Friday, October 24, 2008

What Does It Really Mean To Make Peace?

The New York Times reported last year a group of Christians leaders met with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Their goal was to have a warm, friendly exchange to demonstrate the only way to prevent war is through dialogue.

In their meeting held across the street from the UN Building in NY, the Iranian president spoke about the commonality of the messages of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. In light of his desire to destroy Israel, I find his religious commonality approach to be ridiculous.

The panel from the Christian perspective included a Quaker, a Catholic, an Anglican, a Baptist and a representative of the interfaith World Council of Churches.

The gathering was organized by the Quakers and Mennonites, especially in light of their commitment to dialogue and pacifism as a way to resolve conflict.

No Jewish leader was willing to attend the meeting.

The constituents tried to prod the Iranian president about his position on the denial of the Holocaust, human rights abuses, Israel and Iran's nuclear weapon build up. Ahmadinejad conceded nothing and often deflected questions by putting the focus on Israel and US policies.

A year later the president of Iran still makes his daily threats against Israel and spews his hatred for America. The only thing the Iranian president took from the meeting was the respect shown to him by the Christian clerics - a respect he does not deserve.

Is negotiation with a despotic ruler the way to achieve peace or merely a display of naivete when it comes to the evil lurking within a religious/political ruler?

I think when two people disagree on an issue, there is always room for negotiation and discussion to reach a resolve. Husbands and wives do it all the time and so do friends.

However, on a worldwide scale, when an individual is so committed to his stance of hatred against a country or a people, the evil in his heart overpowers any attempt to make peace.

For example, in 2000 at the Camp David Summit, President Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat met to discuss the Israeli/Palestinian issue. In a total surprise act of peacemaking, Barak offered Arafat and his people more land that was ever offered by Israel in exchange for peace and the cessation of Palestinian terrorism against innocent Israeli citizens. Arafat did not take the deal. Clinton was shocked and so were Arafat's aides. Why?

Arafat's hatred for Israel and desire to destroy the Jewish state was stronger than his desire for peace.

Can you carry on diplomatic discussions with a person resolved to see your demise?

Our country is naive to think the next president of the US will be able to solve the war on terrorism using words as weapons or as a healing balm. I'd rather have a Commander -in-Chief in the White House - John McCain - who understands firsthand the evil of war and knows the deep hostility of those who perpetrate the slaughter of innocent lives.

For your information, the day after the Camp David Summit in 2000, Palestinian terrorist sent several suicide bombers across the border into Israel.

I cannot cast my vote for a man -Barak Obama - who has no war experience, does not understand the darkness of the heart of a terrorist and would use diplomacy as a substitute for direct confrontation and military threat to show that the US will not tolerate terrorism.

My fear is that while a man like Barak Obama speaks peacefully to individuals like Ahmadinejad, behind the scenes he and his henchmen are plotting to obliterate Israel and do irreparable harm to the US using nuclear weapons. It is my opinion that a vote for Obama is a vote for naivete and ignorance of the real danger that lurks among terrorist groups and nations.

What do you think?

Check out some new blogs I posted on my page on the John Tesh Network.