The Impact of Jewish Settlers in the West Bank on the Palestinian-Israeli Peace Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of Jewish settlers on the territory Israel conquered from Jordan in the 1967 war is frequently cited as one of the main obstacles for reaching a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians based on a two-state solution. This article discusses three different ways in which settlers influence the peace process. First, changing the demographic balance in the contested territory, settlers are seen as creating “facts on the ground” that are difficult to change. In some geographical locations, settler presence is seen as prejudicing the location of the borders of the two states. In other instances, their presence can hinder neat partition of the territory between the two nations. Second, settler politicization has enabled this group to become a spoiler, hindering the capacity of the government to fulfil its commitments under existing agreements and to make further commitments. Finally, settler privileging contributes to low degrees of trust between the two sides. Such privileging gets manifested in acts of violence and other unlawful behaviour that goes unpunished by Israeli authorities, separate roads, the proliferation of check points to protect settlers, and the route of the separation/security barrier that takes into consideration settler interests. The high degree of suspicion, in turn, decreases willingness to compromise. The article elaborates on the challenges that arise from three prongs and ends with policy prescriptions for future talks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".