2 of 3

The WCC's phrase "spiral of violence" reveals an unwillingness to point to specific acts and lay blame on those who committed them. The expression pretends that violence develops almost by itself. Such language and shifting of responsibility protects Hezbollah from its culpability as the instigator of violence.

Hezbollah's rocket campaign against Israeli civilians seems, in the WCC's eyes, to be entirely Israel's fault.

Certain states seem bent on applying new and dangerous remedies to well-known problems in the region. Their leaders excuse uses of force that go well beyond the constraints of international law. They brand enemies as 'terrorists' … even including assassinations from the air.

The Jewish state is portrayed as the root of the bloodshed. The letter instigates:

Militant groups adopt similar tactics, fuelling conflicts and spreading contempt for human lives. In Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel as well as Iraq, no amount of fear and anger can justify retaliatory targeting of homes, bombing of communities, and destruction of a nation's infrastructure.

In this account, the terrorists are nothing but "militant groups" that imitate the "tactics" which they learn first from Israel. The defenders against terrorism become offenders, and the victims turn into aggressors.

Having replaced the victim with the attacker, the message now blames the victim, and precisely not the terrorist, for the deaths caused in areas of terror, not only in Lebanon, but anywhere, as the next sentences states:

There, as in Afghanistan, deaths, injuries and damages inflicted through retaliation have far, far outnumbered the casualties and damage caused by the initial attacks.

The twisted tolerance of terror by the WCC reaches its peak. "Acts of terror do not give license to wreak terror in return." The WCC seems to advise Christians not to defend themselves, saying that Hezbollah requires protection, and beyond that, churches should submit to the rule of Hezbollah.

The current statement then refers to an earlier statement adopted by the WCC Assembly in February. One might wonder how any assembly could have ever agreed to such self-defeating actions. "Measures to counter terrorism must be demilitarized and the concept of the 'war on terror' must be firmly challenged by the churches."

This clause contains two measures which the member churches are expected to take up. The first imperative calls for the demilitarization of the defenders without requesting the same for the terrorists. It is clear beyond any doubt that this clause would lend the terrorists a secure victory. The second demand is similarly dim-witted and serves the same aim by asking churches to challenge the concept of the "war on terror." In addition to surrendering to the terrorists, churches now need to protect the terrorists from others who might fight them.

The message of this communication is now clear. The WCC calls on member churches to take a hostile attitude against the democratic values of Western societies that put obstacles in the path of militant Islam. More precisely, the WCC invites its member churches to submit to militant Islam and to defend it from being fought against. Drawing the lines between the points, the picture of a perfect dhimmi appears—one who justifies the Muslim ruler's policy, blames non-Muslims for evil, and defends the Muslim ruler against attackers.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

August (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50