|
|
 |
| Saturday, June 24, 2006 |
| |
| Further thoughts
on the Presbyterian anti-terrorism resolution (Ami Isseroff) |
| |
An under reported action of the Presbyterian Church
USA was the resolution condemning terrorism and suicide bombings. Jeff
Weintraub weighs in with his analysis and the reporting by Ami Isseroff.
--- Larry Rued
Posting at Jeff Weintraub's blog
Further thoughts on
the Presbyterian anti-terrorism resolution (Ami Isseroff) This follows up my
recent item about the vote by the US Presbyterian Church, at its 2006 General
Assembly, to condemn terrorism and suicide bombing--"no matter who is the
perpetrator or the target"--in explicit and unequivocal terms. (For further
details, see HERE.)
In some ways, it's easy to sympathize with this
slightly exasperated reaction (from an exchange between two other
correspondents): Your comment about the Presbyterians pretty much sums up what
constitutes a victory these days -- Christians coming out against suicide
bombers! Well, I guess that's something. Perhaps tomorrow they will take a
courageous stand against beheadings.
And it is also worth noting that a
quarter of the delegates voted against this resolution, so it's clear that
condemning terrorist suicide bombing was not considered at all
non-controversial.
But in fact that is part of what makes this action
by the Presbyterian Church significant and potentially valuable--if it proves
to be a first step that inspires imitation. As Ami Isseroff correctly points
out (on MidEastWeb): This resolution is astonishing because it is so obviously
right that it was almost impossible to expect that it would happen. It is a
moral "enabling act" that gives everyone a banner that can be used as the
standard of anti-terror forces. If it is carried out conscientiously, and
emulated by other religious groups and NGOs, it can at last create an effective
lobby against terrorism. It is a lobby that does not further the narrow
interests of any political opinion, religion or ethnic group. It is a lobby
that can be and should be supported by every religion and non-religion from
Atheists to Zoroastrians, and every nation and ethnicity from Arabs to Zulus.
If we want to have any future for the Middle East, we have to hope that
the PCUSA, and everyone else, will realize the potential of the moral force of
this resolution.
We'll see whether or not this turns out to be overly
optimistic. Read the rest below.
--Jeff Weintraub
====================
Ami Isseroff (MidEastWeb)
June 24, 2006
Presbyterian anti-terror resolution: A lifeline for the Middle East
A little heralded resolution of the 217th General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church USA may have extended a lifeline to the Middle East on a
critical issue. Sooner or later, everyone will understand that the Middle East
is doomed unless we can lick terror. There will be no bright future, no
democracy, no freedom, nothing worthwhile, if different groups of bandits are
allowed to hold the world hostage to their whims. The entire Middle East will
increasingly resemble Beirut during the civil war. The rest of the world is
involved too, but the Middle East is the prime target and the major arena of
terrorist action.
--------------
Because terrorism is an international
plague, it cannot be beaten without international action. International action
has been impossible because governments, communities, NGOs and religious
leaders have insisted on manipulating definitions of terror to exclude their
own particular brand of terror, or to advance the particular political cause
they espouse. A near-universal conspiracy of journalists has euphemized the
people who cut off heads and blow up people during religious observances as
"militants," a word that used to be applied to advocates of women's suffrage.
In the Middle East, these malefactors are often termed "martyrs" and terrorism
is often called "resistance." Fatuous academic doctrines teach that suicide
bombing is an act of altruism.
The term "terrorist" is only used when
the explosions happen in one's own country, and the victims are members of
one's religion or ethnic group. When a small U.S. Muslim organization tried,
not long ago, to organize a Muslim protest against terror, the attempt fizzled
because it was ridiculed by the U.S. Muslim community.
Since then, the
Middle East has slowly learned a few lessons, paying a terrible tuition. As
Jeff Weintraub points out, people are unwilling to condemn terror as long as it
might advance their favorite cause, and will only rally to condemn terrorism
when they finally understand that it is aimed at them:
---------------
Most people are willing to condemn this sort of "terrorism" in vague and
general terms, but in practice their attitude often depends in large part on
whom they see as the targets of terrorist attacks. When the targets seem
appropriate, then there is a common tendency to make excuses for terrorism, to
find special justifications for it, to try to change the subject, or even to
deny that these particular attacks really constitutes terrorism at all (as
opposed to, say, "resistance"). Unfortunately, even when people claim to oppose
"terrorism" in general, in practice they often make exceptions until they feel
that their group is being targeted.
---------------
The terror strikes
in Sinai, the strike in Jordan that killed about 60 people at a wedding, and
the continuing use of terror in Iraqi sectarian violence, have finally changed
a few minds about terror. At least, most normal people now agree that Abu Musab
Al Zarqawi was filth. Typically, there is an attempt to blame the filth on
someone else and insist he was an American "asset" (agent) or an Israeli agent.
This dawning recognition has not as yet, really coalesced into an international
will to wipe out terror, whatever its source. Tortuous verbal and moral
acrobatics are used to justify the proposition that whereas it is an evil crime
to kill Shi'a worshippers in a mosque in Baghdad, or Muslim worshippers in the
cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, it is "legitimate resistance" for a suicide
bomber to kill people celebrating a Passover Seder in a hotel in Nethanya. A
large portion of "liberal" opinion lends legitimacy to the execrable means and
ends of the Hamas ("democratically elected") and the Hizbullah ("legitimate
resistance"), and there is, a sector of opinion, much smaller, but equal in
moral and logical folly, that is willing to praise - or justify - the mad
thuggery of Baruch Goldstein and other Israeli settler extremists.
The
Presbyterian General Assembly, overruling their commissioners, approved the
following resolution:
---------------
We, the 217th General
Assembly (2006) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) declare that any suicide
bombing, no matter who is the perpetrator or the target, constitutes a crime
against humanity.
While international law, through various treaties and
international consensus affirms the criminality of such acts when linked to a
government, it is crucial that the church and the world affirm the culpability
of individuals and groups that assist in carrying out suicide bombings [and
terrorism] through financial or logistical support and that civil or military
authorities who fail to exercise adequate powers of control over perpetrators
and fail to take appropriate measures, be held accountable. The international
community and faith community as a whole are obligated to prevent and call for
international judicial prosecution of all those aiding and abetting these
crimes.
We instruct our Moderator and Stated Clerk to encourage our
leaders in the U.S.A., our ecumenical partners, our interfaith partners, the
National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches, and the United
Nations Security Council to make suicide bombing a matter of declaration and
legislation under national laws, and to raise this issue with all appropriate
international agencies as appropriate.
We hereby pledge and instruct
the Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Washington Office of
the PC(USA), and the Presbyterian UN representatives to take every opportunity
to publicly and officially condemn suicide bombings [and terrorism] and to help
empower victims of such attacks to be able to bring those who plan and inspire
suicide bombings to the bar of international justice. Further to instruct the
Stated Clerk to notify the United Nations, the World Court, the U.S. State
Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other appropriate
human rights organizations of the 217th General Assembly (2006)'s position on
this topic, and ask for their collaboration in amending international law,
especially international criminal court elements of crime; Article 7 entitled
"Crimes Against Humanity."
---------------
This resolution is
astonishing because it is so obviously right that it was almost impossible to
expect that it would happen. It is a moral "enabling act" that gives everyone a
banner that can be used as the standard of anti-terror forces. If it is carried
out conscientiously, and emulated by other religious groups and NGOs, it can at
last create an effective lobby against terrorism. It is a lobby that does not
further the narrow interests of any political opinion, religion or ethnic
group. It is a lobby that can be and should be supported by every religion and
non-religion from Atheists to Zoroastrians, and every nation and ethnicity from
Arabs to Zulus.
If we want to have any future for the Middle East, we
have to hope that the PCUSA, and everyone else, will realize the potential of
the moral force of this resolution.
Ami Isseroff
posted by Jeff
Weintraub at 1:56 PM |
| |
|
|
|
|
