www.reconciliationtalk.com

While hatred is fast breeding hatred, I still hold tight to hope.

Today has been Armistice Day. Along with many I stopped work at 11.00am and stood silently in contemplation of the sacrifice of others. I don't like war, in fact I abhor it.  I am a peacemaker, and war violates everything I believe in. Yet I am not actually a pacifist, but prefer to see my calling to actively wage peace rather than war. It doesn't help me in my work to be idealistic about this broken world, rather I find it better by far to be a realist.  I hate war, and I believe God does, but my Christian theology I find to be grounded in the reality of the sinful capability of human beings, which amongst other things leads to conflict.  For all intents and purposes however I come close to being a pacifist; I could not go to war myself, but would rather actively work for peace, and without the freedom to do that I guess I would have to face the consequences.  Moreover I would gently encourage others to do the same.

But all that said, I respect those who have chosen a different path and who are willing to serve in the forces and to fight. And I will do all I can to support them.

While I stood at the war memorial in front of Luton Town Hall, throughout the nation many did the same. In London it was the 90th year that a crowd had gathered on this day at the Cenotaph. Yet about two miles away, just far enough away from Parliament to be able to protest without special permission, two groups of people had a different intent.

Muslims Against the Crusades (MAC) chose to burn poppies and chant  throughout the silence as a symbol of their opposition to Britains wars in traditionally Muslim lands.   There were just 30 or so of them apparently, but their action has reverberated around the nation tonight. MAC seem to be related to al-Muhajiroun and their associated groups that protested a Royal Anglian Homecoming Parade in Luton in March 2010. 

A slightly larger group, about 50 in all, mainly members of the English Defence League (EDL), kept quiet in respect of those who have died in action, and then tried to attack the MAC. There were a number of arrests from the EDL group, including two of their national leadership group, both from Luton.

The stand off is described in the media: Lest we forget: The nation falls silent as millions pay tribute in Armistice Day commemorations across Britain is in the Daily Mail, while Millions fall silent to remember war dead is in the Independent.

Yet this small pair of event, that involved less than 100 people, has had enormous impact. I had followed the story during the day, and when I went out at 6.00pm there was anger among the EDL at the way yet again MAC had been able to mock them and their nation, but it was the same old people posting messages on the main EDL Facebook group and forum. When I got home at 10.30pm it was to find at least two groups set up on Facebook to protest the poppy burning protests. One -- "Let's show these poppy burning bastards how many people want them deported" -- in about 6hours has achieved a sign up of 235,000 people.  Another  -- "I hate the Muslims scum who burned the poppies on Remembrance Day" has made 160,000 members.

[update: both facebook groups have been removed, presumably due to the abusive and hate-filled language that was on their walls.]

Now, its very easy to sign a facebook group, and a lot more work to join a protest, and yet those people have begun down that road. At the same the main EDL Facebook group has risen from about 42,000 people this morning to 46,500 this evening. This event has raised a huge amount of anger and hatred to be released.

In opposition to the anger at Muslims there has been a smaller friendlier group.  30 extremists, not 2.5 million Muslims that  has grown to about 5,000. The voice of reason trying to get this thing in proportion is never popular.

There have been other moments this past two and half years that I have been following this stuff when I have felt profoundly disturbed by EDL growth and emotion.  As I have grasped hold of this winter growth in my mind this past two hours I am challenged, and troubled. We are due to have the EDL come to Luton in February. More on that another time. Yet for now we are faced with a growth of these groups, of their response to a message of hatred, and their own response of hatred.

Hatred breeds hatred. Like Nick Lowles at Hope not Hate, ( A plague on both their houses ) I am convinced neither has answers. Their methods lead to hatred. The cycle of hatred and anger grows. The anger thermometer has gone up today.

As I head for bed its with a desire for hope to fill my mind once again!

 

 

"a simple gesture of respect" : Humility in International Relations.

I made a few comments yesterday about President Obama's bow to Saudi King Abdullah when they met at the G20 last week.

A simple bow by the most powerful man in the world

The story has grown over these past 24 hours.

Time correspondent Scott MacLeod wrote in his Middle East Blog post yesterday: Why Obama's Saudi Bow was Not a Kow-Tow:

.... it's common sense to accord the Kingdom's elderly monarch a simple gesture of respect. For Obama, who unapologetically seeks to build bridges between Islam and the West, perhaps it's second nature, too.

I think that just about sums up what it amounted to - a simple gesture of respect.

Yet that is not how it seems to conservatives in the US:

On Fox News:  Obama's Apparent Bow to Saudi King Outrages Conservatives   speaks of the bitter taste left in many conservatives. At writing there were 263 comments, most very angry.

24thState.com, the writing of a self-described average man from Missouri, is horrified:  Obama Bows To The King Of Saudi Arabia.  He writes:

Notice he does a full bow, with his right leg going back to support his weight as his knee bends.  Bending your knee is a supremely different bow then bending from the waist.  It's a practiced bow you give to a man you consider your superior.  It's not a sign of respect. It's a sign of subservience.

and that is not OK.

On WorldNet Daily we read: Obama Bows to Saudi King. They quote Jamie Glazov, the author of a book "United in Hate," which claims to "analyze the Left's contemporary romance with militant Islam". He said: "Obama's act actually was to be expected:"

 Leftists have prostrated themselves before despots throughout history – during the whole Cold War and now vis-à-vis jihadists in the terror war. 'United in Hate' crystallizes with precision how and why this dark process occurs."  He cited the Obamas' less formal interaction with the queen earlier.

"Obviously, the queen does not wield totalitarian power and does not mete out sadistic punishment – with which a believer yearns to identify. The Saudi king, meanwhile, is a tyrannical entity to which Obama can subjugate his individuality – and through which he can vicariously experience a feeling of power and purpose.

With respect, what garbage. As is most of the comment which to be honest still sees Obama as a closet Muslim. 

And the Weekly Standard focuses on the NYT which ignored the bow:  The NYTimes Bows Before Obama, seeing conspiracy as ever.

I am reminded of a key moment in the history of China when in 1793 British Ambassador George Macartney refused to Kowtow to the Emperor of China. The Macartney Embassy was in Beijing to persuade the Chinese to ease restrictions on trade between Great Britain and China, one result of which would be to allow Britain to sell opium to China.  It was correct form for anyone coming before the emperor to kowtow  ( 叩头: Kòu tóu ), "an act of deep respect shown by kneeling and bowing so low as to touch the head to the ground."  Macartney refused to so honour the emperor and the embassy failed. The issue then as now was that it seemed to them that for Macartney, to kowtow would be to acknowledge that his boss, George III, was subject to the Chinese Emperor.

Previous official visitors from Europe had kowtowed, and a few did in later years, but the last decade of the eighteenth century saw Europe and especially Britain on the rise to world domination, and very conscious of their own status in a way that had not previously been the case.  Yet in my analysis that simple refusal  is the hinge point in the relationship between China and the West. The failure to honour, or perhaps it should be said, the dishonouring of the emperor, set in process a decline in relationships between Britain and China that still has to be properly reversed.

Dishonour is a powerful thing. I once asked a Chinese person what reconciliation would look like in China. In other words what would give it meaning. His answer: honour. In my experience that has proved true. To honour is to reverse the trend of dishonour that China has felt from the west.  And I do not believe it is only true of China. Its hard to know what was going through President Obama's mind, maybe it was just an intuitive gesture from a man who is attuned to different cultural values, but my response is "watch this space". It opened the door to his words about US relations with the Islamic world being heard later in the week.      

The bow, the kowtow, indeed any other stylysed form of greeting; its all the same. All are expressions of greetings protocol that are typical of formal traditional cultures where. To go through the ritual is to go through a gate, to enter a circle of acceptance, to gain freedom to speak, to negotiate, etc. We do  not understand that sort of culture. In the west formal protocol of greeting is all but gone, and no more so than in America. A shake of the hand, Hi!, a few words are all that is done - to seniors or younger, men or women, whatever their status. That is the protocol that so many bloggers seem to be defending in this story.

The message seems to be that participating in a greeting that involves humbling oneself is OK if you belong in that culture. Though to be honest even that is a grudging acceptance, with a very strong undertone of "our way is better and more civilised". Read  Barack takes a bow, the Washington Times piece which has caused so much of the stir.    

But it is definitely not the way Americans and so much of the West want to do diplomacy. I want to suggest that if there is any true greatness in our nations and their cultures, it will be reflected by a willingness to let go of that self-conscious hanging on to our reputation however many people we offend along the way. To be humble is not self deprecation; it is to admit who you are, and recognise the other person for who they are and even more, who God made them to be. That is what I see so often in Barack Obama. That is true greatness. And with that spirit it is possible to do a 90degree bow or a full flat kowtow  and really mean it, even as a Christian President in front of a Muslim king or a Chinese Emperor. In the world of diplomacy today such a gesture is about honour, not obeisance or fealty.

I applaud Barack Obama's "simple gesture of respect."   And I look forward to the result.

A simple bow by the most powerful man in the world

Its not just what he said at the G20 and in Europe; its about 3 seconds of what he did that has really stirred the hornets nest for the US conservatives.

It was overlooked at the time, unlike the words he said, but apparently some of his critics have been were searching YouTube for something more to pick on. And they found it!

He bowed to the Saudi King.

You can see the bow here with comment on the Time Middle East Blog.   Why Obama's Saudi Bow was Not a Kow-Tow.  Of course the White House is denying it,but its clearly a bow.  And while it may breach US protocol, its got to have been the best thing he has done yet.   

The Washington Times was disgusted at what it calls his  "servile gesture":  Barack takes a bow

In a shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate, President Obama bowed to Saudi King Abdullah at the Group of 20 summit in London last week.

Mr. Obama later said in Strasbourg, France, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect." Symbolism is important in world affairs. By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the U.S. president belittled the power and independence of the United States.

The comment in France was not directly related to the bow, but I would suggest gives clear indication he knew what he was up to. As they said, symbolism is important in world affairs. The bow was symbolic, but of what?  Fealty as the article suggests?  That is the popular understanding of any form of obeisance. Mere respect?  Not necessary according to the article:

No Americans of any station are required to bow to royalty. It is one of the pillars of American exceptionalism that our country rejected traditional caste divisions. Article I Section 9 of the Constitution forbids titles of nobility and stipulates that no officeholder or government employee may "accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state" without the consent of Congress. Judith Martin wrote in her Miss Manners column in 2001 that bowing "is not an ordinary bit of foreign etiquette one might adopt out of courtesy when traveling. ... Americans do not properly bow to any royalty. We show respect for other countries' leaders the same way we do to our own."

Maybe that is what the problem is about. The attitude that we are going to do it our way. And as a Brit I recognise the same in my own nations manner around the world. We expect greetings, everything in fact, to be done our way. But greetings protocol is important. A greeting is the gateway into a relationship. You can indicate in those few seconds how you are going to treat that relationship. Trust can be built or lost in simple gesture.  I would suggest that President Obama was very simply saying, I am going to treat you with honour, just as I exprect you will treat me with honour. And I bet they heard what he said all the more attentively for that gesture.

Of course what he said is a problem as well:

Mr. Obama is proving that one can be elected president without knowing how to behave presidentially. His servile gesture was fully fitting with the tone of his humility tour of Europe. In his eagerness to be loved personally, the president has lost sight of the fact that the leader of the free world also must be respected.

Whatever came of the respect that is afforded to integrity, to humility?

Michelle Obama Finds Her Role on the World Stage -- as a peacemaker

Slightly cheesy?  Perhaps for some. Genuine?  Totally!  Life-changing?  For those hearing (and hugging) her, radically!  World-changing? A small step, but a vital one!   A genuine bit of peacemaking in action.

Michelle Obama Finds Her Role on the World Stage - TIME.

.... This was a rhetorical feint of sorts, since Michelle's whole point was that she was meeting with important people too, a group of about 200 proud teenagers from a mind-boggling variety of backgrounds. The Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School has about 1,000 students, all of them girls ages 11 to 17, two-thirds of whom speak English as a second language. Fifty-five languages are spoken at the school. Ninety percent of the students are ethnic minorities, and no single ethnic group makes up more than 21% of the student body. As a group, they treated Obama as if she were an American Queen, a personification of what they can only dream of becoming in a country where no minority has risen nearly as high as the Obamas. ...

.... as she concluded, she switched to the first-person plural, suddenly speaking for more than just herself. "We are counting on every single one of you to be the best that you can be," she told the young women, many wearing Muslim headscarves, all sitting in rapt attention. "We know you can do it. We love you."

It takes all sorts to be a peacemaker. But the heart of it is humility, vunerability, maybe you could call it a beautiful spirit. And beautiful people dressed in beautiful clothes make a way for and highlight  a beautiful spirit.

Obama: Peacemaking with Iran and gaffs on Special Olympics. The net result ...?

Barack Obama led out with words of hope and a great big gaffe today. 

On Iran his words could not have been more apt.  Obama offers Iran 'the promise of a new beginning'  on CNN calls the message "a dramatic shift in tone from that of the Bush administration, which included Iran, along with North Korea and Iraq, in an "axis of evil."

The text of Barack Obama's address to Iran is here.

He is honouring of their history and culture, conciliatory, and yet not a pushover. Central is the "precious humanity that we all share."

So, is it Genocide? Listen to the pain, not the words

Continuing a series of posts on the Gaza situation, and making peace in the Holy Land.

As with a lot of people's blogging, this is a work in progress and marks my own internal discussion in the context of my life and work. For me, as a church based community builder and peacemaker in multicultural Luton, that context is a whole lot of people who don't like what is going on in Gaza.
Protesters join big demonstration against Gaza attacks.  In line with many around the world, the local Council of Mosques have called what is going on in Gaza a living genocide. Not everyone likes that, and so I am trying to think it through.

So, is it a genocide?

My focus here is not to be academic so I am not going to spend a long time on definitions and legalities. But its an interesting subject.  Genocide according to Wikipedia is "the organized attempt to deliberately and systematically destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

An oddly-shaped messenger of peace?

So what are we to make of Ahmadinejad's Christmas message? 

First I would encourage you to take a read of what he said, and try to forget the messenger and the words that have been uttered by that mouth on other occasions in recent years. 

Translation of the Alternative Christmas Message   (no longer available at Channel 4. Times link in place now, or see end of post for text)

It has certainly caused a storm and pushed the usual Christmas messages by the Pope and others to take second place. Look at Google here. While it was only broadcast earlier this evening the text was out yesterday causing a flurry of writing from journalists who were probably winding down for the holiday. Selecting a few from the USA and UK:

The road to Bethlehem - Part 2

I wrote yesterday about the Palestinian Muslim BBC reporter currently making a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem. The road to Bethlehem - Dec 2008

Accounts of the next stage of the journey are here.

Its good to read stories of ordinary men and women in the West Bank. or Biblical history, and of beautiful countryside - just like that that would have been the backdrop to Joseph and Mary's long hours on their journey 2000 years ago. Thats normal life, and it humanises Palestinians, a people who are barely mentioned without the word militant in the same phrase.  

Of course I did it myself in my post. I expressed a hope that Aleem Maqbool would be free to reflect on all the stories along the way. I mentioned "attacks by Palestinian militants" alongside the Israeli raids he had already had a near brush with. Sadly we hear this morning that Hamas declares Israel truce over. Thats in Gaza of course but ...

But the lovely touch for me today was a question from "Mo" in Luton, and Aleem's reply:

Q: As a Muslim (I think, looking at your name, apologies if I'm wrong) what does Christmas mean to you?
Mo, Luton, UK

Hi Mo,  Christmas has always been celebrated in my family. Tree, turkey, gifts (including santa socks) etc. Of course, Jesus is a pivotal figure in Islam. I read your question out to Nedal, my (Muslim) host this evening in Al Far'a Refugee Camp. He said, for him, Christmas was about remembering a message of peace and the things we have in common.

Again, this just breaks the stereotypes: Muslim - celebration of Christmas - Jesus a pivotal figure in Islam - peace.

Love it! Lets have more!

The road to Bethlehem - Dec 2008

Not wanting to politicise the season inappropriately, but to comment on a walk that many read of daily on the BBC:

The road to Bethlehem

BBC correspondent Aleem Maqbool keeps an on line diary in text and video as he walks from Nazareth to Bethlehem, retracing a journey made by Joseph and Mary in the Christmas story told by Luke the Evangelist.

To write of such a journey cannot fail to raise political questions. And of course that is why its a news story.  But its also central to the story of this season, and hardly inappropriate in a religion that has long inspired pilgrimage. 

I have no doubt that Aleem will make comment on the Peace message of the angels in those fields above Bethlehem as he passes by. And in the light of that message is he to ignore the massive wall ("security barrier" / "apartheid wall") he faces as he makes the journey? Or the fear of those that cower behind it on either side? Is he to ignore the inconvenience it is to those Palestinians who hold agricultural land the other side of it, and face long waits at checkpoints every time they need to work it?  Is he to ignore the anger of the Palestinians at their lot in life? Or for that matter the anger of the Israelis at their situation? Is he to ignore the reports of Israeli raids like that which took place Tuesday just miles from where he was walking? Or any attacks by Palestinian militants?  Is he to ignore the poverty, or the indifference to that poverty? Is he to ignore the claims of Jews that the whole land either side of the wall is theirs? Or for that matter similar claims of Palestinians? 

I hope he is able to tell the story of his journey well. And I hope we can hear well. For that is the first step of reconciliation. I hope you have the guts to return to The road to Bethlehem  daily. My challenge to you is this. If Aleem Maqbool seems biased and it makes you angry, listen all the same, and recognise that you are hearing a story contrary to that you normally hear - and that is a good thing. Recognise that he is Palestinian, and his feelings are valid if nothing else. If he arouses in you indignation at what the Israelis are doing, you may just need to recognise he is being biased, and make up your mind to read the Israeli perspective sometime. The more pople who engage with each side of the story the more pressure there will be for a just and lasting settement

There are inappropriate attempts to use the message of the season. I think this was one:   Religious leaders condemn anti-Israel carols in church. Time religious affairs reporter Ruth Gledhill clearly thought so:  'Lightning rod for anti-Semites'  and Israeli Ambassador condemns carol service are both on her blog.

Peace isn't ignoring the other view, or just shutting them up. Peace is about the welfare and wellbeing of both sides in any conflict. That remains my prayer this Christmas season.

'A perversion of the Abrahamic faiths'

I am deeply touched by Ruth Gledhill's report on Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks words at a memorial for the Jews who died in Mumbai.

Ruth Gledhill - Times Online - WBLG: Chief Rabbi: 'A perversion of the Abrahamic faiths'.

The Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks has warned that hate is contagious and called for the love of God to be invoked to defeat those behind the Mumbai attacks. Speaking ... shortly before a memorial service in north London hosted by the United Synagogue and Chabad-Lubavitch UK to honour those killed in Mumbai, he said that if there was any religious motive behind the attacks, it represented the 'ultimate perversion' of the Abrahamic roots of the three faiths of Christianity, Islam and Judaism

Chabad Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, his wife Rivkah who was five months pregnant, the four other Jewish people died at the Jewish Chabad mission in Mumbai. There is more about the Chabad Lubavitch  and a lot of their writings are to be found.

The story of the Holtzberg is told in a very moving video: Mission of Love and in a shorter tribute: Senseless Love   The summary of the videos: we should fight senseless evil with an outpouring of senseless love!

I am deeply touched by the message of what I read. Yet I have to say I cannot endorse all that is on the site, especially when they write of Israel. They touch deep truth, but I believe there is a deeper truth, a truth that will reconcile all in that land.  

I conclude with words of Jonathan Sacks, reported by Ruth Gledhill:

'Eventually it dawned on me that it is part of the truth. This was a man who lived through the Holocaust. Jewish mystics, and he was one, believe in the Tikun, a mystical philosophy that says we can redeem evil by acts of good. .... We can receive fragments of the divine light from the heart of darkness. That was a very mystical approach. I suddenly realised that he had posed the ultimate question: How can we redeem the evil of the Holocaust, evil for evil’s sake?'