Peace and its discontents [antikvár]

Foreword ' . . . And they call it Peace.' If it were possible to make one - just one - literary reform in the oppressive litany of clichés and received opinions that is delivered to us by modern journalistic discourse, my nomination for the reform w^ould be this. No editor or headline writer or columnist or think-piece merchant should be allowed to employ the word 'moderate' and the word 'reasonable' as if they were synonymous or coterminous. Look at what happens in the absence of this reform. Even the noblest of words - the word 'rational' - becomes degraded by slothful association. Before too long it is the 'moderate and rational forces' who are prevailing. Next it is 'the voices of reason' which must be attended to if the 'moderate' are to triumph. We know who the 'moderates' are, of course. They are the ones who know what's good for them. Anyway, they never fail to proclaim themselves and have, by now, earned title to a useless term of art. The feudal absolutists of Saudi Arabia are 'moderates' because they listen to raison d'état. Oliver North's Iranian business partners were - remember -moderate by definition because they were engaged in bidding for American hi-tech weaponry. If this little essay were being written in French, the slight subliminal connection between 'reason' and 'right' would be enough in itself to convulse the most carapaced cynic with irrepressible mirth. Any fool can see how the trick is worked. This man is a critic of the 'peace process' (two other words which we'll