Gt Britain...and the Brotherhood game
THE fact that Britain was convinced after 80 years that the Brotherhood Movement is the source of extremism, yet it granting passage to the group, can be interpreted only through two points: The first point is that Britain does not realize the nature of the political power it has contributed in creating, protecting and providing shelter or pulpit for the group to promote British projects. Second, the United Kingdom is atoning for a sin it committed in 1928 but kept on denying it by investing in the group in the Arab and Islamic world. In both cases, Great Britain deceived the Arabs and Muslims. It has blackmailed them throughout the past decades, because it has not been sincere in its alliance with them.
Twenty months ago, the government of David Cameron issued a statement, under pressure from Arab and Islamic countries, about the danger posed by such groups not only on certain countries but also on the entire Islamic world, in addition to monitoring the activities of the Brotherhood in its territories. Did it not realize until that date and despite the terrorist operations carried out in its territories, as well as hate speeches delivered by leaders of the group, that the Brotherhood and all extremist groups which came from its womb pose a threat to the security, peace and stability of the Arab and Islamic worlds and even Britain itself? Or, was it practising political and economic blackmail against its alliances throughout the past decades until it ran out of petitions — thus, it gave in to the demand to monitor the group’s activities?
At the beginning of the road, Cameron admitted that the Brotherhood includes a network which passes through countries and has links in the United Kingdom. It has national organizations in and outside the Islamic world, while its movement is ambiguous and confidential. It describes the Western societies and liberal Muslims as immoral and corrupt. Certain parts of the group have vague relations with violent radicalism whether through its ideologies or networks, yet a passage was provided for some persons and groups involved in violence and terrorism.
This is still an incomplete step because the government of Cameron accepted such description without including the group on the terrorism list. The action raises suspicions over the way Britain deals with a group despite knowing the latter is engaged in terrorism under various names. In spite of this, Britain provides shelter to the leaders and symbols of the group and opens media pulpits for them to promote the group’s ideology. So, Britain keeps the Brotherhood as a ‘pressure’ card which it intends to use
whenever the need arises. Or, it is a clear message from Cameron’s government to the Arabs and Muslims that it indirectly admits supporting terrorism. Therefore, those who were harmed must accept such a reality; otherwise, the Brotherhood is ready to instigate chaos in their countries.