The UK still hasn’t come to terms with the Muslim Brotherhood
Islam is no longer something that only matters in Islamic countries. It has a global reach and therefore global influence. That has been the case for decades, though we have tried to pretend otherwise. Most Muslims are perfectly at ease in the West. But Islamists by definition see our societies as corrupt and decadent and our political systems as illegitimate. Revelation, not rationally discovered secular law, should determine how we live and are governed.The Red Cross Abets Hamas’s Crimes
Given the symbolic power for Muslims of Islam – which Islamists seek to harness for their own ends – and the growing numbers of Muslims in Europe, that is a challenge to the liberal order of a magnitude we haven’t experienced since the Cold War. So when the UAE decides to proscribe organisations and individuals which they claim are linked to the MB, and some of those are resident or registered in the UK, we should pay attention. This is not necessarily because we know that the UAE are right or – if they are right – that we should take legal action ourselves. The MB is not a proscribed organisation here – though Hamas, which arose out of the Palestinian MB certainly is. The issue is rather different. Successive British governments have seemed to believe that if only we ignore Islamism or pay attention only when a bomb goes off on the Tube or someone is horribly murdered on Westminster Bridge, at Borough Market or on a street in Woolwich, then everyone will get along nicely and everything will be fine. It won’t.
The Islamist challenge to the foundational norms of western societies is clear enough in the current debate over Islamophobia. We have seen the results in Batley, in Wakefield and in Birmingham, where there has been a sustained effort to pretend that the so-called Trojan Horse affair never happened (Policy Exchange, the think tank where I work, has begged to differ). The French see this with Cartesian clarity: its interior minister spoke about the threat from Brotherhood-inflected Islamism on 6 January. So do politicians in Austria, Germany and Sweden. They continue to have difficulty formulating a coherent and collective response. But acknowledging you have a problem is the first step to resolving it. British governments continue to be reluctant to do even that. So reviews like the MBR or those by Shawcross and Sara Khan come and go. Whitehall is repeatedly urged to set up proper structures, to develop proper expertise and use that to shape policies designed at the very least to resist Islamist efforts to create parallel structures or separate societies, promote dependency, disguise funding flows, dismantle the connection between rights and the individual and constrain criticism by restrictions on free speech. The response under the Tories was feeble: they were admittedly distracted. But the response of the current government seems likely to be more regulation, more legal constraints and perhaps the adoption of an expansive and unnecessary Islamophobia definition. That isn’t the answer. The UAE shows what can be done if you know what you’re talking about and have the confidence of your convictions. Perhaps we should try learning from them?
While any hope of reforming UNRWA is a fantasy, that isn’t to say the organization is completely incapable of self-correction. In 2019, writes Richard Pollock, its director Pierre KrähenbühlOnly Hamas can claim victory and genocide at the same time
was forced to resign . . . because of immoral and unethical behavior, including creating a “toxic environment” within the organization, according to the official investigation. . . . The devastating ten-page UN report said he and his top associates, “engaged in abuses of authority for personal gain, to suppress legitimate dissent and to otherwise achieve their personal objectives.”
So what happens to the disgraced former head of UNRWA? In 2021, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) made him its personal envoy to the president of China. He became the organization’s director-general in December 2023. And that brings us to the events of Sunday, when ICRC officials supervised the handover of three Israeli hostages. As Pollock observes, these officials “stood by and permitted Hamas gunmen and frenzied Gaza City residents to surround and shake the vehicles [transporting the women] as they were about to be released.” This was
the final human-rights indignity supervised by the International Red Cross, which has steadfastly ignored its obligation and mandate to protect unarmed hostages. Unlike . . . in other conflicts, not once did the ICRC never meet with a single hostage during their captivity since they were seized on October 7. The relief agency never provided them with comfort, delivered needed medicines, or assured their safety.
It’s not well known, but in fiscal year 2022, the State Department contributed more than $622 million to the ICRC, making it the largest single donor to the relief agency. . . . The new Congress most likely will hold hearings to investigate the ICRC and consider withholding funds from it.
Hamas wasted no time declaring victory, even before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the existence of a hostage release deal. Despite its losses, the destruction of its leadership and the devastation in Gaza’s streets, the terror group’s propaganda arm pressed forward. "The Al-Aqsa Flood brought pride," they claimed in a flurry of social media graphics, showcasing their creative team working overtime.
This is a population uniquely capable of claiming both genocide and victory simultaneously. The objective is clear: to entrench Palestinian consciousness and reinforce Hamas' grip on Gaza. The armed terrorists who emerged amid celebrations as the cease-fire began underscore this.
Yet, beyond the absurdity lies a critical reminder of the parallel battle for public perception. The potential silence on the battlefield in the coming weeks doesn't necessarily signal a reduction in this campaign. On the contrary, it’s likely to intensify in the absence of physical fighting.
Israel faces a steep challenge countering Hamas’ messaging to its own population. If the Palestinians haven’t realized by now that their actions led to disaster, no Israeli awareness campaign will change that anytime soon.
But the Palestinian public isn't Israel’s primary target audience. The focus should be on the international audience, which has lost sight of why Israel is fighting and what it has yet to achieve. The world needs a reminder of the cruelty of the enemy and the reality that Israel’s national trauma won’t begin to heal until every hostage is returned.
In this sense, the hostage deal represents not only a source of joy, hope and worry among many— but also an opportunity to provide the world with critical context. While the IDF prepares the operation for the hostages’ return, "Wings of Freedom," Israel must also plan a parallel campaign: "Freedom of Truth."
Amid the inevitable flood of media coverage surrounding the deal, Israel should embed content that advances its interests — personalizing the hostages, putting faces and names to those coming home and underscoring that Israel won't rest until all are freed.
It must be made clear that their abduction is not just a personal tragedy but a collective catastrophe and that Hamas' existence remains a dire threat requiring its complete eradication.