Talk of peace

I read through a very long news story yesterday on the Rwanda genocide a few years back. One thing that struck me was the Clinton (and UN, and Belgians, and .......) obsession with restoring the peace. Meanwhile, what they failed to understand was that one side did not want to restore the Peace It is a pattern that appears to be repeating in the Mid-East and the West (especially the UN, Europe, and the US Left), seem to be responding to it in the same way.

In her commentary on "Developing Bodhichitta" called "No Time to Loose" Pema Chodron talks about why people 'want' anger (or are rewarded by it), it provides a sense of energy and false empowerment and righteousness. IMO joining a mob of others all chanting for the same thing also provides a sense of belonging. (Studies have also shown that a large group tends to become more radical as the more fringe ideas become accepted by those wishing not to raise a fuss and become separate). In the end, in this situation, anger is not productive.

However currently, the Muslims (who are protesting) are addicted to anger, and as with any addict, one should not enable them. One one side Islamic leadership is rewarded by the anger and stokes it. (Much like a pusher who tells their customers, You liked the high (benefit) you got the first time, right?). On the other the traditional West Political goals are enabling the formation and actions of Radical Islam.

This technique has been used by those in or wanting power from time immemorial from the Russian pogroms (sp?), to Hitler, to Rwanda, and now in the Mid-East. Select a target, blame the target for everyone's woes, distract the populace and get/keep/stay in power, (This is even seen in some US domestic political issues).

The West's desire for peace is meaningless unless, we learn to stop enabling say "Enough, of this behavior!"

EDIT: Jihad Watch has a piece with some examples