Justice and peace:
Justice needs to be pursued, but it needs to be pursued justly. Creating a binary which demonizes one side or another is seldom just. Creating ethical standards is just and necessary. Creating caricatures is not just and is harmful.
Peace needs to be pursued. But peace advocates who lobby for one side only become partisans. It is acceptable to be a partisan and both sides in a conflict need advocates. But those who aspire to be peacemakers need to understand that by becoming identified with one side or another, they will lose credibility as peacemakers. Ought not those wishing to be peacemakers aspire to be "honest brokers" and an ethical touchstone to which the adversaries might set their own moral compass?
In a conflict there are four options:
1. The conflict is not resolved and continues.
2. The conflict ends because one side prevails.
3. The conflict is resolved through negotiations and compromise.
4. Circumstances change so the conflict disappears.
To my mind peacemakers should facilitate the third option. Continued conflict or "the peace of the grave" are not options.
Post script: there is another option for peace but it is at variance with the zeitgeist. Empire. Pax Romana. Pax Britannia. Pax Sovietica. Pax Tito. The super power enforces peace. Needless to say, empire also has its disadvantages: exploitation and arrogance. But is it worse than anarchy? Being in a post empire frame of mind, we are not objective enough to judge - self determination of peoples is an expectation.
Woodrow Wilson changed our world - one hopes for the better.