Friday, January 06, 2006
Middle East Peace Over Before Sharon's Stroke
Within my short lifespan, I can think of no American president who did not push too hard for middle east peace. Carter pushed it hard, and ignored all other foreign policy. He pushed so hard that both sides became upset with him. Reagan said "peace through strength," and supplied both sides with arms, which are still in use to this day. The first Bush pushed for peace, made unhealthy alliances with dictators, and saw no success. Clinton pushed very hard on both sides to agree, but to no avail. After he left office, the sides were more irreconcilable than when he entered. Current President Bush first took a "peace through victory, encouraging Sharon to do what he had to do in order to defeat the terrorist organizations. What was the result? All of these policies resulted in no progress for peace in the Middle East.
Sharon has been the tale of two presidencies. He started by firing on Hamas camps in neighboring countries, building walls, shooting terrorist leaders in the streets, and surrounding Arafat's compound, which was eventually bulldozed. No Israeli president had dared come close to that aggressive a policy up to that point. Then, something changed. Sharon began to follow the so-called "Roadmap," by forcing thousands of Jews out of their homes. No other person would have gotten away with a policy that people would be expelled from a given region based on the fact that they were Jewish. Now, with the withdrawal over and a new Palestinian government, everyone thought that peace would be possible. However, the opposite has been true. Violence has continued to escalate in Israel, supported by vocal elements in Iran and Syria, as well as other, more subtle Middle Eastern leadership.
As I have listened to the news over the last few days, commentators have lamented the loss of Sharon, and his leadership toward a plan for peace. The fact is that he was nothing of the sort. It seems to me that the Middle East has a long history of these struggles. Beyond that, peace throughout history has not come in any context by conciliation, by negotiation, or by broad-based integration programs. Peace has only come through victory. Sharon would have had a better chance of bringing peace to the Middle East if he had stuck to the first style of negotiations--shoot first, ask questions later.
As a Christian, I this approach seems a little brutal, but in light of the fact that the terrorists are bombing women and children and asking no questions, I think that a duly elected government has the better chance of justifying its warfare.
Even more important to remember is that God has promised that the only One to bring true peace to the world will be the Prince of Peace. He will come and rescue His people from their oppression and establish a true peace and the only just society that will have ever existed. Until that time, it is good not to let one's emotions rise and fall in some false hope of a peaceful Middle East, from the leadership of any government.
Sharon has been the tale of two presidencies. He started by firing on Hamas camps in neighboring countries, building walls, shooting terrorist leaders in the streets, and surrounding Arafat's compound, which was eventually bulldozed. No Israeli president had dared come close to that aggressive a policy up to that point. Then, something changed. Sharon began to follow the so-called "Roadmap," by forcing thousands of Jews out of their homes. No other person would have gotten away with a policy that people would be expelled from a given region based on the fact that they were Jewish. Now, with the withdrawal over and a new Palestinian government, everyone thought that peace would be possible. However, the opposite has been true. Violence has continued to escalate in Israel, supported by vocal elements in Iran and Syria, as well as other, more subtle Middle Eastern leadership.
As I have listened to the news over the last few days, commentators have lamented the loss of Sharon, and his leadership toward a plan for peace. The fact is that he was nothing of the sort. It seems to me that the Middle East has a long history of these struggles. Beyond that, peace throughout history has not come in any context by conciliation, by negotiation, or by broad-based integration programs. Peace has only come through victory. Sharon would have had a better chance of bringing peace to the Middle East if he had stuck to the first style of negotiations--shoot first, ask questions later.
As a Christian, I this approach seems a little brutal, but in light of the fact that the terrorists are bombing women and children and asking no questions, I think that a duly elected government has the better chance of justifying its warfare.
Even more important to remember is that God has promised that the only One to bring true peace to the world will be the Prince of Peace. He will come and rescue His people from their oppression and establish a true peace and the only just society that will have ever existed. Until that time, it is good not to let one's emotions rise and fall in some false hope of a peaceful Middle East, from the leadership of any government.
