Can Water Mitigate the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict? – the Case for Environmental Peacemaking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water resources have always occupied an important role in the bilateral negotiations of the Middle East peace process, as it defined the water issues between Israel and the Palestinian territories. This paper aims to shed light on the possibility of whether environmental concerns are an efficient mechanism in bringing conflicting countries to the bargaining table. This paper will argue that issues over water scarcity can be resolved peacefully through international cooperation and negotiation, rather than through military force. The paper will provide an assessment of geographical case studies related to the water issue (which serves as the empirical background of this paper), and will support the argument that environmental cooperation can be used to promote peace as opposed to peace being a prerequisite for environmental cooperation. The anticipated results will consider the current complications of the recent conflict within the region in order to assess the degree of success in including environmental security issues within the conflict resolution negotiations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 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".