It may seem like another lifetime, but it’s actually only a year ago that the conservative business magazine The Economist published an editorial saying that the most pressing moral, political and economic issue of our time is poverty in developing countries.

Well, we can clearly forget about that now. The consensus that has emerged from politicians and commentators over the past two weeks is that the most pressing moral, political and economic issue of our time is fighting terrorism.

Of course, the change is the result of the acts of mass murder committed in New York and Washington. Like everyone else, I am revolted by these atrocities. We can all agree that the perpetrators of these unspeakable crimes against innocent people must be brought to justice.

But to turn this quest into an all-out and all-consuming war against terrorism is dangerous – and ultimately self-defeating. It is exactly what the terrorists want.

Their aim is to escalate hatred, to destroy any room for compromise, to create a holy war between two irreconcilable alternatives. If the U.S. attacks civilian populations in far-off parts of the world, it will guarantee recruits for the other side of this holy war.

Where do we suppose the first round of recruits came from? The terrorist acts committed in New York and Washington are part of a long pattern of violence and vengeance.

It’s not surprising that many North Americans have little sense of this, however, since the western media tend to omit crucial parts of the story.

In the National Post last week, for instance, Isabel Vincent provided a history of anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world. She traced the beginning of the “ferocious anti-Americanism” to Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979. But her analysis left out a crucial part of the story – the ferocious anti-Americanism actually began earlier, and was directly related to the U.S. role in overthrowing the democratically elected government of popular Iranian nationalist leader Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh in the early 1950s.

Mossadegh had defied the major western oil companies by demanding a better oil deal for Iran. A U.S.-sponsored coup in 1953 overthrew Mossadegh and re-installed the Shah, a brutal dictator who co-operated fully with U.S. oil interests and whose secret police became known for their vicious torture and murder, giving Iran under the Shah one of the world’s worst human rights records, Amnesty International said at the time. The hatred of Iranians toward the Shah and his U.S. backers enabled Islamic fundamentalists to build a huge popular base of support among Iranians to overthrow him.

This background about the U.S. role in propping up the Shah is not just a minor detail. It is the single most meaningful detail for anyone wanting to understand the “ferocious anti-Americanism” in Iran. Without it, the widespread anti-American sentiment there appears incoherent.

The plight of the Palestinians is clearly another source of anti-U.S. fervour, given Washington’s steadfast support for Israel in its military occupation of Palestinian territory. We have all seen plenty of TV footage showing young Palestinian boys throwing rocks at Israeli military vehicles.

But these images are rarely put into any kind of context and therefore just seem like evidence of the fanatical nature of Muslims, even at a young age.

A long article in Harper‘s magazine this month, however, provides some illuminating context. Written by Chris Hedges, a former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times, it describes appalling conditions in a Palestinian refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. During a visit to the camp last June, Hedges heard a voice on a loudspeaker spewing out insults in Arabic at the Palestinians, calling them “dogs” and “sons of whores.” The loudspeakers were mounted on armoured Israeli vehicles parked just outside the camp. Almost instantly, young Palestinian boys – most no more than ten or eleven years old – ran toward the armoured vehicles, throwing rocks. Hedges reports that the soldiers responded with gunfire, shooting five boys, including an eleven-year-old who died later that afternoon.

Hedges goes on to describe how this scenario, with the loud speakers and the inevitable casualties, is a common occurrence in Gaza. He comments: “Children had been shot in other conflicts I’ve covered … but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”

The article was written before the tragic events in the U.S., but Hedges makes a telling point: “Every new death pushes the voices of moderation deeper into the background.”

I am in no way suggesting the Americans deserved this tragedy. They did not.

I am simply pointing to the danger of a cycle of violence, particularly one driven by righteous fervour. George W. Bush wants us to believe we are in a titanic struggle between good and evil. Such thinking strips other people of their human qualities and makes it easy for us to justify doing any amount of damage to them. Sounds a bit like the way bin Laden thinks.

Of course, the individuals who committed mass murder in New York and Washington lacked any human decency. But we shouldn’t extend this conclusion to whole societies and countries. We risk doing this if we launch wide-ranging military attacks, rather than focusing on bringing individuals to justice.

I think The Economist had it right last year: the most pressing moral, political and economic issue of our time is poverty in the developing world. The truth is that far more people die every year from malnutrition and poverty-related disease than are killed by terrorism. Those lives should count too.

There was finally some momentum toward addressing such poverty. World leaders agreed this past summer to put the issue at the top of their agenda at the Group of Eight summit next year in Alberta. It was a beginning.

To change course now – and devote ourselves instead to an all-consuming, righteous war against terrorism – would do nothing to guarantee our safety in the West. And it would be unfair to billions of people around the world.

Linda McQuaig

Journalist and best-selling author Linda McQuaig has developed a reputation for challenging the establishment. As a reporter for The Globe and Mail, she won a National Newspaper Award in 1989...