Justice Requires Peace, Not the Other Way Around

• Peace is defined not as the mere absence of war, but as the active creation of order through trust, empathy, and voluntary cooperation.
• True justice requires a foundation of peace, as legal institutions rely on prior societal agreement and shared legitimacy, which are absent in deep-rooted conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian one.
• Prolonged conflict turns moral language into polarizing identity banners, and social media exacerbates this by acting as an unmediated courtroom where emotional verdicts override legal due process.
• Mediation and alternative dispute resolution models, which focus on future coexistence rather than assigning blame, are proposed as more effective approaches than rigid legal demands for final verdicts.

The Paradox of Justice and Peace

• Justice is an achievement of peace, not its starting point.
• In the absence of a universally recognized authority or judge, conflicting communities prioritize their own suffering, rendering justice a new battlefield rather than a resolution mechanism.

Reframing Activism

• Peace activists should aim to create conditions where justice becomes possible, rather than attempting to "win" the courtroom.
• Recognition of victimhood, dignity, and trauma is essential, even without a prior consensus on historical blame.
• Using the principle of "no-fault insurance" as an analogy, the authors suggest prioritizing immediate healing and coexistence over waiting for historical or legal consensus.

Global Responsibility

• International cooperation is required to address the consequences of war, similar to how nations must address climate change collectively.
• The aspiration of the United Nations to manage disagreement without violence should be strengthened, not abandoned, as the ultimate task of humanity is to establish methods for living together despite differences.