Northwest now is supported in part by viewers like you.

Thank you.

from Ukraine to the Middle East to Ethiopia.

Several indices show the annual number of people dying in global conflicts is trending sharply up.

Domestically, some protest on campus.

Some flee to Idaho, and some do battle in the streets as any sense of national cohesion seems to be a distant memory.

What happened to peace?

When did it start?

Finishing a distant third, behind first, crashing your enemies and next persuading everybody else to join your zero sum cause.

Why can't we lead with peace?

That's the discussion tonight on Northwest.

Now.

Don't ask me why, but I recently rewatched a great film by Northwest filmmaker John Gordon Hill about the 1962 World's Fair called When Seattle Invented the Future.

I was on a tear because that night I also watched the Nat Geo special about the Apollo program.

The common thread in these films is that there used to be such a broad sense of candu optimism in this country.

Now, I confess it might have been a little naive considering the country's deep racial inequalities.

The assassinations, the Vietnam War and the Cold War.

But the mainstream of the counterculture back then was about promoting a new era of peace, not about burning down our pluralistic democracy to the ground, which both the far left and the far right seem to be actively pursuing these days Globally, it's not much better.

As old power struggles over energy and territory reemerge and continue to push the so-called long peace the world enjoyed after World War Two and before 911 further into the past.

Yes, there were wars during that period, but the statistical chances of dying in a war against the size of the global population was tiny.

The numbers are going in the wrong direction again, and this nation's arms makers have put out a bulletin saying the price of gunpowder is going up due to high demand.

That tells you something.

So how do we change course?

Can we do it in time?

Is there a pathway to peace?

Our Steve Higgins brings us a discussion about just that, through.

Song and prayer no matter their faith.

Dozens of demonstrators gathered in downtown Seattle in November calling, begging for peace in Gaza.

This is the right place to be.

And we are here together.

And I'm feeling that sort of presence when we come together and stand for justice and peace and morality.

You don't have to be Jewish or Palestinian to be completely horrified by what we have seen and by what we continue to see.

They are Christian, Jewish, Muslim and more.

This group of interfaith leaders and supporters joined voices with the Washington Solidarity Statement for Peace and Justice in Israel Palestine, calling on Washington's congressional delegation and President Biden to de-escalate the violence in Gaza and demand an immediate cease fire.

Nowhere in the world should it be tolerated to see innocent people targeted not children, not babies now women, not elders, not men.

No civilians should be targeted.

This is definitely a very tense moment in a really in a in recent history.

It's probably the most intense moment that we've experienced.

Reverend Andrew Larsen knows the struggle for peace in the Middle East.

They say we could come in, but not with this, not with the mike.

Eight years ago, he brought his camera and Christian faith to the West Bank, producing a documentary, building relationships through his ministry, working with Peace Catalyst International.

He believes peacemaking requires both the desire and effort to truly understand struggle.

I think part of my role is to help magnify the voices of those who are actually immersed in the situation and have people like me from, you know, predominately white spaces here and understand what's really happening and how how people in these places actually experience what we observe.

I'm one of the co-executive directors of the Church Council of Greater Seattle.

For those who cannot visit Gaza, plead their case building coalition a world away while praying for peace that saves lives.

Politics is getting in the way of morality and humanity, and we have to change that.

In Seattle, Steve Higgins Northwest now, Joining us now are three returning guest and northwest now on the topic of peace.

pastor dan Whitmarsh with the lake bay community church.

kobe among the force in a peace activist here in tacoma, well known for driving his light blue peace bus around town and Lonnie Arnold with the Racial Reconciliation Network.

I want to acknowledge right from the jump here that these are hard questions.

So I want us to all assume good intent.

And this discussion gestures at the problem of seemingly intractable insoluble problems that people face be at war or abortion or guns or gender or politics, racial hatred, climate change, you name it.

There's a lot to be divided about.

I'll also say to that I think at least speaking for myself, if I speak from a place of privilege in that I don't have a somebody a family in the fight in the Middle East and I don't have a child struggling with gender identity.

I don't have a daughter who's trying to make a reproductive decision.

So it's very easy to sit up here and be the great peacemaker if you don't have a dog in the fight.

So I also want to acknowledge that, too.

With that said, I don't want us not to talk about peace, about trying to find ways, about trying to improve the dialog in this country and bring people together.

So first, I want to talk about the cause of peace.

I'm going to give you each a shot at this.

Diane, let's start with you.

How do we acknowledge pain and loss and fear and even atrocities and say, yes, those things happen.

They're horrible, but also get people to agree upon the idea that more pain and more loss and more atrocities and more suffering isn't the answer to solving it.

How do we get that right?

Well, I want to thank you for beginning there, a mindful of the the prophet who says woe to those who cry Peace, Peace when there is no peace.

And too often I think we define peace is just an absence of visible conflict without digging into what are the causes of that conflict, which oftentimes are very real, very painful, very established conflicts that go back, sometimes generations.

And so the way towards peace, sometimes is to work through the hardship, not to deny the hardship to to name it, to recognize it, to note where there is privilege and to recognize these are difficult conversations.

But working through the hard conversation is much better than shooting each other I think what we really need to do is focus on, yes, how did these problems come to pass?

But also honing in on the idea of were the essential needs met for these people?

Because oftentimes when, for example, people don't feel safe, they don't feel as if they have food, water, shelter, these essential needs of humanity, their humanity is stripped from them.

And that's where we find the discordance.

I think that humanizing each other is the basis to which we can cultivate understanding and have a level of peace.

There was a big interfaith gathering in the federal building in Seattle in November, and Rabbi David Basheer said, and I'm paraphrasing here from the Seattle Times, you don't have to pick a side.

You can pick the side of humanit Loni, is that true?

If you think you're facing evil, can you still call out evil but still be an advocate?

Can you still choose peace?

Yes, I think so.

And I think, you know, I think part of this is that often we're trying to solve problems without getting into relationships with people.

And if we are in a post potentially in opposing camps, often what happens is we make a whole lot of assumptions about what people believe, why people are doing what they're doing, rather than trying to find an avenue to enter into relationships with people and understand their why.

Why do they feel that way?

You know?

And what's their story?

Because often people's personal stories will inform us about why they're doing what they're doing.

And my my responsibility when entering into a relationship with someone before trying to come to an a point of an agreement is to love you.

Yeah.

Which.

Which means that I need to seek your highest good, even if it comes at my own expense.

That's great.

Between individuals, but between groups of people with historic problems, it almost takes a third.

Third.

That's why I think to some degree, it takes third parties to do that, because those those folks are never going to get to that place with each other individually.

How do you how do you view it when you're talking about a large group of people?

Koby, I see you, Richard.

Right.

Right.

So the masses of people, we can do what we can.

Right.

But it will be up to the leaders of the of places to come together to have these conversations.

That being said, that can still be implemented with a small group.

The idea of humanizing each other, listening.

Right.

Because never in the history of humankind has one person been upset at another for listening to them.

So I think, yes, we can do those in those small spaces with the people who can make the decisions for peace.

if we get people to recognize this, listen, I really don't have a dog in this fight, as I like to say, or I don't have a person suffering this problem or I really don't have to get involved in this.

Does that also come with some degree of responsibility not to deliver our stinking hot takes on everything?

I mean, should we keep our mouth shut?

absolutely.

I think that's one of my great concerns, is everybody these days feels like they need to have an opinion on everything.

And oftentimes those opinions become signifiers of what group do I belong to?

It becomes more insider outsider.

My hot take over against yours.

And when you disagree with that, then suddenly we are fighting with each other.

So I certainly would advocate for much more mindfulness, much more thoughtfulness.

None of us can be an expert on everything.

None of us need an opinion on everything.

And so the people that I work with, I often talk about, yes, let's be thoughtful, let's be mindful, let's listen to people on the ground instead of thinking that let's not center ourselves in these conversations, but do a lot more listening before ever trying to speak into these.

So Kobe, you and I have talked about this before.

That's great.

But here comes social media.

Here comes the tool that everybody has to inflate and inflame every argument.

I have a take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Really?

Do you living in your mom's garage?

I disagree.

I really don't think you do have a take on it.

So how what is the role of social media and is it encouraging that hot take mentality instead of getting people to step back a little bit?

Sadly, Tom, I don't think there's a solution right now readily available for that issue.

I think media as a whole is is very convoluted at this time.

That being the case, we're having a convolution of media and people are taking what they want and extracting what they want to hear and listen and running with it.

It's it's dangerous, man.

It's really dangerous.

Well, you're creating fake news and fake narratives and and stoking the flames of discord.

But I did like what you had to say about people on the ground level, right?

Imagine hearing the story of an individual who's experiencing atrocity and to hear from them one on one.

Right.

People don't necessarily have the ability to do that all the time.

But if you do, that's the light.

Being able to talk to people who are actually going through it and getting a personal one on one connection with them, humanizing them to get an idea of what your stance may be on this topic.

and how is it individual?

Do you plug yourself in or become a part of a peace building culture?

Well, I think the first part of it is realizing that it's not about me, that I need to look at the community, the diversity of the community, and recognize that everybody everybody's coming from maybe a different place.

I mean, we all share common humanity, but I, as an individual, have a limited scope of life experience and experience, especially in the community.

So if I start from that point, if I start from a place of humility and the sense of I don't know it all and it's not a that's a big ask these days.

It is.

It is.

But it really is necessary in order for me to have my ears open, to be able to hear somebody else's perspective.

Then I've got to process it.

So it's not just an information exchange.

I've got to process, you know, this person's experience and how how do I support that person as another human being, even if maybe even if I don't agree with everything?

Yeah.

So how do I love them and support them?

How do we build that culture of peace between people who have a non-negotiable difference?

Well, I think I think all of us have non-negotiables at some point.

And I think in the midst of that, I mean, fortunately, we live in a country where we've got a lot of freedom, and our political process allows us to inject our views into the system.

But I think one of the challenges there is that that's happened.

You see it in the media, social media is that we start demonizing each other and we start assuming the worst.

And so can I disagree with you?

Can I vote differently than you take a different position than you and still love you and care about you and find those maybe those other areas in our relationship where I can come alongside you and say, you know what, I disagree with you on this, but man, I'm with you right here.

And Kobe building a culture of of peace between people with non-negotiables, How do you view that?

I think we may be skipping ahead a little bit.

That's what I think.

I think that there's a rudimentary values that we can harness within the nation that most people can agree on, and that can be the fabric in which we cultivate ourselves around to create more peace.

For example, I don't care if you're a liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican.

We can all agree that something like poverty is a bad thing, right?

How come we're not talking about that and addressing that issue first before all these other issues?

What's creating the inflammation that when it continues to persist, then when a big issue like, you know, abortion or other issues like that, they become extremely inflamed.

Right.

That's that's my take on on how we can go to cultivate peace is looking at the values that need to be addressed right now that affect us all.

And we can all agree that they're bad things.

Building a better base, building a better is, in my estimation, is the only way you think about something like safety.

Everyone wants to feel safe.

I don't know anyone who doesn't want to feel safe.

The idea of being able to go back to your home and relax and not feel like someone's going to infringe upon you or take what you have.

And there's millions of people who don't have safety.

There are people that are overseas who don't have safety.

Why is that?

Maybe if we address safety, a lot of these other trickle down problems won't even be happening then.

People have non-negotiable faith based beliefs and this guy has non-negotiable faith based beliefs.

How do we reconcile that?

Is there is can things can everybody come together and have a come by our moment or we can always have divisions?

How do you how do you view building a peace building culture in that environment?

We have already mentioned a few times in this discussion that one of the issues we face is the dehumanizing process, that whether it's social media or current day politics, just just the human nature of centering ourselves and then everybody else becomes the enemy, becomes the competition and the dehumanizing.

A peacemaking culture, I think, has to begin with reclaiming the humanity of everybody, including the person who's polar opposite as a as a pastor of a Christian church.

I start with that place that every human being carries within them the image of God, which means they are worthy of honor and respect and dignity, even if we disagree at a fundamental level.

You are still a human worthy of being treated as a human.

And if we can start there and that's just the beginning, but if we can at least start to recognize the humanity of somebody, then we can start trying to build bridges to much larger peaceful solutions.

Right.

And to piggyback off of that.

So humanization sort of coincides with respect.

In order respect your neighbor, you have to get to know your neighbor.

And that's where the listening comes in, right?

Yeah.

Well, and I think another I think another element of this, too, is we're talking about non-negotiables as if people don't change.

Everybody changes and grows.

People's views grow, and often people's views grow as a result of being in relationship with other people.

Hearing your perspective is like, I didn't get that.

I didn't understand why you believe that and why you felt that way.

Or even people with coming from different faith traditions.

Yeah, often will change their faith tradition because they're growing as an individual who's truly seeking peace.

They want things to be better.

And that's a very personal choice.

I mean, it's not something, as a Christian pastor that I can beat and the people.

Yeah, you know, I'm Bible thumper, right?

You know, it's really how do I demonstrate the love of Christ in a way that kind of opens up the heart to hear and to listen.

I mean, I have the responsibility to love people and to listen to them and to grow in relationship with them.

But I also have the responsibility to interact with them in a way that will make it easier for them to let their defenses down to hear me as well.

And so in that context, change is possible.

And and maybe not, maybe not Everybody's going to change the way I think they should.

I wouldn't count on that right now.

But there's this dynamic movement in relationships and views that happens.

Dueling protests, folks going out and hit the streets.

There have been injuries and deaths in California.

Is street level activism likely to change attitudes or is it likely to cement attitudes?

I again watch people going out and hitting the streets and demonstrating whatever it may be.

And I understand that they're trying to send a message to the government and the media.

I, I question whether or not they are hardening the arteries or opening people's minds.

My gut says they're hardening of the arteries, that that's not a way to do attitude change.

That's not the way people change and rethink things.

What are your thoughts on that, then?

Can I defer that to my brothers?

Because that's not the world that I live in.

That's not much.

I participate in maybe street level protest.

This is my hope.

My hope that with the street level protests that this will create a wave of consciousness towards getting leaders together in the room, for example.

So the piece, because I drive the piece bus the greatest vehicle in all of America I am in appreciate as long as this running.

Yeah yeah right.

And how that all got started was a gentleman by the name of Abe Nathan inspired me.

He was a Israeli humanitarian and had a peace ship in the fifties and 6060s and all he wanted to do was get people, Arabs and Jews together to have conversations.

Right.

Getting leaders from each faction of people in a room, locked the door, have a conversation.

Have we exhausted all ways of diplomacy right.

Hopefully the street protests will be getting these leaders together.

Right.

To have that conversation versus hurting people.

Violence.

So so the goal may not be necessarily attitude change amongst the opposition as much as it is to signal leadership that, hey, you all got to the people who are holding themselves up there as thought leaders in this need to come together to have a discussion.

What is what is your thought about protest?

Is it necessary to bring about change?

Does it or does it harden the arteries and bring two sides and build a wall between them?

Or does it signal leadership that something has to be done?

How do you.

I can see in all three ways.

Yeah.

How do you view it?

Well, you know, looking back historically, I mean, the civil rights protests served a powerful purpose in changing the narrative of our country.

But also, I think when you talk about contemporary protests, I think you have people with different agendas for the protests.

I mean, you have people who genuinely want to facilitate change.

They're trying to get people's attention because they're not feeling heard.

You have anarchists who are looking to inflame things, and so they've got a totally different agenda.

Dead enders.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And so I really think that that the masses will start protesting when the leaders haven't given them an avenue to have input where the where the masses of people feel like we're being heard.

And so protest where there's a process in place.

Yes, exactly.

Exactly.

So so can they be effective?

Yes, they can be effective, but they can also be exploited for wrong purposes.

I want to talk about the word reconciliation specifically.

Dan, I do know you've probably dealt with this.

Can these deeply rooted conflicts that involve history and land and politics and reproductive choice and sexuality, you name your conflict, can they fit into a framework of reconciliation?

And in my mind, that means on a case by case basis, sometimes justice has to be put aside.

I am not going to be able to get an eye for an eye and in a certain wrong, but in a broader reconciliation to look, which looks at the future instead of the past.

That may be the only path forward.

There isn't going to be a military solution for some of this stuff.

There's going to have to be a negotiation or reconciliation, which is the word I use.

How do you feel about that?

Do you think that's.

I'm on base with that idea off base.

What's your take?

Well, I want to first challenge that use of the word justice, because I believe that justice is not punishment.

Justice.

The true meaning of justice is where everybody receives their just.

Do you have peace?

You have food, you have land, you have forgiveness, you have the ability to live the fullness of your life.

That that is true justice as we often think justice is eye for an eye.

Yeah, but for me, biblical justice and world justice is reconciliation in which all is made well and people live at peace.

I think one of the things that we're talking about here, too, is the idea of hope.

It hasn't come up, but if we give in to cynicism, then we've lost.

And so to hold out the hope.

So for me personally, I hold out hope for reconciliation.

I also know that that is not a quick process for for some of these issues that go back thousands of years.

It will take a long time.

And so we need to move ever so slowly, incrementally, bit by bit by bit, one relationship by one relation past the folks who don't want it.

And yes.

Yeah.

And eventually, hopefully their eyes will be open and say there is a better world.

Let's, let's join with the door is always the invitation is always open.

Come join us as we are creating a better world.

And and I do believe reconciliation is possible.

Sometimes that means learning to live at peace still from a distance.

Yes.

Sometimes it means let's put some rules in place that will allow us.

Anybody who's been a parent of three year olds knows that you can love each other, but you need space to.

So and I think ultimately something like that is the solution, for instance, in the Holy Land for sure.

Koby, what's your take on reconciliation and what that word means to you?

And what's your thought on that?

Well, reconciliation to me is the idea of two factions of people or two people coming together and trying to find some sort of common ground and being solidified, saying this is enough for me, Right.

To get there.

I believe that people have to be in the right frame of mind to have needs met, to even be in that space where it's okay to have the conversation.

Now, if they're not there yet, we can't even begin to have the conversation about reconciliation.

And I think that that's for me where it starts.

Do we have the needs met to be able to have the conversation that reconciliation needs to you know, it needs to happen.

I don't I don't know.

I don't know.

Lonnie, last 60 seconds on reconciliation.

Yeah, I think reconciliation actually one of the ways that we helped to bring that, it goes back to Dan's definition of justice when when we do justice to other people who have been marginalized, it creates goodwill in the relationship.

So if I who who are ama Christian do justice for Muslim or Jew or somebody who doesn't believe whatever their beliefs.

Yeah.

When I do that, all of a sudden the doors open.

It's kind of like, wait a minute, he just did something loving toward me, even though we disagree.

And I think that's I think that's one of the main avenues to create reconciliation.

Great conversation, guys.

I know we didn't solve the world's problems, but I hope there are a few things that people hear in there that maybe provide them with some ideas going forward.

Thanks so much for coming in Northwest.

Thanks for having us.

Yeah, The key word in all of this, in my humble view, is reconciliation.

For any conflict, reconciliation isn't about litigating the past.

It's about finding ways to acknowledge the past while building a new relationship that can be projected into the future.

The bottom line There are no military solutions to some of this world's or this country's historic, intractable problems.

It's only a forward looking drive for peace through reconciliation that can end the conflict.

And in this country, we have a huge advantage because the very foundation of this whole enterprise is the idea that diverse people can come together to form a more perfect union, to escape the religious and class based hatreds of the past and build a country based on common values like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.