Postcolonial Theory and the Ideology of Peace Studies
GERALD M. STEINBERG
Israel Affairs, Vol.13, No.4, October 2007, pp.786-796
Gerald Steinberg is Professor and Director of the Program on Conflict
Management at Bar Ilan University, and is Executive Director of NGO Monitor.
http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~steing/Steinberg%20-%20post-colonialism%20and%20peace%20studies.pdf

Peace, peace-but there is no peace (Jeremiah 6:15)

The origins of 'peace studies' (including conflict resolution, conflict
studies) as an academic discipline can be traced to the late 1940s, and the
field has been developing steadily since then.1 By 2000, the number of
academic peace studies and conflict resolution programmes numbered in the
hundreds, located all over the world, and organized in professional
frameworks such as the Peace Studies section of the International Studies
Association and the Political Studies Association (UK).2 As of 2005, there
were approximately 250 such programmes in academic institutions in North
America alone.

The peace studies approach to international relations and conflict was
founded by a group of scholarswith backgrounds in economics and the social
sciences, including Kenneth Boulding ,Howard Raiffa, and Anatol Rapaport.
The backdrop of the Cold War and the political reaction to the threat of
Nuclear war provided a major impetus for the growth of peace studies, which
many people saw as an antidote to programmes in strategic and war studies
that had been founded on many campuses during this period.

This process was also reflected and amplified by the policies of the US
government under the Kennedy Administration, through the creation of the US
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). ACDA was seen as a means of
'balancing' the influence and power of the Defence Department and Pentagon.
In the context of increasing emphasis on arms control negotiations, and the
transformative game theory approach developed by influential academics (many
of whom served as government advisors on these issues) such as Thomas
Schelling and Roger Fischer, the links between government and academia in
the area of peace studies were strengthened. The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis,
and the concern that the policies of strategic deterrence had brought the
world to the brink of nuclear annihilation, accelerated the growth of peace
and conflict resolution studies in academic frameworks.

In parallel, research on peace and disarmament was highlighted in
Scandinavia through the establishment of the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute (SIPRI), the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), and
related programmes at a number of universities. Alva Myrdal, a prominent
Swedish diplomat, who wrote The Game of Disarmament,3 played a central role
in the founding of SIPRI and the promotion of this area of research and
analysis.

In addition, the controversies and political upheaval over the Vietnam War,
including large-scale protests centred on university campuses contributed to
the growing support for peace studies. The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a
major increase in research projects and courses related to 'Problems of War
and Peace', and these often evolved into full-fledged degree programmes. One
of the first, at Colgate University, explicitly noted the link between the
founding of a peace studies programme on campus and 'the continuing nuclear
arms race and the protracted war in Indochina'.4 In other instances, the
role of religious institutions in the development of academic programmes was
central. For example, the Department of Peace Studies at Bradford University
in England was established in the early 1970s, under the influence of the
Quakers (Society of Friends).

Funds from philanthropic organizations such as the Institute for World
Order, and the Ford and McArthur foundations were allocated to the
development of courses and research programmes on conflict resolution on
many campuses, particularly in the United States. The dominant ideology that
surrounded peace studies in this environment led to the promotion of an a
priori approach that viewed international conflict largely in Marxist
terms-the developed West exploiting the undeveloped Third World.

On this basis, the next stage in the ideological development of peace
studies-postcolonialism and the a priori selection of favoured victims
(i.e., Vietnamese, Palestinians, people of colour) and hated oppressors (the
West, and the United States in particular)-was within easy grasp, as will be
demonstrated in detail below.

This trend continued during the era of de´tente in the 1970s, including the
SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) processes and agreements, as well as
the Helsinki process, with its emphasis on confidence building measures
(CBMs) and links between the three baskets-security, economic
interdependence, and civil society (democracy, human rights, press freedom,
etc.). In these processes, the level of academic involvement in the
negotiations was quite significant, including participation in unofficial
'track-two' meetings and publication of analyses. Quasi-academic peace
groups such as Pugwash (involving scientists from different countries)
provided informal and unofficial frameworks for discussions that were
designed to influence public policy. At the same time, the research
community published analyses, developed theories and held conferences based
on these activities.

Major universities in different countries opened such programmes; some based
on the discipline of international relations or international law, others in
the framework of political studies or psychology and yet others as
interdisciplinary programmes. Over the years, these programmes became
independent, offering advanced degrees and hiring specialized tenured
faculty. In addition, a number of journals in this field have been
established, such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Journal of
Peace Studies, and International Negotiation. The creation of the
government-funded US Institute of Peace (USIP) in the 1980s, and the
allocation of significant funds to support academic research, marked a
further step in this process.

During this period, a number of conflict resolution theories and peace
studies models have been developed and are used widely in research
activities. These research frameworks include approaches based on game
theory, 'reconciliation', pre-negotiation, 'ripeness', intercultural
communication, and mediation. A vast literature has developed focusing on
these frameworks and their applications. Many researchers have also sought
to apply the models and analytical frameworks to examples of international
conflict, such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution, India and
Pakistan, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland. However, as will be demonstrated
below, many of most popular texts in these programmes are based on anecdotal
use of evidence, as distinct from in-depth studies and falsifiable
methodologies. References and claims are often based on anecdotes,
unverifiable 'eyewitness testimony' and small numbers of personal
narratives, rather than standard academic documentation and references.

Furthermore, the field of conflict resolution and peace studies is also
characterized by the dominance of ideological positions that go far beyond
the boundaries of careful and value-free discourse. As will be shown, this
field often reflects the central impact of subjective political positions
and objectives, and, in particular, postcolonialism.

PEACE STUDIES AND POSTCOLONIAL IDEOLOGY

As noted above, the field of peace studies and conflict resolution developed
in the context of a highly politicized environment. This background has
helped to create a situation in which the programmes, publications and
research in this area reflect a dominant ideology that is rooted in
postcolonialism. Perhaps even more than anthropology and sociology (two of
the more fertile areas for the spread of postcolonialism in academia), peace
studies provides fertile ground for the growth of this ideological
influence.

In the curricula and syllabi of many peace studies and conflict resolution
programmes, the influence of radical ideological frameworks stands out. Many
of these programmes focus on theories and approaches that are based on
socio-psychological concepts and models such as reconciliation, dialogue,
forgiveness, historic justice, empathy for victims, etc. The normative
models, publications and simulation exercises of academics such as Kelman,
Montville, Kriesberg, and Lederach, are featured centrally in the reading
lists and case studies. The realist approach to international conflict and
conflict resolution and models based on deterrence, the security dilemma,
and the use of force to prevent or resolve conflict, are all but ignored,
or, in some cases, explicitly rejected on ideological grounds.5 (Students in
peace studies programmes rarely encounter the analyses of Hobbes,
Morgenthau, E.H. Carr, Waltz, and other realists.)

In contrast, peace studies programmes emphasize the goal of defining and
furthering 'ways of working toward a just and harmonious world community'.6
Primary emphasis is placed on normative claims in the resolutions and
reports of the United Nations and its ancillary groups, such as the UN
Commission on Human Rights, supported by the powerful NGO community.7
Ignoring the highly problematic nature of 'international law' in the absence
of a legitimate legal process (in contrast to the court systems and legal
structures of duly constituted nation states), this approach allows
advocates to pick and choose among a wide range of norms and quasi-legal (or
pseudo-legal) texts to promote particular political and ideological agendas.

This process was extended through the addition of core texts from
postcolonial ideology to many reading lists in peace studies and conflict
resolution courses-particularly through publications by Edward Said and Noam
Chomsky. Said's Orientalism, for example, fits in well with the political
foundations of peace studies after the Vietnam War. This is particularly
true for Said's claim that Western approaches to 'the East' and non-European
peoples and cultures were demeaning and stripped individuals and society of
substance. Said also helped to reify the existing biases through the
ideological prism asserting that relations between states (and 'liberation
movements') were not among equals, but rather conducted entirely on the
basis of perceived power differences between the West and amorphous and
alien 'others'.

In this context, the identification of the postcolonial 'other' has been
combined with the centrality of power relationships, as epitomized by Noam
Chomsky's political ideology.Chomsky's publications,8 as well as
derivatives, frequently occupy central positions in the reading lists of
peace studies and related programmes around the world, including the
University of Sydney, Notre Dame, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford,
Berkeley, and the Programme on Human Rights and Justice on his home campus
of MIT.

This ideology emphasizes power imbalances as the root of war and evil,
making the United States, as the world's major military and economic power,
also the central obstacle to world peace. Likewise, in the Middle East, it
is Israel's status as a regional superpower (real or imagined) and its
relationship with the United States that confers its status as a
postcolonial aggressor, and perceived Palestinian, Arab, and Moslem weakness
(real or mythical, as in the case of Said) confers preferred status as
postcolonial victim. At the same time, the process of empowerment of the
victim and the removal of the aggressor are portrayed as the path to peace
and justice.

The link between opposition to US policy in Vietnam and the rapid growth in
university peace studies courses, related journals and other activities, is
also a central foundation of postcolonialism. Chomsky's anti- Americanism is
strongly reflected in his 1974 book, Peace in the Middle East, and is widely
adopted by many others in the realm of peace studies. (In addition, many
powerful NGOs that use the rhetoric of peace and human rights, such as
Amnesty International9 and Human Rights Watch10 automatically blame the
United States for much of the violence, warfare and injustice.) And his view
of empowerment of the victim leads him to support and romanticize terrorists
as 'independent nationalism and popular forces that might bring about
meaningful democracy'; while the totalitarian regimes in the postcolonial
third world are viewed as virtuous pillars of the United Nations and other
bodies.11 Furthermore, although Said is quick to contemptuously reject any
attempt to characterize Arab societies and political culture as patronizing
'Orientalism', he has no such inhibitions in making blanket
characterizations of Israel and the United States.12

Thus, postcolonial ideology in peace studies programmes promotes an agenda
based on Chomsky's 'empowerment' of Said's legendary 'other'- the outsider,
the refugee and the postcolonial victim. This agenda extends to political
advocacy and action, including at times support for terrorism and violence,
in the name of this subjective social justice.

IDEOLOGY AS METHODOLOGY: IDENTIFYING OPPRESSORS AND VICTIMS

In the field of peace studies, postcolonial ideology is often accompanied by
the pretence that criteria exist by which to distinguish between aggressor
and oppressor, or victim of injustice and perpetrator.13 Postcolonial peace
studies-including dimensions such as reconciliation, apology, rebalancing of
power relationships, and historic justice-does not acknowledge the inherent
subjectivity of these central dimensions, but inherently assumes- following
Chomsky's Manichean division, that weaker parties and instances of historic
injustice can be readily identified.

The danger of distortion from subjective judgements was enhanced with the
spread of critical theory, particularly in its Marxist versions, and the
enthusiasm with which it was embraced and propagated. 'Critical theory', in
its various forms, easily descends into aggressive political correctness,
which claims to distinguish between justice and injustice. Adherents of the
critical theory approach seek to empower the disenfranchised and oppressed,
or at least to rebalance an asymmetric power relationship.14

But justice and power relationships are subjective, and when transferred
from the philosophical to the political realm, are readily manipulated. This
problem is particularly acute in consideration of the Arab-Israeli conflict
in the context of peace studies programmes. In general, this dispute is
truncated into its Israeli-Palestinian component, and in this very limited
and artificial context, Israel is automatically portrayed as the more
powerful or dominant party, whereas the Palestinians are depicted as
perennially powerless victims of historic injustice. For example, in a
chapter on terrorism that is assigned in many peace studies and related
courses, Shannon French writes: 'Terror is the tactic of the weaker power,
the basis for asymmetric warfare. . .. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is an
organized, disciplined, and well-funded modern army trained to use advanced
technology and weapons, whereas most of those who fight for the Palestinian
cause are poorly funded, ill equipped, and under no effective centralized
control.'15

This assessment is highly subjective, based on a narrow and generally
self-reinforcing restriction of criteria, which erases the impact of
Palestinian terror and the explicit and continuing threats to Israel's
security and survival from the region and the wider Islamic and Arab world.
In addition, the standard claims of historic injustice focus on Palestinian
refugee claims, Israeli settlements, etc., but these are based entirely on
the Palestinian narrative, which ignores responsibility for central
historical events, such as the longstanding Arab rejectionism beginning with
the 1947 UN Partition resolution and the violence that resulted, or the
context of the 1967 war, which led to the Israeli 'occupation'. In this and
in many other cases, historic injustice is a matter of perception and
interpretation, often depending on the determination of a particularly
starting point, and therefore outside the realm of useful academic analysis.

Although many publications in peace studies highlight the case of South
Africa as a paradigmatic example, the clear moral and normative distinctions
between the apartheid regime and the Black majority are entirely
exceptional. Efforts to learn and apply lessons from the South African
experience to other conflict situations create distortions and reflect
political and ideological biases. In this context, the use of the term
'apartheid' in different contexts is politically and ideologically
judgemental, rather than academic, and the demonization of Israel becomes
part of the conflict, rather than contributing to its management or
resolution. Furthermore, the emphasis in the academic literature on the role
of apology, restorative justice and reconciliation (based on the White
leadership's acceptance of moral culpability) also reflects the dominance of
a Christian theological and cultural prism.16

These factors, resulting from postcolonial ideology and postmodernist
critical theory are reinforced by the relative lack of systematic
investigation and empirical evaluation of the relevant theories and models.
Although descriptive case studies and normative articles have been published
dealing with conflict resolution efforts, particularly with respect to
protracted ethnonational conflicts (the Middle East, Cyprus, Northern
Ireland, and others), critical evaluations of failed peace processes are
generally lacking. Evaluative and comparative methodologies, such as the
single analytical framework approach developed by Alexander George, and
based on empirically observable variables that are derived from the theories
and models in the peace studies literature, are necessary to remedy this
weakness in the field. (For a notable and insufficiently cited exception,
see Fen Osler Hampson, Nurturing Peace: Why Peace Settlements Succeed or
Fail.17)

This overall absence of useful empirical analysis that can ascertain the
applicability of the various theories and approaches to peace studies is
illustrated in the case of the treatment of the Oslo process in the
literature. Following the initial agreement in 1993 (the Declaration of
Principles), many scholars 'explained' this apparent success18 and failed to
predict the subsequent failure. Most theories and models appear to be
tautological in nature, without independent and externally measurable
variables with which to determine the link between cause and effect or to
measure success or failure. This constitutes a major weakness in the
academic approach to peace studies.

ADVOCACY: TALKING PEACE WHILE PROMOTING CONFLICT

As a result of these factors, in recent years, academic peace and conflict
studies programmes have also drawn increasing scrutiny and criticism, both
from within and from external analysts.19 George Lopez, Senior Fellow and
Director of Policy Studies, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies,
University of Notre Dame, has acknowledged the ideological nature of peace
studies.20 This ideology enhances the tendency inherent in peace studies to
move from academic inquiry and research to advocacy, and without careful
navigation, it is all too easy for peace studies programmes to be drawn into
the conflicts that students and faculty claim to be studying.

Furthermore, the postcolonial framework condemns the use of military force
in self-defence by non-postcolonial state actors (the West and Israel). In a
major departure from academic norms of conduct, and in a manner that
undermines the credibility of peace studies, faculty members encourage their
students to participate in political rallies, boycotts, and similar
activities.21 Although a detailed analysis of this negative phenomenon is
beyond the scope of this essay, a few examples of such abuse provide
indications of the wider trend. The Peace Studies programme at the
University of Colorado at Boulder includes a course on 'Facilitating
Peaceful Community Change' which includes segments on 'American cultural
imperialism, the religion of consumerism, white and male-caused oppression',
'Power/Empowerment', 'Leadership', 'Solidarity Work', and 'Building
Alliances'.22

In a particularly blatant example of the political abuse, Stuart Rees, the
head of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS) at the University
of Sydney has long championed a pro-Palestinian position and ideology,
disguised within the postmodern jargon of support for the 'disempowered'. In
November 2003, Rees and the Sydney Peace Foundation (which he also heads and
which is closely linked to CPACS) awarded its annual peace prize to Dr.
Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the PLO hierarchy and a former minister in the
Palestinian cabinet. Ashrawi has been a major figure in the political
campaign against Israel (for example, at the Durban conference in 2001), and
in the strident Palestinian organization known as MIFTAH (The Palestinian
Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue & Democracy).23

The peace studies programme at Bradford University in the UK has also become
the setting for anti-Israeli propaganda. In a recent example, the UK peace
studies association, which is hosted by Bradford University, advertised
demonstrations against the Israeli separation fence. In their 'call for
action', the 'facts' were particularly one-sided, and the context (of
Palestinian terrorism) was entirely absent.24 Under the umbrella of peace
studies, this programme, as in the example of Sydney University, is, in
fact, promoting conflict.

Other examples are found in the publications of Mohammed Abu-Nimer, who has
been on the faculty of the Program on International Peace and Conflict
Resolution, American University, Washington, DC, the Rockefeller Visiting
Fellow at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the
University of Notre Dame, and active in other programmes as well. Abu- Nimer
published an essay entitled 'Another Voice against the War' in the December
2001 Newsletter of the Peace Studies section of the International Studies
Association. On its masthead, this publication notes that:

"The aim of the PSS/ISA is to seek a better understanding of the causes of
war and violence and of the conditions of peace in the international system.
To this end, the Peace Studies Section links scholars of various disciplines
and methodologies, develops, encourages, and disseminates research, and
facilitates research-based teaching in peace and conflict studies."

Abu-Nimer's essay begins by focusing on the terror attacks of 11 September
2001, stating that this 'was a horrible act and everyone should agree that
there is no religious or political motivation that justifies such a crime'.
However, he then goes on to address the question of possible causes for
Islamic anger and violence, including US policy in the Middle East, and
turns the essay into an anti-Israel polemic that is entirely inconsistent
with the mission statement of PSS/ISA, as noted above. Abu-Nimer refers to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as 'the main thorn in the Middle East and
in the relationship between western countries and Islamic countries'.

In particular, in this analysis, the conflict is based on the denial of self
determination to the Palestinians. Furthermore,

"Every Muslim believes that the US and European governments, if they want,
are capable of placing enough pressure on Israel to withdraw from the
occupied territories and allow Palestinians to live in freedom. This might
not be a totally accurate belief, however it is derived from the fact that
such governments act as suppliers of weapons and protectors of Israeli
interests and policies in every international setting; the recent decision
to pull out of the conference on anti-Racism in South Africa is a prime
example of such policy."25

Elsewhere, in a policy brief published by the Kroc International Peace
Institute, Abu-Nimer's language is even more clearly framed in the ideology
of postcolonialism. Although claiming to promote non-violence, he uses terms
of incitement and demonization-an indirect form of postcolonialism's
obsession with 'the other'. Thus,

"The loss of human face and connection is one of several factors which
allows soldiers, leaders, as well as people in the streets, to engage in
atrocities and violence, and gives credence to the presumption that the
larger conflict can eventually be resolved by humiliating and killing
Palestinian leaders and people or by killing Israeli children in the
streets. Efforts to develop alternative approaches are essential before both
sides forget that there is any other way to exist."26

In the long term, societal support for academic activities, including
research and teaching, is based on the outcome of these activities-on the
utility of the product. Disciplines such as alchemy and astrology that do
not produce useful or reliable results are eventually dropped from the
curriculum. And the dominant ideologically saturated version of peace
studies and conflict resolution programmes is the modern equivalent of
alchemy and astrology.

Peace studies has not produced peace, or brought this outcome any closer to
reality, despite the tremendous volume of programmes, courses, publications,
and conferences. And practitioners-diplomats and political leaders-are
increasingly aware of the false promise of the main themes of this
literature, including power rebalancing and reconciliation. When these
approaches were tried in the mediation efforts related to the Israeli-
Palestinian negotiations (the 'Oslo process'), they failed to produce
positive outcomes, and prepared the ground for greater violence. Similar
efforts in the case of Sri Lanka (another 'Oslo process'), the Balkans, and
elsewhere have resulted in similar failures. (Conflict management in
Northern Ireland and the 'Good Friday' agreement appear to be exceptions,
but it is too early to declare that peace has triumphed, or to identify the
factors that led to this outcome.)

As highlighted in this essay, the distorting impact of postcolonial ideology
on peace studies is clearly a contributing factor in the record of failures
in this field. This ideology has replaced research with systematic biases
that select favoured 'victims' and rejected 'oppressors', and empirical
methodology based on testable hypotheses with political formulae and
incantations. If the field of peace studies is to survive and provide a
useful and realistic foundation for understanding and responding to
international conflict, the postcolonial bias will have to be discarded
quickly. Indeed, peace studies-as it is currently practised-is part of the
problem, and not part of the solution.

NOTES

1. Claims for earlier origins are far-fetched and lack continuity with the
more recent programmes. The first post-World War II Peace Studies programme
was established in 1948 at Manchester College (Indiana), by the pacifist
Brethren, but this was also an isolated example. 'Peace Studies: Past and
Future', Special Issue, Vol. 504, Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science; Ian M. Harris, Larry J. Fisk and Carol Rank,
'A Portrait of University Peace Studies in North America and Western Europe
at the End of the Millennium', International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol.
3, No. 1 (1998), available at www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/vol3_1/Harris.htm

2. Available at www.earlham.edu/,psa/history.html

3. Alva Myrdal, The Game of Disarmament: How the United States and Russia
Run the Arms Race, New York, 1976.

4. Colgate University Peace Studies Programme, available at
departments.colgate.edu/peacestudies/default.htm.

5. See, for example, Herbert C. Kelman, 'Social-Psychological Contributions
to Peacemaking and Peacebuilding in the Middle East', Applied Psychology,
Vol. 47, No. 1 (1998), pp. 5-29; Louis Kriesberg, 'Mediation and the
Transformation of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict', Journal of Peace
Research, Vol. 38, No. 3 (2001), pp. 373-392; John Paul Lederach, Preparing
for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, Syracuse, NY, 1995;
Joseph Montville, Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies, Lanham,
MD, 1990.

6. L. Forcey, 'Introduction to Peace Studies', in L. Forcey (ed.), Peace:
Meanings, Politics, Strategies, New York, 1989, p. 7, cited by Harris et
al., 'A Portrait of University Peace Studies'.

7. See the analysis posted on www.ngo-monitor.org.

8. Noam Chomsky, Peace in the Middle East, New York, 1974; Noam Chomsky,
World Orders Old and New, New York, 1994.

9. See, for example, Amnesty International's Annual Report for 2006
(available at www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/index.html ) and the comments
Secretary General Irene Khan (available at
www.huffingtonpost.com/irene-khan/ ).

10. Available at www.hrw.org .

11. It is interesting to note that two of the most pervasive influences on
peace studies-Said and Chomsky-gained their academic influence in fields far
removed from politics, international relations, or related disciplines. Said's
position and research was in literature, and Chomsky is a linguist. Their
impact on the study of politics and peace studies resulted from publications
outside their areas of expertise. Although such academic cross-over is not
unique, Chomsky is essentially an essayist, and his publications and claims
are not documented. He chooses his 'evidence' to fit his ideology and
argument, exploiting his academic position as a linguist to publish
scattered thoughts in support of political and ideological positions. And
Said's notoriety and influence was enhanced by the myth he created for
himself as a Palestinian refugee from the 1948 war, while erasing his true
background as a member of the Arab elite residing mostly in Cairo, and with
only a distant connection to Jerusalem, which has been carefully documented
by Justus Weiner.

12. This was a frequent theme in Said's numerous political publications and
speeches. For example, Edward W. Said, 'Who's In Charge? A Tiny, Unelected
Group, Backed by Powerful Unrepresentative Interests', CounterPunch, 8 March
2003.

13. See, for example, Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable
Chomsky, ed. Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel, New York, 2002; Noam
Chomsky, World Orders Old and New, New York, 1994; EdwardW. Said, 'Low Point
of Powerlessness', Al Ahram, 30 September 2002. These are a few examples of
dozens of such publications that repeat the same theme, in which ideology
becomes the basis for political analysis.

14. Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late
Capitalism, Durham, NC, 1992.

15. Shannon French, 'Murderers, Not Warriors: The Moral Distinction Between
Terrorists and Legitimate Fighters in Asymmetric Conflicts', in James Sterba
(ed.), Terrorism and International Violence, London, 2003, p. 32.

16. Solomon Schimmel,Wounds Not Healed by Time: The Power of Repentance and
Forgiveness, Oxford and New York, 2002.

17. Fen Osler Hampson, Nurturing Peace: Why Peace Settlements Succeed or
Fail, Washington DC, 1996.

18. See, for example, Dean G. Pruitt, 'Ripeness Theory and the Oslo Talks',
International Negotiation, Vol. 2 (1997), pp. 91-104; Kelman,
'Social-Psychological Contributions'; Kriesberg, 'Mediation and the
Transformation'.

19. Caroline Cox and Roger Scruton, Peace Studies: A Critical Survey, New
York, 1984; Roger Scruton, World Studies: Education or Indoctrination, New
York, 1985; Paul Mercer, 'Peace' of the Dead: The Truth Behind the Nuclear
Disarmers, London, 1986.

20. In 'Peace Studies: Past and Future', p. 9.

21. Brian Sayre, 'Peace Studies' War Against America',
FrontPageMagazine.com, 30 April 2003, available at
www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID ¼ 7583 .

22. Available at csf.colorado.edu/peace/syllabi/pacs3302.html .

23. Available at www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v1n02/v1n02-1.htm .

24. On the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, members of Leeds
Coalition Against the War will demonstrate in graphic form, with the aid of
cardboard boxes, what they believe needs to happen to the wall that the
Israeli government is erecting between Israel and the Occupied Territories.
'Palestinians are being cut off from their livelihoods and families, and
Israelis are being separated from neighbours with whom they have lived in
peace. This symbolic action is taking place to draw the attention of the
Leeds public to the conflict in Israel-Palestine, in order to mobilize the
voices of peace.'

25. Mohammed Abu-Nimer, 'Another Voice Against the War', Peace Studies
section of the International Studies Association, Washington, DC, 2001.

26. Mohammed Abu-Nimer, 'Nonviolent Voices in Israel and Palestine', Policy
Brief No. 9, Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace Studies, 2002, Notre Dame, IN.