Jeremy Corbyn Was Right About Jihadi John
If You Listened To His Victims' Families, You'd Know That
On the surface, this seems like the perfect opportunity to attack
pacifists as weak and anti-patriotic. But take a look at what the
victims' families said
By Liam YoungNovember 15, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - "The
Independent" - I will not lose any sleep
or shed any tears over the apparent death of ‘Jihadi John’, also
known as Mohammed Emwazi. Graphic reports of the beheadings of two
British aid workers, David Haines and Alan Henning, back in 2014
remain prominent symbols of the current struggle against Isis – and
Jihadi John was central to the videos of the murders released by the
terrorist group. So when Jeremy Corbyn said this afternoon that it
would have been ‘far better’ for the militant to have been tried in
court rather than killed, I was not surprised at the initial
backlash.
On the surface, this looks like just another line
for someone to use to attack pacifists as weak and anti-patriotic.
But when you take the time to understand the complexity of the
situation, it seems that we have only given Jihadi John the
honourable killing – the sensational martyrdom - that he sought from
the beginning.
David Haines’ widow said after her husband’s
passing that the only way families could achieve some form of ‘moral
satisfaction’ would be with the capture and imprisonment of the
terrorist. The family of murdered American Steven Sotloff hoped that
Jihadi John would be ‘caught by American intelligence officials,
brought to trial in the United States, and convicted for the crime
of beheading their son.’ Elsewhere, the executed James Foley’s
mother said that the strike gave her no satisfaction, and that her
son was a peacemaker who wouldn’t have supported such
state-sponsored murder.
‘It saddens me that here in America we are
celebrating the death of this deranged, pathetic young man,’ she
said during an interview on ABC News, before answering the question,
‘It gives you no solace?’ with ‘No, not at all. Had circumstances
been different, [my son] might have befriended him and tried to help
him.’
Killing Emwazi is no great victory for the West;
instead it is a quick-fix solution that allows leaders to pretend we
are winning the war against Isis.
What we have done today is simply plaster over a
major problem that Western governments continue to dodge. We talk
about dropping thousands of bombs on Syria, and there is still no
real strategy to stop the Isis threat, or its accompanying dangers
of mass radicalisation.
We have no plan to curb the attraction of joining
the terrorist organisation; we can’t even stop young British
citizens from leaving the country to do so. The victims’ families
are those who are most important today, and no real justice has been
achieved for them: they have been crystal clear on that. Their loved
ones, they have told us, would have felt no great triumph – even if
the US media continues to pump out a militaristic ‘We got him!’
gung-ho approach, as though the entire enterprise is a high stakes
game.
An unmanned aircraft dropped a bomb from the sky
that blew a man to pieces. We didn’t even take the chance to levy
charges against him, to demonstrate how dangerous his ideology can
be, to show the public that we are serious about bringing an end to
this warping of minds.
No attempt was made to force ‘Jihadi John’ to
accept what he did, to punish him in a manner that would have forced
him to live with the trauma that he created and even attempt to make
things right. There was no sentence given that would have brought
closure to those who have suffered at this man’s hands, directly or
indirectly. Instead, we did what was easy, and we did what works for
TV. We blew him up.
Don’t tell me that I’m a sympathiser or a weak,
unpatriotic pacifist for thinking so. This should have been a case
of justice, for the families who lost their loved ones, for the men
and women that fell at the hands of this vile, barbaric man.
Instead, it was an exercise in the failure of Western foreign
policy.
If we are to get serious about defeating Isis,
then we better realise soon that giving the terrorists what they
want is not, and never will be, a viable solution. And it may be
counterintuitive, but it’s true: they want death – especially at the
hands of a perceived western enemy.
It is too easy to offer simplistic solutions to
brutality. It is time to face up to the danger and confront it
strategically, logically and without clouded nationalistic emotion.
That is the least we owe to those murdered by the likes of Jihadi
John.