Mark Seddon, the UN and New York correspondent for al-Jazeera, plays fast and loose in the Guardian with the concept of "understanding."
In Oklahoma City I met a Republican member of the state senate who, while condemning the act that disfigured his city, wanted to explain how this home grown act of terror came about, what motivated the survivalists and why they felt aggrieved. But that was because the Oklahoma bombing came from within, rather than from without. It is difficult to imagine many American politicians, who while condemning foreign terrorists, try to understand what motivates the killers and in so doing redress some of the larger injustices those same terrorists use to feed violence thereby separating the small minority from the vast majority who seek justice through peaceful means.
Well, yeah, it would be really useful to know why McVeigh did it, but regardless, we still executed the son of a bitch. Do I understand an al-Jazeera hack to be saying: Understand, but kill every terrorist? I'm okay with that. But of course there is more. That little line squeezed in: "redress some of the larger injustices those same terrorists use to feed violence". Terror comes from injustice, apparently. Okay, what injustices did the Klan face? The Arab and Persian world has kept Palestinians in camps for decades. How does the al-Jazeera hack propose to deal with propoganda from birth potraying Jews as inhuman monsters? I'm listening. The hack asks:
How does the international community find a peaceful and just solution that suits the vast majority of people in the Middle East?
Given the extraordinarily vicious propoganda waged against the Jews, is the hack proposing that if the "vast majority" want the Middle East free of Jews, everyone else should go along? Would he agree similarly if the "vast majority" of Europeans thought it just to expel Muslims? If the "vast majority" of Brits thought it just to expel all the blacks? As I said, I'm listening.Posted by sjostrom on August 30, 2006 04:57 AM
