Holy Terror

Sayyid Qutb

The twentieth century saw the rise of Muslim fundamentalism. This movement rejected the West as morally decadent:

This movement, born in concern for morality, has itself committed acts of shocking immorality. Witnesses to the horrific crimes perpetrated by Osama bin Laden in the name of Islam can scarcely avoid identifying Mohammed's intimate visitant as the one who transforms himself into an angel of light. Or is Islam not responsible?

This movement has received Western sympathy and material support in the past, most notably when Afghan jihadis were fighting against a Soviet-installed government in Kabul. In those days, President Reagan portrayed the jihadis as 'Freedom Fighters' standing up bravely for liberty. Yet the freedom they seek is the freedom to decapitate apostates. It should be past being clear that no Christian can support a movement whose main goal is to usher as many souls as possible into Hell. No Christian ought to be taxed to bring about an Islamic Republic in Baghdad or elsewhere.

If we concede to Sayyid Qutb that the West is inimical to Islam, for the sake of argument, are Muslims commanded to engage in acts of violence? The Koran and Muslim tradition describe a progressive revelation on this point. At first, Mohammed was only to be a warner:

"The apostle had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second 'Aqaba. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion, and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina.

"When Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused his prophet of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in HIs prophet, and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly.

"The first verse which was sent down on this subject from what I have heard from 'Urwa b. al-Zubayr and other learned persons was: 'Permission is given to those who fight because they have been wronged. God is well able to help them,— those who have been driven out of their houses without right only because they said God is our Lord. Had not God used some men to keep back others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques wherein the name of God is constantly mentioned would have been destroyed. Assuredly God will help those who help Him. God is Almighty. Those who if we make them strong in the land will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity. To God belongs the end of matters.' [Sura 22:40-42.] The meaning is: 'I have allowed them to fight only because they have been unjustly treated while their sole offense against men has been that they worship God. When they are in the ascendant they will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity, i.e. the prophet and his companions all of them.' Then God sent down to him: 'Fight them so that there be no more seduction,' [Sura 2:198] i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. 'And the religion is God's,' i.e. Until God alone is worshipped." (The Life of Muhammad, a Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, A. Guillaume, pp. 212-213).

There is a three-stage process here: first, persuasion, no violence; then, fighting is permitted but only in self-defense; lastly, warfare is commanded in order to promulgate Islam. Because the principle of abrogation is stated explicitly in the Koran, some interpreters believe the last state of affairs makes null and void the earlier injunctions in favor of tolerance. However, while the principle of abrogation is clearly stated in the Koran, there is no master list supplied of abrogated verses, and no end of quarrelling when a specific verse is offered as candidate for abrogation. Muslims today get stuck on each one of these three stages, some thinking the religious toleration Mohammed practiced while in Mecca is the normative rule, others that the later permission to fight in self-defense is the normal condition of society, and others again that the ultimate command to fight for the triumph of Islam is the ideal state.

A respondent who believes bin Laden was a patsy, an innocent man set up by the actual evil-doers behind 9/11, the C.I.A. or Mossad or whomever, may well approve of bin Laden while condemning the attack. But it would appear that in most countries a majority of the Muslim populace disapproves of targeting civilians, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project: "Moreover, majorities or pluralities among eight of the nine Muslim publics surveyed this year say that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians can never be justified to defend Islam; only in the Palestinian territories does a majority endorse such attacks." ('Declining Support for bin Laden and Suicide Bombing,' September 10, 2009, Pew Global Attitudes Project.) Suicide is specifically condemned in the Koran: "O believers! devour not each other's substance in mutual frivolities; unless there be a trafficking among you by your own consent: and commit not suicide:— of a truth God is merciful to you." (Koran, Sura 4:33). Of course even a minority of the Muslim populace sympathetic to the indiscriminate slaughter of 'infidels' represent a national security threat. However, when polled, a sizeable number of U.S. citizens also assert that targeting civilians can sometimes or often be justified, in spite of a considerable Christian influence on public sympathies. Certainly those extremists loyal to bin Laden continue to share his perception that civilians make good targets, they don't run as fast: "Anwar al-Awlaki, al-Qaeda's leader, was quoted in the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire as saying, 'The killing of women and children, as well as the use of weapons of mass destruction, is legitimate and justified." (quote from Asharq Al-Awsat, 2012, Inside the Middle East, Avi Melamed, p. 50). But how widely is this view shared in the Muslim community?

One estimate is that 7 per cent of the Muslim populace approved the mass murder on 9/11: “Classified as political radicals were those who met the following criteria: 1) they felt the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were “completely justified”, and 2) they indicate that they have an 'unfavorable' or “very unfavorable” opinion of the United States. Those who did not say the attacks were completely justified were termed moderates. The 'radical' group represents about 7% of the total population across the 10 countries included in the study.” (The Battle for Hearts and Minds: Moderate vs. Extremist Views in the Muslim World by Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director for Gallup’s Center for Muslim Studies). 7 per cent of one billion-plus people represents a huge national security threat, and in some polls it is even worse; perhaps fifteen percent of Muslims subscribe to this view. It can only be hoped a way can be found to protect the nation from this hostile and aggressive army without involving the remainder of the Muslim populace as collateral damage. Nevertheless spokesmen for the religious right like Ergun Caner insist on super-sizing that number:

To say that a leader 'united' a given population, in this case all Muslims across sectarian and geographical boundaries, implies an approval rating of more than 7%. What came to the fore in the political dispute over the prospect of invading Iraq is that the two sides held not only different opinions about the facts, but different facts. Though our own C.I.A. director testified in advance of our invasion of Iraq that there was no alliance between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, millions of Americans insisted that there was. The way to create 'facts' like these has come to light: send a phony 'jihadi' around the country, shucking and jiving in an Amos 'n Andy-type routine, imitating his co-religionists as asking an attractive lady, "How many camels for you?" (U. S. Marine training video, 13:50, O-Club). Have him testify, from his own personal experience, that the 9/11 attackers were not terrorists, they were "devout." In real life he was schooled in Ohio, not in madrassas in Cairo and Istanbul, but if truth is not your aim, he will get the job done.

Ergun Caner was in his thirties when the planes hit the World Trade towers. He had never drawn much of a crowd as a pastor, owing to his astringent disposition, and so had retreated into academia. But he and his brother were not exactly burning up the academic world either. When 9/11 happened, what was tragedy for others was a break-out opportunity for him; it just required a bit of tweaking to his biography to launch a highly successful career as lecturer and guest speaker, and a man who had been laboring in obscurity was catapulted into the front ranks of Christian celebrity. Muslims accuse him of 'Islamophobia,' but he does not seem politically motivated; he is just peddling what sells, which, unfortunately, includes a sizeable dose of demeaning racial and ethnic stereotypes along with the alarmism:

Legitimacy

Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the Congress which declares war. In the Muslim polity, who holds that power? Is the answer, 'anyone at all:' an independently wealthy dilettante like Osama bin Laden who dabbles in theology has just as much right to declare war as anyone else? To the religious right, there is no doubt of the legitimacy of bin Laden's declaration of war:

"Well, February of 1998 there was a declared fatwa, the declaration of war. A fatwa is a binding contract by the caliphate or by the leaders. In this case it was by the sheikhs, Sheikh Osama Mohammed bin Laden, and the ones from Bangladesh and Egypt, and they declared war on America." (Liberty Seminary President Ergun Caner, on the Zola Leavitt Show, 5:18).

In the eyes of the religious right, there are two kinds of Muslims: 1.) those who voice no quibble and no qualm that bin Laden's holy war is the genuine article, whose casualties receive the advertised Koranic reward, and 2.) those who have never read the Koran and the hadith or prefer to ignore or disbelieve those documents. But is the organizational chart of Islam really characterized by the crystalline clarity they perceive? Was Osama bin Laden's "declared fatwa" really binding upon all believers, as they claim? Or does experience teach that, "The decision to accept or reject a fatwa is entirely up to each individual Muslim." (Khaled Abou El Fadl, The Great Theft, p. 29).

The question of political authority in Islam is a vexed one. But no serious case can be made that the power to declare war, holy or otherwise, belongs to any random private person, no more under the Muslim polity than under our own system. There is no private political right in Islam: "He who accepts a man as ruler without consulting the Muslims, such acceptance has no validity for either of them: they are in danger of being killed." (The Life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, A. Guillaume, p. 685). If I were to post a notice on my web-site that the U.S. is now at war with Senegal, no state of war exists. Should I protest, 'Surely you know most Christians are not pacifists; most believe some version of 'just war' theory,' this would not prove the U.S. was at war with Senegal, because one of the points of 'just war' theory is that war can only be declared by lawful authority. Bin Laden's lack of standing and legitimacy is a major issue for those Muslims who deplore his actions.

All states aspire to monopolize violence. The power to wage war is jealously guarded. Can it really be believed there is a polity, under which in excess of one billion human beings live, where any rich dilettante can declare war at his whim, and drag the whole society after him? That more than an inconsiderable number of Muslims look to Osama bin Laden for guidance is a testimony to the poor character formation produced by this works-oriented yet lackadaisical religion. Nevertheless the majority of Muslims perceive a lack of legitimacy. Not so the religious right, however, who have made this man the caliph. There is no doubt in their minds that bin Laden has the authority to declare holy war; and, willing or not, the whole society must follow him, a man with no office:

Really? It "obliged a huge segment of Muslims"? Some people want war, and will spout whatever creative story tends toward that outcome; whatever it takes to promote "this grand experiment of our President." However in real life, there remains some expectation that war will be proclaimed by a legitimate ruler:

"Allah's Apostle said, 'There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.' (Hadith Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 42).

The fighter should be "called"; he does not report for duty unbidden. Unfortunately enough Muslims agree with Ergun Caner's legal analysis, and share in his propensity for forming a self-created world, to make this world the rest of us share a very dangerous place. There is a broad middle ground in the Muslim world, inhabited by clerics like the Grand Imam of Egypt's Al-Azhar mosque, Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, who said, "Extremism is the enemy of Islam. Whereas, jihad is allowed in Islam to defend one's land, to help the oppressed. The difference between jihad in Islam and extremism is like the earth and the sky." (BBC News online, 11 July, 2003). Who speaks for Islam? Al Azhar University, or the Republican Party? This view-point, taken to its logical conclusion, has led some to renounce the U.S. Constitution with its protection of religious liberty:

"Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government." (Bryan Fischer, Focal Point, 'No more mosques, period,' Date: 8/10/2010 10:06:05 AM).

Unfortunately the greater threat to American liberty comes, not from the jihadists, but from those who imagine they are combating jihadists by depriving American Muslims of their constitutional rights. In a similar vein to these Christian anti-Muslim authors are the atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who agitate for war against Islamic states. They differ from the authors already discussed in that they hate all theists, not only Muslims:

Does Al Qaeda-style terrorism work? In some ways it appears that it does; the Bush Administration hastened to meet bin Laden's original demand, the withdrawal of American troops from 'sacred' Saudi Arabian soil:

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict turns up third on the list. Bin Laden's demand for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabian soil was quietly met, abjectly and totally. On this, his central concern, the Bush administration's dealings with Mr. bin Laden amounted to surrender. The terms under which American troops had served in that land had always been frankly astonishing. It is weakness which invites aggression; and what more craven display of ideological timidity than the willingness of the elder President Bush to compel American troops to serve where forbidden by law to practice the Christian faith? The younger President Bush was likewise naive in his faith that appeasing terrorists leads to peace:

When the Soviet Union was at its zenith of power, lesser socialist lights like Nasser rose in the Middle Eastern sky. Remnant leftist regimes still hang on grimly in places, though the withdrawing tide of history has left them high and dry. From the time of Ronald Reagan, U.S. policy in the region has been to court Muslim fundamentalists and fund them freely in their death struggle with the leftists. Muslim fundamentalists are reliably and sincerely anti-Communist; Mohammad was, after all, a merchant. They are unfortunately also resolutely antichristian. The nominal Christians who fashioned our policy of courting Saudi Arabia and its Muslim fundamentalist offspring failed to perceive this as any of their concern. 3,000 dead Americans bear mute testimony to the futility of this policy, even as the younger President Bush continued, on auto-pilot, to deal with Muslim fundamentalism by. . .stamping out those remnant leftist regimes with which the Muslim fundamentalists are locked in a death struggle.

Projecting weakness is counter-productive, because weakness invites aggression. Yet who can forget Mr. Bush's 9/11 saga? Once story-time was over he commenced scampering about the country like a scared rabbit, ending up in a missile silo. Unlike the British Royal family who stoically remained at their stations throughout the Blitz, he got a case of happy feet. Signalling weakness in this way is dangerous.

Historically nations at war minimize their adversaries' achievements. Yet President Bush magnified al Qaeda's achievements, claiming the economic downturn then underway was in fact produced by the 9/11 attack. Mr. Bush wanted it understood that al Qaeda as presently constituted has the capacity to cripple the U. S. economy. Why would a leader purportedly at war magnify the enemies' achievements? And why has it long since become apparent Mr. bin Laden will die of old age before he is apprehended by the U. S. government? One does not expect to hear politicians call attention to their failures, yet Mr. Bush perceived the unweakened and at-large status of al Qaeda as his ace in the hole: "I understand there are some in America who say well this can't be true — there are still people willing to attack," he said. "All I would ask them to do is listen to the words of Osama bin Laden and take them seriously. When he says he's going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it." (Bush, Visiting NSA, Defends Surveillance, By Nedra Pickler, Associated Press Writer, January 25, 2006, Fort Meade, MD). What on earth is going on here? Why did Mr. Bush, who had no responsibility more pressing than to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice, take every opportunity to remind the public that the murderer remained at large?

This is not the first unholy alliance between terrorists and the government they besiege. The overwhelming public revulsion at terrorist atrocities sparks the question, Why do they do it? Certainly not to win hearts and minds; if terrorism were a public relations tool, it would be the most counter-productive yet devised. But these groups do not aim at peace or persuasion; rather, their murderous acts are provocations intended to start war. Outside provocateurs are met by those on the inside: insiders report the Bush administration had long sought grounds for war with Iraq.

Once upon a time the bombs blowing up in the public square were planted by socialists, not Islamists. Socialism was given a full and fair trial during the 20th century, and produced a depressingly uniform result: empty store shelves. Yet there was a time when this ideology appealed mightily, not to the workers for whom it claimed to speak, but to underemployed intellectuals. Like the Islamists who perceive a state of war already present, though invisible to all but themselves, the socialists perceived the state waging class warfare against the workers. Class warfare had little appeal to the public at large, but there were reactionaries only too happy to use the police power of the state to disadvantage working people. Socialist bomb-throwing was the very provocation they required for repressive measures. The broader public's desire for social peace was swamped by the twin extreme fringes' desire for war.

Science moves forward by prediction rewarded. A theory which predicts what actually occurs is validated, one which predicts something different is disconfirmed. Likewise in the political realm: the lunatic fringe becomes mainstream when its dire predictions are realized. Who could have done anything but laugh when al Qaeda predicted the U.S. would invade an oil-rich Arab nation? Who's laughing now? The U.S. did just that, invading Iraq, a by-stander nation to 9/11. Strictly speaking it is cheating if one engineers the outcome, yet al Qaeda's goals: dividing the Islamic world, vacating the broad middle ground, legitimizing extreme thinking,— were accomplished for them by an administration which wanted war every bit as much as they did. President Bush substituted one enemy for another, with little fuss from watchdogs in the media and congress, and got 'his' war, in which he could show the world he was tougher than his dad, who quailed at going to Baghdad. Al Qaeda, too, got 'their' war: an outright foreign invasion, difficult to distinguish from the prior colonialist adventures to which that region had been subject. It pleased them to watch as the beneficent mask they had long thought false was stripped from the face of the West.

The Muslim community does not always and ever represent a threat to the peace of the world. History shows the Muslim world going to sleep for centuries on end. Eruptions of Muslim fanaticism burn themselves out, because once the equation is fixed in the public mind that Islam=death, new interpretations are found for the 'Strike off their heads' verses of the Koran. While professors of this faith may not understand justice, mercy, or good faith, what they do understand is defeat.

When Mohammed met victory beyond expectation at Badr, he imagined the God of heaven smiled upon his bloody, tribal warrior ethic. When he met defeat at Ohod, he imagined instead that an inscrutable fate rules the world. When this monster awoke and struck the twin towers, it should have been batted down. The aggressors should have met defeat, not unrelated people "in the same part of the world."

Yet this was not the war our "war President" wanted to fight. When the name proposed for our campaign against Afghanistan: 'Infinite Justice,'— met with Muslim opposition, Mr. Bush obligingly changed the name. In the end no justice was meted out; the aggressors fled to friendly ground and went on with their lives. The ideological incoherence of the 'War on Terror:' the idea that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are the very same thing, inasmuch as "they hate freedom,"— has made 9/11 a cost-free victory for the Islamic fundamentalists. What they have learned is that, if they strike America, America will strike down their enemies.

The Moral Landscape

An atheist named Sam Harris wrote a book called 'The Moral Landscape.' The title is intended to evoke a topographical map, eliding into a sense that ethics in atheist hands has joined the exact sciences. Lacking the intellectual wherewithal to develop the concept, Mr. Harris merely suggests it and then lets it go. His accomplishment is only to revive in popular literature the nineteenth century moral scheme of utilitarianism: the idea that human utility, not God's will, is the only criterion of moral value. At times it seems the terrorists have adopted this ethical paradigm, though it is not compatible with theism.

Does terrorism work? At times it seems to: Algeria won independence from France through a campaign of indiscriminate murder against French nationals, including women and children. At other times, it seems you can't buy such bad publicity. Years ago, the American public was broadly sympathetic to the Palestinian Arab population, looking for a settlement to the Israel-Palestinian conflict which would safeguard their rights as well as the Zionists. No longer. Anyone today who puts in a good word for the Palestinians is accused of defending terror. And you can't say anymore, 'But they never voted for the terrorists,' because they have. No more efficient technique for eroding public sympathy has yet been discovered than terrorism.

A Christian Terrorist?

When child murderer Anders Behring Breivik went on his murderous rampage in Norway, the Norwegian police explained that Mr. Breivik was a "fundamentalist Christian:" "What we know is that he is right wing and he is a Christian fundamentalist," (First-Person: Fundamental truths about the Norway Killer, by Terry Mattingly, August 8, 2011, Baptist Press). The New York Times saw looming "a Christian version of Al Qaeda:"

"On closer inspection, however, Mr. Breivik’s worldview does not fit squarely into any of the established categories of right-wing ideology, like white supremacism, ultranationalism or Christian fundamentalism. Rather, it reveals a new doctrine of civilizational war that represents the closest thing yet to a Christian version of Al Qaeda." (Thomas Hegghammer, July 30, 2011, New York Times), The Rise of the Macro-Nationalists.)

But the killer's own manifesto left the reader wondering what kind of 'Christian fundamentalist' this man was: "European Christendom and the cross will be the symbol in which every cultural conservative can unite under in our common defense. It should serve as the uniting symbol for all Europeans whether they are agnostic or atheists." (2083 Manifesto, p. 1307). Agnostics and atheists? Our killer tells us: "I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment." (2083 Manifesto, p. 1344). The killer himself calls this work a 'compendium;' there are many authors, some Christian, others Hindu, Jewish or other. The killer's vision of what it means to be a 'Christian' does not involve serving God, but rather "cultural factors":

"Q: What about atheists and Odinists, can they join the PCCTS, Knights Templar?

"A: If you want to fight for the cross and die under the “cross of the martyrs” it’s required that you are a practicing Christian, a Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist (cultural Christian). The cultural factors are more important than your personal relationship with God, Jesus or the holy spirit." (2083 Manifesto, p. 1360.)

This is as odd to a Christian as it would be to a Muslim to hear of a self-professed 'Muslim' who thought an atheist could be a fine Muslim. Certainly none who follows Jesus can be an atheist,

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:29-31).

There is no atheist who is obeying Jesus' "first" command. The word 'Christian' is an ancient word; it appears in the New Testament. In very many languages the Greek word was simply transliterated rather than translated. The murderer Breivik wants, it seems, for 'Christian' to mean something like 'European.' This is not very plausible. The atheist Friedrich Nietzsche said, "In truth, there was only one Christian and he died on the cross"; but Jesus never set foot on the European continent. The word 'Christian' was first coined in Antioch, a city in Syria on the Asian continent: "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26). It certainly cannot mean anything like 'Nordic,' inasmuch as the apostles who used this word were only dimly aware of the inhabitants of Scandinavia, never part of the Roman empire.

To describe Mr. Breivik as any sort of a Christian requires a postmodern willingness to reopen and revise word definitions, even of words in continuous use for two millenia. To call him a "Christian fundamentalist," as the media like to do, requires a willingness to reopen and revise a word definition coined a century ago, which does not mean anything like 'violent extremist' as perhaps the Norwegian police think:

One thing Mr. Breivik did get right, however, is that he understands he is 'married' to the Muslim jihadis; the success or failure of his European 'cultural conservative' movement is 100 percent dependent on the willingness of Muslims to play the bad guys: "The future of conservative movements is directly linked to the development of Jihadi movements and/or Islam’s influence in Western societies. It’s a symbiotic relationship." (Anders Behring Breivik, 2083 Manifesto, p. 922). If European Muslims all of a sudden became good citizens who do not blow things up and do not riot when somebody draws a cartoon, the air would go out of this balloon in a hurry.

The people want peace, but both extremes want war. Just as 9/11 inflamed public opinion in the United States, so any future 'patriotic' attack against Muslims in Europe will polarize public opinion there. Mr. Breivik even considered proposing a joint attack with the jihadis, because his interest tracked with theirs: "Both groups win if the attacks are successful. They are one step closer to a Middle Eastern Caliphate and we are one step closer to a cultural conservative Western Europe." (Anders Behring Breivik, 2083 Manifesto, p. 959.) In his preposterous series of military commendations, he includes one for stirring up the jihadi hornets' nest:

“The 'Distinguished Wielder of the Furious Scimitar Commendation' is awarded to personnel who have initiated a manipulative and destructive attack against an Islamic cultural center or mosque inflicting at least 10 casualties to worshippers/employees. The secondary effects of this attack will be significant as many Muslims will set out on a short or long term Jihadi rampage campaign causing significant and additional destruction and chaos.” (Anders Behring Breivik, 2083 Manifesto, p. 1081.)

He awards three stars if he gets the reaction he wants: "Violent Pan European or international Islamic reaction: three stars." (ibid. p. 1081). Mr. Breivik is very consciously mirroring jihadi tactics: "The Muslims showed us that deadly shock attacks are the only tool we have at the moment which will guarantee that our voice is heard." (2083 Manifesto, p. 1351). In fact these tactics have not worked for those who originated them. Forty years ago there was a reservoir of sympathy for the Palestinian Arab population amongst the American people; today there is none. The American public hears of the Israeli blockade of Gaza with stony indifference. Why? Because when they think 'Palestinian' they think 'terrorist.' There is no surer way to choke off and forfeit the sympathy of humankind than by targeting defenseless civilians. Violence only hardens hearts, which is why violence begets violence. The way of Jesus can break the cycle of violence, while 'teaching them a lesson' only rolls it forward.