What the Research Shows
The headline statistics on our home page rest on a body of peace-process research and on the historical record of Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy. This page lays out exactly what each claim is based on — the source, the finding, the dataset, and any caveats.
Two of our three headline figures are drawn from peer-reviewed quantitative studies of peace agreements. The third is a synthesis of theoretical work on identity-based conflict and the public record of failed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. We distinguish carefully between empirical findings and editorial synthesis — the reader deserves to know which is which.
64% less likely to fail
when civil society participates in peace negotiations
The finding
When civil society actors are included in a peace agreement, the risk of the peace breaking down between signatories is reduced by 64 percent.
Methodology
Statistical analysis of 83 signed peace agreements drawn from 40 civil wars between 1989 and 2004. The author modeled the hazard of peace failure as a function of whether civil society actors (trade unions, religious associations, NGOs, business groups) were formally included as signatories or participants in the accord.
Interpretation
The finding is one of the most robust in modern peace-process research. It is widely cited by UN Women, Inclusive Security, and the Council on Foreign Relations. Strictly, the 64% applies to the hazard of renewed conflict among the signatories — the popular paraphrase 'less likely to fail' is faithful to the paper's own language.
Nilsson, Desirée (2012). "Anchoring the Peace: Civil Society Actors in Peace Accords and Durable Peace." International Interactions, 38(2), 243–266.
doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2012.65913935% more durable
when women actively participate in peace processes — lasting 15+ years
The finding
Women's participation in peace processes increases the probability that the resulting agreement lasts at least 15 years by 35 percent. (The same analysis found a 20 percent increase in the probability of lasting at least 2 years.)
Methodology
Logistic regression on 156 peace agreements signed between 1989 and 2011. Stone's analysis appears as Annex II in a broader International Peace Institute report on women's roles in peacemaking.
Interpretation
The figure is often quoted as 'women's participation makes peace 35% more durable' — but the more precise framing is that it increases the *probability of a long-duration outcome* by 35 percentage points relative to the base rate. The effect is statistically significant across model specifications. The 'lasting 15+ years' threshold matters: short-term ceasefires are not what's measured here.
Stone, Laurel (2015). "Quantitative Analysis of Women's Participation in Peace Processes." In O'Reilly, Marie; Ó Súilleabháin, Andrea; and Paffenholz, Thania, Reimagining Peacemaking: Women's Roles in Peace Processes. New York: International Peace Institute.
https://www.ipinst.org/2015/06/reimagining-peacemaking-womens-roles-in-peace-processesZero lasting solutions
achieved through top-down diplomacy alone in conflicts with deep collective trauma
The finding
This is a synthesis, not a single empirical study. It combines two strands of evidence: the theoretical case that identity- and trauma-based conflicts require bottom-up and relational work to resolve, and the historical case that thirty-plus years of top-down Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy have produced no durable settlement.
Methodology
We rely on John Paul Lederach's foundational work on conflict transformation, which argues that traditional Track I diplomacy is structurally insufficient for resolving identity-based and intergenerational-trauma conflicts. We combine this with the public record of every major top-down Israeli-Palestinian initiative from 1991 onward.
Interpretation
We mark this claim explicitly as editorial synthesis rather than statistical finding. The historical record below is verifiable; the theoretical interpretation is the most widely accepted in the conflict-resolution field, but not the only one. The honest summary: every top-down attempt to resolve the conflict over the heads of the affected populations has failed, and there is a coherent theoretical reason why.
The historical record: Israeli-Palestinian top-down initiatives, 1991–2014
- 1991Madrid ConferenceOpened bilateral and multilateral tracks; produced no final agreement.
- 1993Oslo I AccordEstablished the Palestinian Authority and a five-year transition; the permanent-status framework never materialized. Second Intifada erupted in 2000.
- 2000Camp David II SummitTwo-week summit hosted by President Clinton between Barak and Arafat. Ended without agreement.
- 2007Annapolis ConferenceRe-launched final-status talks under Olmert and Abbas. Collapsed before reaching agreement.
- 2013–14Kerry-led talksNine-month US-brokered process under Secretary of State John Kerry. Ended without a framework agreement in April 2014.
Lederach, John Paul (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
https://bookstore.usip.org/browse/book/9781878379733/Building-PeaceWe have tried to verify every number against the original source and to flag where the popular paraphrase differs from the published finding. If you spot an error or have a stronger source, write to us — we will correct, credit, and date the revision in public.
This page is intentionally not a marketing document. It is an evidence file. Pax Democratica is built on the strongest empirical foundation we can assemble, and the integrity of that foundation matters more to us than the punchiness of the headline numbers.
Read the Full Proposal
The evidence laid out here motivates the design of the Joint People's Assembly. The full proposal — including the assembly's structure, mandate, and operating principles — is on the Vision page.