Jesus and the War on Terror

A video extract from a comedy show, in which Jesus encounters problems at US immigration; followed by an entirely serious article about how Christ's teachings apply to the war on terror.

Jesus Christ is often associated with a naive brand of pacifism, which apparently "just doesn't work in the real world".

Perhaps in a ‘conventional’ war -- such as the fight against Hitler -- Christ's teachings are impractical. However, they are ideally suited to undermining terrorism.

Christ's philosophy of “turning the other cheek” is not about being too weak, too spineless or too afraid to fight back. It is about understanding that if you retaliate violently, you will almost definitely cause further suffering and injustice. This will feed directly into a cycle of violence and retribution.

 

Such cycles of violence are a familiar feature in many terrorist conflicts, perhaps most famously those of Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine. 

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were completely unjustifiable, and America deserved the sympathy of the world in their aftermath. But the response of the Bush administration, in Afghanistan, Guantanamo and Iraq, has done nothing to help the victims of 9/11, and has instead created even more victims, adding fuel to the fire of international terrorism.

Trying to fight terrorism with a war is idiotic. If there's one thing terrorists thrive on, it's violent conflict.

The first step towards defeating terrorism is understanding what causes it, how it works and what will best undermine it. To borrow a line from Chinese philosophy: "know thy enemy, and know thyself, and a thousand victories shall be yours."

Most terrorists would like to be popular revolutionaries. But they have a problem: they are chronically unpopular. Blowing up innocent civilians doesn't typically win over public opinion.

In fact, the only circumstance in which ordinary people will support extreme violence is when they believe that it is undermining an even greater evil. Hence, for example, the widespread American support for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The American public in 1945 were not callous and bloodthirsty. They supported dropping the atom bombs only because it was the quickest way to end a terrible war.

So terrorists only hope of popularity is to portray themselves as opponents of an even greater evil, and to attach themselves to legitimate causes. The IRA claimed to be bombing for Catholic civil rights. The London suicide-bombers expressed anger at the suffering of ordinary Palestinians and Iraqis. In themselves, these are perfectly just grievances. But it takes a particularly demented brand of lunatic to conclude that the best way to alleviate suffering in Belfast or Gaza is to bomb a commuter train in London. That's on a par with finding ants in your kitchen, and trying to get rid of them by flying to Botswana and shooting a giraffe.

What cause did the 9/11 hijackers claim as justification? Primarily, it was the on-going American support for the corrupt Saudi Royal Family. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi nationals – as is Osama bin Laden.

All of the hijackers died on September the 11th, 2001. But the response of the Bush administration has enabled those nineteen murderers to hijack America's foreign policy ever since. The fresh injustices perpetrated in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and Iraq have inspired a whole new generation of terrorists. And so the cycle continues.

For many years, a similar cycle took place -- admittedly on a much smaller scale -- in Northern Ireland. The peace process there illustrates that when the underlying injustice is addressed fairly, support for violence evaporates. Catholic civil rights and equality have been more or less achieved, peace has been brokered by both sides and there is now no-one who wants to return to violence.

By contrast, Israel has been fighting a "war on terror" for 60 years. At every stage in that conflict, the number of Palestinian dead has been three, four or five times the number of Israeli casualties. Militarily, Israel has divided, outgunned and outmanoeuvered its opponents at almost every step. Yet despite this overwhelming military superiority there is no prospect of peace, because Israel has not addressed the underlying injustice – the suffering of ordinary Palestinians.

Some readers will think that I am advocating conceding to terrorist demands. I am not. That would be dangerous, stupid and immoral. I am arguing that the USA should try to end genuine injustices. I am suggesting that Catholics deserve civil rights, regardless of whether some idiot in a balaclava sets off a bomb in a pub. I am suggesting that the people of Saudi Arabia deserve a democratically elected government which does not squander the country's oil wealth on bribery and corruption. 

Fundamentally, I am arguing that if America embraces the best elements of its strong Christian tradition, and it's passion for justice and liberty, it would do a great deal of good in the world, and cripple global terrorism into the bargain. Who's going to support blowing up a government which has just built you a brand new university hospital?

If that sounds naive, take a look at global events since 2001. America has deployed unprecedented military resources in an attempt to destroy terrorism by force. The result? Terrorism is stronger than ever. More Americans have died in Bush's wars than were killed in the twin towers. If anyone is guilty of naivete, it is the architects of George Bush's foreign policy.

Millions of Americans are disillusioned with their own government, angry that they were misled into war, and increasingly afraid that the rest of the world hates them. Those people need to agitate for change.

As for those of us outside America, particularly those -- like myself -- who live in privileged parts of Europe, there are a couple of things we should bear in mind.

There is serious problem of anti-American bigotry in Europe, and elsewhere.

Bigotry is a bit like alcoholism. If you stopped 1,000 people on the street, and asked them whether alcoholism is good or bad, they would all tell you that it's bad. Just as they would tell you that bigotry is bad. But unfortunately, some of them would still be alcoholics. And some would be bigots.

And, like alcoholism, the first step to treating bigotry is admitting that you have a problem. 

So here goes.

I used to be an anti-American bigot.

I made the mistake of blaming ordinary American citizens for the misdeeds, stupidity and arrogance of their government. It was lazy and irrational of me.

Many non-Americans, particularly Europeans, enjoy complaining about America. We blame the USA for everything: we complain about its dumbed-down culture of movies and fast food; we complain about its appalling democratic deficit; and its self-interested foreign policy of stockpiling oil and selling arms to dictators. All of which is a fair assessment... of the European Union. We are masters at projecting the things we don't like about ourselves onto America.

In the interests of retaining perspective, let's ask ourselves: do any of us want to live in a world dominated by China? Or Russia? Or Iran?

Personally, I'd like the planet to be run by a coalition of Sweden, Holland and New Zealand -- but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

If America is our preferred dominant world power, then that is all the more reason to criticise it astutely. But the purpose of that criticism should always be to inform and improve, never to make ourselves feel morally superior.

I'd like to conclude where I began, with a brief quote from Jesus. It applies equally to the struggle against terrorism, and the challenges of everyday life:

"Be not afraid."

Abie Philbin Bowman

Comments

[John Fitzgibbon]

"Trying to fight terrorism with a war is idiotic. If there's one thing terrorists thrive on, it's violent conflict."

Abie, I agree. So,supporting what the US did by Sanctions & the invasion of Iraq is stupid and not at all being a friend of the US. Part of my attempt to end that collaboration is outlined in a statement issued widely. The media wouldn't cover it.

After six years heavy campaigning against the long term criminal treatment of Iraq, I wrote to the 5 local TDs in April 2006 indicating my revulsion at our government's support for the Iraq Sanctions, invasion, and continuing occupation”. I assured them, "that if they don't end our collaboration at Shannon now, I would not vote for them again, but canvass for alternative candidate(s)".
We must take effective action to convince our politicians to end our involvement! If they can't, or won't do it now why could or would they do it after the election?

Reasons given for this stance were- All UN agencies in Iraq pre 2003, and Liz ODonnell then Minister at Foreign Affairs, agreed that 5,000 children (under 5 years old) were dying a month from the effects of the UN Sanctions. That's 20 times as many in a year as were killed in the 9-11 atrocity. There was no evidence that Iraq or Iraqis had any part in that atrocity.
Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Aid -Coordinator for Iraq, said on resignation in 1998, 'We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral- GENOCIDE!
His successor Von Sponeck (in 2000), Jutta Burghardt (2000) Head of the World Food Programme in Iraq & three UNSCOM inspectors (Ritter, chief Inspector in '98) also resigned & condemned the Sanctions.

Mary Robinson, the most senior world human rights official (UNHCHR), speaking in 1998 against the sanctions, said-
"How can you expect me to condemn human rights abuses in Algeria and China and elsewhere when the United Nations themselves are responsible for the worst situation in Iraq."

President McAleese, in Kuala Lumpur (Sept '02) “It seems to me that it is part of the mission of countries like ours to help resist the supposed realpolitik of “might is right” and seek with all the vigour, wisdom and intelligence at our command to advance the indispensable tenets of international cooperation and the rule of law.” How did we live up to this mission??

Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark's letter to the UN Security Council, and UN General Assembly August 1999 said: - 'The United Nations, cannot continue to exist as an institution of honor and hope if it fails to act immediately to lift all economic sanctions from Iraq and prohibit the United States from nearly daily murderous aerial assaults on its defenseless people. The Security Council through nine years of economic sanctions, forced on it by the United States, has caused the greatest human disaster in this last decade of a century of self-inflicted human disasters. More than 1,500,000 people have been killed; overwhelmingly infants, children, elderly persons, pregnant and nursing women, the chronically ill and emergency medical cases. The whole population of Iraq has been afflicted. Every UN agency dealing with health, food, and children has confirmed the effect of the sanctions on the people of Iraq and reported to the UN and the world regularly on this human catastrophe since 1990!'

The above is a little of the overwhelming evidence that the Iraq Sanctions were 'illegal, murder, genocide', a fact well known at the UN before 1998. That WMD were eliminated (last significant find was '93 - UNSCOM Chief Inspector Ritter) was also know by then, eliminating the supposed reason for the Desert Fox bombing in '98, for retaining the Sanctions or invading Iraq in 2003

It was imperative then, that those who knew that, should do all in their power to end Sanctions & the excuse for war? No TD took any significant action to achieve that- just talk. We've flouted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter, other human rights conventions, international law, our own constitution. Article 29 says Ireland affirms-
1. its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.
2. its adherence to the principles of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration and judicial determination
3. Ireland accepts the generally recognized principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.

The Nuremberg Nazi War Crimes Tribunal declared: "To initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

Recent "The Lancet" figures indicated that the 2003 invasion and occupation caused the death of more than 600,000 Iraqis.

Should any voter accept that those who supported our involvement in this, or didn't resign, like the top UN officials in Iraq, rather than give credibility to the majority Dail decision, be returned to the Dail?

If TDs won't or can't end the collaboration now, why, or how would they do it afterwards?

Please write or email them now and tell them to end our collaboration or they'll not get any vote etc. That, I believe, is the minimum anyone living in a democracy must do when dealing with Dail support for murder
Go raibh maith agat. Le gach dea ghui is beannacht. John Fitz.

[Ray Thompson]

Abie,

Very thoughtful, and well written opinion.

Ray Thompson
Kalispell, Montana - USA

[Lia Fitzgerald]

Abie, you mention, almost in passing, your impression that "there is no prospect of peace, because Israel has not addressed the underlying injustice ..." Oddly enough, the many equally thoughtful Irish people I've spoken to are of the opinion that the Palestinians may well be pawns of the bordering nations, who might have treated them better at any point but never did.

On watching this website, I feel it makes some valid points - not pro-war, but gives a better insight into that situation than your rather simplistic solution. I thoroughly enjoyed most of your article, but I wish you'd glance over this before continuing to assume that the side with the suicide bombers have some moral ascendancy - to imply that would seem to defeat the main thrust of your article?

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/

Regards, and thanks for a great article,
I've bookmarked the Dubliner website,
Lia, Dublin

[ks]

I'm dead set against the US war against Iraq, but I really don't think, judging by what those terrorists have stated time & again about the Western world that they would even consider negotiating with us in any way, shape or form. They have openly claimed they will KILL us. They're being taught that we are evil, corrupt & need to be DESTROYED at the cost of their own lives. In fact, they're taught that if they die for the cause they will have a special place in their so-called heaven. These people are lunatics & they're out of control. How can you possibly reason with people like that? It sure didn't stop them in 2001.
On top of that, I've seen pictures all over the place of recruitment camps inside the US & probably other places.
I'm sorry, but I can't possibly see any solution to this problem except to try to keep preventing these bastards from getting to our shores. If that means showing a little firepower in their hometown then so be it. We have caught some key people.