Peace is active

Not for Cats
I've been thinking about peace lately. How illusory the meaning and even the expression of peace is. Peace can only exist within a relationship in tension, or conflict. The same as violence or war. So there is no peace without conflict. Not that peace exists either before or after conflict, but only during. So does this make peace active? A choice not of avoidance or denial but of assertive confrontation. Forcing all involved to be active within the conflict as equals. The circumstances of those involved may not be equal, nor the reasons for each being involved in the conflict be equal. Even the value to each will not be equal, yet all must get beyond the issue and treat with all in an equal manner. From there and only there can successful solutions to the conflict be reached. Fairness and justice cannot enter into the equation of peaceful resolution. They presume greater or lesser value for those in conflict. If the circumstances were fair and just there would not likely be conflict requiring peaceful action. The resolution cannot be expected to be fair or just as each often requires revenge or punishment to bring the issue to resolution making it not peace but violence. Here the results of devalueing the other show their meaning for peace, it becomes impossible for peace to be a true action if any one is devalued. Violence and war result, and when the action of violence is done, peace can still not be active until the value is equalized between those in conflict. Hence there is no peace after war without reconciliation and amnesty. There is also no peace if the actions of the conflict are not treated with the same concern regardless by whom they were done. Good intentions don't change the results of the actions, nor can they excuse or validate the actions themselves.