Yes, I agree with your article as a whole.
It is great privilege to be able to talk about ‘peace’ in simple terms, because ‘peace’ often means ‘keep things as they are/don’t be angry and make a fuss,’ and by definition this favors the status quo, ie white people.
When these statements re: ‘peace’ are made, the first question to ask is just how privileged — how comfortable in our current social milieu — is the person making that statement. It loses some power if the person making the statement is privileged, because privilege benefits from complacency, and ‘peace’ often means complacency, timidity, and ‘not getting angry’ when defined by the privileged (who benefit from keeping things quiet and are therefore less inclined to be objective about the concept.)
In general, it is not the place of the privileged to comment upon ways in which society can remain peaceful, because the privileged have a bias in the direction of keeping things as they are.
I suggest that, when a society asks its members how it can move forward, it centralize the experience of oppressed peoples and privileges their responses, regardless of whether they support ‘peace,’ — -which privileged people often use as a placecard for complacency, ie keeping their power — or whether they support some sort of action that will make a difference for society.
If peace can make a difference for society, then it has pragmatic value for moving forward and is valuable. If it’s just a liberal white person’s excuse for complacency and keeping power in the hand s of privilege— and unfortunately, it often is — then it’s time to move on to something that may actually make a difference.