All Doors Opened

Previous issues

INITIATIVES
Academic Commandos

RESEARCH
Open Research Day
Dealing With Stress, the Natural Way
Setting the Computer's Sights
Democracy is Not the Key to Peace in the Middle East
Islam and Christianity
Punctuating Mozart
Reshaping Distance Education

TECHNOLOGY
E-reader
Hybrid Books

GRADUATES
Prof. Gidi Gross: Cancer Researcher
Israel Adam: From Slum Alcoholic to Honors Student and a Master's Degree
All Doors Opened to Elishai Ezra
The Open University as His Greatest Challenge in Life: Sharli Afanger

STUDENTS
Walking in Their Footsteps in Ashdod
University Student Since 8th Grade

MILESTONES
Prof. Hagit Messer-Yaron
Prof. Ron Weidberg
Dr. Yuval Eylon
Dr. Adia Mendelsohn-Maoz
Prof. Aviva Halamish
Dr. Ophir Munz-Manor
Dr. Baruch Ziv
Dr. Milly Perry
Dr. Yoav Yair
SuperBrand University

EVENTS
Dance with Your Fears
Heavens Above

RESEARCH
Democracy is NOT the Key to Peace in the Middle East ...continued from previous page. From Kant to Modern Times Also known as liberal democratic theory or simply the democratic peace, this theory has its roots in a philosophical idea developed by Immanuel Kant in his essay, "Perpetual Peace," written in 1795. Kant's theory was that democratic nations rarely go to war with one another, and that one condition for perpetual peace lies in the establishment of, or conversion to, constitutional republics among the nation-states. Much of his thinking was based on his belief that a majority of the people would never vote to go to war, unless in self-defense. Therefore, if all nations were republics, wars would end because there would be no more aggressors. It wasn't until the 1960's that this theory was scientifically evaluated. Its application in modern times has been expanded to embrace conflicts and systemic violence – which supporting theorists conclude are rare, or at least less common among democracies. In short, there is a strong correlation between peace and democracy. There are two manifestations of democratic peace theory, as Prof. Neuberger explains, "the dyadic peace theory is based on the belief that two democratic countries don't go to war with each other and therefore peace will reign, while the monadic peace theory claims that even if the other country is not a democratic country, the democratic country is more peaceful and the chances for maintaining peace are greater." These manifestations have two basic underlying explanations. One, is institutional. Prof. Neuberger explains, "in a democracy there are checks and balances, and decision making involves many people. As a result, there is a tendency towards compromise, and therefore a tendency not to go to war." The other is normative (close to Kant's thinking). "In a democratic country, the nature of the rulers, citizens and political culture is peaceful. Since representatives have to get re-elected, they do not want to go against the populace, and therefore they would be extremely reluctant to vote for war." War and Peace and Israel Clearly, the dyadic peace theory has absolutely no relevance to the Middle East. Israel is an island of democracy among a sea of dictatorships and autocratic states (with the possible exception of Lebanon, which may be regarded as a partial democracy.) "For many years, many in Israel believed that the reason there is no peace is because we are the only democratic state," Prof. Neuberger posits illustrating his point with a number of examples. During his premiership in 2001 Ariel Sharon claimed "...The peace process must be based on the disarmament and democratization of the Arab World." Similarly, Natan Sharansky gave a speech at Boston University in 2003 stating, "I believe that peace is possible and I believe a two-state solution is possible... but only when Israel is no longer the only democracy in the Middle East." And, lastly, in Binyamin Netanyahu's book, A Place Among Nations (published in 1993; before his first premiership), he writes, "The totalitarian mindset is the root cause of terrorism... If we leave this last region of the world (the Arab and Islamic world) undemocratized, unventilated by the winds of freedom, we are toying with our common survival. Not with Israel's survival, but the survival of our civilization." Yet, while these explanations do tidily fit the dyadic peace model, Prof. Neuberger is convinced that its application to the Middle East is irrelevant and downright wrong. Page: 1 2 3

RESEARCH

Democracy is NOT the Key to Peace in the Middle East

...continued from previous page.

From Kant to Modern Times

Also known as liberal democratic theory or simply the democratic peace, this theory has its roots in a philosophical idea developed by Immanuel Kant in his essay, "Perpetual Peace," written in 1795. Kant's theory was that democratic nations rarely go to war with one another, and that one condition for perpetual peace lies in the establishment of, or conversion to, constitutional republics among the nation-states.

Much of his thinking was based on his belief that a majority of the people would never vote to go to war, unless in self-defense. Therefore, if all nations were republics, wars would end because there would be no more aggressors.

It wasn't until the 1960's that this theory was scientifically evaluated. Its application in modern times has been expanded to embrace conflicts and systemic violence – which supporting theorists conclude are rare, or at least less common among democracies. In short, there is a strong correlation between peace and democracy.

There are two manifestations of democratic peace theory, as Prof. Neuberger explains, "the dyadic peace theory is based on the belief that two democratic countries don't go to war with each other and therefore peace will reign, while the monadic peace theory claims that even if the other country is not a democratic country, the democratic country is more peaceful and the chances for maintaining peace are greater." These manifestations have two basic underlying explanations.

One, is institutional. Prof. Neuberger explains, "in a democracy there are checks and balances, and decision making involves many people. As a result, there is a tendency towards compromise, and therefore a tendency not to go to war."

The other is normative (close to Kant's thinking). "In a democratic country, the nature of the rulers, citizens and political culture is peaceful. Since representatives have to get re-elected, they do not want to go against the populace, and therefore they would be extremely reluctant to vote for war."

War and Peace and Israel

Clearly, the dyadic peace theory has absolutely no relevance to the Middle East. Israel is an island of democracy among a sea of dictatorships and autocratic states (with the possible exception of Lebanon, which may be regarded as a partial democracy.)

"For many years, many in Israel believed that the reason there is no peace is because we are the only democratic state," Prof. Neuberger posits illustrating his point with a number of examples.

During his premiership in 2001 Ariel Sharon claimed "...The peace process must be based on the disarmament and democratization of the Arab World."

Similarly, Natan Sharansky gave a speech at Boston University in 2003 stating, "I believe that peace is possible and I believe a two-state solution is possible... but only when Israel is no longer the only democracy in the Middle East."

And, lastly, in Binyamin Netanyahu's book, A Place Among Nations (published in 1993; before his first premiership), he writes, "The totalitarian mindset is the root cause of terrorism... If we leave this last region of the world (the Arab and Islamic world) undemocratized, unventilated by the winds of freedom, we are toying with our common survival. Not with Israel's survival, but the survival of our civilization."

Yet, while these explanations do tidily fit the dyadic peace model, Prof. Neuberger is convinced that its application to the Middle East is irrelevant and downright wrong.

Page: 1 2 3