In his recent address to the United Nations General Assembly, George W. Bush mentioned the word “peace” thirteen times. In another address to the American nation, he pronounced this very word ten times. Statistically speaking, peace is a frequently mentioned term in the American President’s statements. He delivers those speeches calling for a war on Iraq as part of his “war on terror” campaign. Calling for war, he justifies it with talk on peace.

The Need for Peace

With the end of the First World War in 1918, 10 million lives had been lost, and hence the need for peace was further introduced into the international agenda. It later played a major role in the events that followed the war.

The famous Paris Peace Conference was held in 1918, resulting in the establishment of the League of Nations, which became the first international organization primarily aiming to preserve peace. Alas, the League of Nations failed to achieve its goal, as it simply could not prevent the outbreak of a Second World War. Raising the slogan of “Peace and Security,” the United Nations Organization succeeded the League of Nations.

The Culture of Peace

Anti-war march in Washington D.C. (1968)

Peace, as a key word, is repeatedly mentioned in the UN Charter, world leaders’ speeches, and the mass media. The popular term has been so commonly used, or abused, especially after the massive casualties caused by the two world wars, followed by the Vietnam War, which created the Vietnam syndrome and a corresponding global anti-war/pro-peace movement. Thousands of pro-peace governmental and nongovernmental organizations all over the world are currently working actively to stop wars and to counter violence.

In this culture, peace extraordinarily comes prior to other equally important – if not more important -- values. In the powerful media, peace has been promoted as the ultimate goal of humankind through the eloquent words of the elite, in oblivion to the fact that it cannot be the only indicator of global stability, or even “happiness” of all of mankind. It is taken for granted that it is enough for nations to live in stability. Hardly has anyone paused at the very concept of peace, or even questioned its “absolute goodness.”

Peace is certainly a precondition for happiness, yet there are other great principles, values and morals, whose violation, especially for the sake of “peace,” would question the credibility and ethics of that very concept.

A Flexible Word

While – in its basic negative definition – peace is nothing but a status of no war or no violence, the concept itself bears different meanings and different connotations. This is true to the point that an American Intercontinental Ballistic Missile is called  “Peacekeeper,” and another missile is named “Peacemaker.” Today, the word “peace” easily fits into military jargon.

Men of Peace

The devastation in Jenin was described as “horrific beyond belief”

In his infamous statement on Ariel Sharon, a suspected war criminal, George W. Bush named him a “man of peace,” showing his own distorted perception of the term. Ariel Sharon is a man unrepentantly responsible for two major tragedies: the September 1982 massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon, and the April 2002 mass killings, under “Operation Defensive Shield,” in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank.

The international community has proven the first massacre’s occurrence and its stunning atrocities. However, Sharon’s second crime is a bit controversial. Although the United Nations committee has refused to name what Sharon committed in Jenin “a massacre,” an overwhelming smell of decomposing bodies filled the air in the camp, and a minimum of 100 Palestinian bodies, mainly civilians, were visibly found and proven dead. The UN issued an official report challenging the testimony of its Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen, who had said that the devastation left by the Israeli forces in Jenin is “horrific beyond belief” and a “blot that will forever live on the history of the state of Israel.”

Throughout his career, Sharon, as a “man of peace,” commanded the killings of thousands of Palestinians whose primary crime was their refusal to live in “peace” under the “civilized” Israeli occupation.

A Peace Process from Birth to Death

1993 witnessed the beginning of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians

The Palestinian-Israeli case is a classical example of peace being pursued as a goal at the expense of other values.

The signing of the Oslo Accords on September 13, 1993, marked the beginning of the so-called peace process that, until the beginning of the current Intifada, had been taking place between the PLO and Israel, two parties that had previously refused to face each other over a negotiating table.

With the Oslo Accords, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formally recognized by Israel. Yet, while negotiations were still ongoing, the Israeli authorities were boldly establishing Jewish settlements on lands designated under the Oslo accords as Palestinian. Almost ten years after Oslo, millions of Palestinian refugees are still denied their fundamental right to return to their homes.

If the peace process started with the signing of Oslo, it virtually ended when Sharon stormed into the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem, an especially sacred site to Muslims, accompanied by 1000 Israeli policemen. After persistent clashes between the two sides continued for two consecutive years, Sharon formally declared the peace process dead, and the Oslo accords no longer binding upon Israel.

This is the peace process, and this is the peace sought in the Middle East; the Oslo-type peace for which Yassir Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres were awarded Nobel peace prizes. It is a peace that contradicts justice in every sense, and thus, it is a peace that will never be achieved. The Israelis are neither peaceful nor just. At the same time, the Palestinians are asked to be peaceful under all circumstances; they are required to overlook justice.

Whenever the Palestinian-Israeli struggle is discussed in the mainstream media or talked about by world leaders and politicians, peace, and nothing else, has to be mourned. It is thought to be the only way for the two conflicting parties, even if justice is infringed upon. For no convincing reason, peace is believed to be superior to justice and to many other “inferior” ideals.

Peace and Justice in Conflict

A paradox needs to be resolved. Even though the United Nations is supposedly devoting itself to peace, and despite the efforts that are being exerted by international civil society to that end, peace has never prevailed in the world. The answer to this paradox is very simple: Peace has become an overwhelming trend; it is not merely seen as a noble value among other truly noble values, it is overshadowing all other ethics and norms, ethics and norms which are being disregarded, and even easily violated for one definitive goal – peace.

In the name of peace, Palestinians are being exterminated and denied their legitimate right to resist the Israeli occupation. And more ironically, those who vow that they are sincere in their desire for peace and who have assumed the role of the world’s guardians of peace want to bomb Iraq, just to make sure that it has been thoroughly disarmed. Waging war on Iraq, which is only one country, would maintain peace in the entire world, or so they say. 

Islam is Peace

“As-salamu Alaikum.” “Peace be upon you.” This is how a Muslim salutes another. “Wa Alaikum as Salam.” “And upon you be peace.” This is how a Muslim replies. Muslims spell out these two sentences tens of times per day. This is how they greet each other. Peace be upon you, and upon you be peace. They make peace wishes to one another whenever they meet. Do they really mean it, or are Muslims contradicting themselves? Are Muslims peaceful, or are they pretending to be so, while simultaneously indulging in violence? Moreover, the word Islam in Arabic has much to do with the word salam, or peace. Is Islam a peace loving religion, or is that a Muslim claim attempting to refute the denouncements of violence directed towards Islam and Muslims by the majority of Westerners?

Indeed, Muslims are required to seek peace. One of the many names of Allah, the God to whom Muslims submit, is Al Salam (Peace) and He orders all His worshipers to avoid wars. Therefore, peace for Muslims is an objective. It is an end for all Muslims, moderates and, to the surprise of many, radicalists. Osama bin Laden himself has made it clear that he wishes to realize peace. He warned Western governments that they wouldn’t enjoy peace until Muslims do.

According to him, peace should be enjoyed equally by the whole world if it is to be enjoyed, and as Westerners have the right to live in peace, Muslims have the very same right.

Finally, a significant point still remains to be made clear. Islamic peace is not a Machiavellian peace. It is not an end that justifies every means. On the contrary, it is an end, along with other imperative ends, that Muslims well appreciate in their striving to please their God.

Sara Khorshid is staff writer for IslamOnline. She holds a BA in Political Science from Cairo University and is currently studying for an MA in Political Theory. You can reach her at sarakhorshid@islam-online.net

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses