What do we want?

I think, and many will agree with me, that if many people, millions, want something, they can do it, even if there's a smaller group that doesn't want it to be.
If this is true, and I believe it is, it should be easy to make peace, because so many people want peace. But the problem with peace, is that it's not tangible. In our mind, we have a picture of the peace that we are looking for. I think, that those pictures might be different for each of us, and then, there aren't many people that want the same thing, but many people that want many different things.

So now I'm asking you a simple question, that can bring interesting answers- What is peace?

When I'll have more replies, we'll try to find out what is the differences and the similarities about peace concepts, and try to explain peace in a way that everybody will agree with.

Tags: concepts, differences, ideas, peace, perceptions, similarities

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Yigal D. Kahana on August 31, 2010 at 7:04pm

Hi Neri, Shaii, Tanya, everyone,

'Peace doesn't necessarily mean the absence of war' is a reference to the fact that even if there is no overt fighting war, that does not mean that people are living peacefully together in society. It takes more than just declaring a war "over" to really create a peaceful and just framework of coexistence on both 'sides' on the ground, as Tanya said.
It takes creating the conditions for peace, which are based on mutual respect on all sides for all sides (and, sadly, requires excluding those who refuse to give that respect to others from civil society).

It means that if the laws are unjust, they are continuing the war by economic and social means, which destroy the society's group feeling, and makes it impossible to describe the situation as "peaceful," or as possessing "shlemut.' ( more or less "'Wholeness.")

In this sense, I think the English word 'peace' is not as good a tool to use to describe the situation of a society in harmony, as the Hebrew words "shlemut" and 'shalom,' and the same words in Arabic.
It is obvious that even without 'milchama,' there can still be a great lack of 'shlemut.'

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Yigal D. Kahana on August 31, 2010 at 9:24pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100831/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_talks

An example from today's headlines showing exactly what I'm talking about.
This can't be called peace, just because there's no official war being fought between armies!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on September 1, 2010 at 5:47am

If one is referring to the settlers killed in Hebron, I do not support the killings. Technically, under international law, Palestinians have a right to resist the occupation and the settlements are part of the occupation and entail taking more and more land. Of course, I understand Israelis and a few Pacific island countries don't consider them an occupation, but the majority of countries, the guardians of the Geneva Convention, and the Hague have ruled there are violations. It's one thing to attack Israelis inside the Green line and another in the West Bank. Under international the ones in the West Bank are invaders, part of a project that has entailed, and it is documented, the dispossession of the Palestinians. However, we can't speak of the evil and suffering Palestinians experienced under the occupation and the hardship and suffering from the settlements. Because the settlers are Jewish, they are free to do whatever they want because different laws apply to them, they can try to use the Bible to hide behind the settlements just as Hamas members can take their interpretations of Islam to try to justify their actions.

For me, the settlements that did not stop with Oslo didn't show a good faith effort of peace. My relatives wouldn't dare go to my father's property in Nablus, which never used to have settlers, because they would be in dangers. Settlers built near there.

I am all for peaceful resistance, not killing settlers and encouraging violence between settlers and West Bankers, and this is the action fo Hamas, I believe. I also think under a peace agreement, if settlers
want to stay and vote in Palestinian elections and live in harmony with Arabs, it's welcome. Obviously, I think the settlers are a symbol of dispossession of Palestinians and so many Hebronites have been abused by settlers in Hebron. Still, I am against these killings. I just see attacks on people inside place like Nahariya, Tel Aviv differently than attacks on settlements. Those were lands were Palestinians once lived and it's condemned in international law.

Terrorism does exist, but the ANC in Africa had people who acted as terrorists, but it didn't change the fact that Apartheid existed. End the occupation. Sign a peace agreement with East Jerusalem as the Arab capital, a proper land exchange, settlers coming under Palestinian jurisdiction if they are part of a Palestinian state and those in a land exchange going to Israel if it's part of a deal. No more settlements.
Freeze the settlements.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on September 1, 2010 at 6:53am

Let me clear, I support peaceful resistance, not killing of settlers or something like that. It's unacceptable. This is an action by Hamas to stop talks. I am not putting a lot of weight in the talks, but if they should fail let them fail without Hamas launching unproductive attacks and taking away the lives of settlers which doesn't help, and it increases anger and a desire for revenge. Palestinians also get killed by settlers. The killing of these settlers was not the action of the PA. It was the action of Hamas. Hamas is being provocative. It could invite more attacks on Gazans who are alreadly vulnerable and who lost enough people. Not all settlers are the same. People have different ideologies amongst them, though I don't support settlements. Who would in the place of Palestinians? Hamas is a spoiler and gives excuses for the other side when Palestinians already have a black eye in the media.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shaii Ki on January 14, 2011 at 9:47am

I absolutely agree with that.

What is the 'peaceful resistance' that comes to your mind?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shaii Ki on January 14, 2011 at 9:46am

People really like to compare Israel to the Apartheid in South Africa.

Why?

Do you really think it's the same?

And also, about the occupation, there is something I always wondered about-

Israel was attacked several times, and while fighting back gained more land-because the arab countries and the phalastinians made some mistakes.

What do you think would happen, if right after the war was over, the Israelis would give all the land back without demanding anything, like you want them to do now?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be in favor or against anything here-I'm just playing with some 'what if's

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shaii Ki on January 14, 2011 at 9:39am

I try to dig into every word, so I'm interested in the sentence: "It takes creating the conditions for peace, which are based on mutual respect on all sides for all sides".

Does it mean that peace=respect?

And who should respect who?

Are the 'sides' countries? civilians? people?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Yigal D. Kahana on January 14, 2011 at 4:16pm

Hi Shaii

Kind of, yes. Peace is not a goal-line that one crosses and the game is over. Peace is a description of an ongoing condition, a status in society, or between societies, where mutual respect prevails in interactions between the people - on an ongoing basis. Without respect, there won't be peaceful coexistence in society, and its people will not be at peace with eeach other. Without respect, there won't be peaceful coexistence between neighboring societies or countries, either.

Who should respect whom? Everyone should respect everyone else who has not forfeited that respect through their actions and statements.

The 'sides' depend on the context. Here, they are Israelis and Palestinians, both on the personal and formal-national level.

Example: the PA law making a death penalty crime to sell land to a Jew. This intitutionalizes and formalizes discrimination against Jews. It establishes disrespect as the norm. It is the opposite of peaceful coexistence- it is hostile coexistence.

Same with the Waqf restricting Jewish access to and forbidding Jewish prayer on the Har HaBayit. Again it formalizes disrespect and inequality as the norm. Or PA broadcasts broadcasting blatant lies about Jews eating Christian blood on Pesach. Not respect, and not likely to lead to much peaceful coexistence. More like incitements to violence. So long as these institutionalized disrespects, and others, stay established as norms in PA (not to mention ?Hamas!!) culture, how can there be peaceful and dignified coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shaii Ki on January 14, 2011 at 9:36am

Interesting.

Do you see 'peace' as 'working for peace'?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stewart Mills on January 15, 2011 at 4:17pm

Peace as the satisfaction of 8 basic needs

You will have often heard about basic needs from a physical point of view, i.e. food, water, shelter and warmth. However, from a psychological point of view: peace is the satisfaction of basic needs.

I wrote a Masters thesis looking at how humans as emotional and rational beings, have eight basic psychological needs, the attainment of which gives some sense of peace. As emotional beings we have a need for esteem (love, recognition), meaning, identity and emotional stimulation (pleasure, fun) and as rational beings we have the need for control (autonomy), security, justice and rational stimulation (learning). I applied this basic framework at the individual level to the societal level in the case of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It led me to conclude that both Palestinian national rhethoric 'There will be no peace without justice' and the Israeli rhetoric 'There will be no peace without security" are both flawed because they only take into consideration one aspect of peace. To resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict an attempt to satisfy all 8 elements of peace is required (ie. respect for mutual security, justice, meaning, identity and control needs etc..) coupled with the openness to want to resolve the conflict and respect for the dignity and sanctity of fellow human beings [hence the title of my thesis: 'Empathising with the enemy'].