If you should be in any doubt who gained anything by the recent terror attack in Berlin, the answer is ISIS. Judging by the predictable reactions of the public, the media, and the politicians, ISIS achieved exactly what they wanted, namely to further strengthen the anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe. Sentiments that will result in further isolation of Muslims in Europe and probably in increased Western bombing of Muslims in the Middle East. Such isolation and continued agressive Western intervention in the Middle East give ISIS exactly what they need, namely fertile recruiting grounds among previously moderate Muslims. The radicalisation of Westeners against Muslims quite naturally leads to the radicalisation of Muslims against Westeners, and vice versa. A vicious circle that plays right into the hands of ISIS, which thrives on antipathy, hatred, and dogma.
So what to do? As some devout Christians might say, Europe should turn the other cheek. And keep doing so until ISIS see that their terror attacks have no effect on Europe beyond the relatively tiny number of direct casualties. Only then are the attacks likely to stop.
This, of course, is easy to say. But do we have any recent examples of such a pacifist approach actually working? I would say so. The IRA bombing campaign against the UK in the 70s, 80s, and 90s resulted in many deaths and much material damage. But the UK adopted a policy of business as usual, and it soon became apparent to the IRA that they could never win. The UK would not budge whatever the number of bombs that the IRA set off. After each attack, life in the UK continued much as before. So eventually the IRA bombing campaign stopped.
The West could have won the day of the terror attack. Not so much by catching the terrorist responsible as by refusing to let ISIS dig the gulf between Muslims and the West even deeper, and by refusing to blame 1.7 billion Muslims for the sick actions of a few extremists.
