In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling


Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.

It seems​ long ago. The city on lockdown, the raids, the cat tweets. Vestiges remain, some of them new. A green army lorry was parked at the weekly market across the street. It hadn’t been there the Monday before, and the Monday before that was the lockdown and the market was cancelled. The Saint-Gilles town hall overshadows the market. One of the mayor’s eight deputies told me he’d stepped onto the balcony for a morning smoke and found himself practically standing on top of the lorry. ‘I thought: “What the fuck is that?” I had no idea. Why now and not before, I don’t know.’ He laughed. ‘Bruxelles, quoi.

Of all its town halls – Brussels has 19, one in each of the city’s communes – Saint-Gilles’s is often called the most beautiful. It’s all pilasters and pediments, domes on Corinthian pillars, a clock tower festooned with gilded angels blowing slender trumpets. The week of the army lorry was my first time inside its neoclassical salle des mariages where Saint-Gilles’s mayor, Charles Picqué, hosted a verre de l’amitié, a reception for his commune’s newest Belgian citizens. Most were black; a dozen wore headscarves; half a dozen were white. I was the only blond.

Mayor Picqué welcomed us in French and Flemish, then continued in the former. He spoke of how Belgium, while très compliquée, invented formules to manage its complex carrefour of Flemish, French and German-speaking peoples. Some countries would experience less conflict, he said, if they took the Belgian approach. But how has Belgium fared using the Belgian approach? It takes six governments, including six parliaments, to govern a country of only 30,000 km2. All this governance, Picqué said proudly, was designed to protect minorities. He meant Flemish living in predominantly francophone Brussels, francophones living in Dutch-speaking Flanders. He was not talking about the new minorities in front of him.

He also wasn’t talking about those under the protection of Françoise Schepmans, the mayor of the commune of Molenbeek. After the Paris attacks, it was revealed that she had previously received a terror suspect watch list – names of individuals returning from Syria and Iraq – that included three of the Paris attackers. The individuals were ‘suspected jihadists’, she emphasised to French-language television station rtbf, ‘so there are necessarily procedures to respect in order to avoid being arbitrary’. The commune of Molenbeek ‘reacted in the context of our jurisdiction, and it was for the federal police to act in terms of identification, arrest, interrogation’.

For some reason this was explained differently in the New York Times: ‘It’s not my job to track possible terrorists,’ she said. Here was the voice of the so-called ‘typical Belgian’ not wanting to take responsibility, not only after the fact – not my fault – but, more important, before it: not my job. The quotation wasn’t entirely fair to the mayor. Possibly more people know that now: they’ve heard about the 19 communes in a city that is also a region and has its own parliament; its six police departments; the resulting turf battles, fiefdoms, issues of language. The question of who takes responsibility for what – including that list – is unsurprisingly complex. The mayor shares responsibility for what happens in Molenbeek with the Brussels-Capital Region’s government and the feds. Her statement exhibited a general unawareness of how the outside world would take her words, but she expressed fairly the silo mentality of a hyper-decentralised system of government.

Mayor Picqué received a returning-jihadist suspect list, too. ‘Upper’ Saint-Gilles, where the town hall is, is different from ‘lower’ Saint-Gilles. Down here it’s rougher, the walls greyer. It’s poor. Arabic echoes on many streets. I walked through it on my way to central Brussels, the day after the verre de l’amitié, and continued to the centre’s Christmas market. Fewer people attending? Inevitably. More police? Not overwhelmingly. They strolled in twos, chatting. The big Ferris wheel turned to a circus tune. Further on, I sat in front of Café Walvis, a ten-minute walk from the Grand-Place, the Manneken Pis, Tintin, chocolate, lace, beer, moules-frites – tourist central – and looked across the canal at where Molenbeek begins. Five hundred feet away was the Abdeslam brothers’ home: one blew himself up; another hasn’t been caught. Five hundred feet – Molenbeek profonde it is not.

The most visible person during the lockdown used to work in Molenbeek town hall: the brother of two of the Paris attackers. Mohamed Abdeslam had been a secretary of Mayor Schepmans’s long-serving predecessor, Philippe Moureaux. When Schepmans succeeded Moureaux, Mohamed was transferred to the demography department, where he still works. The media found the family home. Mohamed emerged; he’d just been released unconditionally after having been detained for 36 hours. He didn’t read from a statement. He never looked down. Eyes wide open, gaunt-faced, he spoke French in a voice raised to be heard clearly, in halting phrases:

I am indeed one of the brothers … of those who participated … but in no way have I been involved … directly or indirectly … in any operation related to what happened … on Friday the 13th in Paris.

He seemed involuntarily in command of his hesitations.

I cannot tell you why. I cannot tell you how. We are a family … ouverte … you must also understand, despite the tragedy, that my parents are in shock … A message for the victims? Some will think I’m fake. Know that me and my family are moved by what happened … we’re thinking of the victims, the victims’ families. But you also have to understand that … we have a mum … we have a family … and that despite everything he remains her child.

‘He’ was his fugitive brother, Salah. It was riveting. It appeared unscripted, and earnest. The reporters for the most part refrained from filling those ponderous silences that were as much a part of what he said as the words. The question Belgium’s governments were being asked to answer, the question of responsibility, was a question here, too. In his eyes, in his tone, there was a mea culpa, an acknowledgment of the family having failed to keep the son within its fold. They’d been heartened months earlier when Salah stopped drinking and started praying; he’d previously been a bit of a hellion; they thought he was now finding his way. Mohamed is convinced Salah ultimately attacked no one, but, horrified by what he saw, abandoned the mission and ran. He appealed to his brother to surrender, saying his family ‘would rather see him in prison than in a cemetery’.

That jihadism established itself in Europe’s ‘capital’ I don’t even find ironic, especially given what the EU and Belgium have in common: a political structure that makes assuming responsibility difficult if not risky to whoever dares to assume it and so makes shirking inevitable. The two were made for each other. Jihadism, meanwhile, best establishes itself where governments have trouble governing, exist vaguely, or are in chaos. Or are très compliqués. What other city could be the capital of both Europe and European jihadism?

But Molenbeek residents say the narrative of poor disaffected Muslim youth doesn’t wash. The Abdeslam brothers came from a middle-class family – a house on the main square, opposite the town hall where one of them worked directly for the mayor. Is Molenbeek poor, is it marginalised, are the schools atrocious? Yes, yes and yes. But certain imams have been known to preach jihadism. Salah and Ibrahim were brainwashed, more than one resident said. That’s what radicalisation is.

‘And where does most radicalisation take place?’ the Saint-Gilles deputy mayor said to me: ‘Prison.’ His boss, Mayor Picqué, echoed this during the lockdown. Of Saint-Gilles’s prison, whose 19th-century castle-like façade looks over the city hall’s shoulder, he said: ‘There’s no longer a gym … no library, no access to training or employment workshops. How can they not be places for recruitment?’ Moureaux, Picqué’s fellow socialist, saw his party’s future as depending on a minority, a ‘real’ one, Moroccan immigrants mostly, who were replacing the native working class. He had helped ease citizenship acquisition, subsidised Muslim associations and branded opponents Islamophobes.

The nationalist New Flemish Alliance – which carried the last elections but agreed to name the liberal francophone Charles Michel prime minister in another of those formules Picqué spoke of – wants to do away with the federal government entirely and create an independent Flanders. The problem is, always has been, and always will be Brussels, the mitochondrion floating in the Flemish cytoplasm, governed by Belgium’s French Community which will never let it go. (A measure of its tenacity: one of my best Belgian friends doesn’t feel necessarily Belgian, doesn’t ‘give a shit about Belgian identity’, but if Flanders ever tries to take Brussels with it – ‘Aux barricades!’) Countering the rising economic power of Flanders was one of the reasons the French Community was created, in 1980. Moureaux was its first minister-president.

So the lockdown became an opportunity. ‘I’m going to clean up Molenbeek,’ the interior minister (and Flemish nationalist) Jan Jambon said. Subtext: Brussels would be better off Flemish. He did add one truth: that the attacks in Paris ‘confront us with ourselves’. Belgium’s problem had become someone else’s problem. Paris’s problem. But was Paris’s problem now Brussels’s problem? Was there really an ‘imminent threat’? These were the words of Prime Minister Michel, repeated over and over by Belgium’s many governments throughout what became a kind of four-day weekend. The intelligence services possessed ‘relatively precise information of a risk of attacks, similar to those that took place in Paris’.

I was in south-eastern Belgium when the ‘imminent threat’ started. I hated the television at my friends’ house; that’s where the ‘lockdown’ was happening. Back in Saint-Gilles, it seemed television was still where the lockdown was happening. Central Brussels was shut, but towards evening I walked through my commune, its bars and cafes open. Just as I was passing the police station in ‘lower’ Saint-Gilles, dozens of cops poured out; some carried machine-guns, one gave a colleague a two-finger salute. Their energy was palpable, the late autumn sun was going down and they were headed out, I assumed, for the night. I caught one sentence, and I wondered what the context had been: ‘Il faut les mitrailler, hein!’ (You gotta spray ’em with bullets!)

Police raids took place across Brussels but most targeted Molenbeek. Some twenty individuals were detained, most of whom were released. Prior to the raids, the police had asked residents to refrain from tweeting police positions. The people obeyed but, with the surreal humour for which Belgians are known, tweeted cats instead: hiding, staring down the camera, reclining with cucumber slices over their eyes. At night’s end, the police tweeted a reward: an image of a bowl of dry cat food. A police force with a sense of humour, how great, someone tweeted. Il faut les mitrailler, hein?

When businesses, schools and the metro reopened, there was no statement that the threat was no longer imminent. The emphasis was rather: we can’t go on like this – although Europeans have: it’s called life in wartime – so what was the lockdown really about? Did the governments feel threatened by external (French) perceptions of their laissez-faireness in Molenbeek, the implication that Belgium had allowed a jihadist haven to come into existence under its nose, mainly because no one, in the end, was responsible – or took responsibility – for making sure one didn’t? Belgian governance is designed to protect minorities, Mayor Picqué told his new citizens. But it’s not designed to integrate them. It keeps them apart, like the Flemish, French and German-speaking regions that are their own worlds. Segregation masquerading as protection, insularity leading to small-mindedness. Especially among the politicians who live off it.

What minority ‘other’ stands a chance when integrated only as an electoral strategy? Belgian authorities were aware of the exodus to Syria and Iraq. But it’s become clear that, protected in their own worlds, they were simply relieved to see alienated constituents go. As a journalist said to me: ‘They never thought they’d come back.’

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.