Has a conflict evolved into peace when fighting between the opposing
armies has ceased? In one sense, yes; but a cease-fire, or even a
formal armistice, falls short of true peace. Should the description
"true peace" be reserved until the antagonists have signed treaties
requiring exchanges of ambassadors and other visible signs of
"normal" relations? Perhaps, but again the essence of peace is not
paper. Neither is it embassies, business deals or tourism. Vicious
wars--including World Wars I and II--have erupted between countries
actively engaged with each other in diplomacy, trade and cultural
exchanges.
True peace, as opposed to a mere cease-fire or a balance of power, is
bound up with concepts of justice--that is, law and morality. It
describes, for example, relations now between the United States and
Canada, but not relations during the Cold War between the United
States and the Soviet Union. It has to do with attitudes of
mind--with a mutual belief that each state has sovereign rights and a
shared conviction that no party should take what belongs to another.
The ultimate success of the current Arab-Israeli negotiations,
therefore, will hinge on how they deal with the legal and moral
essence of the conflict: the longstanding Arab legal and moral
arguments used to oppose Zionism and Israel.
