warmongers are
capable of. All life is important. It’s never worth ignoring an atrocity,
either in Paris or in Kenya. Stand up for that and you stand for something
better.
As part of the Telegraph’s tirade, journalist Tom Harris
claimed it was normal and good to feel “murderous rage” about the Paris
attacks. Yes. Apparently Corbyn is out of touch with the “broader public”
because they are all, like Harris, revelling in “murderous rage”. Oppose Corbyn
if you like, but not because he’s failing to stand for “murderous rage”. I’ll
admit that I felt some anger at hearing about the Paris attacks but it
definitely wasn’t “murderous”. If you’re feeling “murderous rage” again, Tom,
please don’t write about it and shove it into the public domain because,
funnily enough, “murderous rage” sounds a bit terrorist-y to me.
Meanwhile, Tariq Ali of the Stop the War Coalition (STWC)
wrote a statement that sounded like he had written it very fast indeed. ‘The
West is not morally superior to the jihadis’ he says in his piece Isis in
Paris. The ‘West’? Who is that? Governments? Everyone in the West? Workers and
students and children in the West? He is basically using ‘West’ in the same way
that jihadis use it. The corrupt West. The evil West. The ‘WEST’. Ali is not
the only one using the word in this way; military strategists use it too. Much
has been made of choosing the term ‘Daesh’ over ‘ISIS’ or ‘ISIL’. I think
reflection is needed on all us-versus-them language.
Daesh don’t like nuance and it is, according to issue 7 of
their own publication Dabiq, seeking the “extinction of the greyzone”. In their
words, "The greyzone is critically endangered, rather on the brink of
extinction. Its endangerment began with the blessed operations of September 11th”. And this, in their view, is
a brilliant thing.
The knee-jerk reactions, the “murderous rage”, the black and
white world of Islam Vs. the ‘West’, this is what they want even more than
anything. The attacks are only part of a long term strategy to create division
and intolerance. This is where Daesh do indeed share a great deal with European
fascism: their aim is to create divisions that lead to civil war and the
destruction of civil society, where the majority are polarised into two main
camps: those against the fascists and those with them. And that’s when their
real game plan starts, when victory goes to those morally ‘superior’ while the
morally ‘weak’ must go to the wall. (I realise I’m quoting Hitler. I hope I
don’t have to do that often in life).
It’s my view that organisations such as Daesh hare some of
fascism’s views on gender roles precisely because both types of movement
despise all traces of nuanced perspective and therefore gender and sexuality
become ‘absolute’, black-and-white issues. Men and women become ‘essentially’
different in their eyes, and because fascism places no value on accepting
differences, of allowing agreement or compassion between groups who are not
identical, this ultimately allows the male leadership to sexually abuse women
with a clear conscience. Thus, just as the National Socialists had their Joy
Division, ISIS have the Yazidis to rape and torture. A dichotomous
with-us-or-against-us worldview can lead to this point when it reaches its
logical conclusion.
Regular Muslims living in London or Paris or any big
multicultural city are perceived as enemies by Daesh precisely because they
live their lives in the ‘greyzone’, i.e. they’re not angry or oppressed enough
to play the hate game. The thing is, the greyzone is where many of us – Muslim
and non-Muslim – are grateful to be living.
It’s where we drink coffee and see our friends without fear of violence.
It’s where children – girls and boys - can thankfully go to school in peace.
It’s where we talk about our views and feelings online without the danger of
being killed for them. It’s where we read books that haven’t been censored and
share poetry and music and humour. It’s where we can care for our neighbours no
matter what colour or religion they are because they too have children and
catch colds and appreciate a smile now and then. If we lose this trust, we lose
everything worth having.
As part of its coverage of the Paris attacks, Channel 4 News
interviewed Daniel Cohn Bendit - a French-German Green party politician who was
a key figure in the May 1968 demonstrations. He was adamant that language of
‘war’ is dangerous and he was saddened that on the morning after the attacks he
was actually thanked by a migrant taxi driver for getting into his car. He
asked the taxi driver why he was being thanked. The Parisian driver replied
that three people had already refused to get into his taxi after observing the
colour of his skin. Reflecting on this with genuine sadness, Bendit says ‘This
is the beginning of a general suspicion. If France loses this battle, if we
grow the intolerance that every Muslim could be a murderer, France is lost.’
I feel passionately that the politics and language of
revenge has to be challenged, as well as the disingenuous talk of commentators
of all political persuasions who are simply spreading the rage. What these
people are doing – whether it’s their intent or not – is creating a world with
no space for compassion, no time for independent thought, and this sucks the
oxygen out of our common humanity. It poisons the well of democracy.
I used a poem earlier in this article because in many ways
poetry can function as the opposite of propaganda. While poetry celebrates the
multifariousness of lived experience, propaganda denies/ ignores its very existence.
So I’m going to use another poem, now, to sign off. It’s called ‘Snow’ by Louis
MacNeice and reading it gets me thinking about the ‘suddenness’ of when lives
are lost through violence and of how life can be both ‘spiteful’ and beautiful
at the same time. The entire poem illustrates the coexistence of pain and
beauty. Things simply live alongside each other. MacNeice celebrates the
‘drunkenness of things being various’ and ‘plural’. Because what Daesh call the
‘greyzone’, let’s face it, is the world at its very best in glorious
technicolour.
SNOW
By Louis MacNeice
The room was suddenly
rich and the great bay-window was
Spawning snow and
pink roses against it
Soundlessly
collateral and incompatible:
World is suddener
than we fancy it.
World is crazier and
more of it than we think,
Incorrigibly plural.
I peel and portion
A tangerine and spit
the pips and feel
The drunkenness of
things being various.
And the fire flames
with a bubbling sound for world
Is more spiteful and
gay than one supposes -
On the tongue on the
eyes on the ears in the palms of one's hands -
There is more than
glass between the snow and the huge roses.
*