Paris murders demand a review of strategy

The attack on Wednesday in Paris against the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, with its terrible human toll of at least a dozen dead, has moved French and international opinion. It was a blow to press freedom and posed a threat to anyone, whether journalists or activists, who are defending opinions. But such an act will also have consequences in France, and probably in Europe, exacerbating fears and making all European Muslim citizens scapegoats and enemies.

Was the attack motivated by the position the newspaper took against Islam (with the publication of the drawings of Prophet Mohammad, PBUH)? Was it something driven by foreign groups, whether Daesh (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) or Al Qaida to “punish” France for its involvement in Iraq and Mali? The next few days will clarify the motives and probably answer these questions. Anyway, nothing can justify such an act, whatever the reasons given by the sponsors and the perpetrators. But we have to understand the context for this aggression, which can lead to dangerous reactions within French society.

For at least a decade, a wave of Islamophobia has continued to grow and strengthen in Europe, as the weekly demonstrations in Germany against the “Islamisation” of society, attacks against mosques in Sweden, assaults against girls wearing headscarves in France have demonstrated. Now, for a majority of French, Islam appears as a “global threat” to both “our” values (read western values) and to peace.

Paradoxically, this vision strengthens that of Daesh or other extremist groups that adopt the perspective of a “clash of civilisations” between Christians and Jews on one side, and Muslims on the other, who are portrayed as “united” simply because of their religion. It allows to hide the myriad nuances that distinguish Muslims from each other. These include political differences — the confrontation between Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood is proof, among many others. Islam does not define a political line even when it forms the backdrop to political speech. One can, for example, measure the gap between the Al Nahda movement and Ansar Al Islam group in Tunisia.

But some western discourse, especially a policy that appears to principally target Muslim countries — it is the Muslim world that has essentially been the place of western interventions in the last decade — strengthens the fantasy of political Islam, which looks at the sources from Quran that would explain violence against non-believers. Former US president George W. Bush had said after the September 11 attacks on the US: “They hate us because of what we are, because we represent freedom and democracy, not because of what we do.” Sarcastically, Osama Bin Laden responded: “If we were to attack the most democratic country in the world, we would attack Sweden, not the United States.”

In what the West calls the “war against terrorism”, it forgets that what feeds radicalism is a concrete policy that, in the last decade, has been marked by the destruction of Iraq, the crushing of the Palestinian people, the drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia that have left many civilians dead. US Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged by saying that not solving the Palestinian problem had caused the deaths of dozens of Americans because it fuelled a hatred against the western world.

There will always be extremists willing to attack civilians. The fight against them is the work of the police; it is not to be done through military interventions. To weaken the influence of these groups, western countries should urgently impose on Israel the creation of a Palestinian state. They should also encourage a review of their strategy and engage in a substantive debate on the “war against terrorism” that was revived as a result of Daesh. To measure the results of this campaign (more violent actions around the world, justification of attacks on freedom, new anti-terrorism legislation, worsening sectarian tensions, more support for Middle East dictatorships), is it not time to switch methods? To think politically and not militarily? And to remember that the wave of Arab Spring of 2011-2012 had resulted in a loss of influence of Al Qaida and radical ideas because it opened a path of political and democratic transformation of the Arab countries? If this democratic path is closed, there will be more violence.

Alain Gresh, a French journalist, is the author of La Republique, l’islam et le monde, Fayard, 2014.