{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018543046357615896, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009271523178807948, 'mean_word_length': 4.90234375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Learning the Lessons: Peacemaking in Israel and Northern Ireland

Much of the twentieth century was dominated by warfare, both international and local. Therefore it was also characterized by many attempts to forge peace in the guise of formal agreements and covenants. Even the most casual observer of the century can see that more often than not these efforts failed to secure any tangible form of meaningful peace and conciliation. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the search for solutions to the growing number of conflicts in the world means that the art of peacemaking remains an extremely important skill for policymakers to acquire. Statistics reflect this need. In 2003, there were 19 major armed conflicts in the world in 18 different locations, and in the 14-year period since the end of the Cold War there have been 59 different major armed conflicts in 48 different locations. The recent histories of the Middle East Peace Process (hereafter, MEPP) and the Northern Irish Peace Process (hereafter, NIPP) have confirmed that the employment of traditional methods of peacemaking has resulted in very mixed outcomes. As a result, there is a clear and pressing need to analyze what has worked within these high-profile peace processes and what has failed—or even hurt the prospects of peace. It is also important to use these positive and negative lessons to construct a short blueprint, or framework, for new peacemaking strategies that might offer better prospects for long-term success.