Advertisement

In Theory: Political ambiguity in the face of violence and extremism

Share

In presenting a draft resolution to the United Nations on Dec. 20, Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran Gholamali Khoshroo said, “Dialogue, moderation and tolerance are the most effective antidotes to violent extremism.”

An earlier version of the resolution, entitled “A World Against Violence and Violent Extremism,” or WAVE, was adopted by the General Assembly in December 2013. This year’s update notes a rise in extremism across the globe, particularly in the Middle East.

While noting American support of the WAVE resolution, U.S. Ambassador Kelley Currie called Iran’s sponsorship “cynical” and labeled the nation “the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.”

The next day, member countries of the U.N. voted in high numbers to reject President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The resolution calling the U.S. action “null and void” passed by a vote of 128-9, with three dozen countries abstaining and nearly two dozen more absent from the vote.

According to news reports, the ambassador from Yemen warned that Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem “serves to fan the fires of violence and extremism.”

Q. Do the Trump administration’s stance on Jerusalem and qualified endorsement of Iran’s WAVE resolution threaten to further provoke conflict in the Middle East?

..

To many people, President Trump’s statement may have increased the level of violence in the region, but we need to look at the facts. Since 1995, the United States Congress and Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have endorsed the idea that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, they have just not done it with such drama.

So let us look at the core issue: Should the city itself be divided as it was from 1949-1967? I have walked the streets of Jerusalem, when signs were still in place warning me to beware of snipers, my teacher Rabbi William Kramer had to dress in mufti as a Greek Orthodox priest to pray at the Western Wall.

How can we guarantee that a divided Jerusalem will not end up as a dangerous place for people to pray as they wish or even as they want to travel openly?

Just recently, I was in Jerusalem on a Sabbath/Saturday and ran into a wedding party of Ethiopian Christians. My friend asked, “How could people be getting married on Shabbat (Sabbath)?”

I reminded my friend, “Today, to the rest of the world it is Saturday. They can do what they want, even get married!”

An undivided Yerushalayeem has enabled her to live up to her name “A Heritage of Peace for All.” May Mr. Trump’s statement remind us all to work for peace in that region in spite of any WAVE of violence that seeks to wash it away!

Rabbi Mark Sobel

Temple Beth Emet

Burbank

..

There will always be conflict in the Middle East until either Israel is destroyed or the nations who hate Israel are. And considering the promises that God has made to establish Israel, and how God has protected her against all odds, I believe that Israel will be around for a very long time. The nations that hate Israel and have vowed to remove its existence from the face of the world will never be appeased until their goal is met. Our country must never allow their not-so-subtle terroristic warnings and threats to shape our foreign policy. We must determine the morally correct policy toward Israel and stick with it. As a country we would be very wise to understand and heed the promise God made to Abraham, the father of the Jewish people: “I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse” (Genesis 12:3).

Pastor Jon Barta

Burbank

..

One balances out the other on the helpfulness scale, in my opinion. The Jerusalem gambit is a destabilizing and counterproductive move in the long term, taking the critical issue of the status of Jerusalem off the table, removing it from direct negotiation between Israel and Palestine and thus ending any hope of those two ever having anything like equal standing in peace talks.

The current U.S. administration was willing to agree to “consensus” with the resolution entitled “A World Against Violence and Violent Extremism,” despite their deep antipathy to Iran’s regime. Even with our worsening relations with Iran, Ambassador Haley could not fail to put us on the side of dialogue, moderation and tolerance as antidotes to violent extremism.

That’s something for the world’s safety anyway. Meanwhile working-class men living outside of Iran’s larger cities, harder hit by the country’s horrible economy, are rioting in their provinces. This same constituency enabled a surprising victory in our 2016 election — perhaps Iran’s leaders have noticed and suddenly see the need to talk of dialogue, moderation and tolerance now too.

Roberta Medford

Atheist

Montrose

Advertisement