The Daily Background

In a little-noticed moment, President Bush yesterday said one of the most immoral, vile, un-Christian things I’ve ever heard come out of his mouth. The Associated Press noted in an article late yesterday:

President Bush acknowledged growing international pressure for an immediate Middle East cease-fire Monday but dismissed any idea of simply “stopping for the sake of stopping”

Our President does not want to stop “for the sake of stopping.” He does not want to end the senseless killing for the sake of ending the senseless killing. He does not think that peace for the sake of peace is good enough. How utterly repulsive. I ask any of my Christian readers (I know you’re out there, friends) to tell me: in your opinion would Jesus have said that peace for the sake of peace is not good enough?

The President says he only wants the violence to end when a “lasting peace” can be achieved. In other words, when there are no Hezbollah militants left to kill, then the President will be in favor of a ceasefire. When there is no resentment among Arabs towards Israel, then peace would be acceptable. But not until then. Because any peace before that impossible moment is premature peace.

Lofty goals this President has. And how does he hope to finally achieve this goal of lasting peace which has proven too much for every American President for decades upon decades? Diplomacy? Well, he doesn’t want to talk to anybody who’s not an ally. And he doesn’t want our Arab allies to act as an intermediary and talk to the countries that he doesn’t like (no matter how influential they might be in the current conflict: cough cough, Syria).

No, this President thinks that his goal of peace can be achieved by actually shipping more weapons into the area, which his Administration is working to do in an accelerated manner.

To be sure, sending more weapons into an area of conflict is a novel approach to fostering peace. I’m sure Gandhi never would have thought of this idea, he probably would have done something lame like not eating for a while. Never mind that his nonviolent strategy worked to force the British to give India sovernity.

And Jesus probably would have tried something equally lame like acting the voice of reason and calmly but persistently imploring peace from all parties involved. Never mind that his nonviolent strategy has people doing good all over the world 2000 years after his death.

Our own American luminary of peace Rev Dr Martin Luther King probably would have done something twice as lame, like holding massive nonviolent rallies for peace as he did during the war in Vietnam. Dr King was shot to death by a racist right-winger, so we can only imagine what he might have been able to accomplish had he lived. But we do know that the war in Vietnam and equal rights for African Americans were gained from his nonviolent strategies.

No, our George Bush has his own peace strategy which doesn’t involve nonviolence. And he’s not going to get anyone dissuade him from it. Will he someday be added to this commonly-cited trilogy of peace-bearing leaders throughout history? I don’t think the civillians of Lebanon and Israel are holding their breath.

Filed under: Middle East Crisis, Z-TDB Blog