Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
Journal articles

How Words Could End a War

Abstract : AS diplomats stitch together a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel, the most depressing feature of the conflict is the sense that future fighting is inevitable. Rational calculation suggests that neither side can win these wars. The thousands of lives and billions of dollars sacrificed in fighting demonstrate the advantages of peace and coexistence; yet still both sides opt to fight. This small territory is the world's great symbolic knot. “Palestine is the mother of all problems” is a common refrain among people we have interviewed across the Muslim world: from Middle Eastern leaders to fighters in the remote island jungles of Indonesia; from Islamist senators in Pakistan to volunteers for martyrdom on the move from Morocco to Iraq. Some analysts see this as a testament to the essentially religious nature of the conflict. But research we recently undertook suggests a way to go beyond that. For there is a moral logic to seemingly intractable religious and cultural disputes. These conflicts cannot be reduced to secular calculations of interest but must be dealt with on their own terms, a logic very different from the marketplace or realpolitik.
Complete list of metadata
Contributor : Scott Atran Connect in order to contact the contributor
Submitted on : Friday, July 23, 2010 - 4:26:33 PM
Last modification on : Wednesday, November 17, 2021 - 12:28:45 PM
Long-term archiving on: : Thursday, December 1, 2016 - 8:14:33 PM


  • HAL Id : ijn_00505432, version 1



Scott Atran, Jeremy Ginges. How Words Could End a War. New York Times and International Herald Tribune, 2009, pp.WK12. ⟨ijn_00505432⟩



Record views


Files downloads