מגב כריכת ההוצאה הראשונה, 1961 הספר סוקר את התפתחות יחסי ישראל-ערב בשנים 1961-1948 כפי שהשתקפו בעיתונות הישראלית ומעל במת הכנסת. דעות כל החוגים בישראל -- מ"חרות" עד מק"י – מובאות בהרחבה מפי דובריהם המוסמכים ביותר. רבים ימצאו כאן לראשונה תאור מפורט של עובדות נשכחות. המעטים היודעים את העובדות יופתעו להיווכח באיזו מידה מסוגל מנגנון תעמולה ממלכתי לעצב לא רק את השקפתו של האזרח אלא גם את זכרונו מההקדמה להוצאה השניה, 1999 למהדורה זו צורפו נספחים הכוללים מידע שהיה חסוי בשעתו ונחשף רק עשרות שנים לאחר שכתבנו את הספר. שיערנו שניתוחינו יקבלו לימים אישור נוסף. ואכן, העובדות שנחשפו מאז, שאחדות מהן הפתיעו גם אותנו, מאשרות את ניתוחנו. אין פירוש הדבר שכל המידע החסוי מאותה תקופה כבר נחשף
Making War and Building Peace examines how well United Nations peacekeeping missions work after civil war. Statistically analyzing all civil wars since 1945, the book compares peace processes that had UN involvement to those that didn't. Michael Doyle and Nicholas Sambanis argue that each mission must be designed to fit the conflict, with the right authority and adequate resources. UN missions can be effective by supporting new actors committed to the peace, building governing institutions, and monitoring and policing implementation of peace settlements. But the UN is not good at intervening in ongoing wars. If the conflict is controlled by spoilers or if the parties are not ready to make peace, the UN cannot play an effective enforcement role. It can, however, offer its technical expertise in multidimensional peacekeeping operations that follow enforcement missions undertaken by states or regional organizations such as NATO. Finding that UN missions are most effective in the first few years after the end of war, and that economic development is the best way to decrease the risk of new fighting in the long run, the authors also argue that the UN's role in launching development projects after civil war should be expanded. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/1259/thumbnail.jpg
"Peace is a phrase that is often used but vaguely understood. Conventional thought considers peace as a condition that shares a dialectical relationship with war, albeit devoid of a separate nature of its own. Upon closer examination, peace has a pragmatic quality and the potential to be a separate element of statecraft, not simply the absence, termination, or continuation of war. This paper examines peace at the individual, collective, and inter-collective levels. It does so by addressing three central questions: First, how is peace defined and what is its nature? Is it a natural condition or an artificially constructed one? Second, does it differ at the individual, collective, and inter-collective levels? And third, can peace stand on its own as a means of policy relative to diplomacy and war? In essence, can peace be waged? Research reveals that a complex paradigmatic change in statecraft must occur in order to employ peace as a "shaping" and sustaining action. Further inquiry is required to fully understand its potential as a tool, one similar to "soft power." This paper contains recommendations for the continued development of this concept."--P. v. ; "June 2009." ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 11-13) ; "Peace is a phrase that is often used but vaguely understood. Conventional thought considers peace as a condition that shares a dialectical relationship with war, albeit devoid of a separate nature of its own. Upon closer examination, peace has a pragmatic quality and the potential to be a separate element of statecraft, not simply the absence, termination, or continuation of war. This paper examines peace at the individual, collective, and inter-collective levels. It does so by addressing three central questions: First, how is peace defined and what is its nature? Is it a natural condition or an artificially constructed one? Second, does it differ at the individual, collective, and inter-collective levels? And third, can peace stand on its own as a means of policy relative to diplomacy and war? In essence, can peace be waged? Research reveals that a complex paradigmatic change in statecraft must occur in order to employ peace as a "shaping" and sustaining action. Further inquiry is required to fully understand its potential as a tool, one similar to "soft power." This paper contains recommendations for the continued development of this concept."--P. v. ; Mode of access: Internet.
The article of record as published may be located at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548512913477258 ; We present a modeling and simulation approach that clearly increases the efficacy of training and education efforts for peace support operations. Our discussion involves how a computer simulation, the Peace Support Operations Model, is integrated into a training and education venue in Kyrgyzstan for a ''Game for Peace.'' On September 12–23, 2011 members of NATO's Partnership for Peace Training and Education Centers collaborated to instruct a United Nations' Peacekeeping Operations course at the Kyrgyz Separate Rifle Battalion in Bujum, Kyrgyzstan. Phase II of the course was also conducted on October 17–21, 2011 for members of the Peacekeeping Brigade of the Kazakhstan Army (KAZBRIG) in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Although such courses are a mainstay in NATO support in preparing member nations for peace support operations, the application of a computer simulation is unique.We relate the decision to use a computer simulation to support the training event and provide an overview of the methodology for planning and executing the game. Insights from the game about training and educating future peacekeepers and lessons for using computer simulations are instructive for future efforts and mark the way to leverage the advantages of computer simulations. Keyword
This article seeks to reimagine peace against the backdrop of a Foucauldian understanding of politics. Most conventional accounts are based. on a sharp distinction between war and peace and alternate between two broad positions; namely, peace as absence, the absence of war, and peace as presence, as an essential condition. These two visions of peace are often assumed to have found their classical statements in, respectively, Hobbes and Spinoza. The article resists such a binary treatment, bringing Hobbes and Spinoza close together through Spinoza's view of peace as potentia and Hobbes's view of war as process. The result is one that seems to vindicate Foucault: peace is war.
Welcome to Peace Games, where Second Life and First Life converge in a bizarre peace talks charade that reflects the absurd face of global politics. Peace Games by Paul Sermon, exhibited at: GAMES: Kunst und Politik der Spiele Concept and Organisation: Mathias Fuchs, Ernst Strouhal, Florian Bettel Kunsthalle Wien (project space karlsplatz) 28 May - 6 July 2008, Daily 16.00 - 22.00.
Peace stands for a state of mind in tranquillity where one is free from all sorts of worry. We say a man is at peace when a kind of satisfaction exists in his mind, body and soul. An element of joy, happiness and fulfilment thrills his life. Peace is needed for his creative work. Peace is the purpose for which he exists. Peace is the law of nature where everything functions smoothly. Peace is a concept peculiar to man, for it is taken for granted elsewhere in the creation. Man is the only entity that disturbs peace, but man alone is the entity that is conscious of peace. Peace is an abstract subjective experience so far as individuals are concerned. It becomes an objective condition of life when collectively it is applied to society. If family members quarrel, peace is gone, creating a scene. If groups clash, peace is gone, causing social tension. If nations fight, peace is gone, resulting in destruction. Peace is central to all, a condition for any social good, whether it be for individuals, societies, states, nations or the world. When the question of peace is discussed in a Journal of Religious Studies, it is an inquiry into how peace is viewed in different religions; how is it attained; what has been the contribution of each religion to the establishment of peace, either at the individual, social, regional, national or global level; and where does Islam stand in respect of these queries. An answer to these questions would form the substance of this essay.
The formal negotiations to reach peace agreements are a unique opportunity to create social and political change, and those who participate in the negotiations - in what capacity, at what stage, to what degree and on what issues - matter. Although the decision-making process directly affects them, members of civil society are too often not invited to take part in the negotiations, as traditionally the negotiation table has been considered to be a space for the arms-bearers and those who hold the power. However, an organized civil society may prove to be critical for shaping peace, as it has the power to persuade, propose solutions and influence by example and by the integrity of their moral voice. The question is not whether civil society can contribute to the peace negotiations and to a lasting peace, but how it can do so. This study seeks to contribute to answering this complex question, by looking at ways in which civil society have effectively participated in peace negotiations, in order to identify the elements that have contributed to their effectiveness, the challenges and dilemmas they had to deal with and possible ways to overcome them.
With a new Global Peace Index (GPI) countries can be ranked according to their 'state of peace'. However, the GPi is clearly not as refined as, for example, the sophisticated ratings of political rights and civil liberties published by Freedom House, which are the result of a long process of scholarly research. As long as there are no longitudinal GPI figures, and as long as it includes some debatable measures that are not always precise, the index should be regarded as providing a useful indication only.
In Latin America, environmental conflicts have their very own nature, characteristics and dynamics, hence the reason why we need to develop management processes and resolutions that are set within a framework of peace, i.e., a 'social peace' (Gaia). This, in turn, enables the right elements of justice to be put into place. The peace process is, as a result of this action, both solid and long-lasting. Conversely, we have seen how many environmental conflict resolutions have failed in their final objective in the past, i.e., in not achieving peace. A peacebuilding model for the environment (Gaia) should therefore contain elements of foundational support and action in environmental conflict resolution processes, so that they become sustainable over time, benefit all the parties involved, and provide access to natural resources in a sustainable manner. ; En América Latina, los conflictos ambientales tienen su propia naturaleza, características y dinámicas, las cuales nos deben llevar a plantear procesos de manejo y resolución enmarcados en un concepto definido de paz: una paz social (Gaia) que, a su vez, brinde los suficientes elementos de juicio para que esa construcción sea sólida y perdurable. Debemos reconocer que muchos procesos de resolución de conflictos ambientales han fracasado en su objetivo final: la paz. Un modelo de construcción de paz ambiental (Gaia) debe brindar elementos de fundamentación y actuación en procesos de resolución de conflictos ambientales, de forma que esos procesos sean sostenibles en el tiempo, beneficien a los actores involucrados y garanticen el acceso a los recursos naturales de forma sostenible. ; A Amèrica Llatina, els conflictes ambientals tenen la seva pròpia naturalesa, característiques i dinàmiques, les quals ens han de portar a plantejar processos de maneig i resolució emmarcats en un concepte definit de pau: una pau social (Gaia) que, a la vegada brindi els suficients elements de judici perquè aquesta construcció sigui sòlida i perdurable. Hem de reconèixer que molts processos de resolució de conflictes ambientals han fracassat en el seu objectiu final: la pau. Un model de construcció de pau ambiental (Gaia) ha d'oferir elements de fonamentació i actuació en processos de resolució de conflictes ambientals, de manera que aquests processos siguin sostenibles en el temps, beneficiïn els actors involucrats i garanteixin l'accés als recursos naturals de forma sostenible.
Does peacebuilding in the environmental sector influence perceptions of popular legitimacy of post-conflict authorities? Guided by this question this research plan addresses a gap in the literature on peacebuilding and environmental studies. Only limited research has been conducted on the link between the environment and peacebuilding. Generally, scholars and practitioners assume addressing environmental issues during peacebuilding processes contributes to the success of peace (Conca & Dabelko, 2002; Conca & Wallace, 2009; Ejigu, 2006; Kostić, Krampe, & Swain, 2012; Machlis & Hanson, 2008; Matthew, Barnett, & McDonald, 2009a; Matthew, Brown, & Jensen, 2009b; A. Swain & Krampe, 2011). Yet, findings in the peacebuilding literature show that externally driven peacebuilding often leads to a lack of popular legitimacy of governing authorities and the creation of new substructures of legitimacy, a development that has been termed hybrid or post-liberal peace (Kappler, 2012; Kostić, 2007; MacGinty, 2010; Richmond, 2011). These adverse effects of peacebuilding have been identified and studied in many sectors, but are they similarly present in the environmental sector? Or do environmental peacebuilding activities contribute in fact to more popular legitimacy? This study contributes knowledge and understanding about peacebuilding in the environmental sector and its influence on local perceptions of legitimacy. The focus is specifically on projects of renewable energy production that utilize manageable natural resources (i.e. water and biomass). If and how these project influence popular legitimacy will be assessed through within and cross case comparisons of four case studies in the peacebuilding process of Nepal through data based on fieldwork.
It is believed that democracy and peace are inextricably linked, that democracy leads to and causes peace, and that peace cannot be achieved in the absence of democracy. It is an obvious but important starting-point to remember that democracy and peace are not timeless but historical social concepts. Indeed, war itself is a historical product as the negation of peace. Democracy is accepted as the only way for the peaceful world according to the Democratic Peace Theory, but to understand the democratic peace theory, it will be better to ask the question, "What is democracy"? Democratic peace theory's main argument is that democracies do not fight each other, but "what kind democracies"? In this paper some important points of democracy and the democratic peace theory will be pointed out. This paper gives a perspective of the relationship of democracy and peace, and clarifies the question of "does democracy really promote peace"?
Abstrak: Tantangan dalam dunia pendidikan adalah bagaimana caranya agar budaya ini dapat dipelajari dan diajarkan. Pertanyaan yang harus dijawab oleh para pendidik intelektual adalah: bagaimana seseorang dapat mempelajari sikap dan perilaku yang selaras dengan budaya perdamaian? Berdasarkan pengalaman beberapa negara rawan konflik yang mencoba menjawab pertanyaan ini, jawabannya tidaklah sederhana. Faktor-faktor yang terlibat tidak sekedar kognisi dan emosi yang menjadi lahan garapan para pendidik, melainkan meluas ke faktor-faktor politik, ekonomi, dan sosial budaya yang seringkali terbentuk dari akar sejarah yang panjang. Kata-kata Kunci
This study sets out to examine what lessons can be learned from Sudan's Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) 2005, with particular relevance to power-sharing. The author went to on a field-trip to Khartoum, Juba and Nairobi in July 2009 to complement his previous knowledge the Sudan conflict. The report draws ten lessons learned, and these are divided into the three aspects of process, provisions and implementation. In terms of the process, the report suggests that negotiators should strive to involve both regional actors and actors from the international community, focus on the functioning of the agreement, and seek to enhance the capacity-building of the parties. In relation to the key provision, power-sharing, the report calls for mediators to be wary of including exit options in power-sharing deals. The effects of exclusion and inclusion of various actors should be scrutinized and it is important that the message of the agreement is conveyed to various constituencies. Also, it is important to bring peace dividends for the people to increase the legitimacy of the agreement. Regarding the implementation phase, three key lessons are learned. First, for a successful implementation it is essential to keep the momentum of the signing. Secondly, the signing of an agreement is the start, not the end, of building a durable peace. Finally, the research findings demonstrate the importance of maintaining the moment ripe for implementation after the agreement is signed. One way of facilitating this is by keeping the same parties involved during the implementation process as during the negotiations.
What is America's interest in dollarization? Formal adoption of the dollar by other governments creates both opportunities and risks for the United States, political as well as economic. But few benefits or costs can be estimated in advance, leaving much room for debate and disagreement. The argument of this paper is that no presumption can be established either way, whether for or against dollarization, from a strictly U.S. point of view. Unless directly challenged by efforts elsewhere to establish formal currency blocs, the United States has no interest in promoting a wider role for the greenback.
