We all know that war is risky. It is risky for the nations that engage in it. They might lose, and the consequences of losing can be disastrous. It is risky for the people unfortunate enough to be caught up in the fighting. They might be killed. They might be maimed. They might suffer psychological trauma for the rest of their lives, indeed, it is certain that at least some of them will. Nations regularly celebrate the bravery of those who take the risk of war, those who order it (at least when they win) and those who fight it (sometimes whether they win or lose). As I write this piece it is Memorial Day weekend here in the US, a day when we remember and celebrate those who died in our country’s wars, past and present. On one level it is right that we do so, since they died at our behest. On another level Memorial Day is nothing but a part of the effort of the powers to sanitize and glamorize war, to make it acceptable to the people who must fight the wars and without whose support the powers cannot go to war.
That, however, is not my main point here. My main point here is that while war is risky peace is at least as risky. While war requires people to take a risk, peace requires people to take at least as great a risk. One of the reasons that conflicts persist and never seem to be resolved is that people are so unwilling to take a risk for peace. Let me give a couple of examples.
One of the best examples before us today is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps the prime reason why that conflict has lasted so long and still seems so far from resolution is that neither side is willing truly to take a risk for peace. The Palestinians have been unwilling to take the risk of compromising on some of their core demands, especially that East Jerusalem must be their capital and that the descendents of the people displaced when Israel was created be resettled back in Israel. Some of them are unwilling even to take the risk of recognizing Israel’s right to exist. For its part Israel insists on a peace agreement with no resettlement, with them in control of all of Jerusalem, and with what they call “secure borders,” whatever that means. That demand for “secure borders” in particular shows an unwillingness to take a risk for peace.
My own country, the United States of America, provides another very good example of an unwillingness to take a risk for peace. Our leaders and most of our population are unwilling to take the risks involved in truly dealing with the problem of Islamist extremism and the threat it presents of terrorists attacks on our country and elsewhere around the world. We have responded to the violence of September 11, 2001, with even greater violence of our own. We invaded Iraq, which of course had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. We invaded Afghanistan, which at least did have something to do with the September 11 attacks but which we have still been unable to bring under our control almost ten years after we invaded. We have hunted suspected terrorists with our own weapons of terror, drones that have targeted people especially in Pakistan and Yemen, often killing innocent civilians in the process. It is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that our violence directed against Muslim populations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and elsewhere is the terrorists best recruiting tool, yet we are willing to take the risk of violence but unwilling to take the risk of peace. It seems perfectly obvious, at least to me, that a far more constructive response to Islamist terrorism directed against us would be to examine our own behavior in the Muslim world to see what it is that we have done to provoke such hatred against us and to begin to modify our behavior in the direction of a more just and supportive relationship with Muslim nations. Yet anyone who suggests such a thing in this country is accused of being “soft on terrorists.” They are accused even of being un-American. We will take the risk of violence, but we will not take the risk of peace.
I know at least something about how risky peace can be. History teaches it clearly enough. Anwar Sadat of Egypt made peace with Israel and was assassinated because of it. Yitzhak Rabin of Israel signed the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians and was assassinated because of it. These brave men took a risk for peace, and they both paid with their lives, murdered by extremists who were willing to take the risk of violence but unwilling to live with the risk of peace. I know that Israel accepting at least some of the demands of the Palestinians and the Palestinians accepting the reality of Israel and making concessions to get a peace agreement would not immediately end the violence in Israel-Palestine. Violent extremists on both sides would try to undo any peace accord in which both sides took a risk for peace. I know that an American policy of reexamining our relationships with the Muslim world and beginning to work toward a more mutually respectful and supportive relationship with them would not quickly stop terrorists attacks against us. Continued vigilance and diligent police activity would be necessary to try to stop those who resort to violence. They would try to hit us again and again, and at some point they would probably complete an attack, killing American citizens. I don’t deny that reality. That’s precisely why peace is a risk.
Yet in the end only peace can bring peace. Only love can stamp out hatred. There is great wisdom in the Buddhist tradition that says that there is no way to peace, peace is the way. That wisdom is not only Buddhist, however. More importantly for us Christians it is the wisdom of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John attributes to him the words “I am the way,” and the way that he taught and lived was the way of nonviolence, the way of peace. Teaching and living that way cost Jesus his life. He died, but his message of peace will not die. It will not die because peace is not just an effective human strategy, it is nothing less than the way of God.
The wisdom of the world, which in the end is folly not wisdom, says that peace comes through violence. The wisdom of God, which is of course ultimate wisdom, says that peace comes through peace. The wisdom of God doesn’t say that peace is without risk. Rather, the wisdom of God calls us to follow the way of peace despite the very real risk involved. God doesn’t tell us that the way of peace is safe. It wasn’t safe for Jesus, and it isn’t safe for us. God does tell us that God will be with us in the peaceful struggle for peace. That’s all the assurance we get, and it is all we need. May we Americans and all people at long last find the courage to take the risk of peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment