Suchergebnisse

In this lucid and timely new book Jeremy Pressman demonstrates that the default use of military force on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict has prevented its peaceful resolution.0Whether called deterrence or war, armed struggle or terrorism, the history of the conflict reveals that violence has been counter-productive. Drawing on historical evidence from the 1950s until today, 'The sword is not enough' pushes back against the dominant belief that military force leads to triumph while negotiations and concessions lead to defeat and further unwelcome challenges. Violence weakens the security situation, bolsters adversaries, and, especially in the Palestinian case, has sabotaged political aims.0Studiously impartial and accessibly written, this book shows us that diplomacy is the only answer

Abstract
How much gender diversity is there among experts in the United States? This study focuses on witnesses who testified before four US Senate committees: Agriculture; Commerce, Science & Transportation; Foreign Relations; and Health, Education, Labor & Pensions. Across the 9072 witnesses (2003–15), women comprised 23.7% of witnesses. In terms of panels, 49.8% were male-only, 5.8% were female-only, and 44.4% were mixed gender. Although the overall numbers remain significantly low proportionate to the female share of the US population, there was an incremental increase in the proportion of women testifying and of mixed gender panels. Non-governmental organizations had the highest share of female witnesses. The percentage of female witnesses does vary with which party controls the Senate, with the average female share higher under Democratic control. These findings raise questions for further study about what factors influence the selection of witnesses for US Senate hearings and whether a similar lack of diversity exists in other identity categories such as race and ethnicity. The effort could also be extended to other committees in the Senate, as well as to the US House.

Social scientists treat stone-throwing as a non-violent act or argue that protest movements may be primarily non-violent despite stone-throwing. However, this study of an iconic example, the first intifada (Palestinian uprising, 1987–1993), demonstrates that stone-throwing is better characterized as unarmed violence. Definitions of violence underscore that throwing rocks is a violent act. Moreover, informed observers and data collected on stone-induced injuries during four years of the intifada illustrate the bodily harm caused by stones. The throwing of stones was central to the intifada and its identity and definition. Stone-throwing was the most visible tactic Palestinians used in the first intifada. Lastly, most scholars emphasize the protestors' perceptions when it might be that the targets' perceptions matter more for understanding definitions of (non-)violence and subsequent policy changes. These findings challenge important social science work and the mainstream Israeli and Palestinian narratives about the first intifada.

This close empirical study of decades of US efforts to bring peace between Arab states and Israel helps reflect on Arild Underdal and Oran R. Young's leadership typologies. Distinguishing between coercive leadership based on the incentives and sanctions that robust capabilities make possible and instrumental leadership focused more on talking, skilled mediation, and policy innovation is useful. However, this US mediation demonstrates that the two are not wholly distinct as previously suggested. The narrative of US efforts from Richard M Nixon to William J Clinton, including 22 cases of US involvement in Arab–Israeli mediation, suggests successful US mediation has been based on four factors. US involvement has led to breakthroughs when the US administration was highly engaged and kept at the problem after an initial diplomatic setback; benefitted from an exogenous event; managed that event to the US advantage; and dealt with strong Arab and Israeli partners.