Abstract
The end of war, conventionally marked by the implementation of a ceasefire agreement, is popularly celebrated and politically lauded in the aftermath of extreme violence. However, the so- called “silencing of the guns” is regarded only as “negative peace” or first steps away from direct violence. What about beginning Peace? Johan Galtung, esteemed for his life work in peace studies, suggests that the situation after the cessation of hostilities might be worse than the status quo ante. With reference to contemporary violent conflict in the Middle East, focusing on hostilities between Israel and Palestine, I suggest that pursuing lasting “positive peace” will in fact turn on whether or not greater attention is afforded to addressing cultural and structural peace, both for survivors and belligerents, through preventative and rehabilitative efforts. The search for narratival convergences between affected parties opens the possibility of a shared language and dialogue between self and other. This recognition can enable a relational ethics with restorative actions. Alternatively, so long as the Thrasymachan mind-blindness of those in power persists among belligerents, ordinary civilians will continue to bear the brunt of the violence, suffer grievously and lose their lives or those of loved ones, while peacebuilding efforts will remain futile
Recommended Citation
Alain Tschudin
(2025)
"Ending War, but Beginning Peace?,"
New England Journal of Public Policy: Vol. 37:
Iss.
1, Article 6.
Available at:
https://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol37/iss1/6