Petition Against Terrorism Should Also Have Condemned Israeli Retaliations

The Harvard Islamic Society was recently approached by Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel to participate in an anti-terrorism petition campaign in response to the recent events in the Middle East. Islam clearly condemns terrorism in any form and Muslims are responsible for speaking out against all violence that targets innocent civilians, regardless of who the perpetrators are.

With this responsibility in mind, we felt that it was important to participate in the creation of this statement against terrorism, to recognize and condemn injustice and to cooperate with other campus organizations in an open-minded attempt to raise awareness of the injustice and evil of terrorism. The Harvard Islamic Society does not hesitate for a moment in adding its voice to the chorus of voices that condemn terrorism. Moreover, our condemnation represents a firm belief that since all violence against innocent human beings is wrong, certain violent acts cannot be selectively condemned, while others are ignored.

This belief is one of the main reasons that the Harvard Islamic Society felt that it could not, in good conscience, sign the anti-terrorism petition as it had been presented to us by the Hillel. Although we unanimously agreed with what had been state and included in the petition, it is what was excluded that was significant enough for us to take a second look.

Although there is passing mention in the body of the statement about violence in London, France, and a Hebron mosque, the statement is written specifically in response to the suicide bombings in Israel and calls for a United Nations condemnation of the terrorist bombings in Israel. While it is true that these tragedies against Israelis should be condemned, the statement ignores the subsequent violence that ensued against innocent Palestinians.

There is no mention of the Palestinian-American driver who was gunned down by 20 armed settlers after he lost control of his car, or of the demolition of homes in the West Bank. The only "crime" of these victims was being Palestinian and, in some cases, a blood relation of one of the bombers. These more recent events are percieved as "retaliation" against Palestinians; yet if the perpetrators are dead (they were, after all, suicide bombers) who is being punished? Their blood relations? This violence is also part of the vicious cycle of violence and hatred that must be stopped in the Middle East.

Although we were dismayed that the statement failed to mention the violence that followed the suicide bombings, we believed that this omission could be remedied. In the spirit of cooperation, the Harvard Islamic Society proposed some simple ammendments that would not detract from the focus of the statement, which was to condemn terrorism, especially the recent events in the Middle East. Our proposed additions consisted of briefly mentioning the subsequent violence against innocent Palestinians.

We recommended adding "and subsequent destruction in the West Bank and Gaza" to the first prhase, "In response to the recent terrorist bombings in Israel;" and changing "condemn the recent terrorist bombings in Israel" to "condemn the recent terrorism in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and consequent retaliatory measures taken against innocent civillians." In addition, we hoped to add a phrase mentioning support of peace and justice, which were nowhere mentioned in the statement as it was given to us, and specifically naming the mosque in Hebron as the Ibrahimi mosque.

While the latter two changes were incorporated, the first two were rejected. Whatever the logistical and/or ideological reasons for this rejection, the document now failed to condmen a significant portion of the violence and hate that exists, rendering it a statement which we as a religious organization could not, in good conscience, sign. While we agree with the statement's condemnation of recent terrorism, the realization that certain related violent acts are consciously not being condemned in this same statement forces us to qualify our support of this petition.

It is regrettable that we could not have worked directly with the petition organizers to keep the statement an open, universal one, but we hope that this explanation of our actions and reasoning, future attempts at collaboration, for whatever purpose, are more conscious of the importance of standing up for justice in a uniform and fair manner. It is our sincere hope that the rest of the Harvard community will be aware of issues such as these in the future. --The Harvard Islamic Society