Skip to content

1.3 Peace Research: Rethinking the Frameworks

1.3 Peace Research: Rethinking the Frameworks

In light of the dynamics of slow erasure, traditional frameworks of peace research must be reconsidered. As Johan Galtung (Galtung 1969)1 and Adam Curle (Curle 1971)2 have both argued, peace cannot be reduced to the absence of conflict or violence; it must involve the transformation of structural injustices and the restoration of dignity to oppressed peoples. Peace research has often focused on resolving conflicts through negotiation, mediation, and the establishment of legal frameworks based on Western hegemonic thinking. However, in the context of settler-colonialism, these liberal practices are insufficient because they have colonial undertones and fail to address the underlying perpetual structural violence.

Settler-colonialism is not merely a conflict over territory or resources but a conflict over existence itself. The settler-colonial state seeks not just to control the land but to erase the Indigenous population from it. In the context of Palestine, peace cannot be achieved without addressing the settler-colonial structures that underlie the conflict.

Moreover, the concepts of genocide by attrition and slow erasure highlight the need for peace research to increase the pace with which it shifts focus from immediate violence and to consider the cumulative impact of long-term policies and practices. This is essential for developing a more comprehensive understanding of the conflict and identifying strategies for achieving justice and Indigenous futures. One of the challenges in this context is the need to develop new frameworks that can capture the complexity of settler-colonial conflicts by listening to the Indigenous. As mentioned earlier, traditional legal definitions of genocide and conflict are colonial and focus on discrete events and immediate acts of violence. Still, in the context of settler-colonialism, the violence is diffuse and ongoing. This requires a shift in focus from events to structures and from immediate outcomes to long-term processes.

This theoretical shift is not merely an academic exercise. It emerges from and must remain accountable to the lived experiences and epistemologies of those targeted by settler-colonial violence. In other words, developing new frameworks requires engaging with and learning from the everyday practices through which Indigenous communities contest erasure and envision alternative futures.

In response to the settler-colonial project and the processes of slow erasure and genocide by attrition, Indigenous communities, including Palestinians, have developed various forms of resistance. This resistance is not just about survival but about asserting and maintaining Indigenous identity, culture, and sovereignty in the face of ongoing attempts to erase them.

One key aspect of this resistance is the preservation and revitalisation of Indigenous knowledge systems. These practices represent a form of resistance to the settler-colonial project, as they assert the continued presence and identity of the Palestinian people on the land.

Moreover, Indigenous resistance in Palestine often involves the refusal to move from space and place as acts of defiance against the settler-colonial state. These acts of resistance serve to assert Palestinian identity and challenge the narrative imposed by the settler state.

The concept of slow erasure provides a critical lens for understanding the Palestinian question and expanding our understanding of settler-colonialism. These concepts highlight the structural violence that underpins settler-colonialism and challenge the sufficiency of traditional conflict resolution methods in addressing this violence.

Peace research has made strides in incorporating more nuanced and decolonial understandings of violence and conflict in settler-colonial contexts, but its engagement remains too limited. There is still a need for deeper critical reflection and broader inclusion of perspectives that fully account for the complexities of settler-colonial violence and Indigenous resistance. This includes recognising the importance of broader definitions of genocide, as well as the need to research the long-term, cumulative impact of these processes from the Indigenous point of view.

Ultimately, the struggle for peace in Palestine is part of a broader global decolonial struggle against settler-colonialism, and indeed imperialism and neo-liberalism, and the erasure of Indigenous peoples. The lessons learned from the Palestinian experience can inform decolonial efforts around the world. By centring the voices and lived experiences of Indigenous peoples in peace research and conflict resolution, we can move closer to a world where settler-colonialism is approached for what it is: genocidal.

References

  1. Galtung, Johan. 1969. "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research." Journal of Peace Research 6 (3): 167--91. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301. ↩

  2. Curle, Adam. 1971. Making Peace. Tavistock Publ. ↩