It may be surprising to anyone brought up in the West, but
the notion of "peace" does not have the resonance of a
universally desirable goal in large parts of the world. In
particular the Arab nations lack it entirely.
Everyone who was brought up in the Judaic or Christian world
recognizes "peace" as an ideal state that is promised to
prevail in Messianic times. At all times, "peace" is an ideal
that is pursued by all, as a state that embodies an idyllic,
harmonious existence, with cooperation replacing all
conflict.
Because of the dominance of the Western cultures in recent
times, the word is by now familiar to the entire world. Yet
the fact that it is an alien concept learned from contact
with Westerners whom they resent or perhaps even hate, means
that the concept is unlikely to be embraced by them.
The East, including the Arab nation, has no intuitive
reaction to a state of universal harmony. It leaves them cold
— not that it repels them, but it does not in any way
attract them. It is not really part of their mental universe,
and is certainly not a goal they recognize whether for
individuals or for societies.
When this cultural reality is fully understood, it is easy to
see the asymmetry that prevails whenever there are
discussions among Jews, Christians and Arabs where the
overall goal is peace. Both the Jews and the Christians feel
the siren call of peace and eagerly pursue it. The Arabs do
not recognize it as one of their goals, and they feel no
compulsion to try to reach it. They do not recognize it as a
goal worth sacrificing or compromising in order to reach.
They are happy to see the Christians and Jews making constant
efforts to reach "peace" since they periodically make new
offers of concessions to their Arab counterparts. But there
is no shared goal, so the ultimate result of the discussions
is frustrating at best.
It is important to realize that the Western belief that
"peace" is possible is a sort of self-fulfilling belief. When
two parties who both accept peace as their goal, and believe
that it is possible, meet to achieve that goal, their common
preexisting belief about the possibility and desirability of
peace is a large part of what makes it achievable. It
provides them with common ground upon which to build a
political and social structure that will instantiate their
shared goal.
In contrast, where one of the parties lacks any such
preexisting supposition and acceptance, it will be the
opposite of self-fulfilling. The lack of the common ground
will make it impossible to build any mutually acceptable
social and political structure.
Does that mean that there is no hope? Must all discussion
lead to frustration?
Not at all. They key is to pick a concept that is less
culturally loaded and has more objective content. Stability
is much more easy to define in behavioral and performance
terms. It is easier to determine when it is present, and even
when there is progress in its direction or the opposite.
Stability would be defined more by what it lacks —
violence and conflict — than by what is might have.
This will make it easier to agree on a well-understood
definition and easier to determine when progress is being
made and when stability is achieved.
It is very clear that stability would benefit all sides, at
least materially. It would allow all parties to get on with
their lives and possibly advance in the many ways that are
available in modern life.
Let us work towards stability. It may not be as good as
peace, but it is good enough!
