After returning from reserve duty last December, I was inspired to write an article addressing the challenge of how to turn peace into something more exciting, engaging and fashionable. In that article, entitled "Peace Duty", I raised a number of questions:
Assuming that a state of peace between individuals, communities and peoples is an ideal situation, that serves basic human needs such as survival, health, nutrition and protection, then why are so many physical and emotional resources invested in preparing for and making war, while so little are invested in making peace? Can the answer be found in the "prisoner's dilemma", taken from game theory? In that scenario, while cooperation to achieve peace better serves the interests of the sides on both (or more) sides of the conflict, and even though they both are aware of the advantages inherent in direct cooperation, the players choose a strategy of non-cooperation and getting ahead at the other's expense, out of the suspicion that the other side will adopt the same approach. Is this a matter of human nature? Perhaps violent, oppositional, non-compromising behavior is more natural to human beings?
And if this is a matter of human nature, then could this be the reason that the experience of war and violent conflict (as it is expressed in films, games, books, mythology, etc.) stimulates and excites us so much, while peace is conceived to be pathetic, banal and dull? Has anyone ever seen a child playing computer games that are oriented towards achieving peace?
As a result of that last article, I received many fascinating responses. I thank everyone who took the trouble to share with me their thoughts and insights on the subject of peace. Most of the responses I received could be divided into two main camps:
A. Many of the readers of my article focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict. The prevailing sentiment was that the chance for peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors is remote, and this is not because the people of Israel don't want peace, but because the Arabs are determined to gradually take over all of the land of Israel, and thus, no compromise or resolution is possible between the peoples. Many of those who responded to the article claimed that making movement towards peace sends a message of weakness that the other side can take advantage of for its own gain.
B. The second line of reasoning was that the chances to transform our world into one that is more harmonious and oriented towards peace are almost nil. Human nature leans towards war and violence, and not to peacemaking and compromise. War and violent conflict play a critical part in a person's identity. People need to identify with a group that is "good", which is opposed to an opposing "bad" enemy, in order to define themselves. In short, they argued, peace is contrary to human nature.
According to these assumptions, any situation of peace is temporary and against human nature, problematic, boring and depressing. With this disheartening prospect, I looked for other insights from the world of martial arts. Perhaps there I could find an answer to the question of how power, courage, willingness to fight and determination to go to war, can coexist with mutual respect, pursuit of peace and a desire to avoid violent conflict. In short, can the mighty and the peaceful exist side by side?
In karate, the Japanese martial art, not only is there not a contradiction between force and avoiding aggressive conflict, but the values of karate and traditional martial arts actually call for the integration of force on the one hand and preventing violent conflict on the other, all while protecting the honor of the opponent. According to the value system of karate, the most exalted victory is not subduing the enemy but avoiding a battle entirely.
Gichin Funakoshi, founder of modern karate, in his book "Twenty Guiding Principles of Karate" connects between the world of karate and the challenges a person faces when trying to achieve a full, secure and satisfying life. The first three principles that Funakoshi describe in concise and clear Japanese style, are the obligation to integrate between lethal force in training to kill an opponent with one's bare hands, and an uncompromising attempt to prevent violent conflict, while committing one's self to honor and justice.
According to the first principle of Funakoshi: "Karate Begins and Ends with "Rei" (respect). In karate there is no contradiction between the obligation to honor one's enemy, grounded in a strict moral code, 
and the motivation to overcome him in a battle, using defensive and offensive techniques, both physical and psychological. In karate competitions, after the traditional bowing one to another, expressing mutual respect and the commitment to the values of karate, the two opponents move to a position of fighting and at the sign of the judge, begin combat, where they use their hands and feet as weapons. Immediately following the fight, the opponents return to face each other, bow in respect and signal that the fight is over and honor is maintained.
An Arab saying goes "if you push a cat into a corner - it will turn into a tiger". Disrespecting and holding one's enemy in contempt offers no advantage, and reflects weakness and a lack of confidence. According to karate, it is imperative to honor and esteem one's opponent, yet even so, in the event of danger, also strike or even kill - if push comes to shove and that is the only remaining option.
"Never strike first in karate" is the second basic principle: karate is intended first and foremost for self defense. In the first lesson in martial arts, the karate student commits to using his abilities only for positive purposes. Almost paradoxically, the purpose of martial arts is to achieve peace.
When people hear about my involvement in karate, they almost always comment "it's dangerous to be next to you". And I always clarify their misconception. Those who practice karate (and other martial arts disciplines) and are committed to its values, are the least dangerous people. A true karate practitioner will not use his skills for a bad cause. He/she will choose the path of peace and avoid violent conflict as long as he can.
And now to our neighbors. Israel has always taken pride in its commitment to going to war only if it has to. War in self defense. It's no coincidence that our army is named the Israel Defense Forces. When it went into wars "of choice" (for example: the First and Second Lebanon Wars), Israel became mired in the Lebanese mud and its citizens and soldiers lost faith in the ability of the army and the government to protect them. In the commitment of war only as a last resort and only for self defense, there is tremendous power, beyond the moral strength.
"Karate stand on the side of justice" is the third principle. There are those who claim that "in the Middle East, there is no alternative - you have to 'play dirty', because the accepted norms of behavior don't work". I am convinced that this approach is rooted in weakness, both moral and physical. This doesn't mean that we can never take firm and even cruel steps to protect our security. Yet it has to be done only when there is no other choice and only in a way that is honorable and moral.
In conclusion, not only can you be right and even mighty and determined. Without power there can't be righteousness, and without righteousness, power is diminished. This is the integration of peace and power that strengthens each side. There is no need to go as far as Japanese martial arts. The principles appear in the Jewish texts, as it is written in the Book of Psalms: "G-d will give might to His people; G-d will bless His people with peace."
This week I came back from a business trip to North America. It was long trip. With my biological clock out of synch, on the third night after my return I was still unable to fall asleep. A combination of intense jetlag and troubling thoughts. Even the karate practice earlier in the evening, followed by a beer didn't help.
That night, after tossing and turning for long hours, I went down the hall and peeked into my youngest daughter Sivan's room. With the thoughts on this article still in my mind, I had a realization. I'm not the only one. There are millions of fathers in the world (and its usually fathers that cause wars - not mothers) who are out there somewhere, in homes, tents or under the stars, contemplating their children and mulling over the next day, their livelihood, health and security, and driven by the desire to secure for their families a better and more secure future.
And I wondered if in the basic instinct of fathers there are two principles: to be strong and determined to protect their loved ones and at the same time, to pursue peace to ensure their security? And if so, can might and peace exist together?
Sagi Melamed lives with his family in the Galilee community of Hoshaya. He serves as Vice President of External Affairs at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, and is the Chief Instructor of the Hoshaya Karate Club. Sagi received his Master's degree from Harvard University in Middle Eastern Studies with a specialty in Conflict Resolution. He can be contacted at: melamed.sagi@gmail.com.
February 2011
