"I do not believe that a lasting peace is achieved by armed force but I pay tribute to their courage and thank those who played a part in my rescue,"
These were the words of Christian peace campaigner Norman Kember who was spending his first full day at home since coming back to the UK after his kidnapping ordeal in Iraq.
And yet some of the Sunday Press and a few senior military spokesmen are taking these words as ungracious. Why? Did they want over effusive praise and gratitude? What the soldiers did was brave and they were thanked both by Norman Kember and also the peace organisation he belongs to. Yet he thanked them in the context of his abhorrence at armed force. Many see the occupation of Iraq as part of the problem and not the solution – a view that is becoming increasingly obvious.
The view of the peace activists is that it is important to build bridges between Islam and Christianity and between the Arab world and the West – a task made difficult by Western power. Their links at a local level provide hope and optimism though it is fraught with danger and those like Norman Kember who embark upon it are as brave as the soldiers who rescued him.
He now wants a time to reflect over whether what he did was “foolish or rational.” One can only wish that George Bush and Tony Blair had taken Norman Kember’s example and also reflected on whether their entry into Iraq was foolish or rational; but perhaps such reflection on their part is too much to expect.
Comments