Just Peace Debate

In response to an email I have received from Eric (and have permission to post here) regarding my post (early June) “Not just peace, but Just Peace”:
Eric: First, what, to you, would a “Just Peace” look like? What would you like to see happen?
Becca: “Just Peace” is certainly a hard thing to define, primarily because we’ve never actually managed to achieve it. Even More’s “Utopia” doesn’t describe full justice, I don’t think. In the region of Israel/Palestine, this becomes even more complicated, as the specific land itself is of value and an issue of justice (not simply that individuals have enough land to live on). Religion complicates things, not merely because of conflict, but because the emotional importance of material goods enters the conversation on what is just.
I have no idea what Just peace looks like here. I think that trying to assert I do would be the real point of hubris (see below). But I do very strongly believe that Just peace looks like more than just personal security, important as that is.

Eric: I actually don’t agree with your offhand dismissal of “just peace” or a “mere ceasefire” as “no peace at all.” I think, for those who live under fire, a “mere ceasefire” is a pretty good thing to start with. And in the context of our conversations on the bus about “just peace” vs. “peace,” I don’t think the choice we were setting up was between a “just peace” and a “mere ceasefire” (status quo, but with no shooting), but rather between an attempt to hold out for the “perfect peace,” in which everyone gets exactly what they think they deserve, without giving up anything, even at the great that this will never be achieved, and peace created through compromise, in which each party gives up things that under perfect justice they would not have to give up (all of Jerusalem, the right of return, territory that they feel would give them added security against attack, etc.), and get peace and security (each with a state, with secure borders, a chance to select their own government that represents them, freedom from fear of the other) – not necessarily loving their neighbors across the borders, but perhaps the first steps toward healing the wounds of the last century and eventually a real, warm peace. (I actually don’t think this will be long coming, once the two states are established…)
Becca: I would say that a basic ceasefire is the first step towards a more just peace. Holding out for a “perfect peace” will, indeed, allow for gross injustices (on both sides) to continue during the process. I think the reason the Peace and Justice Specialization at Michigan State seems to value justice over peace is because peace is seen as a stepping stone to justice. It is a necessary precondition. Justice cannot exist in the presence of violence. But basic physical peace can exist without justice. Many US citizens do not live in fear of a sudden end to their life or that a neighbor will suddenly try to seize their home, but live in conditions that will inevitably given them a lesser quality of life than others. Women in the 19th century did not fear gunshots whenever they left their homes, but (most would agree) did not have lives equal to those of men. Gays and lesbians in the US don’t face death daily (in most places), but live in conditions of injustice.
To a starving woman, a loaf of bread looks beautiful. If she can see getting that loaf, she’ll work to get it. But a banquet is preferable.
By all means, get to peace. Have ceasefire. Eat the loaf of bread. But don’t stop there. I believe there’s a big enough banquet for us all to sit at.

Eric: To push it a bit further, is it not a bit of hubris, not to say even paternalistic, to say that “just peace” isn’t good enough (what’s wrong with wanting personal security? I think only someone who already has it could pose that as an insufficient goal…), when poles show a majority of the population on both “sides” think a two-state compromise (“just peace”) is what they want? Who are we to say that it isn’t good enough – when we are not the ones who would pay the price for holding out for the perfect peace that may never come?
Becca: Firstly, “polls,” not “poles.” : )
Again, just peace is first. By all means, get to a place where personal security is present. Nothing’s wrong with wanting that or making that a goal. But I don’t want that to be the vision, the only or ultimate goal.
I wouldn’t say it’s paternalistic. I would say it’s maternalistic. The mother in me wants to see all of these people, whom I love so dearly, safe and happy. My objection to just peace is not one of believing personal security – life – isn’t important, but of truly believing there’s more to existence than simply breathing. It is all too easy to imagine a Holy Land in which no shots are fired and no one is killed, but everyone is still miserable. So work to get to peace. And then keep working.