1.- TERRORISM .

Threat; coercion : the terrorists and their accomplices threaten with words and deeds, which make it clear that you either do what they say or you stop doing what you are doing or, otherwise, you will have to face the consequences. There are many forms of coercion, such as graffiti, stickers, rumours, posters, banners, newspaper articles, telephone calls, notes, letters, Molotov cocktails, throwing stones, burning cars, demonstrations outside the home and pressure at work, etc.
However, the accomplices to terrorism understand threat as being freedom of expression which cannot be taken away from them, when in reality it is a crime. The intimidation and coercion existing in daily life reinforces nationalism's hegemony, degenerating democracy in Euskadi, giving rise to a serious worsening of democracy and creating serious difficulties for the exercise of freedom and political competition.

Blackmail; extortion; revolutionary tax; the financing of terrorism: the financing of the MLNV is based either on the torture of a human being who has been kidnapped or threatened with death in order to extract money from his or her family, or on the sending of letters periodically to businessmen for the purpose of extorting money from them. Its financing is based on crime.
Notwithstanding, on many occasions, it has been said by nationalism in general that they are not delinquents who act to make profit, and that they are confused idealists who do not want the money itself, but rather an "idea."

I'll come and collect it: this refers to the envelope which is handed over in shops, small and family businesses (mainly bars) throughout the Basque Country, and the Mafioso extortioner who is a Batasuna activist, who nobody dares to report, announces to them that he will return in a few days to collect it full of wads of notes in order to finance the terrorists and their accomplices.

Kaleborroka, street violence, low intensity terrorism, street terrorism : kale borroka is a conscious practice organized by social control. It is not, as has been said, a type of spontaneous violence, absurdly justified and practised by desperate people or those excluded from the benefits of modern society.
Kale borroka is pure fascism, which first focuses on the property of the person being attacked with a Molotov cocktail so as to infringe his privacy and single him out socially, intimidating the neighbours, then threatening him and his family, with the purpose of expelling him from the community (civil death) and finally murdering him (physical death).
Kale borroka seeks to create a climate of insecurity which favours the domestication of society, discredits the state of things and harbours impunity from violence. It attempts to weaken public opinion, discredit the public authorities who have the legitimate monopoly of force and snatch from them the capacity to take charge of public safety.
It is not only sabotage or a commotion, but also isolation, which means that a large part of the population chooses to remain silent, go unnoticed, conceal or consign opinions to private circles, this being more horizontal and extensive than the violence of ETA, because of its closeness to citizens.
It does not operate the same or with the same intensity everywhere, but is especially intense in towns governed by Batasuna or where there exists tolerance towards nationalism among the municipal authorities.
The victims of kale borroka are constitutionalists or symbols considered enemies, who on occasions have attempted without success to speak to representatives of EH in towns either directly or through intermediaries.
Kale borroka is identified with nationalism, which it uses as a hideout and an alibi to maintain its main objective of helping to achieve social hegemony.
PNV leaders have branded kale borroka as being childish things with no direction, and thus for Iñaki Zarraoa, the mayor of Getxo, the perpetrators of these atrocities are young people out of control to whom he says aloud that that is not the way to build Euskal Herria, and that their actions do not benefit Euskal Herria. Nationalism has also criticized kale borroka because, they say, it benefits and strengthens Mayor Oreja's thesis. He even said before the 99 truce that those taking part in kale borroka were not from HB, although later during the truce the PNV said that they would develop joint policies with EH once the latter had got rid of this type of activity.

Structural violence : the defenders of this idea consider that a type of violence which is generated by the current economic and political system exists, which is the violence deriving from injustice in the north-south divide, wealth distribution between rich and poor within a single nation, the existence of pockets of poverty, marginalization, exclusion, unemployment, the oppression of women, drugs, etc. And in addition, that true peace shall only be reached when this structural violence in the current political and economic system is eliminated - in other words, only when all these problems of coexistence have been solved may peace be reached, which will never be able to be achieved because new problems will always emerge. At the same time, they criticize and describe as "negative peace" that peace which is understood exclusively as meaning an absence of physical violence, because the real aim of true pacifism is to achieve peace based on social justice which would be a "positive peace", which takes the struggle against structural violence into consideration.
The consequences and interpretation of such an extensive approach towards peace in Euskadi have served to justify not only that peace without violence is enough (the defeat of terrorism), as this is not true peace, but rather that something extra is needed in order to achieve the latter - an agreement (accepting nationalist considerations) which must come about through unconditional dialogue.

Impunity : this means that an act remains exempt from punishment when morally and legally it deserves it. The first stage is not doing anything against the threatening graffiti in the name of "freedom of expression" and ends with an "understanding " as to the murder.
Impunity is possible due to the defective functioning in some areas of democracy, either because of lack of international judicial niches, because of collaboration, a slack attitude or fear of governmental and judicial public authorities, or because of a lack of civil responsibility as regards terrorist acts, etc.
Likewise, equidistance, political, ethical and religious understanding, the lack of active defence of democracy, the tolerating of intimidation, failure to apply the law equally to all, the blaming of everything on the system, or on the state failing to assume its responsibilities, always believing oneself to be the victims of something or someone, etc., constitute the facts and attitudes which give rise to the impunity required in order for terrorism to continue surviving.
Democracy is built on the struggle against impunity and in favour of the protection of human rights. Notwithstanding, to avoid the struggle against impunity, arguments are often heard stating "enough is enough of this hatred" , "let's turn the page", "we must reach agreement" and "we must finish with this once and for all."
Impunity is a determining factor which enables sporadic violations to continue growing and end up becoming a systematic practice of violations of human rights.
Against impunity, it is necessary to identify the victims, name them and providing proof that they have been victims and recognize the facts. They must also be remembered so as to work against their being forgotten. Society must recognize the pain, the suffering inflicted on the victim, and must protect him or her.
Bringing those who threaten before the courts is important not only in order for them to answer the charges made against them but also to pass on the message that violations of the human rights of victims shall not be tolerated when the authors of the crimes may be tried and sentenced.

Effects of terrorism : firstly, the pain which causing the greatest harm that may be caused to a person entails - that is, taking the right to live away from them (a right upon which all others are sustained). Irreparable damage which extends to the victim's relatives, companions and friends who will suffer from their unwanted absence.
Secondly, murder is the culmination of a process of spreading terror and fear among citizens in order to strip them of their rights and civil liberties. Terrorism threatens a hundred thousand and kills one, in an attempt to make the other remaining ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine feel that the threat was not just a show of bravado but rather is actually carried out. This means that if you don't keep quiet but instead choose to report and combat such terrorism, you can become the first on the list.

Rights of prisoners: they are used as a counterweight against victim's demands. They are used to be able to maintain a position of equidistance between victims and executioners. Every prisoner is a person and as such maintains all rights inherent in being a person, except those which have been specifically restricted as a result of a judicial sentence.
It is constantly said, even in the media, that they are political prisoners, prisoners of conscience, etc., although in reality they have not been either accused or tried for their political ideas, but rather for acts committed against the rights of persons and private and public property - that is to say, for ordinary actions.

"Third level" prison rules allowing certain benefits : when someone commits a crime and after being tried and sentenced, the criminal system is based on the restoration of the previous legal situation and, if this does not prove possible, on suitable redress and liability proportional to the damage caused. The aim of this is to reinsert the person concerned in democratic life; the purpose is to return people to democratic coexistence. When a sentence is passed, depriving one of freedom, it is served by means of a process which starts with a first level in which the prisoner lacks permits, a second level and then a third level in which, once the mandatory reports have been viewed, the prison judges determine whether the remainder of the sentence is to be served in an open-plan system or not.

Parole after serving ¾ of the sentence : some years ago, in the 1990's, when some prisoners had recourse to steps towards rehabilitation into society, they were granted the benefit of parole after serving ¾ of their sentence, a product of progressive penitentiary systems. ETA lawyers then proclaimed the defence of "the right of all prisoners to the full serving of their sentence."
Years later, however, the same lawyers and relatives of terrorist prisoners say that politicians "are not even complying with their laws," and demand the right of prisoners to gain access to parole once they have served three quarters of their sentence, their interpreting this is a prisoners' right according to the law governing parole.
Parole is not a subjective, automatic right; it is not the case that a prisoner, once having served a specific part of the sentence imposed (3/4), should have the subjective, automatic right to a change in prison status, but rather that it is the democratic society itself which has created the framework to do so which has the right to grant it. It is the democratic society which, through judges, may grant the possibility for those persons who at one time fought against it to change and accept the rules of the game so as to be able to coexist in peace. Said possibility is based on the aim of reintegration into society, but parole cannot be applicable to those who, without repenting their crimes, wish to continue killing and attempt to destroy democratic society - in other words, those who do not wish to be rehabilitated into society by accepting the rules and values of democratic coexistence.

Amnesty : this is an act of legislative or executive power whereby criminal effects "are forgotten" or annulled. It is a collective process and in the current climate constitutes an extraordinary, unjust and anti-constitutional measure. With amnesty, it is the social and political system which change, but not the attitude of the prisoner. Amnesty is requested nowadays in order to justify the fact that murder has been committed, meaning the anti-democratic release of terrorist prisoners.

Terrorists; those who are violent; brain-damaged : in Basque terrorism, the terrorists are the socially and economically well-to-do types who murder their neighbours who they have previously marginalized; they are the ones who in the name of the majority kill the minority; they are the totalitarians who murder democrats.
There have been so many ways of describing the murderers and collaborators of ETA that it proves difficult to use new ones, although it is interesting to analyse them.
According to ETA itself, they are the ones who "give everything in favour of the homeland and have chosen to take the step to attack the enemies of Euskal Herria without compassion."
Batasuna often call them "members of the organization," Etakides.
The PNV: disgusting, violent and childish who, according to Arzalluz and Egibar, "are making fools of themselves."
Constitutionalists call them terrorists, etarras, brain-damaged, murderers and totalitarians.

Enemies of the Basque people : when a group of people or a person believes that the political, religious or ideological values of their identity are the only true ones, he or she feels no need to share them, and the existence of other people and groups with other distinct values and identities (pluralism) is viewed as a threat to their identity and values, whereby they blame all evils on the latter, who become dehumanised and satanised (they transform them into enemies) so that their elimination and death may be seen as a freedom rather than a murder.
The enemy is a collective, stereotyped and dehumanised image of the ex-group, of the "other", of another person, entity or group which is built up and accepted.
In order to produce enemies to be fought and eliminated, the group must feel threatened in the political, religious or ideological values of its identity, which is the only true one, given that the group defends good and is the repository of all the sacred values shaping identity. The threat may be real or fictitious, invented.
Nationalism feeds the threatened conscience, and so euskera (the Basque language), our secular culture, what makes us different, our self-Government and, in short, our identity as Basques are constantly being threatened by enemies whose mission is to destroy us, which is why our main aim is to defend ourselves from such attacks, invasions, and be the champions of keeping such treasures of ours, etc. This is no more than an attempt to create an identity based on the rejection of supposed enemies. In other words, in order to be me, I must hate another.
In creating the enemy, the key is to dehumanise him so as to justify the violence exerted against him. A special language is used, referring to people as if they were animals, depriving them of their human nature; police, for instance, are referred to as txakurras (dogs) and cipayos (sepoys), etc. EH spokesmen said to Jose Luis Geresta, an etarra who committed suicide, "the Spanish dogs have killed him." Yet the most common way of dehumanising relations is to blame abstract bodies such as the State and society, etc. It is reiterated that the apparent conflict is the war between the State and Euskadi, between two bodies. It is said that it is the State which kills (when in reality this is not the case) because it does not grant what the people want; it is dehumanised, there are no people involved. Dehumanising is the principle and the basis of the dictatorship. That dehumanisation is warned of in speeches by those holding public offices in Batasuna who, even though they claim to feel sorry for the victims, the latter do not exist in terms of the action of a murder, but rather as an "expression of the conflict." The citizen is nobody and, on the other hand, collective identity is over and above that of Basque citizens, who must "respect the word of the people" (Euskal Herriaren hitza errespetatu).
Likewise, the enemy is the scapegoat over whom all internal disasters or problems are cast; the enemy is the pole to externalise all fears and threats, whereby killing enemies means freeing oneself of them - it is an act of release, a positive act, it destroys evil, it destroys the threat and the demon. To this end, the terrorist often believes that he or she acts fairly.
The enemies of the Basque people are all those who in one way or another prevent or make difficult the aim of Sabino Arana: "Euskadi is the homeland of Basques;" in other words, there is only room for nationalists and nationalist ideology in Euskadi, the others are enemies who must be eliminated. Those who decide who are enemies or not of the Basque people are the nationalists who are the sole interpreters of what the Basque people want.
Notwithstanding, there are different categories of enemy among abertzale terrorists. On the one hand, there are capitalists, who sell the right to remain alive in return for their money (kidnappings, extortions and blackmails, etc.) and, on the other, the poor, who have no option and must die by the arms and munitions deriving from the kidnapping of the rich (the victims of terrorism).

Victims of terrorism: with terrorism being an attack on the democratic system, the victims must be treated as victims of democracy. The need exists to morally redress the victims of terrorism. The victims embody the suffering and the pain which Basque society suffers from. They are the crudest expression of violence for ideological reasons. They are the expression of the existing political inequality that the criminal action of ETA has incorporated among Basque citizens.
For the murderer, the victim is not a human being with rights, but rather an obstacle placed in the way of the path to the independence of his or her homeland, the expression of a historical conflict with the Spanish state.
Terrorists have killed officers of the law without distinguishing between national police, civil guards, municipal police, miñones and ertzainas. They have murdered civilians, whether employed or unemployed, businessmen or civil servants. There is also no distinction made in terms of gender or age, octogenarians, elderly and young people, teenagers and children.
The work due to be done as regards the victims of terror is that of perpetuating their memory, giving them back the voice that was taken away from them by publicly expressing their ideas, opinions and demands, telling the truth about all these years of terror and slander, and demanding justice by fighting against the impunity of the murderers.
One cannot ask for forgetfulness because there is nothing to forget, the memory of what happened must be present, of what is still happening today, because the memory enables a slanderous past to be reinstated and the future to be faced cleanly.
Relatives of prisoners sentenced for terrorism are often heard saying that "there has been pain and suffering on both sides," although it is not the same to be sentenced by the courts of justice as to be the involuntary victim of an injustice. Only ethical and political perversion may consider murderers as also being the victims of violence, which would imply that murderers and victims should have the same rights.
It is not possible to show solidarity with the victims if, at the same time as this is said, one fraternizes with the political wing of the murderers, one understands them and, if the message is conveyed to the latter that, however much they continue killing councillors from the competition, they will continue to be treated with familiar deference.

They must have done something : this is the fruit of a popular saying: "some of the mud is bound to stick". Egibar has said on certain occasions with regard to the kidnapping of Ortega Lara that "it might or might not have been an indiscriminate kidnapping, as I fear that Ortega Lara had some other duty." Of Jose Luis Lopez de la Lacalle, a conspicuous nationalist said that "he spoke too much." In other words, this is blaming the victim himself.

The truth commission : its task is to assess the global impact for the first time that violence has had on our country, not only during the democratic era, but also previous ones.

Renunciation of the use of violence : classical pacifism based on the Gandhian school of thought of non-violence, stresses the voluntary aspects which control our thoughts and actions, given that as well as violence being used voluntarily, murder is committed because of taking the decision to kill, in the same way that the much more humane decision may be taken to renounce the use of violence.

Peace process : this is nothing more than the nationalist plan and to this end, those who are not in favour of national construction are branded as enemies of the peace process and are blamed for putting it in jeopardy.
The senseless conclusion is reached of considering violence as useless or harmful for peace. This shows that the peace process is something more than simply achieving peace - it is to gain advantages for the nationalists, because otherwise, how can it be said that violence is harmful for peace when in reality it constitutes its denial.
This shows that, for the nationalists, peace is something more than the absence of war, than the absence of violence; it means political normalization which is no less than the fulfilling of nationalist objectives.
According to nationalists, and this was expressed in the legislative agreement between the PNV, EA and EH in 1999, violence not only fails to contribute towards but also makes the makes the political process embarked on difficult (peace for sovereignty). However, violence not only makes the political process embarked on difficult, but that it is the key to the whole peace process.

End to the violence : nationalism spreads the idea that Spaniards do not wish to put an end to ETA violence because it is in their political interests for the latter to kill.
In Euskadi, several types of ends to the violence have been considered, which are not exclusive to each other (the famous scenarios):
a) the end through talks or negotiation is based on two premises: that by talking, people understand each other and that ETA will never be politically defeated. Notwithstanding, it would seem to be more the excuse of some nationalists to save the legitimacy of the objectives put forward by the terrorist group, because they coincide with their own; there is no room for any type of negotiation because terrorism is considered in terms of totalitarianism against democracy. Egibar has reiterated without grounds that we what we have is a historical dispute of a political nature which must have a political solution, this needing to be negotiated.

b) the police end based on the police effectiveness of all police and, with international collaboration, is based on compliance with the law which demands that the crime be persecuted and tried. In nationalism, there is a terrible fear of police solutions; it is always argued that solutions must be political. When the Statute of Autonomy as being negotiated, the PNV said that, in creating the Ertzaintza, ETA would disappear in a couple of months. Notwithstanding, today the nationalists spread the idea that ETA is not going to be defeated by the police, but there is a going to be a stalemate, and the ones who are accused of immobilism are those who believe that the police must act, as is their duty, to stop the crime and put an end to terrorism, because then the end through talks might be put in jeopardy.

c) the end to democratic unity to politically isolate and eliminate terrorism. This starts with the conviction that the main objective of terrorism is to do away with pluralism in Basque society in order to establish a totalitarian system. This means that, to maintain said plurality, it is necessary for democrats to unite around the defence of democratic principles and institutions representing this plurality, given that these are the very institutions in which plural participation must take place. Democratic unity against terrorism demands an agreement as regards the supreme value of the life of people and the freedom of citizens. It also demands that it be recognized that ETA violence does not bury its roots in a political conflict which the democratic system would have been able to resolve, but rather that it obeys the totalitarian, exclusive attitude of those who practise and promote it. ETA terrorism should not only be rejected because it kills, but also because it attempts to impose a project which is incompatible with democracy. And lastly, democratic unity demands that parties and institutions should maintain clear, coherent attitudes towards isolation with regard to Batasuna.

d) the end to political change by way of a democratic, autonomist alternative which replaces the nationalism of those holding political power. It considers that the so-called democratic nationalism (PNV y EA) established in institutions has abandoned its policy making, because terrorism has silenced the opposition an all kind of social response, whereby it does not need either contrast with the outside or any internal debate. This lack of policy making has given rise to the acceptance of practically all the principles and arguments put forward by terrorist abertzalismo (left-wing radical nationalism). This does not mean that the PNV today is anti-democratic, but rather that the party has adopted the most anti-democratic theses of terrorist nationalism as their own. Linked to this is the constant infiltration of members close to Batasuna in institutions (the media, education, public bodies, etc.), which explains that ETA constantly addresses itself to the PNV and EA, telling them what they have to do. Faced with this situation, the possibility could exist of an internal regeneration on the part of the PNV and EA which would get rid of ETA and their milieu. However, this is not possible all the time the latter continue living off the interest granted to them by institutional power, which is why a solution to the violence shall only be possible through a change which would supersede and replace the nationalism of those holding political power.

e) the end by restoring democratic authority: this approach starts from the notion of considering that the aim of terrorist violence is the violent conquest of power, and that the right of self-determination is not going to result in terrorists abandoning the use of violence, as neither amnesty, nor democracy, nor the greatest level of autonomy in Europe has managed to do They are not going to abandon violence because it has been very profitable, and because they themselves have stated that, even with full sovereignty, they would have the mission of "keeping watch over the process." They will then use violence until such time as they have the power. ETA terrorism is not a phenomenon which may be assimilated by democracy because it desires the destruction of the latter, and then the expectations of power on the part of its followers must be destroyed. Nowadays, thousands of Basques are not afraid of sovereignty, of being independent, but rather of the foreseeable totalitarian dictatorship that may exclude them, that may deprive them of freedom. The absence of authority and anarchy contributes towards this, as the state has almost disappeared in the Basque Country, because those who have been transferred these powers do not use them to defend democracy. The end to the violence will come about when the state retakes control of the streets and punishes the violence systematically, proceeding to condemn terrorism when fighting it, and restoring democratic authority.

f) the end through the triumph of cosmopolitanism: this starts from the notion of considering that the problem existing in Euskadi is the struggle between exclusivist particularism and cosmopolitanism. More specifically, it is the struggle between liberal ideas and the opposing ideas of Carlism. The Basque experience shows us that when Carlism (traditionalism) administers peace, it drives us to civil war and a reduction in freedoms, and only when liberalism administers democracy is there a period of peace. To this end, the submission of the control exerted by particularisms may be overcome by means of social and political protest of a cosmopolitan nature. Protest must be on both an international and a local level, so as to start marginalizing those responsible for ethnic cleansing, and start establishing areas in which citizens may freely express themselves without fear, and in which liberal, cosmopolitan, integrating policies may be carried out until they become widespread at the very heart of the population.

Reconciliation : reconciliation is not by peace, a hail Mary, but rather must be by overcoming the contradiction between forgetfulness and memory, by means of the demand or promise of laying the foundations of a society in which everyone be recognized, by accepting differences and not allowing more situations to exist such as those experienced by the victims and their memory. This makes the victims play an especially active role in a society in which they have their place, because reconciliation must involve the definitive delegitimisation of terrorism, otherwise it is not reconciliation.
As there is no war, there are no adversaries, opposing groups who may have the need for reconciliation. There is only one belligerent party, the ETA murderers and their accomplices, who try to impose themselves on all the rest. The victims of terrorism have never confronted anyone; on the contrary, they make an effort, which is not acknowledged, to coexist with the aggressors.

Forgiveness : it is a Christian contribution that on a civic level, we are shown as representing tolerance offered to he who has been intolerant. Where the law proposes punishing he who is intolerant, forgiveness "forgives him."
Only if we forget can we forgive, given that the victims do not deserve to be forgotten. It is not the case either of the type of avenging, intolerant memory (herriak ez du barkatuko - the people will not forgive) belonging to totalitarian nationalism, but rather the memory from which the rights due the victims are assumed.
Forgiveness is no substitute for justice, but rather may inspire more humanizing approaches and cause steps to be taken which exceed the perceptions of justice themselves. Notwithstanding, forgiveness is used very little in political practice, because it is based on the rule of reciprocity, and forgiveness conversely acts with another logic.
No Basque political or ecclesiastical request has been seen yet which asks the murderers to acknowledge their crimes and ask for forgiveness. However, forgiveness is asked of the victims, but remorse on the part of the murderers is not demanded. They never do this, they act without mercy, although they ask for mercy themselves. These are the ones who must ask for forgiveness in order to be forgiven.

Pacifism : a moral and political principle which acknowledges human life as being of supreme social and ethical value and whose supreme ideal is the maintaining of peace between ethnic, religious and social groups, and between nations and blocks of states.
It includes respect for the dignity of human being, for groups and peoples, and for human rights in general.
It contributes towards mutual understanding among peoples of different cultures and generations. It rejects mistrust, hatred and violence.

Ethical pacifism : this is characterized by ethical denunciation, a universal denunciation of violence, a proclamation of solidarity with the victims and a rhetorical reaffirmation of democratic principles and values. It involves the conscientious renouncing of providing political responses and solutions in favour of providing ways, channels and means. It is a type of pacifism which proclaims ethical commitment, which is against violence because thou shall not kill, as in all conscience, one does not want to either contribute towards or remain silent when faced with murder, which is why one publicly demonstrates by protesting in silence.
Violence is characterized as a curse against humans, and the murderers (those who practise such violence) must listen to the voice of the people (of whom there are few exponents) which repeatedly says that they must put an end to their attitude. It is a gestural pacifism which appeals for symbolic silence, which protests in silence because it does not want citizens to express themselves freely with words, only with gestures. It is based to a large extent on divine justice whereby all men are equal before God, who is merciful, and to this end one protests against all death, even if the murderer's own bomb explodes on him. It is a type of pacifism which, by renouncing solutions, does not mean that the specific causes or objectives of violence have to be pointed out.

Civic-democratic pacifism : this is of a political nature, situating its activity in specific things. It views the person who has been murdered, threatened or extorted, etc., as a citizen whose rights and freedoms have been snatched from them by totalitarian murderers. In other words, that it is not only against physical death, but also against "civil" death, because in Euskadi, although there are too many physical deaths, there are many more people whose rights and freedoms have been restricted, meaning civil death. To this end, it demands a political and civic commitment to the defence of democracy. It protests because the democratic rights of people are being violated and it appeals to the word and the claim of recovering its voice against those who wish to silence it. It proclaims human justice, meaning compliance with the law, whereby the police must pursue the crime and the judges should try in accordance with the laws we have at our disposal. It is expressed both against terrorism and in favour of the system of freedoms gathered together in the Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy, without the call for such pacifism needing to respond to an automatic reaction when faced with a death by terrorist attack.

Peace : this is the meeting-point of all people from the point of view of true acceptance of pluralism - in other words, from the point of view of the definition of the basic values shared by all, and from that of recognition of the foundations of a democratic society which must be laid by all in order for us to be able to essentially acknowledge them as our own.
Peace means building a society founded on citizens based on mutual respect towards all democratic sensibilities and in the reciprocal acceptance, in terms of ideology and experience, of those who uphold it. In short, peace means achieving democratic coexistence and therefore doing away with terrorism.
The aim of politics is to organize social coexistence as well as possible, which at this moment in time of human development here in Euskadi, is formulated in terms of democratic coexistence.
Yet in order to achieve democratic coexistence, an essential step of the utmost priority, among others, is to modernize and democratise nationalism, as the latter has sought refuge in traditional and anti-democratic ideas, in undemocratic essentialisms which violate the rules of equality in the democratic game and restrict the possibility of coexistence in a just peace.
The Estella-Lizarra Agreement, which came about in 1998 based on an agreement among nationalist parties to obtain sovereignty, has an undemocratic approach when there is a desire to negotiate peace through sovereignty - that is to say, to stop killing, stop using anti-democratic means to obtain political objectives, with political rewards being requested in return for nationalism as a whole. Notwithstanding, democracy means precisely using only democratic means and rules to obtain political objectives.
Therefore, both a condemnation and rejection of that deriving from terrorism becomes necessary, such as the repudiation of what is put forward in terms of getting something in exchange for it, as this would mean perpetuating it and morally erasing the memory of the victims.
Achieving peace means the participation of all, but the Estella Agreement prevents constitutionalists from taking part in the "peace process" or defining the "Basque framework of decision," and one has to feel represented by the central Government. To this end, if this condition is not overcome, the Estella Agreement shall never be an agreement for peace, but rather an agreement for division and confrontation.
Peace in Euskadi not only implies recognizing that plurality has always existed, but also accepting plurality, and above all assuming pluralism; this means not only recognizing that we are a plural society, but also that such pluralism of different ideas must be protected and promoted as a positive value in itself.

True peace : according to Basque bishops, "true peace doe not consist of victory, but rather an agreement-" This means that peace would not be authentic if there were not a greater degree of ideological cohesion than normal, that authentic peace demands something else, which today in Euskadi means accepting nationalist proposals.
For democrats, peace means the disappearance of terrorism in all its forms and the ideologies which support it.

Just peace : Elkarri and Gestoras por Amnistía have repeatedly asked politicians to hurry up, as it is time for a "just peace." However, it is ETA who has to be asked for just peace, not politicians. They ask politicians because they view peace as being without compensation or without having to pay that something extra. Yet in democracy, freedom always comes free of charge, because it constitutes its very essence.

Peace through sovereignty : this is peace through territories, it is the sacrificing of freedom in the name of peace. In nationalism, some say that self-determination has nothing to do with violence, yet in turn they maintain that self-determination is the key to peace. As an EH spokesman said on one occasion, "in this land peace has a surname, which is self-determination."
ELA says that "the path towards sovereignty is radically incompatible with armed action," but its definitive cessation must be at the same time as the "death of the Statute of Autonomy and the resulting sovereignty option."
There is a widespread notion that the cessation of violence must be compensated for by a prize for nationalist aspirations in general, not for ETA. This is a situation of blackmail whereby if nationalist advantages are not negotiated, the violence shall continue.