Peace?
Usually we write about the “going’s on” in the world of ellieanderic but today I thought maybe we could have a discussion about the world as a whole for a change. The topic is peace and it’s attainability.
Here are some quotes that I found about peace. Please post if you have any thoughts.
“I prefer the most unfair peace to the most righteous war.”
– Cicero.
“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”
– Mohandas K. Gandhi
“Peace is a journey of a thousand miles and it must be taken one step at a time.”
– Lyndon B Johnson
“Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind…War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.”
– John F. Kennedy
“The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend.”
– Abraham Lincoln
“Imagine all the people living life in peace.
You may say I’m a dreamer,
but I’m not the only one.
I hope someday you’ll join us,
and the world will be as one.”
– John Lennon
What has me thinking about this is the Palestinian elections that occurred yesterday. I might just be talking nonsense (and if you think I am please let me know) but doesn’t it seem like the democratic process failed in this instance? The people elected a known terrorist organization who is dedicated to destroying Israel to lead their government?! What if the same happens in Iraq? I have never really felt passionately before one way or another about the war in Iraq, but seriously-what if we spend years and years and thousands of lives and millions of dollars for terror to still reign in that country? Is peace attainable?? I feel like as Americans we believe that the democratic process is the best way, but in this instance it probably won’t make things more peaceful in the middle east- it could make things worse!
I know this is heavy material for our humble blog (and Eric will probably think I’m silly for posting it here) but I would love to hear what everyone else has to say about peace.
Posted in Goings On
January 26th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Hey, I’ve been thinking about that also. A true democratic minded person would say, well, the Palestinians have spoken. That’s their choice. But it could be a major change for Hamas to become peaceful since the money the Palestinians receive to make them a nation comes from the rest of the world, and there are strings attached…peace. If they now continue to persue their stated goal of defeating Isreal, they will become bankrupt. So, money may speak a loud voice here to temper their attitude.
On the home front, a push for peace, or a push for ending the Iraq conflict, is not now nor ever was non support for the troups there who are legally bound to follow the orders of their commanders up to the President. In a profound sense, supporting the troups directly means bringing them home. Thanks for the thought provoking subject.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
That’s true. One would say that what happened in Palestine is the definition of democracy. As Bush said today, the people have spoken and obviously they weren’t happy. Whatever the motivation, I hope that the peace process continues. In college I took a bunch of religious studies classes and one of the main things I got out of them, oddly enough, was confusion about the Palestine/Israel conflict. Both groups have rights to the land. I really wish I could fast forward to the end and see the resolution, because at this point I have no idea how they will acheive peace and it is awful watching all the violence.
I guess another question I have is “what is peace?” Is it tolerance, acceptance, love? Can we be a peaceful world when there are so many things that make us all different, or will the blending of our communities over time inevitably lead to peace, because we will all be the same? Is it our differences that cause the conflicts, or is it something bigger? I apologize if I am being too cliche or philosophical, but I’m kindof just thinking outloud.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Hi you all, interesting discussion. Peace, what is it? I believe that tolerance does come closer to a definition in that to me peace means acceptance of another person’s or country or race’s point of view without judgment.
Also, the idea of one God promotes peace to me–that we worship (or not worship) one ideal, one concept of the origin of Man, one heavenly Father/Mother/Supreme Ideal/Conscience/Moral Code/some common thread that could be called Source and Center/Reason/Reality. Even atheists have some place of beginning that they hold sacred in their philosophy, even if it is evolution from a rock or spontaneous arrival with no point of view, no particular journey/no Other– just self, no reason for life at all. ~~We all cherish something in our experience.~~ That is the common thread of existence. And that to me is where the commonality of existence becomes transcendent–a shared experience of your life and all lives. And merely that shared experience of living on this hard rock could allow us to live in peace, at the very least, in a peaceful state with all the other inhabitants.
It is a choice to live in peace. It is possible if we want it, another quote from John Lennon, the poet philosopher of my generation–”War is over if you want it–give peace a chance.”
January 27th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
I take a fairly radical approach to peace. I think people and nations have enormous tolerance for diversity, for variance in opinion and method. So, I think it is very limiting to think of peace as the absence of conflict. Peace does not have to be (metaphorically) a flat, glassy sea –in fact, it can be mounting waves pushed by a robust, driving wind —allowing us to harness the energy. What happened with Hamas is a paradox, the minute they took ownership of the leadership in the Palestinian political process they became the defender instead of the rebel. This will demand a full reappraisal of their needs as well as methods. I think this decision has been an example of democracy at its best. And with that DOES NOT come an endorsement of their stated policy. What it does imply is that there was an overwhelmingly clear voice for change, for an accounting of the ineptitude, indeed, inertia of the Palestinian leadership (PLO). As well it is an indictment of the actions of the Israelis (clearly, with good reason). This really had to happen, and it happened through a reasonably clean election. What more could the world ask for?
So, I come back to my first remark. Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the embracing of diversity, never never easy. What must happen, now that there is a degree of transparency, is that the world leadership must confront the demand for substantive peace. We humans simply can’t afford war anymore, not just monetarily, but in terms of the cost to cultural concerns and humanitarian concerns. We are far too advanced in our weaponry compared to our societal maturity. Peace will be the honorable recognition of the paths of each of these peoples. More than Saddam Hussein, the Palestinians have confronted the ILLUSION of one super power by flat out voting in a clear majority within a fair election, a party with whom that super power has refused recognition. Well, that lack of recognition isn’t actually an option because those people spoke. This does not mean the people of Israel do not have their right to sovereign government and life.
John Adams, when asked why he was so argumentative, said that to him a worthy conversation had to contain argument. It didn’t mean he was only interested in conflict, but it did mean that for progress all bets were off and all had to be fully, bravely, uncompromisingly examined. And so, we have a brilliant foundation for our governing procedures (which we very urgently need to defend right now).
My own hope is that we realize these religious conflicts, whether they are national or familial, are the righteous indignation of the self. The only platform on which to build with any assurance is the platform of the common spiritual ethic. One that transcends the reasoning that we are nations and not yet global. There are a lot of great thinkers out there, doing great work on this. Back to my sea metaphor, certainly a glassy, calm sea seems much less dangerous, but in the end there is a looming threat of inertia (doldrums) and equally important, the lost opportunity of forward progress.
One last thing, I don’t think peace will come because the blending will make us all the same, although I worry about the loss of folktraditions and culture. People were so afraid that feminism would force everyone into the same bathrooms. Equality and sameness are two entirely different concepts. It seems so important that we reassess the concept of true authority and stop abdicating our responsibilities. We are the people and we therefore ARE the government.
In the end I think John hits the nail on the head, the money issue will engender all sorts of issue resolution.
kate