(WARNING: this is an entirely serious article -- if you want jokes, you'll have to come to one of my comedy shows).

Jesus Christ is often associated with a naive brand of pacifism, which apparently "just doesn't work in the real world".

Perhaps in a 'conventional' war -- such as the fight against Hitler -- Christ's teachings are impractical. However, they are ideally suited to undermining terrorism.

Christ's philosophy of "turning the other cheek" is not about being too weak, too spineless or too afraid to fight back. It is about understanding that if you retaliate violently, you will almost definitely cause further suffering and injustice. This will feed directly into a cycle of violence and retribution.

Such cycles of violence are a familiar feature in many terrorist conflicts, perhaps most famously those of Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine.

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were completely unjustifiable, and America deserved the sympathy of the world in their aftermath. But the response of the Bush administration, in Afghanistan, Guantanamo and Iraq, has done nothing to help the victims of 9/11, and has instead created even more victims, adding fuel to the fire of international terrorism.

Trying to fight terrorism with a war is idiotic. If there's one thing terrorists thrive on, it's violent conflict.

The first step towards defeating terrorism is understanding what causes it, how it works and what will best undermine it. To borrow a line from Chinese philosophy: "know thy enemy, and know thyself, and a thousand victories shall be yours."

Most terrorists would like to be popular revolutionaries. But they have a problem: they are chronically unpopular. Blowing up innocent civilians doesn't typically win over public opinion.

In fact, the only circumstance in which ordinary people will support extreme violence is when they believe that it is undermining an even greater evil. Hence, for example, the widespread American support for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The American public in 1945 were not callous and bloodthirsty. They supported dropping the atom bombs only because it was the quickest way to end a terrible war.

So terrorists only hope of popularity is to portray themselves as opponents of an even greater evil, and to attach themselves to legitimate causes. The IRA claimed to be bombing for Catholic civil rights. The London suicide-bombers expressed anger at the suffering of ordinary Palestinians and Iraqis. In themselves, these are perfectly just grievances. But it takes a particularly demented brand of lunatic to conclude that the best way to alleviate suffering in Belfast or Gaza is to bomb a commuter train in London. That's on a par with finding ants in your kitchen, and trying to get rid of them by flying to Botswana and shooting a giraffe.

What cause did the 9/11 hijackers claim as justification? Primarily, it was the on-going American support for the corrupt Saudi Royal Family. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi nationals – as is Osama bin Laden.

All of the hijackers died on September the 11th, 2001. But the response of the Bush administration has enabled those nineteen murderers to hijack America's foreign policy ever since. The fresh injustices perpetrated in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and Iraq have inspired a whole new generation of terrorists. And so the cycle continues.

For many years, a similar cycle took place -- admittedly on a much smaller scale -- in Northern Ireland. The peace process there illustrates that when the underlying injustice is addressed fairly, support for violence evaporates. Catholic civil rights and equality have been more or less achieved, peace has been brokered by both sides and there is now no-one who wants to return to violence.

By contrast, Israel has been fighting a "war on terror" for 60 years. At every stage in that conflict, the number of Palestinian dead has been three, four or five times the number of Israeli casualties. Militarily, Israel has divided, outgunned and outmanoeuvered its opponents at almost every step. Yet despite this overwhelming military superiority there is no prospect of peace, because Israel has not addressed the underlying injustice – the suffering of ordinary Palestinians.

Some readers will think that I am advocating conceding to terrorist demands. I am not. That would be dangerous, stupid and immoral. I am arguing that the USA should try to end genuine injustices. I am suggesting that Catholics deserve civil rights, regardless of whether some idiot in a balaclava sets off a bomb in a pub. I am suggesting that the people of Saudi Arabia deserve a democratically elected government which does not squander the country's oil wealth on bribery and corruption.

Fundamentally, I am arguing that if America embraces the best elements of its strong Christian tradition, and it's passion for justice and liberty, it would do a great deal of good in the world, and cripple global terrorism into the bargain. Who's going to support blowing up a government which has just built you a brand new university hospital?

If that sounds naive, take a look at global events since 2001. America has deployed unprecedented military resources in an attempt to destroy terrorism by force. The result? Terrorism is stronger than ever. More Americans have died in Bush's wars than were killed in the twin towers. If anyone is guilty of naivete, it is the architects of George Bush's foreign policy.

Millions of Americans are disillusioned with their own government, angry that they were misled into war, and increasingly afraid that the rest of the world hates them. Those people need to agitate for change.

As for those of us outside America, particularly those -- like myself -- who live in privileged parts of Europe, there are a couple of things we should bear in mind.

There is serious problem of anti-American bigotry in Europe, and elsewhere.

Bigotry is a bit like alcoholism. If you stopped 1,000 people on the street, and asked them whether alcoholism is good or bad, they would all tell you that it's bad. Just as they would tell you that bigotry is bad. But unfortunately, some of them would still be alcoholics. And some would be bigots.

And, like alcoholism, the first step to treating bigotry is admitting that you have a problem.

So here goes.

I used to be an anti-American bigot.

I made the mistake of blaming ordinary American citizens for the misdeeds, stupidity and arrogance of their government. It was lazy and irrational of me.

Many non-Americans, particularly Europeans, enjoy complaining about America. We blame the USA for everything: we complain about its dumbed-down culture of movies and fast food; we complain about its appalling democratic deficit; and its self-interested foreign policy of stockpiling oil and selling arms to dictators. All of which is a fair assessment... of the European Union. We are masters at projecting the things we don't like about ourselves onto America.

In the interests of retaining perspective, let's ask ourselves: do any of us want to live in a world dominated by China? Or Russia? Or Iran?

Personally, I'd like the planet to be run by a coalition of Sweden, Holland and New Zealand -- but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

If America is our preferred dominant world power, then that is all the more reason to criticise it astutely. But the purpose of that criticism should always be to inform and improve, never to make ourselves feel morally superior.

I'd like to conclude where I began, with a brief quote from Jesus. It applies equally to the struggle against terrorism, and the challenges of everyday life:

"Be not afraid".

Abie
Dublin, May 2007