I've wondered about that for a long time, and have come to the conclusion that in this context (the Israeli/Arab conflict) that "peace activists" as a group don't want peace right away, it's an eventual goal they think will be achieved after Israel is destroyed.
Kinda like the slogan, "No peace without justice!' It sounds great and noble, but what does "justice" mean? It doesn't sound like they're willing to set their grievances aside and make peace, it sounds like they demand total capitulation on every demand then a full compensation (revenge?) for every perceived grievance. Far from being a path to peace it's an insurmountable obstacle.
I just wonder how many "peace activists" on an individual level work this logic through and realize this.
I fully agree.
As far as I can tell "peace actvist" is a role someone slips in and out of depending on who's pointing a camera at them. The term really only appliws to "western" forces being involved in a conflict and if they're absent, then the anti-war crowd usually keep their mouthes shut. Unless...there's some sort of the west caused it angle to explore. If the peoples of a soverign ( non-western) nation want to exercise their right to self determination by weilding machine guns, the anti war crowd is silent.
The term also shows up when the activists themselves are the target of violence, say the MM affair. We'll never know for sure whether the UIs were duped by the IIH and had no idea that the ship was going to go to war with the IDF but..one of our local UIs did state that his role was that of "protector". He was supposed to peacefully insert his body between the forces of agression and the innocent alt-media journalists to buy them time to file their stories.
Just how much time they'd actually get is debatable. How long does it take to tazer someone out of the way...seconds ?
"Social justice" is the main motivator behind these activist types. Peace is secondary, it's all about the fight.