Two weeks after the London bombings, the situation is desperate but not serious. The police and secret services are energetically closing every stable door they can find, while the government yesterday unveiled new legislation to crack down on Muslim clerics and others who “indirectly” incite terrorism. A clearer picture is emerging of the previous activities of the four suicide bombers (if that is what they were: some say the bombs they were carrying were remotely detonated by their Al Qaeda controllers), while in Pakistan the sinister madrassas where they were trained are coming under scrutiny.

Meanwhile, life in the capital is returning to normal. London is still full of tourists, most of whom have not yet boycotted the place as usually happens to cities blighted by terrorism. The subway system is gradually being cleared of wreckage, and people have almost stopped worrying about using public transportation. The old recall the Nazi Blitz, the middle-aged recall Irish Republican terrorism, and all agree that London can take it. The lack of mawkish sentiment is a relief, and the mood is one of defiance rather than, as in Madrid, defeatism.

So I wish that I could say I was optimistic. Unfortunately, there is less to this Blitz spirit than meets the eye. On Tuesday, a meeting was held at 10 Downing Street between Muslim community leaders and Prime Minister Blair, with other party leaders invited, too. The main message that came out is that Britain will never be divided by terrorists.

Translated, this means that nobody is going to demand more from British Muslims than they are ready to concede. One or two of the most notorious jihadists, who have publicly justified the London bombs, will be marginalized, perhaps even arrested. There was a hue and cry when Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, who was granted asylum and has lived here on welfare for years, said of the bombings this week: “I blame the British Government and I blame the British people.” But even he cannot be extradited to any country where he could face the death penalty, or deprived of “indefinite leave to remain” without interminable litigation. The government, meanwhile, has just bought the “Tottenham Ayatollah” a $50,000 Ford Galaxy minivan for him and his seven children.

Nor will there be any attempt to cut off the links between Islamists in this country and their masters abroad. The Saudi-funded Wahhabi clerics may be a little more careful what they preach from the pulpit, but they have nothing to fear from the police or the security agencies. Politicians in Westminster are still nervous, not of a backlash against Muslims, but of a backlash by Muslims against them. The Islamic vote, which cost Mr. Blair half his majority in the May general election and might well swing the next one, is more powerful than any number of Islamist bombs.

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, knows this very well, which is why he reminded us yesterday that there are three-quarters of a million Muslims in London. The Mayor thinks that it is “utter nonsense” for the press to focus on “unrepresentative” extremists. Mr. Livingstone prefers to shift the blame for the attacks onto America and Israel. So does the member of Parliament for Bethnal Green in the East End, George Galloway. He has wasted no opportunity to accuse the Blair and Bush administrations of inflicting the horror of suicide bombers upon the population of London. These old Marxists know that it is always easier to blame those in elected authority – who are identifiable, visible, and removable – than to blame unidentified, invisible, and inaccessible terrorists.

There are, of course, legitimate reasons for criticizing Mr. Blair. One of the London bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, was known by intelligence agencies to have links with other British terrorists, including the “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid, and suicide bombers who killed three Israelis in Tel Aviv, Asif Hanif and Omar Sharif. Why was Khan not behind bars, or at least under surveillance, at the time when he and his three recruits set off to cause carnage in London a fortnight ago? Instead, he was given a job as a classroom assistant in a local school and grants of $8,000 by the European Union to open Muslim gyms, at which he recruited two of the other bombers. An unnamed neighbor of Khan’s in Leeds said: “Most people around here are too afraid to say what they really thought of him. The truth is people suspected he was up to no good.” Why did Mr. Blair have to wait until 56 people were dead and hundreds more injured before daring to tell Muslim leaders that terrorist suspects like Khan must be reported to the police?

As for Mr. Bush: He, too, deserves criticism. Why was there no American ambassador in London two weeks ago, able to speak for Americans (who were among the dead and injured) on TV? Washington has had no ambassador to its supposedly most important ally for two years. That may partly explain why American servicemen were ordered not to visit central London after the bombs. It was an idiotic decision, which contradicted the president’s expressions of solidarity and, when it came to light last week, confirmed every anti-American prejudice, but was still defended by American embassy officials until it was countermanded by the Pentagon.

No, Messrs. Bush and Blair are not above criticism. But the British will seize on any excuse not to confront the real problem, which has far less to do with conventional politics than with political theology. The British stopped paying attention to Christian theologians at least a century ago. Now they are undergoing a crash course in Islamic theology, and so scared are they by what they are discovering about their neighbors’ faith that they are in denial. And nobody is in deeper denial than Christians and Jews, who should know better.