Muslim group asks Brown to condemn ’state terror’
The Young Muslim Advisory Group (YMAG) has warned Gordon Brown that if he doesn’t condemn the killing of civillians in Gaza as an “act of state terrorism”, the government will jeopardise its initiative to prevent violent extremism at home. The YMAG was launched in October last year by the Government to voice the views and opinions of young Muslims in four key areas identified by the Government: discrimination, employment, Preventing Violent Extremism and civic participation.
In its letter to the PM, the group said:
By not doing so [condemning 'state terrorism'], we are in grave danger of sending a message to the youth today that the mass murder of civilians can be justified if the right grievances are cited.
In the current political climate there is a real danger that young people who witness the impotence of institutions that are supposed to be protecting innocent life, will turn to other organisations in an effort to make their voices heard and the violence stop.
As a group, we have defined ‘violent extremism’ as being the indiscriminate killing of innocent people, wherever and by whoever this is perpetrated.
With over 450 innocent Palestinians killed in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli Government, the British Government must see this as an act of ’state terrorism’ and as a form ‘violent extremism’, it must be clearly condemned.
Our failure to take clear action also jeopardises our efforts to achieve the objectives of the PREVENT agenda, as we will be seen to be inconsistent and hypocritical in our approach.
I’ve a question for YMAG. Do you deny Israel’s right to exist?
That question is based on what exactly?
Sophia. The question does not need to be based on anything. It is a very simple yes/no question. In the opinion of YMAG, does the Israeli nation-state have a right to exist? Attempted casuistry to avoid answering is a “NO” in itself.
Let’s face it: we are sliding toward civil war. With a Hamas leading light(?) warning that Jewish children everywhere are now legimate targets, we can expect retaliation. Jews are not going to sit on their door-steps waiting to be picked off by Hizbollah, Hamas or iranian agents.Where’s the voice of Trevor Pillips now?
If that happens, the state will have to step in and think seriously about an immediate cessation of Muslim immigration. It will have a wide reception. If the governement doesn’t call for it, then another party will.
omg…the last comment doesn’t even justify an answer
as for Atropos..do you know how to spell…yes or no?
“(YMAG) has warned Gordon Brown that if he doesn’t condemn the killing of civillians in Gaza as an “act of state terrorism”, the government will jeopardise its initiative to prevent violent extremism at home
By not doing so [condemning 'state terrorism'], we are in grave danger of sending a message to the youth today that the mass murder of civilians can be justified if the right grievances are cited. In the current political climate there is a real danger that young people who witness the impotence of institutions that are supposed to be protecting innocent life, will turn to other organisations in an effort to make their voices heard and the violence stop.”
I am very uncomfortable with this on many levels.
It could be read as a threat.
Why must these youngsters immediately turn to violence (irresponsible by the YMAG to state this & give it justification) – could these youngsters not instead be led to be aid workers in such devastated areas but no the YMAG states their path leads lemming like to only one way – the terrorist path. It appears to negate responsibility away from these youngsters.
“As a group, we have defined ‘violent extremism’ as being the indiscriminate killing of innocent people, wherever and by whoever this is perpetrated.”
Does this group also write such letters for other atrocities in the world, regardless of race & religion?. If so, why is it solely a muslim named group in itself? Why not name itself instead something that says we are against Violent Extremism per se?
Yes I am querying the existence of such a group as created by the govt.
As well as I wish it, this really is student bar politics isn’t it? And not even particularly good student bar politics either.
‘we are in grave danger of sending a message to the youth today that the mass murder of civilians can be justified if the right grievances are cited.’
Presumably legitimate grievance is anything defined as such by the Young Muslim chatterati? One can only wonder what these people made of Medvedev and his boss’ mass murder in Georgia, or China and Tibet, or of events in Sudan or any number of other conflict zones. The cynic in me wonders whether the religion of those involved conditions what the YMAG see as legitimate?
But what really gets my goat is this stuff about jeopardising efforts to prevent violent extremism. Presumably this is code for, ‘your foreign policy must be determined by whether some nut-job in the ‘burbs will respond by leaving bombs on public transport.’ Arrant cobblers of course, but the agenda of the YMAG is (by definition) the indulgence of religious sensibility. It is precisely this indulgence that has brought us to the bad tempered feelings we see today.
What prevents violent extremism is peole not being violent. Quite how the undertone inherent in the quote (’will turn to other organisations in an effort to make their voices heard and the violence stop.’ – was my favourite) will achieve this is something of a mystery.
Indeed, quite why we need a YMAG when we have a democracy (however imperfect – put your claws away) and a civil society is also baffling.
‘State terror?’ The moment one of these young muslim thinkers has a brush with the electoral real world is the moment that I take this seriously – not a moment before.
Now if you will excuse me, the article has made me so violent I need to punch a wall.
So what is their option? Not say anything at all? They bring up an important point in that radicalisation-scouts will have yet more ammo in their recruitment-leaflets.
Would you rather they condemn Hamas and pretend Israel is not the exact same [censored] (only on a state level) that they say they are purportedly fighting? Like everyone else in the media/government is so intent on doing? Would that make you happy?
How insecure do you have to be to be feeling threatened anyway? What an outrageous statement to make.
i think that group should also suggest that british jewry not be permitted military service for israel.
Some will interpret it as a threat i don’t think it is intended as such, its one of those observations that just ring’s true. Hatred of israel amongst non usual suspects has risen sharply (yet again) following that state’s sly move to generate facts on the ground before obama gets in and during the festive season.
others, more malevolent others will bring in israel’s right to exist again and again. they are actually not part of this conversation.
Does sound a bit like – “if you don’t condemn the Jews we will take this as justification for taking violent action.”
Do you think they meant that? They don’t need to fess up, because the implicit threat is there.
Muslims complain about aligning violence with Islam, then do it themselves. Or is it cos I’s Islamophobic?
No Government that sends troops to countries it doesn’t actually have a beef with is going to start shouting ‘State terrorism’ at another sovereign state.
And no Government this side of the Channel is going to roll over when confronted with not very veiled threats.
I have a question for you, why don’t you contact them directly rather than posting the question on this site?? Could it be you’d rather derail/troll this thread?
And wouldn’t you all be totally outraged if there was (a) A Young Jewish Advisory Group, and it was (b) Asking the Government to do something similar.
Don’t all rush at once
Eh??
What ’state terrorism’ are Jewish people subject to?
“So what is their option? Not say anything at all?”
Read my comment. I’m saying more than that. I query their very existence
“They bring up an important point in that radicalisation -scouts will have yet more ammo in their recruitment-leaflets.”
Why should we run the country on the basis of the actions of such scouts?
I think by the FMAG producing & making public such letters it will be used as part of the incendiary fuel used by the scouts in their recruitment
“Would you rather they condemn Hamas and pretend Israel is not the exact same [censored] (only on a state level) that they say they are purportedly fighting? Like everyone else in the media/government is so intent on doing? Would that make you happy?”
Where have I mentioned condemning Hamas & protecting Israel. You are flailing around to create your own rationale.
” How insecure do you have to be to be feeling threatened anyway? What an outrageous statement to make.”
More flailing. Did I say I felt threatened? I said it could be read as a threat. I do foresee that many will see it as such & orgn’s like the BNP will use things like this to fuel more islamophobia for those who already feel that way.
What makes me uncomfortable is that impressionable youngsters may be led astray to use violence to counteract violence. The latter is what caused the current warring in gaza. Why repeat the cycle?
Warning us, eh? Blimey, whatever are they warning us of?
Let’s bung another £100 million of our hard earned money to ‘prevent extremism’, seems to be working doesn’t it.
You naughty Islamophobe, Boyo. Hold your wrist out so I can slap it. Go to your local re-education centre to learn about the religion of peace, etc etc etc.
A threat? Some people could read a threat into anything. Take, for example, this:
Don Corleone is confident that you will be able to provide the remuneration discussed by midnight next Sunday. Don Corleone would be very upset if you met with an accident, or, heaven forbid, went to sleep with the fishes. He sends his most cordial regards and looks forward to future mutual cooperation.
I mean, some people could even read a threat into that, but only very naughty or suspicious people
Trans: So if Brown doesn’t call Israel a terrorist state, then some Muslims may get angry and may blow up people?
I’m sure the Prime Minister will spring to action at this reasonable request!
I also think this could be read as a veiled threat, although I’m sure it’s not intended to. It certainly doesn’t help anyone, in my opinion. I don’t think that anyone should seek to direct Government policy by threatening civil unrest if it doesn’t say what one sector of the population thinks it should say.
I also think this is more offensive to British Muslims than anyone else, to be honest. Why should Muslims in this country turn to violence because of what this Government does or doesn’t say about what’s happening abroad? No one’s afraid that Africans will roam the streets setting fire to cars or blowing themselves up because of what’s happening to them in Zimbabwe or the Congo, or pick your area. No one’s telling Gordon Brown that if he doesn’t warn China about its totalitarian ways the British-born Chinese population will be dangerously radicalised.
I have faith in the vast majority of British citizens to behave responsibly and lawfully regardless of their views on foreign policy, and shame on anyone who doesn’t.
Overheard on a bus
(Woman looking at pic of dead palestinian baby in London Paper, while man reading same story in London Lite featuring pic of sad female Israeli soldiers)
Woman: Babies are dying yet your paper shows the poor soldiers who are killing them…
Man: The soldiers didn’t just start for no reason. The Hamas started this…
Woman: So Israel is taking revenge?
Man: Yup
Woman: Will you say that when this baby’s older brother decides to take HIS revenge?
Man: It doesn’t work like that…
Bollocks. That’s EXACTLY how it works
Indeed but you know action taken on who’s selling the arms (to both sides) can limit the impact the revenge has and encourage them to consider other options to resolve the issue…
Persephone, it is you who is flailing in a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible. The only way you – and other posters here – can handle a simple letter from a YOUNG Muslim Advisory Group is with this pompous, faux outraged over-reaction. The issue in this thread is clear: Should Israel be condemned for State Terror or not? Your other arguments are valid, or not, once this question is answered. In doing so you will either support the double-standard or believe that indefensible actions remain indefensible.
sounds a bit like to me as well Katy!
let’s get rid of the word ‘terror’ – it’s working to the usual agenda still . violence is what we are talking about, pure and simple. and how and when any violence can be justified, and by whom.
this is the crucial point of course, a wider point that should not be just made by ‘muslim’ groups -but any civilised human being and society: -is that killing is not a good option and states should take that more seriously. yes they have the legal monopoly on the legitimizing of violence. And all individuals should be emphasizing we don’t have that legal right, it is illegal for us to commit violent acts, and the legal instances where it may be determined that there are extenuating circumstances which might justify that action, are not automatic, but are determined in a court of law etc._)
Same should apply to states. we seem to have this trigger happy society where nation-states think they can just use their ‘monopoly’ and their standing armies, willy nilly.
we need to move away from that – and frame the debate with that stated aim.
the reality is that violence is just that -violent, and in the same way we as individuals are not encouraged to be violent, so should States. Not just take their monopoly as some God-given right.
everyone – individual or group – no matter how legitimate the group – should be very very mindful, of ever resorting to violence.
that’s not a threat, or a ‘warning’
because we can see how it works in this world when people aren’t mindful, as it currently is, – but good common sense. which we ought to be following, but aren’t. that’s te wider context within, which – any such commentary on so-called ‘terror’ should be made.
its a fundamental social point, crucial if we have any intention of protecting human rights as we have so far formulated them – and not something that should be just seen as ‘international relations’, or ‘intra-national’ community relations.
groups with political aims/’partisan’ groups should be very clear that they understand the context they are operating within. they need to make it clear their interest is for the whole of humankind, especially if they are a partisan group.
i see where persephone is coming from.
and for me, the way i articulate it is this: groups should be making points which apply on a human rights basis – not some ‘community’ rights. i.e. we are human, not on the basis, i’m a muslim and i think this. yeah you’re a muslim anyway, but there’s an implication there that one is only interested in the ‘muslim’ interest, which may certainly not be the case, but these groups should be well aware of that. in the same way the BNP articulate the interest of ‘white britons’ and other ‘humans’ find that offensive or at the very least, only looking out for your group. What is it – if not tribalism?
for example, the point for me of signing up to the NGN manifesto was to say ‘no more such bounded thinking’. ironically of course, as Orwell would say, inevitable in such situations, that people would then approach the ‘NGN’ as some kind of ‘asian platform’ and ask them similar questions as one would to the MCB or this lot. Which is why – we have to be careful when we make social commentary and make very important points on the rights of humans – that is what we are doing. NOt just advancing the interests of ‘groups’ – so the ‘groups’ we may form to advance our ideas – are very important and need careful consideration. this is very difficult ongoing question for all anarchists/libertarians..! which is why the internet is so attractive of course.
i agree with Leon@comment 22
i think we’ve become immune to human suffering and violent death as we see it everyday via a box in the corner of our living rooms/kitchens/bedrooms…we watch it in films, we hollywoodise it and turn it into online games for our pleasure..so when we see the real thing..it’s just another image that won’t be there this time tomorrow…when i switch the tv off..the killing goes on but I don’t have to see it…
I am too upset to argue semantics over a letter which is no more than naive in its construction.
I just happened to be reading this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-palestine-israel
‘Besieged families flee homes for shelter under UN flag Trapped residents seek the nearest thing to safety they can find as the territory’s schools are turned into refugee camps’
And just got through this bit:
‘UN officials had reassured the father of five he and his family would be protected by the large blue and white flag flying above the UN-run school turned refugee shelter. But with the sound of large explosions on the edge of Jabaliya refugee camp, just north of Gaza City, and his children still terrified from the trauma of their escape, Khalil was taking no chances.
“They will kill us anywhere. If they can bomb the mosque, if they can kill small children, if they can blow up our parliament, why should they care if they bomb this school? They don’t care what the United Nations thinks. They don’t care what the whole world thinks,” he said, when reached by telephone.
The 38-year-old mechanic arranged a cluster of desks in the corner of the classroom and laid blankets on the floor under them for his children – the youngest three years old, the eldest 14 – to lie on. ‘
The phone rings, its my insurance broker finalising a deal on my car renewal. On completing the task I happen to switch to this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/40-killed-at-un-school-in-gaza-1229250.html
‘40 killed at UN school’ in Gaza
‘Israeli tank fire killed up to 40 Palestinians at a United Nations school in the Gaza Strip today, medical sources at two Gaza hospitals said.’
If you want to see a picture of some of the kids that could now be dead go back to the first link.
Any more comments by Platinum786 will be deleted. Responses also.
Dammit Rumbold, I wasted another witty response in my arsenal !
(joking)
I thought the statement was very well worded. It just says help us by not justifying terrorism.
Sofia. at 1223. Apologies for rendering the correct spelling, as opposed to the phonetic spelling, of your name. It is your name, and you can spell it any way you like. Now stop evading the question and give me an answer.
oooh is that a veiled threat?…what if i dont’..what you gonna do? huh huh…plz…grow up
Leon no.12. sorry I overlooked your comment. What I am trying to establish by my question is whether YMAG are genuinely working for a cessation of violence in the ME and the promotion of understanding between the factions, or whether they are merely another front for islamic terrorists. I consider that clarifying their position on the original cause of the violence materially affects the arguments on this blog. If they are not prepared to give a serious and honest answer to a serious and honest question, this blog is moonshine. Sofia has completely blown it, and is either unable or unwilling to answer my Q. Bye Bye all, you wasting your time with these people.
and by the way i’m not part of ym watever it is so don’t see the point of giving you an answer…
lol @ blown it..was that intended…
Sorry, not good enough. If you were sincere you’d ask them directly rather than raise it here. We’re not spokespeople for their organisation.
What I am trying to establish by my question is whether YMAG are genuinely working for a cessation of violence in the ME and the promotion of understanding between the factions
Well, it doesn’t like the Israeli govt is right now, is it? Maybe you should ask them too about whether they want an end to the violence (without killing everyone in Gaza).
Bloody hell. The last thing in this world I am comfortable with is standing up for Gordon Brown. However, the only difference between what he has already said, and what is called for here is one of diplomatic language, rather than content. This is what he has been doing. It is neither glamorous, nor inflammatory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7810260.stm
So, I am not happy with the first sentence from YMAG:
No, we are not. We are recognising our comparative impotence in an honest way.
Can you see why he has said “humanitarian catastrophe” rather than “state terrorism”. Can you see why he has called for an immediate cease fire? Can you see why he has offered funding for disaster relief?
It is partly because the UK has no influence whatsoever over Israel and what it chooses to do. It is partly because any EU attempt to mediate in this situation would be compromised if one of it’s major figures said the Israeli’s were state terrorists. Even if he thought so.
Folk have a far higher regard for the UK Governments’ abilities to solve this that I do. It would be clearly stupid for young Muslims to take up arms against the UK State on a complete misconception about it’s ability to influence Israel, if that is indeed the reading of the text that is valid. A state over which it has neither economic nor military clout.
I think Craig Murray is pretty forthright on this subject:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/gordon_brown_is.html#comments
‘Brown is appeasing domestic horror at the Israeli massacre in Gaza by calling for a ceasefire. Meanwhile British diplomats on the United Nations Security Council are under direct instructions to offer “tacit support” to United States’ efforts to block a ceasefire.
I have been told this directly by a former colleague in the UK Mission to the United Nations.’
(cross-post)
[State terror(ism)] = [Defensive or offensive action against persons and groups who think it is OK to blow up babies, and fire rockets into hospitals] = [Unwillingness to lie back and utter, "come take me," to someone who wants to wipe out your nation state and its people]
Sophia
I would say that question can be based on the hamas charter … which states Israel does not have a right to exist.
and if Hamas is an elected head of state … then they are the state terror against not only Israel but a peaceful Palestine …since they consider anyone not declaring jihad with THEM – collaborators.
Thousands of Palestinians have been slaughtered by Hamas!
I also have to apologize again for agreeing with the article on another post about the press restriction.
Why does everyone show up in droves only when Israel reacts?
Why weren’t they there before this reporting? and where are/were the anti hamas protests? Where are the voices over the brainwashing of children and the disgusting hatred they are pumped full of from birth? to me that is also a very serious on going humanitarian crisis!
When they die all of a sudden everyone becomes innocent victims?
The people defending these violent monsters should be ashamed, mainly because you’re defending killing 40 children and over 500 civilians.
But i guess Holocaust deniers still exist, so there you go.
The Hamas charter is a nice way for you to excuse the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians.
Israel doesn’t recognise the right of Palestine to exist. It has shown this by colonising their land, murdering their people, creating 5 million Palestinian refugees and now attempting to chose their government by armed invasion and terror. The terror of tanks, planes, helicopter, warships, missiles, guns and bombs. Hundreds dead.
Hamas has a piece of paper saying the same thing and you equate the two. They ‘terrorise’ Israel with some homemade toilet-tube fireworks, 15 dead…
No. What puts terror into the hearts of the Zionists is the fact that the Palestinians will not disappear into oblivion, will not give up their right to exist.
THE RIGHT TO RESIST INVASION IS ENSHRINED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.
SE @ 43,
Point to where anyone here is defending that. I’m not, and I don’t believe anyone else here is either.
Any mention of Darfur?
Nah. That doesnt matter to these people. Because there single issue hypocrits who only care when its Israel.
Bollocks to em and their selective concerns.
ha ha I like the Craig Murray link cheers
So Darfur really matters to YOU ‘Pete999′? Get out there and fight the Sudanese Government. NOW. Go on, I certainly wouldn’t stop you…
Sonia @ 24 – spot on!
Moreover, however you look at this, the YMAG definition of “violent extremism” as “the indiscriminate killing of innocent people, wherever and by whoever this is perpetrated” is, I would say, very reasonable and accurate.
Since the state of Israel are carrying out exactly that (the indiscriminate killing of innocent people), then they must necessarily be condemned if politicians here are to claim any shred of integrity. (As an anarchist, I already believe that politicians can make no such claims of integrity.)
Whatever you think of the rest of this statement from YMAG, these parts of their argument stand regardless, and are (you would think, but obviously not judging by some of the malevolent bile posted here) beyond question by any reasonable person.
Surprisingly enough, I agree with Sonia at 24.
What a surprise…
Random guy @ 23: Douglas clark sums it up very succinctly:
“No, we are not. We are recognising our comparative impotence in an honest way.”
There is no point in playing that interminable game of where its lobbed back & forth as to who is most culpable, as Brown says playing the blame game is futile at this point. The killing has to stop.
I think Nick Clegg has a handle on it.
‘We must stop arming Israel Brown has to stop sitting on his hands, halt British weapons exports and insist the EU do the same’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/07/nick-clegg-israel-gaza-war
Persephone, it is exactly this selective “comparative impotence” that is the issue. The blame game is not futile, it is more necessary than ever at the moment. To avoid it sends out a signal of pure hypocrisy. “Comparative Impotence” does not cut it after the huge comittment this country has made to involving itself in Iraq. It does not cut it when Blair is being awarded medals for the “Defence of Freedom” (Defence which has suspiciously evaporated in the face of these atrocities). It does not cut it for any country that considers itself an influental democracy.
Random Guy, in order to condemn anyone how do you judge?
Can you pinpoint who started it?
How far back do you go?
Do you look at numbers killed/displaced? To me a set of 50 people against another set of 300 people are no less important just because the numbers are less.
And when opposing sides recount past evils it brings a fresh hatred to feed upon.
Its questionable whether there a foolproof way to settle long standing feuds.
in order to condemn anyone how do you judge?
well, let’s see…what did we do in Iraq, what did we not do in rwanda, or sudan, or zimbabwe or palestine, or chechenya, bosnia…do you want me to go on…?
‘we’ suddenly have moral outrage when it’s saddam hussein with his possible weapons of mass destruction and we have moral outrage against the taliban for harbouring al qaeda (or was it because they treat women like shit…i can’t remember)…yet ‘we’ excuse state acts of terror when it suits ‘us’ because we label it self defence against a ‘militant’ ‘terrorist organisation’…
“do you want me to go on…?
well, not if it still does not address the issue
Israel is clearly conducting state terrorism. it has also embarked on a full propaganda campaign by not allowing journalists in to report the situation on the ground as it is…if it is NOT wrong in its actions and is directly targetting Hamas buildings…let the reporters in to see for themselves. let the world see for itself!
and the world just sits back and allows such a horrid government to commit such blatant acts of savagery.
the fact of the matter is that the ‘west’ has nothing to gain from Palestine therefore it stands back and watches. when it came to another small country like Kuwait invaded by Saddam, the Americans went to help…because they had something to gain.
i just think this is all frankly horrible and i would give the YMAG some credit for making a frank but honest reality known to the PM…