The language-games of peace
„Peace“ is a very common term in political sciences. Anat Biletzki is examining in “The language-games of peace” how this term is used (or abused) in several sections of human life. He recognises a widely accepted consensus within the modern human society: Peace is good. Peace is seen as an universal aim, promoted by institutions, academics organizations and the media. It as a desirable end, a condition in which the global nations should live in the long-term. Biletzki sees in this consensus the danger of abuse through several people and institutions who want to use or abuse the perception of “peace” for their own goals, which under circumstances even could be war. Many people in history have promoted war as tool to achieve peace and therefore abused the consensual accepted term of peace to promote and legitimate war. This started with Aristotle who stated: “We make war that we may live in peace”. And also Kennedy had the opinion that “It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.” If these statements are true is questionable but without doubt they get exercised in international politics permanently. Germany was a fighting party in the Afghanistan war but it took the officials nearly ten years to use the term war for this military invade. The years before when officials were talking about it in public, the widely used term was “stabilizing mission”. This supports Biletzkis thesis of the possible abuse of the peace termination. Who could deny the legitimacy of a military operation if it´s honourable goal is peace, which is even included in the expression for the operation, “stabilizing mission”. The perception of peace as consensual accepted desirable “end” gets reproduced in several sections of human life, such as education, media, academia and politics. While dealing with an interesting topic, Biletzkis article has a clear lack of message. The possibility of the abuse of the term “peace” is worth to get examined but Biletzki let it remain an abstract thesis without closer description or proof. Instead he focuses on the fact that peace is seen desirable goal without stating, how this finding should possibly be controversial.