Sport Diplomacy: Sport’s Impact as a Form of Soft Power on Peacebuilding and Nation-Building in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the founding of the first Israeli and Palestinian soccer clubs in 1906 and 1908, respectively, sport has played an intimate role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whether as a training ground for counter-insurgency operations or an extension of the nation’s foreign policy apparatus, sport has been utilized by both parties as a tool for peacebuilding and nation-building. The purpose of this article is to examine whether sport, through what is termed sport diplomacy, can help establish the conditions necessary for successful peace negotiations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To this effect, the paper adopts the analytical lens of sport as a form of soft power. Following this framework, the paper considers how sport diplomacy operates as a tool for image-building, constructing a platform for dialogue, trust building, and as a catalyst for reconciliation in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The article concludes that sport can indeed help establish the conditions needed for successful peace negotiations; however, sport should not yet be employed as a path to reconciliation until such time as a political peace is firmly established.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".