peace and war essay

December 2, 2021

Peace Is More Than War’s Absence, and New Research Explains How to Build It

A new project measures ways to promote positive social relations among groups

By Peter T. Coleman , Allegra Chen-Carrel & Vincent Hans Michael Stueber

PeopleImages/Getty Images

Today, the misery of war is all too striking in places such as Syria, Yemen, Tigray, Myanmar and Ukraine. It can come as a surprise to learn that there are scores of sustainably peaceful societies around the world, ranging from indigenous people in the Xingu River Basin in Brazil to countries in the European Union. Learning from these societies, and identifying key drivers of harmony, is a vital process that can help promote world peace.

Unfortunately, our current ability to find these peaceful mechanisms is woefully inadequate. The Global Peace Index (GPI) and its complement the Positive Peace Index (PPI) rank 163 nations annually and are currently the leading measures of peacefulness. The GPI, launched in 2007 by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), was designed to measure negative peace , or the absence of violence, destructive conflict, and war. But peace is more than not fighting. The PPI, launched in 2009, was supposed to recognize this and track positive peace , or the promotion of peacefulness through positive interactions like civility, cooperation and care.

Yet the PPI still has many serious drawbacks. To begin with, it continues to emphasize negative peace, despite its name. The components of the PPI were selected and are weighted based on existing national indicators that showed the “strongest correlation with the GPI,” suggesting they are in effect mostly an extension of the GPI. For example, the PPI currently includes measures of factors such as group grievances, dissemination of false information, hostility to foreigners, and bribes.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The index also lacks an empirical understanding of positive peace. The PPI report claims that it focuses on “positive aspects that create the conditions for a society to flourish.” However, there is little indication of how these aspects were derived (other than their relationships with the GPI). For example, access to the internet is currently a heavily weighted indicator in the PPI. But peace existed long before the internet, so is the number of people who can go online really a valid measure of harmony?

The PPI has a strong probusiness bias, too. Its 2021 report posits that positive peace “is a cross-cutting facilitator of progress, making it easier for businesses to sell.” A prior analysis of the PPI found that almost half the indicators were directly related to the idea of a “Peace Industry,” with less of a focus on factors found to be central to positive peace such as gender inclusiveness, equity and harmony between identity groups.

A big problem is that the index is limited to a top-down, national-level approach. The PPI’s reliance on national-level metrics masks critical differences in community-level peacefulness within nations, and these provide a much more nuanced picture of societal peace . Aggregating peace data at the national level, such as focusing on overall levels of inequality rather than on disparities along specific group divides, can hide negative repercussions of the status quo for minority communities.

To fix these deficiencies, we and our colleagues have been developing an alternative approach under the umbrella of the Sustaining Peace Project . Our effort has various components , and these can provide a way to solve the problems in the current indices. Here are some of the elements:

Evidence-based factors that measure positive and negative peace. The peace project began with a comprehensive review of the empirical studies on peaceful societies, which resulted in identifying 72 variables associated with sustaining peace. Next, we conducted an analysis of ethnographic and case study data comparing “peace systems,” or clusters of societies that maintain peace with one another, with nonpeace systems. This allowed us to identify and measure a set of eight core drivers of peace. These include the prevalence of an overarching social identity among neighboring groups and societies; their interconnections such as through trade or intermarriage; the degree to which they are interdependent upon one another in terms of ecological, economic or security concerns; the extent to which their norms and core values support peace or war; the role that rituals, symbols and ceremonies play in either uniting or dividing societies; the degree to which superordinate institutions exist that span neighboring communities; whether intergroup mechanisms for conflict management and resolution exist; and the presence of political leadership for peace versus war.

A core theory of sustaining peace . We have also worked with a broad group of peace, conflict and sustainability scholars to conceptualize how these many variables operate as a complex system by mapping their relationships in a causal loop diagram and then mathematically modeling their core dynamics This has allowed us to gain a comprehensive understanding of how different constellations of factors can combine to affect the probabilities of sustaining peace.

Bottom-up and top-down assessments . Currently, the Sustaining Peace Project is applying techniques such as natural language processing and machine learning to study markers of peace and conflict speech in the news media. Our preliminary research suggests that linguistic features may be able to distinguish between more and less peaceful societies. These methods offer the potential for new metrics that can be used for more granular analyses than national surveys.

We have also been working with local researchers from peaceful societies to conduct interviews and focus groups to better understand the in situ dynamics they believe contribute to sustaining peace in their communities. For example in Mauritius , a highly multiethnic society that is today one of the most peaceful nations in Africa, we learned of the particular importance of factors like formally addressing legacies of slavery and indentured servitude, taboos against proselytizing outsiders about one’s religion, and conscious efforts by journalists to avoid divisive and inflammatory language in their reporting.

Today, global indices drive funding and program decisions that impact countless lives, making it critical to accurately measure what contributes to socially just, safe and thriving societies. These indices are widely reported in news outlets around the globe, and heads of state often reference them for their own purposes. For example, in 2017 , Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, though he and his country were mired in corruption allegations, referenced his country’s positive increase on the GPI by stating, “Receiving such high praise from an institute that once named this country the most violent in the world is extremely significant.” Although a 2019 report on funding for peace-related projects shows an encouraging shift towards supporting positive peace and building resilient societies, many of these projects are really more about preventing harm, such as grants for bolstering national security and enhancing the rule of law.

The Sustaining Peace Project, in contrast, includes metrics for both positive and negative peace, is enhanced by local community expertise, and is conceptually coherent and based on empirical findings. It encourages policy makers and researchers to refocus attention and resources on initiatives that actually promote harmony, social health and positive reciprocity between groups. It moves away from indices that rank entire countries and instead focuses on identifying factors that, through their interaction, bolster or reduce the likelihood of sustaining peace. It is a holistic perspective.  

Tracking peacefulness across the globe is a highly challenging endeavor. But there is great potential in cooperation between peaceful communities, researchers and policy makers to produce better methods and metrics. Measuring peace is simply too important to get only half-right. 

Essay on Peace

500 words essay peace.

Peace is the path we take for bringing growth and prosperity to society. If we do not have peace and harmony, achieving political strength, economic stability and cultural growth will be impossible. Moreover, before we transmit the notion of peace to others, it is vital for us to possess peace within. It is not a certain individual’s responsibility to maintain peace but everyone’s duty. Thus, an essay on peace will throw some light on the same topic.

Importance of Peace

History has been proof of the thousands of war which have taken place in all periods at different levels between nations. Thus, we learned that peace played an important role in ending these wars or even preventing some of them.

In fact, if you take a look at all religious scriptures and ceremonies, you will realize that all of them teach peace. They mostly advocate eliminating war and maintaining harmony. In other words, all of them hold out a sacred commitment to peace.

It is after the thousands of destructive wars that humans realized the importance of peace. Earth needs peace in order to survive. This applies to every angle including wars, pollution , natural disasters and more.

When peace and harmony are maintained, things will continue to run smoothly without any delay. Moreover, it can be a saviour for many who do not wish to engage in any disrupting activities or more.

In other words, while war destroys and disrupts, peace builds and strengthens as well as restores. Moreover, peace is personal which helps us achieve security and tranquillity and avoid anxiety and chaos to make our lives better.

How to Maintain Peace

There are many ways in which we can maintain peace at different levels. To begin with humankind, it is essential to maintain equality, security and justice to maintain the political order of any nation.

Further, we must promote the advancement of technology and science which will ultimately benefit all of humankind and maintain the welfare of people. In addition, introducing a global economic system will help eliminate divergence, mistrust and regional imbalance.

It is also essential to encourage ethics that promote ecological prosperity and incorporate solutions to resolve the environmental crisis. This will in turn share success and fulfil the responsibility of individuals to end historical prejudices.

Similarly, we must also adopt a mental and spiritual ideology that embodies a helpful attitude to spread harmony. We must also recognize diversity and integration for expressing emotion to enhance our friendship with everyone from different cultures.

Finally, it must be everyone’s noble mission to promote peace by expressing its contribution to the long-lasting well-being factor of everyone’s lives. Thus, we must all try our level best to maintain peace and harmony.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Peace

To sum it up, peace is essential to control the evils which damage our society. It is obvious that we will keep facing crises on many levels but we can manage them better with the help of peace. Moreover, peace is vital for humankind to survive and strive for a better future.

FAQ of Essay on Peace

Question 1: What is the importance of peace?

Answer 1: Peace is the way that helps us prevent inequity and violence. It is no less than a golden ticket to enter a new and bright future for mankind. Moreover, everyone plays an essential role in this so that everybody can get a more equal and peaceful world.

Question 2: What exactly is peace?

Answer 2: Peace is a concept of societal friendship and harmony in which there is no hostility and violence. In social terms, we use it commonly to refer to a lack of conflict, such as war. Thus, it is freedom from fear of violence between individuals or groups.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Essay on War and Peace

No doubt war is an evil, the greatest catastrophe that befalls human beings. It brings death and destruction, disease and starvation, poverty, and ruin in its wake.

One has only to look back to the havoc that was wrought in various countries not many years ago, in order to estimate the destructive effects of war. A particularly disturbing side of modern wars is that they tend to become global so that they may engulf the entire world.

But there are people who consider war as something grand and heroic and regard it as something that brings out the best in men, but this does not alter the fact that war is a terrible, dreadful calamity.

This is especially so now that a war will now be fought with atom bombs. Some people say war is necessary. A glance at the past history will tell that war has been a recurrent phenomenon in the history of nation.

No period in world history has been the devastating effects of war. We have had wars of all types long and short. In view of this it seems futile to talk of permanent and everlasting peace or to make plans for the establishment of eternal peace.

We have had advocates of non violence and the theory of the brotherhood of man. We have had the Buddha, Christ and Mahatma Gandhi. But in spite of that, weapons have always been used, military force has always been employed, clashes of arms have always occurred; war has always been waged.

War has indeed been such a marked feature of every age and period that it has come to be regarded As part of the normal life of nations. Machiavelli, the author of the known book, The Prince, defined peace as an interval between two wars Molise, the famous German field marshal declared war to be part of God’s world order.

Poets and prophets have dreamt of a millennium, a utopia in which war will not exist and eternal peace will reign on earth. But these dreams have not been fulfilled. After the Great War of 1914-18, it was thought that there would be no war for a long time to come and an institution called the League of Nations was founded as a safeguard against the outbreak of war.

The occurrence of another war (1939-45), however, conclusively proved that to think of an unbroken peace is to be unrealistic And that no institution or assembly can ever ensure the permanence of peace.

The League of Nations collapsed completely under the tensions and stresses created by Hitler. The United Nations Organization with all the good work that It has been doing is not proving as effective as was desired.

Large numbers of Wars, the most recent ones being the one in Vietnam, the other between India and Pakistan, or indo-china War, Iran-Iraq war or Arab Israel war, have been fought despite the UN. The fact of the matter is that fighting in a natural instinct in man.

When individuals cannot live always in peace, it is, indeed, too much to expect so many nations to live in a state of Eternal peace. Besides, there will always be wide differences of opinion between various nation, different angles of looking at matters that have international importance, radical difference in policy and ideology and these cannot be settled by mere discussions.

So resort to war becomes necessary in such circumstances. Before the outbreak of World War II, for instance, the spread of Communism in Russia created distrust and suspicion in Europe, democracy was an eyesore to Nazi Germany, British Conservatives were apprehensive of the possibility of Britain going Communist.

In short, the political ideology of one country being abhorrent to other times were certainly not conducive to the continuance of peace. Add to all this the traditional enemities between nations and international disharmony that have their roots in past history.

For example, Germany wished to avenge the humiliating terms imposed upon her at the conclusion of the war of 1914-18 and desired to smash the British Empire and establish an empire of her own. Past wounds, in fact, were not healed up and goaded it to take revenge.

A feverish arms race was going on between the hostile nations in anticipation of such an eventuality, and disarmament efforts were proving futile. The Indo-Pakistan war was fought over the Kashmir issue.

The war in Vietnam Was due to ideological differences. It also appears that if peace were to continue for a long period, people would become sick of the monotony of life and would seek war for a changed man is a highly dynamic creature and it seems that he cannot remain contented merely with works of peace-the cultivation of arts, the development of material comforts, the extension of knowledge, the means and appliances of a happy life.

He wants something thrilling and full of excitement and he fights in order to get an outlet for his accumulated energy. It must be admitted, too, that war Has its good side. It spurs men to heroism and self-sacrifice. It is an incentive to scientific research and development. War is obviously an escape from the lethargy of peace.

Related Posts:

• Random Compound Word Generator
• Random Phrase Generator [English]
• Random University Name Generator
• Of Friendship Essay | Summary by Francis Bacon
• Random Ability Generator Pokemon
• Random Harry Potter Character Generator

Essay on War and Peace

Students are often asked to write an essay on War and Peace in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on War and Peace

Understanding war and peace.

War and peace are two sides of the same coin, representing conflict and harmony respectively. War often arises from disagreements, leading to violence and destruction. On the other hand, peace symbolizes tranquility, unity, and cooperation.

The Impact of War

War can cause immense suffering and loss. It destroys homes, breaks families, and causes physical and emotional pain. Moreover, it can lead to economic instability and environmental damage, affecting future generations.

The Importance of Peace

Peace is essential for the well-being of individuals and societies. It fosters growth, prosperity, and happiness. Peace encourages dialogue, understanding, and mutual respect, helping to resolve conflicts peacefully.

250 Words Essay on War and Peace

Introduction.

War and peace, two contrasting states, have shaped human civilization, politics, and cultural identity. The dichotomy between these two conditions is not merely a matter of physical conflict or tranquility but extends to philosophical, psychological, and ethical dimensions.

War: A Double-Edged Sword

War, often perceived as destructive, has paradoxically been a catalyst for some societal advancements. Technological innovations, political shifts, and social change have all been byproducts of war. However, the cost of these “benefits” is immense, leading to loss of life, displacement, and socioeconomic upheavals.

The Necessity of Peace

Peace, on the other hand, is a state of harmony and cooperation, conducive to prosperity, growth, and human development. It fosters an environment where creativity, innovation, and collaboration can thrive. Peace is not merely the absence of war but also the presence of justice and equality, which are fundamental for sustainable development.

Striking a Balance

The challenge lies in striking a balance between the pursuit of peace and the inevitability of war. This balance is not about accepting war as a necessary evil, but about understanding its causes and working towards preventing them. Peacebuilding efforts should focus on addressing root causes of conflict, like inequality and injustice, and promoting dialogue, understanding, and cooperation.

In conclusion, the complex relationship between war and peace is a reflection of the human condition. Striving for peace while understanding the realities of war is a delicate but necessary balance we must achieve. It is through this equilibrium that we can hope to progress as a society, ensuring a better future for generations to come.

500 Words Essay on War and Peace

War and peace are two polar opposites, yet they are inextricably linked in the complex tapestry of human history. They represent the dual nature of humanity: our capacity for both destruction and harmony. This essay explores the intricate relationship between war and peace, the impacts they have on societies, and the philosophical perspectives that underpin both.

The Dualism of War and Peace

War and peace are not merely states of conflict and tranquility, but rather manifestations of human nature and societal structures. War, in its essence, is a reflection of our primal instincts for survival, dominance, and territoriality. It exposes the darker side of humanity, where violence and power struggles prevail. Conversely, peace symbolizes our capacity for cooperation, empathy, and mutual understanding. It showcases the brighter side of humanity, where dialogue and diplomacy reign.

Impacts of War and Peace

The impacts of war and peace are profound and far-reaching. War, while destructive, has often catalyzed technological advancement and societal change. The World Wars, for instance, led to the development of nuclear technology and the establishment of international bodies like the United Nations. However, the cost of war is immense, leading to loss of life, economic devastation, and psychological trauma.

On the other hand, peace allows societies to flourish. It fosters economic growth, social development, and cultural exchange. Yet, peace is not merely the absence of war. It requires active effort to maintain social justice, equality, and mutual respect among diverse groups.

Philosophical Perspectives

War and peace have been subjects of philosophical debate for centuries. Realists argue that war is an inevitable part of human nature and international relations, while idealists contend that peace can be achieved through international cooperation and diplomacy.

Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes viewed humans as naturally combative, necessitating strong governance to maintain peace. Conversely, Immanuel Kant argued for ‘Perpetual Peace’ through democratic governance and international cooperation. These differing viewpoints reflect the complexity of war and peace, and the ongoing struggle to reconcile our violent instincts with our aspirations for a peaceful world.

In conclusion, war and peace are multifaceted concepts that reveal much about the human condition. Understanding their dynamics is crucial to shaping a world that leans towards peace, even as it acknowledges the realities of war. The challenge lies in mitigating the triggers of war and nurturing the conditions for peace. It is a task that requires not just political and diplomatic effort, but also a deep introspection into our collective values and aspirations.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on War and Its Effects
• Essay on Kargil War
• Essay on Disadvantages of War

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Books — War and Peace

Essays on War and Peace

The importance of writing an essay on war and peace.

Writing an essay on War and Peace is important because it allows us to explore the complexities of human conflict and the potential for peace. War and Peace is a timeless topic that has shaped history and continues to impact societies around the world. By delving into this subject through writing, we can gain a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of war, as well as the efforts to achieve peace.

When writing an essay on War and Peace, it is important to consider the historical context and the various perspectives involved. This includes examining the political, social, and cultural factors that contribute to war, as well as the diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to promote peace. Additionally, it is crucial to analyze the impact of war on individuals and communities, and the strategies for reconciliation and conflict resolution.

Here are some tips for writing an essay on War and Peace:

• Research extensively to gain a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
• Consider different viewpoints and analyze the complexities of war and peace.
• Use evidence and examples to support your arguments and insights.
• Craft a compelling thesis statement that captures the essence of your essay.
• Organize your ideas logically and coherently to present a well-structured argument.
• Use clear and concise language to communicate your ideas effectively.
• Revise and edit your essay to ensure clarity, coherence, and accuracy.

By writing an essay on War and Peace, we can contribute to the discourse on conflict and resolution, and help foster a deeper understanding of the complexities of human interaction. It is through thoughtful and insightful writing that we can promote empathy, dialogue, and ultimately, the pursuit of peace.

• The Role of War in War and Peace
• The Meaning of Peace in War and Peace
• The Character of Pierre Bezukhov
• Natasha Rostova: A Portrait of a Heroine
• The Philosophy of History in War and Peace
• The Russian Aristocracy in War and Peace
• War and Peace as a Reflection of Tolstoy's Life
• The Influence of War and Peace on Literature and Culture
• Tolstoy's Narrative Technique in War and Peace
• War and Peace: A Study in Morality

War and Peace offers a rich tapestry of themes, characters, and ideas that can be explored through a multitude of essay topics. Whether you are interested in history, literature, philosophy, or psychology, there is ample material in this classic novel to inspire thought-provoking essays. By delving into the complexities of war, peace, and the human spirit, you can gain a deeper understanding of Tolstoy's masterpiece and its enduring relevance.

War Symbolism in a Separate Peace

Theme of the red convertible, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Purpose of War is Peace

The horrors of war and their impact on human spirit: the cellist of sarajevo, the dual nature of fantasy in gatsby and war and peace, the concept of divine love in the case of platon and natasha in war and peace, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

War and Peace: Passion Against Reason in Pierre's Mission

Representation of suicide problematic in war and peace and anna karenina, immanuel kant’s possible views on nuclear weapon and nuclear deterrence, the role of liza's character in war and peace, the role of drones in our world.

Serialised 1865–1867; book 1869

Leo Tolstoy

Historical novel

The novel tells the story of five families - the Bezukhovs, the Bolkonskys, the Rostovs, the Kuragins, and the Drubetskoys

Relevant topics

• The Outsiders
• Catcher in The Rye
• Bartleby The Scrivener
• The Alchemist
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Ethan Frome
• All Summer in a Day
• Alice in Wonderland
• A Separate Peace
• A Lesson Before Dying

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Ethics of War and Peace

Terry Nardin

Before you purchase audiobooks and ebooks

Please note that audiobooks and ebooks purchased from this site must be accessed on the Princeton University Press app. After you make your purchase, you will receive an email with instructions on how to download the app. Learn more about audio and ebooks .

Support your local independent bookstore.

• United States
• United Kingdom

The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives

• Edited by Terry Nardin

• Download Cover

A superb introduction to the ethical aspects of war and peace, this collection of tightly integrated essays explores the reasons for waging war and for fighting with restraint as formulated in a diversity of ethical traditions, religious and secular. Beginning with the classic debate between political realism and natural law, this book seeks to expand the conversation by bringing in the voices of Judaism, Islam, Christian pacifism, and contemporary feminism. In so doing, it addresses a set of questions: How do the adherents to each viewpoint understand the ideas of war and peace? What attitudes toward war and peace are reflected in these understandings? What grounds for war, if any, are recognized within each perspective? What constraints apply to the conduct of war? Can these constraints be set aside in situations of extremity? Each contributor responds to this set of questions on behalf of the ethical perspective he or she is presenting. The concluding chapters compare and contrast the perspectives presented without seeking to adjudicate their differences. Because of its inclusive, objective, comparative, and dialogic approach, the book serves as a valuable resource for scholars, journalists, policymakers, and anyone else who wants to acquire a better understanding of the range of moral viewpoints that shape current discussion of war and peace. In addition to the editor, the contributors are Joseph Boyle, Michael G. Cartwright, Jean Bethke Elshtain, John Finnis, Sohail H. Hashmi, Theodore J. Koontz, David R. Mapel, Jeff McMahan, Richard B. Miller, Aviezer Ravitzky, Bassam Tibi, Sarah Tobias, and Michael Walzer.

"It is apparent that discussions in the international arena, of justice in general and war in particular, will have to pay increasing attention to a diversity of religious views. With this growing awareness of religion in mind, the appearance of The Ethics of War and Peace is fortuitous."—Shaun Casey, Harvard Divinity Bulletin

Stay connected for new books and special offers. Subscribe to receive a welcome discount for your next order. 

• ebook & Audiobook Cart

• Search Menu
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Options
• About Global Studies Quarterly
• About the International Studies Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, the perennial problem of speaking about peace, the obligation to write about war, traditions of international thinking, funder information.

• < Previous

What Do We Learn about War and Peace from Women International Thinkers?

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Glenda Sluga, What Do We Learn about War and Peace from Women International Thinkers?, Global Studies Quarterly , Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2023, ksad018, https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksad018

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The aim of this essay is to ask what can we learn about war and peace from women international thinkers? As I will show, new and old historical evidence of women thinkers points us in directions that suggest, first, the privations women regularly faced in order to make their arguments against the background of actual war, addressing both the more conventional “women's” topic of peace and the often masculinized controversies of the nature of violence. This same history sounds out the range and changing (gendered) registers of international thought, including the diminished tones of peace as a defining objective. Then there are the diverse locations of specifically women's international thought, from manifestos to pamphlets and newspaper articles to published tomes. These lead us to the intersecting political and intellectual networks of activism and influence that colored the intertextual referentiality that thinking generated. Finally, I will argue that the evidence at hand, and the related examples it connects to, underscores the broad transnational European settings of the texts that specifically address war and peace. It even suggests, as I suggest, that the borders of that transnationalism extended not only across the Atlantic, but also through the entangled continental political histories of Western Europe and Russia. In the twenty-first century, these contours of the history of women's international thought remain relevant, not least because they pose the question for us, what difference have women thinkers made?

Cet article traite de la question suivante: que peut-on apprendre sur la guerre et la paix grâce aux penseuses internationales ? Je montrerai que les nouvelles données issues des penseuses, mais aussi les plus anciennes et historiques, révèlent d'abord les privations auxquelles ont été régulièrement confrontées les femmes quand il s'agissait de présenter leurs idées en temps de guerre. Elles rejoignent le sujet « féminin » plus habituel de paix et les polémiques souvent masculinisées autour de la nature de la violence. Cette même histoire nous donne une idée de l'ampleur et de l’évolution des registres (genrés) de la pensée internationale, notamment la perte de vitesse de la présentation de la paix comme objectif ultime. Ensuite, la pensée internationale spécifiquement féminine s'exprime sur différents supports, des manifestes aux volumes publiés en passant par les pamphlets et articles de journal. Nous constatons ainsi l'intersection des réseaux politiques et intellectuels de militantisme et d'influence qui ont faussé l'intertextualité et la référentialité générées par cette pensée. Enfin, je soutiendrai que les données à disposition, et les exemples connexes, soulignent le large cadre européen transnational des textes qui traitent précisément de la guerre et de la paix. Elles indiquent aussi, comme je le montrerai, que les frontières de ce transnationalisme non seulement s’étendaient par-delà l'Atlantique, mais traversaient aussi l'enchevêtrement des théories politiques continentales de l'Europe occidentale et de la Russie. Au 21e siècle, ces contours de l'histoire de la pensée internationale des femmes conservent toute leur pertinence, notamment parce qu'ils s'interrogent sur l'importance du rôle des penseuses.

El objetivo de este artículo es hacernos la siguiente pregunta, ¿qué podemos aprender de las mujeres pensadoras internacionales acerca de la guerra y de la paz? Como demostraremos, tanto la nueva como la antigua evidencia histórica de las mujeres pensadoras nos indican direcciones que sugieren, en primer lugar, las privaciones a las que las mujeres se enfrentaron regularmente para poder presentar sus alegatos contra el contexto de la guerra real, abordando, o bien el tema más convencional de la paz «de las mujeres», o bien las controversias, a menudo masculinizadas, de la naturaleza de la violencia. Esta misma historia tantea tanto el rango como los registros cambiantes (de género) del pensamiento internacional, incluyendo los reducidos matices de la paz como objetivo definitorio. También podemos encontrar los diversos lugares del pensamiento internacional específicamente femenino, desde manifiestos a panfletos y desde artículos periodísticos hasta tomos publicados. Estos nos dirigen a las redes políticas e intelectuales entrecruzadas de activismo e influencia y que dieron color a la referencialidad intertextual que generaba el pensamiento. Por último, argumentaremos que la evidencia disponible, así como los ejemplos relacionados con los que se conecta esta evidencia, recalcan la amplia configuración europea transnacional de los textos que abordan específicamente la guerra y la paz. Esto incluso nos indica, tal como sugerimos, que las fronteras de ese transnacionalismo se extendieron no solo a través del Atlántico, sino a través de las enredadas historias políticas continentales de Europa Occidental y de Rusia. En el siglo XXI, estos perfiles de la historia del pensamiento internacional de las mujeres siguen siendo relevantes, entre otras razones porque nos plantean la siguiente pregunta, ¿cuál es el diferencial que han aportado las mujeres pensadoras?

Through the twentieth century, women have been “at the forefront of geopolitical thinking”; they have written “powerful analyses of war, the organized, reciprocal killing and maiming of people and destruction of things.” And yet, women have been “completely absent from the academic canon of international thought” ( Owens et al. 2022 , 2; Owens and Rietzler 2021 ). 1 This is the paradoxical intellectual setting of Patricia Owens, Katharina Rietzler, Kimberley Hutchings, and Sarah C. Dunstan's Women's International Thought: Towards a New Canon , an anthology that assembles texts by women on the canonical themes of international politics since 1899: imperialism, anticolonialism, world economy, diplomacy, and foreign policy. Many of the women whose voices come through might be well known to feminist historians, even if they have not been read conventionally through the lens of “international thought”—as intellectual historians acknowledge, the field of international thought is (surprisingly) relatively new ( Armitage 2015 , 116–30; Sluga 2015 , 103–15; Huber, Pietsch, and Rietzler 2021 , 121–45). Even as Women's International Thought revolves around (mostly) Western European and trans-Atlantic examples, its enterprise is indicative of the historical breadth and diversity of the fabric of women's international thinking, textured by the warp and weft of its multivocality and inevitably dissonant tendencies. My aim in this essay is to make use of the anthology and these representative strengths to pose a specific historical question: what do we learn about war and peace from women international thinkers ?

In broaching this question by drawing on this anthology, I have preferred to frame women's international texts as manifestations of thinking , a potentially more generous concept than thought in its canonical accommodations. By emphasizing thinking , my intention is not unlike that of the anthology's editors, namely to draw attention to the same “multiple power relations” that have determined the canon of international thought so far and to expand, and possibly even challenge that canon, by incorporating an even wider spectrum of views on war and peace. In practical terms, the preference for thinking over thought allows me to capitalize on the anthology's own approach to its textual landscape, to incorporate a range of genres: manifestos, pamphlets, and newspaper articles as well as published tomes. I also take the opportunity to historically connect complementary thinkers from inside and outside the anthology, not only Bertha von Suttner, F.M. Stawell, Merze Tate, and Hannah Arendt, for example, but also European and Russian thinkers who, in this same period, were connected across the continent through their methods, and across the boundaries of nonfiction and fiction through their concerns. Among those concerns are the tensions between idealism and realism, the diminishing status of peace as a defining political objective, and the distinctive gendering of war. Then there is the history of the challenges women regularly faced in order to make their arguments, often against the backdrop of actual wars. Here, these themes are organized under the headings: “The perennial problem of speaking about peace”; “The obligation to write about war”; “The politics of war”; and “Traditions of international thought.” In positing the prospect of “traditions,” I also take up the question interrogated by Women's International Thought: Whether, given “the multiple intersecting relations of power that shape intellectual production,” there can be “such thing as a women's tradition [my emphasis] of international thought”? The evidence of the anthology itself, I propose, shows that, through the twentieth century, women international thinkers have regularly confronted the significance of their difference, even as they have attempted to reorient their gendered positionality. In particular, tinctured with the darkest events of the past hundred years, the examples collected here suggest that some women themselves fostered a sense of intellectual tradition around the longevity (and persistence) of their gender-inflected political aims. In this essay, their stories and their insights are connected by my overarching claim: in the second decade of the twenty-first century, the long history of women's international thinking speaks to the difference that women's international thinking continues to make ( Sluga 2014 , 65–72).

To the extent that it has existed as a field, “international thought” has often evoked the history of pacifism, and pacifism has been associated with femininity, and even, occasionally, feminism ( Owens and Rietzler 2021 , 17; Sluga 2021 , 226). Historically, women have been well aware of the impact of these associations on any attempt to speak to peace as a legitimate international imperative. At the turn of the twentieth century, Bertha von Suttner—a baroness who founded the Austrian peace movement and eventually impressed the dynamite king Alfred Nobel to fund a peace prize—struggled against the stigma of being both a woman and a pacifist.

Since then, she has remained perhaps the best known of the women associated with turn-of-the-twentieth-century international thinking about war. She has hardly lacked biographers, and she was herself an early publicist of her ideas ( Moyn 2021 , 32). 2 Her autobiography—published in German in 1889 as Die Waffen nieder! , in English in 1892 as Lay down your arms! , and, later, in many other languages—reached at least a million readers in her own lifetime. In 1905, Suttner (like many of the women under discussion in this intellectual history) was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in part for her role at the 1899 Hague peace congress famously organized by the Russian Tsar Nicholas II to somehow manage the escalating militarization of Europe's imperial powers. This was the tense setting in which Suttner took up as one of her main themes the realism of pacifists.

Suttner's address to the 1899 congress—now reproduced in the Women's International Thought anthology—directly attacks what she saw as a prevailing and disabling misconception: that “members of peace societies imagine under the name of universal peace a condition of general harmony, a world without fighting or divisions, with undisputed frontiers settled for all time, and inhabited by angelic beings, overflowing with gentleness and love.” She attributes this misrepresentation to the enemies of the peace movement, who accuse it of “absurdities … which it has never asserted.” In contrast, Suttner describes pacifism's realism: “[t]he friends of peace do not desire to found their kingdom on impossibilities, nor on conditions that might perhaps prevail thousands of years hence, but on the living present and living humanity” ( von Suttner 1899 , 50–69). The peace movement she leads does not demand the “avoidance of disputes,” as she clarifies, “for that is impossible” ( von Suttner 1899 , 56). Rather, she stresses, it is realistic; what pacifists want is for disputes between states to be settled “by arbitration instead of by force” ( von Suttner 1899 , 56).

In the early twentieth century, despite such protestations of realism, the authority of the peace movement's faith in arbitration remained vulnerable to the derision of its “enemies” and to the impact of the unprecedented scale of the arms race that provoked the 1899 congress in the first place. After war broke out in late 1914, the American economist and pacifist Emily Greene Balch acknowledged an inevitability to the “widespread feeling” “that this is not the moment to talk of a European peace” (Balch would eventually win the Nobel Peace Prize, in 1946). In October 1915, she equally insisted that “the psychological moment” for talking about peace was near. It could even be coaxed forth by beginning preparations for peace, through discussion of the terms and principles of a future peace:

In each country there are those that want to continue the fight until military supremacy is achieved, in each there are powerful forces that seek a settlement of the opposite type, one which instead of containing within itself the threats to international stability that are involved in annexation, humiliation of the enemy, and competition between armaments, shall secure national independence all round, protect the rights of minorities and foster international co-operation. ( Balch 1915 , 24)

Earlier that year, as battles raged through the nerve centers of Europe's security alliances, Balch was among the women—three British, some American, and one thousand mostly Dutch delegates—who gathered from April 28 to May 1 in The Hague, not uncoincidentally the site of the 1899 congress. Their aim was precisely to pursue the discussions required for a just and early peace. The Women's International Thought anthology includes texts from many of the women involved in The Hague congress, although not the famous manifesto on which the women agreed ( National Peace Federation 1915 ; Costin 1982 , 301–15; Vellacott 1993 , 23–56).

Hardly a conventional intellectual text, the intellectual authority of the 1915 Hague manifesto rests on its capture of the thinking of well-known American and British feminists such as Balch, Jane Addams, and Helena Swanwick, as well as the Hungarian Rosika Schwimmer ( National Peace Federation 1915 ). On the one hand, the manifesto plainly states the principles that Balch predicted would dominate peacemaking: national independence, minority rights, and international cooperation. Indeed, their international thinking possibly influenced, and certainly anticipated, the eventual terms of peacemaking in 1919, from the creation of international institutions, and the principle of nationality, to the democratic control of foreign policy. On the other hand, as importantly, the manifesto espouses topics that were not acceptable in the delineation of a new international politics: the importance of education and women's suffrage as means by which peace might be permanently maintained. Indeed, the Council of Ten who eventually decided the terms of the postwar peace explicitly and unanimously refused to accommodate the status of women in the peace settlement on the grounds that authority over that question defined national sovereignty and thus could not be put on an international agenda ( Sluga 2005a , 166–83; 2005b , 300–19; 2006 ). For our purposes, the manifesto and the history surrounding it is a vital example of how women's rights and women's political roles were consistently the point of distinction between women's international thinking and international thought more narrowly defined.

Over the course of the twentieth century, the women's Hague congress and its decisions were co-opted into general historical inventories of pacifism and internationalism, particularly as part of the story of the creation of the enduring organization “Women's International League for Peace and Freedom” (WILPF), although its specific peacemaking agenda was as often neglected. Less attention has been paid too to the ways in which these women were targeted by governments for their convictions. We know that some European governments attempted to deter attendance on the grounds that so-called peace propaganda might have undermined strategic wartime patriotic programs. In this same context, social historians have shown the extent of censoring of peace publications as well as unprecedented levels of harassment through raids and surveillance that took place in England. The German government, which overall tried to avoid arrest and prosecution, resorted instead to blocking the circulation of peace activists’ publications and views ( Ewing and Gearty 2001 ). In the United States, there is the example of Balch's activism leading to the loss of her academic position at Wellesley. In Russia, in 1915, Anna Shabanova was forced by police order to dismantle the Petrograd (Saint Petersburg) women's peace society she had established on the Austrian model of Bertha von Suttner ( Cohen 2012 , 184).

The connections between the Russian and other European experiences, events, and ideas ran deep. Before the Hague meeting, in March 1915, Shabanova and other socialist women organized their own anti-war meeting in the (wartime) neutral Swiss capital of Berne. Clara Zetkin, the German Secretary of the International Bureau of Socialist Women and one of the key organizers of this Berne congress, faced the opprobrium of her male peers in the German Socialist Party (SPD), which forbade its members’ attendance. The French women's delegation too suffered the criticism of the (male-dominated) French socialist party. When, regardless, the Berne peace congress went ahead, its participants—twenty-two women from Russia, France, Britain, Italy, Poland, and Sweden—agreed a manifesto that was the work mainly of Zetkin, drawn up in their company. The Berne women shared with the Hague attendees a certain obstinacy and pariah status—and the Hague and Berne women even supported each other's efforts to some extent. However, there were also important differences. The Hague manifesto was intrinsically a liberal document asserting the importance of peace, the intrinsically pacifist nature of women's influence, and the pacific influence of free seas, commerce, and trade routes. The Berne manifesto, in contrast, was oriented toward a socialist rather than liberal critique. It targeted not just arms, but also capitalism, making space for violence in the interests of politics: “Down with capitalism, which sacrifices untold millions to the wealth and power of the propertied! Down with the war! Forward to socialism!,” it proclaimed ( Manifesto of the International Conference of Socialist Women at Berne 1915 ).

The themes of the Berne congress are represented by the Russian socialist Alexandra Kollontai, who contributed her thinking to the congress from a distance. Kollontai had a history of participating in anti-war protests in Sweden, Switzerland, and Belgium; she had been arrested for organizing an anti-war demonstration in Belgium the previous year and was absent from Berne because she could not get permission from the French government to cross its territory. In the circumstances, she wrote her breathless pamphlet, Who Needs the War ?. Echoing the message of the Berne gathering, Kollontai describes the war as “a madness, an abomination, a crime,” and, more specifically, as benefitting only capitalism and a capitalist class ( Kollontai 1916 ; Kollontai [1926] 1994 , 123). On these same grounds, she argues in favor of a different imperative: a workers’ revolution. As we will see, political ideology was a critical theoretical dividing point for some women international thinkers on the question of when war might be justified.

Just as the First World War drew women to reflect on war and peace in a range of political contexts, so too did the end of the war, and the novel postwar international institutional setting ( Stöckmann 2018 , 215–35). The unprecedented intergovernmental body, the League of Nations, was the product of wartime activism. New research by Helen McCarthy, for example, has shown the extent of popular support among women as well as men during the war for a League of Nations that might be equipped to ensure peace in the future ( McCarthy 2011 ). Among those supporters was the Cambridge-based classicist Florence Melian Stawell, whose activism took the form of writing pamphlets and addressing the compatibility of national patriotism and internationalism ( Sluga 2021 , 223–43). After the war, Stawell contributed to the English “Home Library” series a long history of the internationalist basis of peace thinking. Her book, The Growth of International Thought (1927), was meant to educate a broader public in the enduring and universal internationalist values of the newly established League of Nations, as an instrument of world peace ( Stawell 1929 , 7, 18–26). From the viewpoint of intellectual history, The Growth of International Thought is the product of Stawell's classicist expertise, which she shared with so many of the male scholars who led the wartime English League of Nations movement ( Sylvest 2004 , 409–32; Sluga 2006 , chapter 2; Stapleton 2007 , 261–91; McCarthy 2011 ). Like other classicists, she turned to Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian wars, “in which oligarchs fought against democrats, where there was ‘every form of murder and every extreme of cruelty’,” as “one of the strongest indictments against war ever written.” The Peloponnesian wars taught that the causes of belligerence are “the lust for power and gain.” War not only has its origins in the motivations of men, it changes them; once war begins “men are tempted by dire necessity,” and many “grow like the lives they lead” ( Owens and Rietzler 2021 , 41).

Stawell's interest in classical texts also underlines what women's international thinking often added to discussions of war and peace, namely an explicit engagement with the difference women made, such as their gendered investment in peace. Sometimes, the rationale for this difference was biological motherhood. Some of the authors of the 1915 Hague manifesto argued that since women's maternal roles instinctively inclined them to peace, granting women rights would inevitably encourage peace. Mostly, however, arguments for making women's rights a basis for peace were proposed on the grounds of social not biological reasoning: the social forms of masculinity that supported gender inequality also contributed to war. On this same view, conventional forms of femininity were more likely to be associated with pacifist ambitions. Emily Greene Balch understood that women could have the same emotions as men, and be likewise “inflamed by nationalism, intoxicated by the glories of war, embittered by old rancors” ( Balch 1922 , 334–36). However, she ventured that psychologically, women “have a less powerful instinctive pugnacity than men,” and she underlined the sociological fact that women had “in the mass… taken little part in the political life of their peoples.” In war, women “always stood to lose even more than men, as Europe knew” ( Balch 2022 , 493). Stawell turned as well to Euripides’ Trojan Women and Aristophanes’ Lysistrata for lessons about the different roles men and women could take in international thinking ( Owens et al. 2022 , 21; Sluga 2021 , 28; Stawell, 2022, 42). 3 In both plays, women reject men's violence. Most famously, Lysistrata , the eponymous figure (“whose name means ‘the Peacemaker’”) determines to band women from all sides together “in a vow that they will have nothing to do with men until the senseless war between them is ended” (cited in Owens et al. 2022 , 42).

Through the twentieth century, in the face of prevalent episodes of imperial and nation-state-based violence, women have felt an obligation to think and write about the fundamental causes of war. Emily Greene Balch explained that “the great war” revealed human nature to be “a thin crust barely concealing a substratum of explosive passions and interests which may break out in a disastrous eruption at any time.” This same truth made it all the more imperative to ask what could be done “to prevent the calamity?” Virginia Woolf, among the most famous of English writers, arrived at this sense of obligation too, but only belatedly, more than a decade after the First World War or Great War as it was known.

Initially, in the face of the overwhelming tragedy of the First World War, its decimation of a generation of men, Woolf felt that the war could not be spoken about; its suffering was so great that it could not be given words and had to be passed over in silence. In A Room of One's Own (1929), she reflected that feelings that were possible before the First World War—including “the abandonment and rapture” excited by love poetry—“could not be written about after it” ( Caine 2015 , 20; Winter 2019 , 223–35; Beganovic 2020 ). By the 1930s, however, as Woolf contemplated the second year of the conflict of the Spanish Civil War, the ominous onward march of colonial wars and militarism, and accruing refugee crisis, all compounding the threat of another cataclysmic war in Europe, she saw it as her duty to write about war, and to ask how war might be prevented. Her answers took up the themes of A Room of One's Own —the social and political constrictions of gender roles and relations, women's inequality in the professions and in education, the (incomplete promise of) the postwar expansion of the franchise, and the broader social and psychological damage inflicted on individuals by “patriarchy”—and brought them to bear on her understanding of war ( Beganovic 2020 ).

In Three Guineas (1938), published on the eve of the Second World War, Virginia Woolf set out to understand the ways in which middle-class women's exclusion from the corridors of power and influence was tied to predominant forms of masculinity, and masculinity to the causes of war. Observing the powerlessness of middle-class women such as herself, she noted that women could not be members of the stock exchange so they could not use the pressure of force nor the pressure of money to prevent or stop wars. Women could not be diplomats so they could not negotiate treaties to end wars. In England, women could participate in civil service and legal institutions, but they had precarious positions and little authority ( Woolf 1966 , 45). Women could write to the press to voice their views; however, the decision what to print or not was in hands of men. In sum, Woolf declaimed, identifying with her middle-class female subject, “we have no weapon with which to enforce our will”: “all the weapons with which an educated man can enforce his opinion are either beyond our grasp or so nearly beyond it that even if we used them we could scarcely inflict one scratch … educated women [are] even weaker than working class women who can use their labour in the munitions factories to protest” ( Woolf 1966 , 12). Woolf connected the precarity of the public situation of women such as herself to their private circumstances, to “the fear which forbids freedom in the private house. That fear, small, insignificant and private as it is, is connected with the other fear, the public fear, which is neither small nor insignificant, the fear which has led you to ask us to help you to prevent war” ( Woolf 1966 , 129–30). This connection between the private and the public becomes her method of dissecting the origins and prevention of war and illustrating its tragedy.

While Stawell returned to classical texts to understand how men's psychological and material motivations could lead to war, and how war changed men, Woolf dwelt on the contemporary situation, drawing on the evidence of everyday life. In particular, she discusses the photographs sent by the Spanish Government to media outlets “with patient pertinacity about twice a week” as witness to the civil war there, and intended to arouse sympathy: “They are not pleasant photographs to look upon. They are photographs of dead bodies for the most part” ( Woolf 1966 , 10).

This morning's collection contains the photograph of what might be a man's body, or a woman's; it is so mutilated that it might, on the other hand, be the body of a pig. But those certainly are dead children, and that undoubtedly is the section of a house. A bomb has torn upon the side; there is still a birdcage hanging in what was presumably the sitting room, but the rest of the house looks like nothing so much as a bunch of spillikins suspended in mid-air. ( Woolf 1966 , 10–11)

The gaze in Woolf's text belongs to women, in this case. She suggests that women's specific social and historical situatedness connects them: “A common interest unites us; it is one world, one life. How essential it is that we should realize that unity the dead bodies, the ruined houses prove. For such will be our ruin if you, in the immensity of your public abstractions forget the private figure, or if we in the intensity of our private emotions forget the public world. Both houses will be ruined, the public and the private, the material and the spiritual for they are inseparably connected.”

Woolf also uses photographs to dissect the social origins of the gendered dimensions of war as a profession, war sold as a source of happiness and excitement for men, and war as an outlet for manly qualities. In particular, she analyses circulating representations of the masculinity embodied by the orchestrators of the violence erupting across Europe, their portraiture declaiming “[t]he quintessence of virility, the perfect type of which all the others are imperfect adumbrations”:

He is a man certainly, His eyes are glazed; his eyes glare. His body, which is braced in an unnatural position, is tightly cased in a uniform. Upon the breast of that uniform are sewn several medals and other mystic symbols. His hand is upon a sword. He is called in German and Italian Fuhrer or Duce ; in our own language Tyrant or Dictator. And behind him lie ruined houses and dead bodies – men, women and children.

Woolf was not focused on this image, she explained, “in order to excite once more the sterile emotion of hate”. Instead, she wanted to use the photo “to release other emotions such as the human figure, even thus crudely, in a coloured photograph arouses in us who are human beings.” She was interested in the “connection” it suggested, between the public and private worlds: “the tyrannies and servilities of the one, are the tyrannies and servilities of the other.” ( Woolf 1966 , 142).

In using the medium of the photograph to gender and to connect the private figure and the public world, Woolf anticipates later treatments of atrocity photography and humanitarianism, and discussions of the representations of fascism, whether by Susan Sontag or feminist international relations scholars. She shares an interest in patriarchy as an elemental cause of war, and, like other women international thinkers before her, renders women's socially and historically determined difference, “their membership of the ‘society of outsiders,’” “in the historical, social circumstances” they face, “their only weapon in the prevention of war.” For Woolf in particular, women's “outsider” position becomes their means of challenging “whether the new militarization of the society was really inevitable and necessary” ( Woolf 1966 , 115). “Different as we are,” Woolf contends, “as facts have proved, both in sex and education … it is from that difference, as we have already said, that our help can come, if help we can, to protect liberty, to prevent war” ( Owens et al. 2022 , 499).

Significantly, Woolf does not claim that any dimensions of masculinity or women's difference are natural, even if they are normative. They are, instead, she argues, symptomatic of “patriarchy.” They are the product of patriarchal institutions and practices. This same explanation means, she argues, that patriarchal gender norms can be tackled through education: “What kind of society, what kind of human being … should [education] seek to produce?”; What is “the kind of society the kind of people that will help to prevent war”? ( Woolf 1966 , 3). In reply, she posits that instead of the arts of dominating other people, the arts of ruling, of killing, and of acquiring land and capital, education should focus on “medicine, mathematics, music, painting and literature,” and “the arts of human intercourse” ( Woolf 1966 , 34). 4

The gender emphasis of Woolf's argument for how to prevent war, and the writer's obligation to take up that topic, has resonated in the themes of women international thinkers, before and after. Her educational thematic has woven its way in and out of twentieth-century rationales for inventing international institutions, not least the League of Nations Intellectual Cooperation initiative, and the United Nations Education, Science, and Culture Organization. It also underlines the extent to which women's international thinking—with its interest in the intersecting spheres of the private and public, the emotional, intimate relationship between masculinity in the private sphere and militarism in the public sphere, moving across textual/visual sources, and across the boundaries of fiction and nonfiction—has evaded the generic limitations of the existing canon of international thought. Here I want to take up the potential for this same international thinking to link Virginia Woolf to the Nobel literary prizewinner Svetlana Alexievich, writing at the other end of the twentieth century, in the midst of the authoritarian violence of the Russian and Belorussian states in the post–Cold War ( Beganovic 2020 , 28, 33). 5

Born in 1948 in West Ukraine to a Belorussian father and Ukrainian mother, Svetlana Alexievich has been a prominent anti-war voice since the end of the Cold War, convinced that writing about war is an obligation ( Alexievich and Gimson 2018 , 71–72). 6 She is a fiction writer whose novels have been characterized as “attempts to explore human nature through the accounts of war witnesses and to explain more complex social structures in order to understand the causes of wars and prevent them”; “Alexievich says that she wants to show how disgusting wars are, so that even thinking about war would be impossible, even for generals, and so, she does not write a history of war, but the history of feelings or emotional knowledge about wars” ( Novikau 2017 , 320).

In Boys in Zinc (1989), Alexievich’s witness account of the Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989), she poses the question, “How can we recover a normal vision of life?”: “After the great wars of the twentieth century and the mass deaths, writing about the modern (small) wars, like the war in Afghanistan, requires different ethical and metaphysical stances” ( Alexievich 2017 , 18–19). Against the background of ongoing Russian imperial wars, her interest lies in reclaiming the specificity of the single human being ( Moorehead 2019 ); “The only human being for someone. Not as the state regards him, but who he is for his mother, for his wife, for his child” ( Alexievich 2017 , 19). Like Stawell and others before her, Alexievich understood that war changed people; she also believed that analyzing postwar time is often more important than analyzing the war itself: “People do not change during war. People change after the war when they look at reality through the lens of their war experience” ( Novikau 2017 , 322).

As we have seen, in these repertoires the diagnosis of war, as often fundamentally associated with masculinity, has made the discussion of war a difficult, if not illegitimate, intellectual terrain for women, while also providing the provocation for women's contributions as different. Is Alexievich an international thinker? She is certainly connected to a tradition of women's international thinking, of women writing about war and peace across its disciplinary confines. Alexievich, like Woolf, works with a “biographical historical method” that aims to dismantle the structures that provoke “the strong emotions which push people, particularly men, to fight” ( Beganovic 2020 ). As writers, Alexievich and Woolf are exemplary of a particular strand of international thinking—characterized by the interplay of fiction, biography, and historical narrative—that can be traced through the twentieth century. As we have seen, in the early twentieth century, the challenge of writing about peace manifested in the ways in which women thought about war, and the way they experienced the costs of that writing, whether social opprobrium, threats, physical attacks, and criminal penalties. While the sociohistorical connections between a middle-class English writer of the interwar years and a female Soviet/post-Soviet intellectual are thinner than those that might connect Alexievich to Anna Shabanova and Alexandra Kollontai, for example, even Woolf bore the brunt of visceral attacks for her “peace propaganda” ( Lee 1997 , 698). In the late-twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, Alexievich—like Russian and European women before her engaging the imperative of writing about peace and war— has been accused of “defamation” and “desecration of the soldiers’ honor” ( Sud nad tsinkovimi malchikami 1994 , 130). She has endured vicious political persecution at the hand of Belorussian courts. These have charged her with distorting and falsifying the testimony of Afghan veterans and of offending mothers with portraits of their boys “as soulless killer-robots, pillagers, drug addicts and rapists” ( Sud nad tsinkovimi malchikami 1994 , 130). Facing threats to her personal safety, Alexievich has continued her criticism of Belorussia in the current Ukraine war through her fiction and nonfictional writing, pursued as a kind of obligation ( Belarusian Nobel Laureate Alexievich 2022 ). Just why states object to women's international thinking is clarified by the thinkers themselves, who have detailed the entangled private and public, state and individual interests at stake.

The Politics of War

If we follow the tracks laid by the anthology Women and International Thought , the Second World War leads to other unexpected albeit prominent women thinkers, working across literary and political genres. Some of these women were more enmeshed in the disciplinary landscape of international politics, and yet their status as thinkers was equally neglected. Merze Tate's (1942 ) The Disarmament Illusion —originally a Harvard doctoral thesis—was written as “a transnational intellectual history of debates about war as a mechanism for dispute resolution, about the conflict between state sovereignty and the need for international cooperation, and about the perpetuation of historical power imbalances” ( Savage 2021 , 271). Writing in the context of the Second World War, from the double marginality of her gender and race difference, as an African-American woman, Tate thought about disarmament in the context of the long history of the imperial wars of the previous century: “conflicts fought in the Far East and South Africa”; whether Russia in Manchuria, or “a combined European and American army” avenging “the outrage of the Boxers by sacking Peking”; or England fighting in the Transval, “5000 miles from her base of supplies”; and even the United States, “conquering and holding under military rule conquered possessions an even greater distance from home waters” ( Tate 1942 , 294).

Traversing “economic imperialism” and the state-building military precepts of the late-nineteenth century, Tate does not presume that the prospect of disarmament is an illusion. Rather, she argues that disarmament policies have been ineffective ( Tate 1942 , xi). Disarmament is an issue that stands “for a general simultaneous reduction or non-augmentation of armies and navies or military budgets” ( Tate 1942 , ix). It is not “a matter of mathematics nor of morals but of politics” ( Tate 1942 , 346). By politics, she means the ideological investments of states “seek[ing] to give effect to their national policies through armaments as well as through monetary and immigration policies, tariffs and embargoes”: “armament competition is inextricably interwoven with political tension, and international agreement on armaments is possible only when the national policies of states are not in conflict”; in this same context, an international disarmament process standardizes “the relative diplomatic power of the countries involved and prevents the use of armament competition to upset the political equilibrium” ( Tate 1942 , 27, 246).

The historian Barbara Savage tells us that given the failure of disarmament and the cascade of early twentieth-century wars, Tate had much less confidence than her male mentors, or her female predecessors, that “an educated public might bring pressure to bear on these issues, or that more open diplomacy might yield different results.” In canvassing explanations that acknowledged economic or gender determinism, Tate “resisted the idea that women were early or especially effective advocates of disarmament” and she was skeptical of any “materialistic anti-war impulse.” “Peace would only come from ‘a juster conception of international relations’ and some ‘rational international political system’” ( Savage 2021 , 273). Nevertheless, we also find that when Tate studied past peace congresses, churches, international jurists, interparliamentary groups, and “public opinion,” she reasserted a realist pacifist tradition stretching back to the 1899 Hague peace congress and to Bertha von Suttner.

As we have already seen, the question of realism is a persistent thematic in women's international thinking, defining the reach and limits of reflection on the prevention of wars and the maintenance of peace. When we move (as the anthology does) to Hannah Arendt, among the best-known most often cited women thinkers of the latter half of the twentieth century, we return to the predominant concern with the relationship of war to peace, how war changes men and women, and how this fact impacts politics. Writing in the full knowledge of the consequences of the Second World War, and the Holocaust, Arendt's “The Question of War” (1958–1959) takes a lesson from the classical past. Because “military action invalidated the basic equality of citizens … war belongs, as the Greeks saw it, in a non-political sphere” ( Owens 2022 , 114):

What was uniquely wrong about wars of annihilation … was not just the numbers of the dead or the destruction of entire cities, but the destruction of an ‘historical and political reality … that cannot be rebuilt because it is itself not a product … [the] action and speech created by human relationships’ ” (Owens 2002, 83).

Given this understanding of how war undermines politics, as Owens explains, there is only one situation in which Arendt “would have supported the principle of military action,” namely “for the immediate and short-term goal of stopping genocide since it ‘destroys the very possibility of a political world’” ( Owens 2007 , 115). We learn from Arendt that violence is “only rational to achieve immediate and short-term ends, such as ending ethnic cleansing or genocide, not abstract goals of any kind.” Indeed, “all other war should be ruled out if in practice it resulted in a challenge to any ‘actually existing solidarity of mankind’” (Owens 2009, 147). 7

In this same vein, Arendt anticipates that “a future war will not be about a gain or loss of power, about borders, export markets, or Lebensraum, that is, about things that can also be achieved by means of political discussion and without the use of force” ( Owens 2021 , 110). War cannot be understood as “the ultima ratio of negotiations, whereby the goals of war were determined at the point where negotiations broke off”; rather, it is “a continuation of politics by other means,” “the means of cunning and deception” ( Owens 2007 , 91–110; Arendt 2009 , 165).’

Arendt's prognosis resonates with the thinking of women in the past, such as F.M. Stawell, who argues that war not only has its origins in the motivations of men, it changes them; once war begins, “men are tempted by dire necessity,” and many “grow like the lives they lead” ( Committee on the Bureau of International Research in Harvard University and Radcliffe College [n.d. c. 1923] , 41). 8 It also resonates with our present, in which the idea of “new wars”—Mary Kaldor's term—and “forever war” suggests that violence has become its own raison d'etre ( Kaldor 2005 , 491–98). Like women international thinkers before her, Kaldor represents in this “tradition” a woman whose scholarly or theoretical work overlaps with their activist engagement with war and peace. For these same reasons—her gendered relationship to a tradition built on women's difference, and her activism—her thinking can be central to international thought, while she herself has been forced to constantly negotiate a place in a male-dominated canon and discipline.

As women have addressed the realities of war, at times their international thinking has insisted on the links between peace and women's rights as a dimension of the realism of peace itself. It has also referenced an accruing realist/pacifist tradition. In the mid-twentieth century, Merze Tate insisted that her book Disarmament Illusion was “not peace propaganda,” and distinguished her proposals and ideas “for a general, simultaneous reduction or non-augmentation of armies and navies or military budgets” from “the complete abolition of armaments as implied in [Bertha von Suttner's] phrase ‘lay down your arms’” ( Tate 1942 , ix; Savage 2021 , 271). 9 Of course, this was not how Suttner argued the realism of the pacifist cause. Suttner saw herself navigating “that narrow path between fruitless utopianism on the one side and reckless realism on the other, leading to a higher form of international relations” ( Stöcker 2022 , 405). But even as Tate's relatively critical invocation of Suttner's motif anticipated criticisms of the impossibility of disarmament, it inadvertently echoed Suttner's insistence that realism grew out of the ideal; ideals once considered utopian had in fact become real. Suttner noted at the turn of the twentieth century that there was nothing more utopian than the prospect of an “international parliament” and plans for an “International Permanent Tribunal of Arbitration.” “One forgets to contemplate,” she observed in regard to the 1899 Hague peace congress, “the overwhelming fact that such a Conference has been called together by an autocrat in our ultra-military times, and in which every State takes part. Apart from all that will be achieved by speeches, propositions and resolutions ( Suttner 2022 , 375).” She insisted that “the significance and the effect of the event itself must be of the greatest influence, and the first official Peace Conference appears like a miracle in the history of the world.” The conference, in her view, cut through the distinction between ideal and real, because it had created a reality. Half a century later, Merze Tate too presented “the fact of the [1899] Conference itself” (“this wildest dream of the Utopians”) as evidence that governments had taken up debates that are otherwise the concern of philosophers, jurists, and even utopians ( Suttner 2022 , 377).

We can pick up these same threads in 1985, as the Swedish international thinker Alva Myrdal gives her 1985 Nobel Peace Prize lecture. In the fractious landscape of the Cold War's hot conflicts and a nuclear arms race, Myrdal explicitly orients her intellectual journey to disarmament thinking by referencing Suttner's (1899) motif—not uncoincidentally, since Suttner had all but invented the prize ( Sluga 2014 ). Myrdal comments that despite Hiroshima, in the first decade of the post–Second World War, she herself did not really pay much attention to “the problem of ‘atomic weapons’ as they were known.” She was more concerned with reconstruction and “the great historic drama of decolonization”; “I was not from the outset alert to the great risks of an incipient militarization of the word; I was not ready to cry out: Down with weapons”. “My opposition,” she declares, “was directed more against the repression of human rights and the cruelties of war, particularly the bombing of civilians; I personally experienced some of it in London. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons shocked me as it did the rest of the world, but I shared the hope of many that the end of the war also meant the end of nuclear weapons” ( Myrdal 1977 , xxi.).

Which tradition of women's international thinking should we remember? The imperative to write about war, the consequences of writing about peace? The relationship between the private and the public? The role of education and other social institutions? The determinism of patriarchy and/or gender? To be sure, discerning a tradition of women's international thinking offers no simple answers to the question “how to prevent war,” or the challenge of peace, or the difference women's international thinking has made. Instead, that thinking has navigated usefully the difficult path between ideal and real choices by capitalizing on the sociohistorical bases of difference and the possibilities for change. Woolf acknowledges that it is hard to maintain “the recurring dream that has haunted the human mind since the beginning of time, the dream of peace, the dream of freedom” when one has “the sound of the guns in your ears.” In these same circumstances, she ventures that even when the imperative is “how to prevent war,” rather than to consider the nature of peace, women's difference can be put to use:

since we are different, our help must be different … The answer to your question must be that we can best help you to prevent war not by repeating your words and following your methods but by finding new words and creating new methods. We can best help you to prevent war not by joining your society but by remaining outside your society but in cooperation with its aim. That aim is the same for us both. It is to assert “the rights of all-all men and women – to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.” ( Woolf 1966 , 673)

In this tradition of women's international thinking, the tension between realism and idealism has also been converted into a tension between the past—which has to be broken with—and a reimagined future initiated in the present. Here is Arendt on this same theme: “The lifespan of man running towards death would inevitably carry everything human to ruin and destruction if it were not for the faculty of interrupting it and beginning something new, a faculty which is inherent in action like an every-present reminder that men, though they may day, are not born in order to die but in order to begin” ( Arendt [1958] 2019 , 246; Cooper 1991 ; Beckman and D'Amico 1994 ; Sluga 2005b , 2017 , 2021 ).

Whether we consider the status of the international order, our era of artificial intelligence, the changing nature of wars, or the changing position of women themselves, women's difference still matters to international thinking. On the one hand, in many European and trans-Atlantic countries, women now have profiles in the public sphere to the extent that searching for the particularism of gender in analyses of war and peace and women's international thinking seems irrelevant. On the other hand, the gendered nature of women's difference remains relevant, whether in commentary that remarks on the presence of women or, indeed, on the difference that feminist foreign policy itself could make to the prevention of war. In the early twenty-first century, women lead countries and regions, and intergovernmental institutions. They can use the pressure of force and the pressure of money; they can even negotiate treaties. Women, the German press suggests, have been prominent in the commentary field on the war in Ukraine. The Moscow Times talks of the “feminine” face of Russian war protests. Female prime ministers of Finland, Sweden, and Estonia have overseen decisions about membership of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In 2022, the European Union (EU) stateswomen Ursula Van der Leyen and Roberta Metsola were prominent early visitors of the embattled president in Kyiv and supporters of the war against Russia as a just war. Even where women do not lead, “feminist foreign policy” ostensibly guides the thinking and strategy of some of the countries looking on, not least the EU itself. In a prime example of the confluence of these shifts, the green German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock has had to reconcile a new era of German militarization and her commitment to “feminist foreign policy” ( Speech by Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock 2022 ).

We also know, thanks to the anthology, that women's international thinking does not always diverge from the existing canon of international thought dominated by men. Certainly, the Vietnam war and its purpose found its supporters among women international thinkers such as Roberta Wohlstetter, whose 1960 Bancroft winning book Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision argued that “US national security required an assiduously aggressive posture, a willingness to fight and win a nuclear war” ( Speech by Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock 2022 ). In 2022, this is a position that echoes through Anne Applebaum's insistence that democracies should not only have weapons, but also wield them or risk the annihilation of democracy ( Applebaum 2022 ). However, it is also true that individual women have regularly taken up the problems of war and peace by thinking against the grain of ideological gender constraints. If we want to understand the lack of enthusiasm of African and Asian states for the United States and Europe's rallying call against the Russian invasion in Ukraine, we need only look at Women's International Thought’ s examples of writing about the dangers of imperial exceptionalism, not least Mary McCarthy's Cold War “The other war,” which lambasted the moral standing of Washington, DC (the “Athens” of the twentieth century) and its war of “pacification” in Vietnam ( Bessner 2022 ; McCarthy 2022 , 121–26).

Women have always drawn on uncommon examples, arrived at uncommon conclusions, and forged alternative intellectual traditions in the process, even when they themselves did not remember them accurately. The difference that women thinking about war and peace have made should inspire us to further collections and considerations, picking up the remnants we still have, diverse in their historical contexts and languages, incorporating voices imagined as subaltern, or outside Europe, and back in time, picking up echoes we may have forgotten along the way. These remind us too of the importance of international thinking itself. This is the difference that the history of women as international thinkers makes.

I want to thank the editors of that volume, and Ekaterina Abramova for their advice and help with this essay. This essay was originally presented as a keynote at the Women's International Thought conference, LSE, May 2022.

In his recent critique of “forever wars,” and the maintenance of the oxymoronic legal concept “humane war,” Sam Moyn singles out the importance in the history of peace thinking of Suttner's Lay Down Your Arms , or Down with Weapons? Die Waffen nieder!

As the anthology editors note, even Stawell's middle name recognized the conquered inhabitants of Melos, her feminist reading of the “Greeks” prefigures more recent calls for “a Melian security studies.” “Introduction”, Owens et al. 2022 , 28.

I have drawn here from a broader selection of Three Guineas than that included in the anthology Women's International Thought .

This connection is inspired by the work of Velid Beganovic, a Bosnian scholar of Woolf who links her method to that of Alexievich.

All Russian texts here are translated by Ekaterina Abramova.

On these same grounds, in the postwar Arendt supports an international criminal court “to try and punish those responsible.”

“So it goes on till there is nothing but suspicion everywhere. There was no treaty binding enough to reconcile opponents: everyone knew that nothing was secure and therefore he thought only of his own safety; he could not afford to trust another.”

The quote continues “but in the wider significance given to it in popular language as meaning ‘limitation and reduction of armaments.’”

Research for this article has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement no 885285).

Alexievich Svetlana . 2017 . Boys in Zinc . London : Penguin .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Alexievich Svetlana , Gimson Sally . 2018 . “ Truth or Dare: An Interview with Nobel Prize-Winning Author Svetlana Alexievich about Her Work and How She Copes with Threats against Her .” Index on Censorship 47 ( 4 ): 71 – 72 .

Applebaum Anne . 2022 . “ There Is No Liberal World Order: Unless Democracies Defend Themselves, the Forces of Autocracy Will Destroy Them .” The Atlantic, May, 2022. Accessed February 24, 2022. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/autocracy-could-destroy-democracy-russia-ukraine/629363/ .

Arendt Hannah . [1958] 2019 . The Human Condition . Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press .

Arendt Hannah . [1993] 2009 . The Promise of Politics . New York : Schocken Books .

Armitage David . 2015 . “ Modern International Thought: Problems and Prospects .” History of European Ideas 41 ( 1 ): 116 – 30 .

Balch Emily Greene . 1915 . “ The Time to Make Peace .” The Survey 35 : 24 – 25 . Also published in Jane Addams, Emily G. Balch, and Alice Hamilton. 1915. Women at the Hague: The International Congress of Women and Its Results , 111–23. New York: Macmillan .

Balch Emily Greene . 1922 . “ Women's Work for Peace .” The World Tomorrow 4–5 : 334 – 36 .

Balch Emily Greene . 2022 . “ From ‘Womens’ Work for Peace’ .” In Women's International Thought: Towards a New Canon , edited by Owens Patricia , Rietzler Katharina , Hutchings Kimberly , Dunstan Sarah C. . 493–496. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Beckman Peter , D'Amico Francine . 1994 . Women, Gender, and World Politics: Perspectives, Policies, and Prospects . Westport, CT : Bergin & Garvey .

Beganovic Velid . 2020 . “ ‘God Damn This War”: Virginia Woolf's Struggle for Peace between the Wars .” E-rea 17.2. Accessed March 17, 2023. https://doi.org/10.4000/erea.9612 .

Bessner Daniel . 2022 . “ Ending Primacy to End U.S. Wars .” Quincy Brief No 24, April 7. Accessed March 17, 2023. https://quincyinst.org/report/ending-primacy-to-end-u-s-wars/ .

Bessner Daniel . “ Belarusian Nobel Laureate Alexievich Says Lukashenka's Actions over Ukraine a ‘Crime’ .” 2022 . March 5, RFE/RL's Belarus Service. Accessed March 17, 2023. https://www.rferl.org/a/belarus-alexievich-lukashenka-crime/31737561.html .

Caine Barbara . 2015 . “ Love and Romance in Interwar British Women's Autobiography .” In Love and Romance in Britain, 1918–1970 , edited by Harris A. , Jones T.W. , 20 – 40 . London : Palgrave Macmillan .

Cohen Laurie . 2012 . “ Early Endeavors to Establish a (Soviet) Russian WILPF Section, 1915–1925: A Little Known Episode in Feminist Transnational Peace History .” Deportate, Esuli, Profughe 18–19 : 178 – 99 .

Committee on the Bureau of International Research in Harvard University and Radcliffe College (n.d. c. 1923) . 2022 . In Women's International Thought: Towards a New Canon , edited by Owens Patricia , 39 – 40 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Cooper Sandi . 1991 . Patriotic Pacifism: Waging War on War in Europe, 1815–1914 . New York : Oxford University Press .

Costin Lela . 1982 . “ Feminism, Pacifism, Internationalism and the 1915 International Congress of Women .” Women's Studies International Forum 5 ( 3–4 ): 301 – 15 .

Ewing Keith , Anthony Gearty Conor . 2001 . The Struggle for Civil Liberties: Political Freedom and the Rule of Law in Britain, 1914–1945 . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Gankin Olga Hess , Fisher H.H. . 1940 . Manifesto of the International Conference of Socialist Women at Berne, March 1915 . In The Bolsheviks and the World War: The Origin of the Third International . 295–297. Palo Alto, CA : Stanford University Press . Accessed March 17, 2023. https://search.alexanderstreet.com/preview/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cbibliographic_details%7C1735304 .

Huber Valeska , Pietsch Tamson , Rietzler Katharina . 2021 . “ Women's International Thought and the New Professions, 1900–1940 .” Modern Intellectual History 18 ( 1 ): 121 – 45 .

Kaldor Mary . 2005 . “ Old Wars, Cold Wars, New Wars, and the War on Terror .” International Politics 42 ( 4 ): 491 – 98 .

Kollontai Alexandra . 1916 . Komu nuzhna voina? Bern : Ts. K. R.S.D.R.P .

Kollontai Alexandra . [1926] 1994 . “ An Epitaph for Hope. From An Autobiography of a Sexually Liberated Communist Woman .” Peace/Mir. An Anthology of Historic Alternatives to War , edited by Chatfield Charles , Ilukhina Ruzanna , 123 – 125 . Syracuse : Syracuse University Press .

Lee Hermione . 1997 . Virginia Woolf . New York : Alfred A. Knopf .

McCarthy Helen . 2011 . The British People and the League of Nations: Democracy, Citizenship and Internationalism c. 1918–45 . Manchester : Manchester University Press .

McCarthy Mary . 2022 . In Women's International Thought: Towards a New Canon , edited by Owens Patricia , 121 – 26 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Moorehead Caroline . 2019 . “ Last Witnesses by Svetlana Alexievich Review: The Astonishing Achievement of the Nobel Prize Winner .” The Guardian, July 11, 2019. Accessed March 17, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jul/11/last-witnesses-by-svetlana-alexievich-review .

Moyn Samuel . 2021 . Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War . New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux .

Myrdal Alva . 1977 . The Game of Disarmament: How the United States and Russia Run the Arms Race . Manchester : Manchester University Press .

National Peace Federation . 1915 . “ The Manifesto Issued by Envoys of the International Congress of Women at the Hague to the Governments of Europe, and the President of the United States, Chicago, IL .”

Novikau Aliksandr . 2017 . “ Women, Wars and Militarism in Svetlana Alexievich's Documentary Prose .” Media, War & Conflict 10 ( 3 ): 314 – 26 .

Owens Patricia 2007 . “ The Humanitarian Condition? On War and Making a Global Public .” In Between War and Politics: International Relations and the Thought of Hannah Arendt . Oxford : Oxford Academic . https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299362.003.0008 .

Owens Patricia . 2022 . “ Geopolitics and War .” In Women's International Thought: Towards a New Canon , edited by Owens Patricia , Rietzler Katharina , Hutchings Kimberly , Dunstan Sarah C. , 75 – 126 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Owens Patricia , Rietzler Katharina . eds. 2021 . Women's International Thought: A New History . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2021.

Owens Patricia et al.  2022 . “ Introduction .” In Women's International Thought: Towards a New Canon , edited by Owens Patricia et al.  , 1 – 22 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Owens Patricia , Rietzler Katharina , Hutchings Kimberly , Dunstan Sarah C. , eds. 2022 . Women's International Thought: Towards a New Canon . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Savage Barbara . 2021 . “ Beyond Illusions: Merze Tate's International Thought .” In Women's International Thought: A New History , edited by Owens Patricia , Rietzler Katharina , 266 – 85 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Sluga Glenda . 2005a . “ National Sovereignty and Female Equality: Gender, Peacemaking and the New World Orders of 1919 and 1945 .” In Frieden – Gewalt – Geschlecht , edited by Davy Jennifer A. , Hagemann Karen , Katzel Ute , 166 – 83 . Essen : Klartext Verlag .

Sluga Glenda . 2005b . “ Gender .” In Palgrave Advances in International History , edited by Finney Patrick , 300 – 19 . Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan .

Sluga Glenda . 2006 . The Nation, Psychology, and International Politics, 1870–1919 . New York : Palgrave Macmillan .

Sluga Glenda . 2014 . “ ‘Add Women and Stir’: Gender and the History of International Politics .” Humanities Australia 5 : 65 – 72 .

Sluga Glenda . 2015 . “ Turning International: Foundations of Modern International Thought and New Paradigms for Intellectual History .” History of European Ideas 41 ( 1 ): 103 – 15 .

Sluga Glenda . 2017 . “ Peace, Gender and the New International Politics of Humanitarianism,1900–1948 .” In Oxford Handbook on Gender, War and the Western World since 1600 , edited by Hagemann Karen , Rose Sonya , Dudink Stefan , 561 – 584 . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Sluga Glenda . 2021 . “ From F. Melian Stawell to E. Greene Balch: International and Internationalist Thinking at the Gender Margins, 1919–1947 .” In Women in International Thought: A New History , edited by Owens Patricia , Rietzler Katharina , 223 – 43 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

“Speech by Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock at the Conference on Shaping Feminist Foreign Policy .” 2022 . “ Speech Made on September 12, 2022 .” Accessed March 17, 2023. https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/feminist-foreign-policy/2551610 .

Stapleton Julia . 2007 . “ The Classicist as Liberal Intellectual: Gilbert Murray and Alfred Zimmern .” In Gilbert Murray Reassessed: Hellenism, Theatre and International Politics , edited by Stray C. , 261 – 91 . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Stawell F. Melian . 1929 . The Growth of International Thought . London : Thornton Butterworth .

Stöcker Helene . 2022 . In Women's International Thought: Towards a New Canon , edited by Owens Patricia , Rietzler Katharina , Hutchings Kimberly , Dunstan Sarah C. , 373 – 78 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 405.

Stöckmann Jan . 2018 . “ Women, Wars, and World Affairs: Recovering Feminist International Relations, 1915–39 .” Review of International Studies 44 ( 2 ): 215 – 35 .

“Sud nad tsinkovimi malchikami .” 1994 . Druzhba narodov 5–7 : 130 – 155 .

Sylvest Casper . 2004 . “ Interwar Internationalism, the British Labour Party, and the Historiography of International Relations .” International Studies Quarterly 48 ( 2 ): 409 – 32 .

Tate Merze . 1942 . The Disarmament Illusion: The Movement for a Limitation of Armaments to 1907 . New York : Macmillan .

Vellacott Jo . 1993 . “ A Place for Pacifism and Transnationalism in Feminist Theory: The Early Work of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom .” Women's History Review 2 ( 1 ): 23 – 56 .

von Suttner Bertha . 1899 . “ Universal Peace: From A Woman's Standpoint .” North American Review 169 : 50 – 69 .

von Suttner Bertha . [1899] 2022 . “ From “Universal Peace: From A Woman's Standpoint .” In Women's International Thought: Towards a New Canon , edited by Owens Patricia , Rietzler Katharina , Hutchings Kimberly , Dunstan Sarah C. , 373 – 78 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Winter Jay . 2019 . “ Between Sound and Silence: The Inaudible and the Unsayable in the History of the First World War .” In Qualitative Studies of Silence: The Unsaid as Social Action , edited by Murray Amy , Durrheim Kevin , 223 – 35 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Woolf Virginia . 1966 . Three Guineas . Orlando, FL : A Harvest Book .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2634-3797
• Copyright © 2024 International Studies Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Peace Importance and War Effects on Countries Essay

Introduction, world war ii, effects or war/lack of peace, importance of peace, works cited.

The emphasis of peaceful interactions among the nations cannot be undermined at any cost. Peace is one of the fundamental factors that influence growth in economic activities, development of political governance, among other important aspects of living. Without peace, many areas of human existence are affected. Peace is the essence of living, and the lack of it can be termed as the opposite of life. When people cannot interact peacefully, there will be chaos and disarray. Therefore peace is supreme in the world, and without it, nothing is achievable. This essay seeks to outline several evidences to prove that peace is the most important thing in the world.

The Second World War was one of the most destructive battles in the world. Its effects especially in Japan are felt up to date. The war broke out form a simple conflict between nations, and it eventually turned into a global conflict. As seen in the picture, American soldiers are kissing and celebrating with their wives their victory against Japan. Looking at the picture, one can clearly see that all the people captured are happy and excited to know that their spouses are back home safe and sound. Peace brings happiness to families and among nations. It took years before Iraq became a fully politically run state (Dumas and Thee 89).

World War II had greatly destabilized Europe, and all that people wanted to be an end to the fighting. This photograph was taken in Times Square on the 14 th of august 1945, and it has been used in many occasions to commemorate the day of peace in America ( History.com par. 2). The conflict between 30 countries including Japan, Germany, the Great Britain, France among others led to a war that lasted for six years and caused millions of deaths both military and civilians ( History.com par 2). Considering such damage, peace is therefore one of the most important things in the world today.

Where there is no peace, there is war. War can be among people from different races, clans, tribes, religion among other profiling strategies. Nonetheless, when war occurs in a particular region or country, the effects are horrible. One of the major effects of war is hunger and starvation. the World War II was greatly influenced by the instability that was created by the first world war which had only ended two decades earlier ( History.com par. 8).Adolf Hitler’s greed for power and his urge to dominate the world led him to rearm his nation. As Germany invaded Poland, the Great Britain and France reacted in protest declaring war against Germany ( History.com par. 8).

This regional conflict ended up in a global and the destruction caused was beyond measure. As Hitler rose to power, he believed that the only way for humans to acquire enough living space was through war ( History.com par. 8). Unfortunately, he was obsessed with the idea of domination and he believed that pure Germans were the only race worth of the living space. Such a mentality can ruin and comprise any efforts to achieve peaceful coexistence among nations.

Peace is a very crucial aspect of human life. Peace allows people to interact in civilized and planned structures which give life a meaning. Through peace, people are able to shear common values and enhance the promotion of common decency through laws and policies (Acharya 45).

Governance and political structures are products of peaceful agreements brokered with the best interests of the people at heart. Peace has enabled the world to come together in many occasion and to work together to fight some of the deadly vices in the world. For instance, the United Nations that was formed as a result of an end to a deadly conflict among nations is a product of peace. It is very important to foster peaceful relations among nations because it allows interaction and through such interactions there are major benefits that may accrue. Peaceful nations for instance trade together and they allow their citizens to trade in better terms of trades.

In every country, peace is the major influence of any positive development. Whether it is political, economic, social or infrastructural success, peace is the key to achieving it. Without peace the world can achieve nothing. According to the evidenced given in this essay, one can evidently connect peace to other areas of growth in a country. For instance, Somalia has been mentioned and clearly one can understand the impacts of peace just by looking at the country’s development and infrastructural growth. Somalia is one of the poorest countries in terms of GDP while its wealth in fuel is one of the bets world’s known.

Therefore, this essay shows that regardless of a country’s natural resources, peace is paramount. Rwanda has also been used in this essay as an example and clear the country’s fertility was compromised the 1994 genocide where conflicting communities were starving in a land of great agricultural potential.

Acharya, Amitav. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order , New York, NY: Routledge, 2014. Print.

Dumas, Lloyd J., and Marek Thee. Making peace possible: the promise of economic conversion , New York, NY: Elsevier, 2014. Print.

History.com: America Enters World War II . 2009. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, April 9). Peace Importance and War Effects on Countries. https://ivypanda.com/essays/peace-importance-and-war-effects-on-countries/

"Peace Importance and War Effects on Countries." IvyPanda , 9 Apr. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/peace-importance-and-war-effects-on-countries/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Peace Importance and War Effects on Countries'. 9 April.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Peace Importance and War Effects on Countries." April 9, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/peace-importance-and-war-effects-on-countries/.

1. IvyPanda . "Peace Importance and War Effects on Countries." April 9, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/peace-importance-and-war-effects-on-countries/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Peace Importance and War Effects on Countries." April 9, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/peace-importance-and-war-effects-on-countries/.

• Why did Somalia Become a Failed State?
• A New Approach to the Somalia Crisis
• Analysis of Piracy in Somalia
• The Relationship Between Religion and Politics in Somalia
• Ethnic Conflict in Somalia Analysis
• Somalia Health Care Assessment
• Somalia: A History of Events
• The Humanitarian Intervention in Somalia
• Somalia's State Building and Failing Approaches
• Water Shortage in Somalia: Reasons and Solutions
• Optional Self-Defence War Against Lesser Aggressor
• Vietnamese in Greene's The Quiet American and Terry's Bloods
• The American Combat Soldier in Vietnam by Grunts
• The First and Second Chechen Wars Comparison
• The Arab Spring: Change and Resistance in the Middle East

United States Institute of Peace

Home ▶ Publications

If You Want Peace, Prepare for War, and Diplomacy

A combination of deterrence and diplomacy is key to avoiding war and pursuing peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Monday, January 29, 2024

/ READ TIME: 9 minutes

By: Robert Einhorn

This essay is part of a series, Pursuing Peaceful Coexistence with North Korea , that explores how the United States and South Korea can peacefully coexist with a nuclear North Korea. 

At this Kim Dae-jung Peace Forum, it’s useful to recall seemingly paradoxical advice offered by a fourth-century Roman general: Si vis pacem, para bellum. “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

This Roman-era aphorism has come to mean that if you face an aggressive adversary, build your military strength so that the adversary knows that, if it launches an attack, it will receive a punishing response — and will therefore be discouraged from pursuing such an attack. The idea of achieving peace by preparing for war has been a critical foundation of security strategies for many centuries. Today we call it “deterrence.”

Of course, not all countries prepare for war in order to have peace. Some have prepared for war as a prelude to waging war. Hitler built the Nazi war machine to conquer Europe and beyond. But for countries genuinely seeking peace and facing significant security threats from well-armed adversaries, building countervailing military strength has usually been the chosen strategy. They feared that failure to build and maintain adequate deterrent capabilities would signal weakness and might only invite aggression.

The Limits of Deterrence

Deterrence — or peace through strength, as it is sometimes called — has stood the test of time because it is widely believed to have worked. Deterrence of the Soviet Union by the United States and its NATO allies during the Cold War is credited with avoiding a major East-West conflict.

But a strategy of deterrence is not without risks. Strengthening defenses to deter an adversary may be interpreted by that adversary as an indication of aggressive intent and a serious threat to its own security. It may respond by further building up its own capabilities. The result may be an expensive and destabilizing arms race — one that reinforces mutual antagonisms, perpetuates a state of confrontation and makes resolution of the underlying conflict even more difficult.

In addition, as both sides build up their military capabilities, they may declare policies, test weapon systems or engage in exercises or deployments that the other side views as preparations for the use of force, even preemptive use of nuclear weapons. In such an environment, the risk of armed conflict breaking out as a result of accidents, misperceptions or miscalculations would grow.

Moreover, even if a mutual military buildup does not result in large-scale armed hostilities, it would not necessarily prevent lower-level provocations. Indeed, an aggressor’s belief that it could deter large-scale retaliation could increase its confidence that it could engage in lower-level provocations with impunity.

To avoid war and ultimately achieve peace, deterrence should be accompanied by diplomacy.

During the Cold War, while amassing huge nuclear arsenals to deter each other, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in diplomacy to moderate and stabilize their competition, limit and reduce their nuclear forces, adopt transparency and confidence-building measures to avoid dangerous miscalculations, and in general prevent their competition from getting out of control.

Yes, if you want peace, prepare for war. But also pursue diplomacy.

So, how do these considerations apply to matters of war and peace on the contemporary Korean Peninsula?

North Korea’s Growing Capabilities

Seventy years after the Korean Armistice Agreement, hope for genuine peace on the peninsula continues to fade. In recent years, the security environment has dramatically deteriorated. The primary cause of increased tension and instability has been North Korea’s relentless efforts to expand and diversify its nuclear and missile capabilities.

Under Kim Jong Un, this rapidly growing nuclear arsenal has been accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric toward Seoul and Washington, including the North’s often-declared willingness to use nuclear weapons preemptively .

What is Kim’s motivation for his aggressive nuclear posture? Is it essentially defensive — to ensure the survival of his regime from foreign interference or attack? Or is it essentially offensive — to intimidate and coerce South Korea and reunify the peninsula under Pyongyang’s control? Of course, we don’t know. We can only speculate.

North Korea’s initial motivation for pursuing nuclear weapons may well have been defensive — to deter what it perceived as foreign, mainly U.S., efforts to undermine or eliminate its regime. But whatever its initial motivation, Kim may now feel emboldened by his increased capabilities to pursue more offensive objectives.

Many observers doubt that Kim sees reunification of the peninsula by force as a realistic possibility. But he may now feel he can dominate inter-Korean relations, drive wedges in the U.S.-South Korean alliance and engage in increasingly aggressive provocations. And he may become dangerously overconfident in his ability to control the risks of escalation.

South Korea and the United States have become increasingly alarmed by the growing threat from North Korea. South Korean concerns have been magnified by uncertainty about the reliability of U.S. security guarantees.

U.S.-South Korea Response: Prioritizing Deterrence

The main allied response to the North Korean threat has been to boost their collective deterrent capabilities.

At the highest political levels, the administrations of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol and U.S. President Joe Biden have worked together closely to demonstrate strong alliance solidarity and resolve. Seoul has augmented its own conventional capabilities, including its  three-axis strategy . South Korea and the United States have taken significant steps to reinforce the credibility of the United States’ extended nuclear deterrent and to give South Korea a more prominent role in the planning and execution of that deterrent — most notably in the  Washington Declaration adopted during Yoon’s state visit to Washington in April. And together with Japan, the allies have boosted trilateral defense cooperation in unprecedented ways, as agreed at the Camp David summit in August 2023.

While prioritizing deterrence, the allies have also sought diplomatic engagement — reaching out repeatedly to Pyongyang to begin talks . But all those initiatives were rebuffed by the North.

In the absence of diplomacy, the situation is becoming more dangerous. North Korea continues to advance its threatening capabilities. The allies continue to strengthen their deterrent — with large-scale, live-fire joint defense drills and high-profile visits of U.S. strategic assets, including a port visit by a U.S. ballistic missile submarine. Pyongyang, in turn, condemns those allied efforts, which it claims are preparations for attacking the North. It says those efforts justify the further acceleration of its own programs and even its preemptive nuclear doctrine.

Risk Reduction: The Most Immediate Objective

What can be done to break this downward spiral? It may be time for a renewed push for diplomacy. But to get talks underway, a somewhat different approach may be required.

I believe the major reason Kim has so far rejected engagement has been his desire to avoid talks that might interfere with the completion of his ambitious five-year plan to develop and test key nuclear and missile capabilities.

But another reason may be what Washington and Seoul declare must be the focus of any negotiation — namely, the North’s complete denuclearization. Kim has made it clear that he has no intention of eliminating what he regards as essential to the survival of his regime. He says repeatedly that North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons is irreversible and nonnegotiable .

If Pyongyang eventually gets rid of its nuclear weapons, it will be the result of either a fundamental transformation of the current regime’s policies and values or its collapse.

Neither outcome can be dismissed altogether, especially the regime’s eventual collapse. But we can’t count on either one, at least not in the near term. Realistically, we will have to live with North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future.

The United States and its allies can’t accept the North as a legitimate nuclear-armed country. It acquired nuclear weapons illegally and deceitfully. Accepting its nuclear capability would set a dangerous precedent that is damaging to the global nonproliferation regime.

The United States and its allies should continue to adhere to the ultimate goal of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. But for now, they should focus on the most immediate threat — the risk of intentional or inadvertent armed conflict that could escalate to the nuclear level.

The United States and South Korea should therefore approach North Korea and propose setting aside denuclearization for the time being and focusing instead on a risk reduction agenda — primarily confidence-building, transparency and communications measures that can enhance predictability and reduce the risks of armed conflict resulting from accident, misperception or miscalculation. Negotiations could take place bilaterally, trilaterally or in a multilateral regional format, perhaps involving the countries that participated in the Six-Party Talks.

Participants might be required to reaffirm the goal of complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula — a goal Kim supported in the 2018 Singapore Joint Statement  — although participants would presumably continue to differ on the conditions that would make the attainment of that goal possible.

The risk-reduction measures that might be considered in such talks could include:

• prenotification of flight tests of several categories of missiles
• prenotification of land, sea and air military exercises meeting certain agreed-upon criteria
• avoidance of military activities in specified geographic areas (for example, no-fly zones or maritime buffer zones)
• the establishment of routine and crisis communications channels
• the resurrection of several confidence-building steps contained in the moribund North-South Comprehensive Military Agreement
• the adoption of so-called rules of the road to prevent provocative cyber activities
• the toning down of inflammatory rhetoric (including threats to use nuclear weapons preemptively or to launch decapitation strikes against an adversary’s leadership)
• the creation of what might be called “risk-reduction dialogues” where civilian and military officials would meet regularly to raise concerns about another country’s military activities and seek measures to address those concerns

Such risk reduction measures would not bring peace to the Korean Peninsula. Neither would they ensure progress toward denuclearization or remove the need for current U.S. and South Korean efforts to strengthen deterrence and maintain allied military readiness.

Moreover, North Korea’s willingness to engage on risk-reduction measures is far from certain. It may believe that maintaining risks at a high level serves its interests by discouraging the United States and its allies from conducting military activities that could increase the likelihood of conflict. Or it may decide to engage but condition its support for risk-reduction measures on unacceptable concessions from the allies.

Still, in light of the huge stakes, it is worth a try. Risk-reduction measures along these lines — together with a determined allied effort to reinforce deterrence — could help arrest or even reverse the current downward spiral on the peninsula. They could reduce each side’s incentives for pursuing an open-ended arms competition. Perhaps most importantly, they could help alleviate one of the most acute threats on the peninsula today — the risk of inadvertent armed conflict that could escalate to nuclear war.

And if faithfully implemented, such measures could reduce tensions, build habits of constructive engagement, pave the way for practical steps to reduce the North Korean nuclear threat and at least keep alive the hope, however remote today, of a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula living in peace.

“If you want peace, prepare for war.” There’s much truth in that age-old advice. Deterrence may well be a necessary condition for achieving peace — or at least avoiding war.

But it’s only a partial truth. Deterrence may be necessary, but it’s not sufficient. It must be accompanied by diplomacy. And there’s an increasingly urgent need for diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula — diplomacy with realistically achievable and critically important goals.

This is a lightly edited version of Robert Einhorn’s remarks to the 2023 Kim Dae-jung Peace Forum on October 6, 2023, in Mokpo, South Korea.

Robert Einhorn is a senior fellow at the Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology of the Brookings Institution.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s).

PUBLICATION TYPE: Analysis

Essays About War: Top 5 Examples and 5 Prompts

War is atrocious and there is an almost universal rule that we should be prevented; if you are writing essays about war, read our helpful guide.

Throughout history, war has driven human progress. It has led to the dissolution of oppressive regimes and the founding of new democratic countries. There is no doubt that the world would not be as it is without the many wars waged in the past.

War is waged to achieve a nation or organization’s goals, but what is the actual cost of progress? War has taken, and continues to take, countless lives. It is and is very costly in terms of resources as well. From the American Revolution to World Wars I and II to the Crusades and Hundred Years’ War of antiquity, wars throughout history have been bloody, brutal, and disastrous. 

If you are writing essays about war, look at our top essay examples below.

1. War Is Not Part of Human Nature by R. Brian Ferguson

2. essay on war and peace (author unknown), 3. the impacts of war on global health by sarah moore.

• 4.  The Psychosocial Impacts of War and Armed Conflict on Children by Iman Farajallah, Omar Reda, H. Steven Moffic, John R. Peteet, and Ahmed Hankir

5. ​​Is war a pre-requisite for peace? by Anna Cleary

5 prompts for essays about war, 1. is war justified, 2. why do countries go to war, 3. the effects of war, 4. moral and ethical issues concerning war, 5. reflecting on a historical war.

“Debate over war and human nature will not soon be resolved. The idea that intensive, high-casualty violence was ubiquitous throughout prehistory has many backers. It has cultural resonance for those who are sure that we as a species naturally tilt toward war. As my mother would say: “Just look at history!” But doves have the upper hand when all the evidence is considered. Broadly, early finds provide little if any evidence suggesting war was a fact of life.”

Ferguson disputes the popular belief that war is inherent to human nature, as evidenced by archaeological discoveries. Many archaeologists use the very same evidence to support the opposing view. Evidence reveals many instances where war was waged, but not fought. In the minds of Ferguson and many others, humanity may be predisposed to conflict and violence, but not war, as many believe. 

“It also appears that if peace were to continue for a long period, people would become sick of the monotony of life and would seek war for a changed man is a highly dynamic creature and it seems that he cannot remain contented merely with works of peace-the cultivation of arts, the development of material comforts, the extension of knowledge, the means and appliances of a happy life.”

This essay provides an interesting perspective on war; other than the typical motivations for war, such as the desire to achieve one’s goals; the author writes that war disrupts the monotony of peace and gives participants a sense of excitement and uncertainty. In addition, it instills the spirit of heroism and bravery in people. However, the author does not dispute that war is evil and should be avoided as much as possible. 

“War forces people to flee their homes in search of safety, with the latest figures from the UN estimating that around 70 million people are currently displaced due to war. This displacement can be incredibly detrimental to health, with no safe and consistent place to sleep, wash, and shelter from the elements. It also removes a regular source of food and proper nutrition. As well as impacting physical health, war adversely affects the mental health of both those actively involved in conflict and civilians.”

Moore discusses the side effects that war has on civilians. For example, it diverts resources used on poverty alleviation and infrastructure towards fighting. It also displaces civilians when their homes are destroyed, reduces access to food, water, and sanitation, and can significantly impact mental health, among many other effects. 

4.   The Psychosocial Impacts of War and Armed Conflict on Children by Iman Farajallah, Omar Reda, H. Steven Moffic, John R. Peteet, and Ahmed Hankir

“The damage done by war-related trauma can never be undone. We can, however, help reduce its long-term impacts, which can span generations. When we reach within ourselves to discover our humanity, it allows us to reach out to the innocent children and remind them of their resilience and beauty. Trauma can make or break us as individuals, families, and communities.”

In their essay, the authors explain how war can affect children. Children living in war-torn areas expectedly witness a lot of violence, including the killings of their loved ones. This may lead to the inability to sleep properly, difficulty performing daily functions, and a speech impediment. The authors write that trauma cannot be undone and can ruin a child’s life.  

“The sociologist Charles Tilly has argued that war and the nation state are inextricably linked. War has been crucial for the formation of the nation state, and remains crucial for its continuation. Anthony Giddens similarly views a link between the internal pacification of states and their external violence. It may be that, if we want a durable peace, a peace built on something other than war, we need to consider how to construct societies based on something other than the nation state and its monopoly of violence.”

This essay discusses the irony that war is waged to achieve peace. Many justify war and believe it is inevitable, as the world seems to balance out an era of peace with another war. However, others advocate for total pacifism. Even in relatively peaceful times, organizations and countries have been carrying out “shadow wars” or engaging in conflict without necessarily going into outright war. Cleary cites arguments made that for peace to indeed exist by itself, societies must not be built on the war in the first place. 

Many believe that war is justified by providing a means to peace and prosperity. Do you agree with this statement? If so, to what extent? What would you consider “too much” for war to be unjustified? In your essay, respond to these questions and reflect on the nature and morality of war. 

Wars throughout history have been waged for various reasons, including geographical domination, and disagreement over cultural and religious beliefs. In your essay, discuss some of the reasons different countries go to war, you can look into the belief systems that cause disagreements, oppression of people, and leaders’ desire to conquer geographical land. For an interesting essay, look to history and the reasons why major wars such as WWI and WWII occurred.

In this essay, you can write about war’s effects on participating countries. You can focus on the impact of war on specific sectors, such as healthcare or the economy. In your mind, do they outweigh the benefits? Discuss the positive and negative effects of war in your essay. To create an argumentative essay, you can pick a stance if you are for or against war. Then, argue your case and show how its effects are positive, negative, or both.

Many issues arise when waging war, such as the treatment of civilians as “collateral damage,” keeping secrets from the public, and torturing prisoners. For your essay, choose an issue that may arise when fighting a war and determine whether or not it is genuinely “unforgivable” or “unacceptable.” Are there instances where it is justified? Be sure to examples where this issue has arisen before.

Humans have fought countless wars throughout history. Choose one significant war and briefly explain its causes, major events, and effects. Conduct thorough research into the period of war and the political, social, and economic effects occurred. Discuss these points for a compelling cause and effect essay.

For help with this topic, read our guide explaining “what is persuasive writing ?”If you still need help, our guide to grammar and punctuation explains more.

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

War and Peace

By leo tolstoy, war and peace essay questions.

What is Tolstoy's view of history?

Tolstoy believes that history is caused by infinite minute decisions, and that the people we normally recognize as the great decision-makers of history, like Napoleon Bonaparte, are no more important than common servants on the home front. Because individuals cannot change history, historical events are inevitable and predestined. However, because that predestination comes from an infinity of individual choices and decisions, it has an uneasy relationship with free will. The novel takes an implicit stand at its close that we must choose to do our best to live morally while not attempting to control the larger forces of history.

Discuss the misconceptions that the characters have about war at the beginning of the novel. How are they proven wrong by later events?

Nikolai Rostov initially believes that war will be a romantic opportunity for glory. He is disillusioned in his first battle, although he renews some of his romanticism when he sees the tsar. However, he quickly loses his illusions about war again when he nearly kills a French dragoon. Prince Andrei also finds that war is not what he hoped, although his illusions were somewhat different. He wanted an easy escape from Petersburg and his unhappy family life, and instead he found a complex political landscape that was every bit as fraught and unpleasant as the one he faced in Petersburg society. Overall, the novel seems to suggest that war has a universal power to force us to confront our socially-conditioned beliefs and feelings. In its rawness and violence, it is both a part of us and something we often despise about ourselves.

Explain Tolstoy’s view of morality. How does the novel’s plot illustrate his views?

Tolstoy admires pious, ascetic people like Princess Marya Bolkonsky, but he also suggests that people should pursue worldly happiness. He seems to imply that this is a moral imperative and not just an individual priority. Marya's moral development consists not of becoming more pious, but of reconciling her piety and altruism with a healthy family life. Sonya never learns to balance her own needs with those of the people around her. Because of this, she faces a miserable, empty life at the end of the novel. Both Pierre and Andrei constantly battle against this conflict between spiritual and material life, and Pierre's final happiness comes, like Marya's does, from finding spiritual happiness within a material world he can never totally renounce.

Analyze the novel's portrayal of marriage.

For much of the novel, Tolstoy is cynical about marriage. In a telling scene, Prince Nikolai Bolkonsky advises Prince Andrei that all marriages are as unhappy as his union with Lise Meinen was. Likewise, Pierre marries Hélène impulsively for superficial reasons, and regrets it almost immediately. Tolstoy views happy marriage as an elusive goal that can only be achieved by marrying for sincere feeling rather than for money or beauty. However, even in cases like this, the war-like machinations of society can often poison our beliefs and feelings. In the end, marriage and relationships seem a source of great anxiety for Tolstoy.

How does Tolstoy portray Napoleon Bonaparte? Why does he depict him this way?

Tolstoy portrays Napoleon as charismatic but effete, as competent but not a genius. This dovetails with his criticism of the 'great men' theory of history: Napoleon is a flawed human with strengths and weaknesses just like anyone else. The perspective on the historical ruler is interesting. Sometimes he is presented with objective distance, as a force on the events to come. Other times, Tolstoy examines the man's psyche to find complications like those discussed above. Again, he is able to both present the human who influenced history, while downplaying the possibility that this one man was solely responsible for the carnage often attributed to him.

How does the epilogue of War and Peace relate to the novel’s main plot?

Volume IV ends abruptly with Natasha contemplating her marriage to Pierre. The epilogue offers some closure to the plot by portraying the characters eight years later, but more importantly, it explains the philosophy that underpins the story's plot and structure. It is important to remember that Tolstoy did not consider War and Peace a novel, and felt that he had to justify his arguments about history and explain directly how his beliefs pertained to the story. Considering that the novel was serialized, it is possible Tolstoy also wanted to make sure that his overarching purpose - which helps give cohesion to an otherwise sprawling work - was clear to readers. That is, he does not want us merely to think of it as a romance, but rather as a story of romance and more that attempts to capture the movement of history as a whole.

Discuss Pierre’s moral development over the course of the novel.

Pierre's lengthy quest for maturity and spiritual satisfaction is one of the novel's main plots. From the beginning, he is a spiritual soul who attempts to find fulfillment either in society or out of it. He seeks moral renewal from a variety of sources: pacifism, Freemasonry, poverty, glory in battle, and more. As he grows, he tries more and more to renounce the society that does not accept him, and falls more and more into these alternatives. For instance, he becomes a more devout Freemason than those who initiated him. However, he is never able to renounce the physical world, and keeps returning to his vices of women and liquor. In his imprisonment, Pierre discovers the virtue in simplicity, and from this develops a simple faith in God that neither renounces the material world nor delves into it. Through his years of contemplation and searching, he finally learns that happiness does not come from the search but instead from steadfast faith in God.

Analyze Natasha’s various relationships with men. What do they show about her character?

With each romantic relationship, Natasha shows more and more agency. Her first relationship with Boris Drubetskoy seems to be an arrangement of convenience, and she waits passively for Boris to break up with her when she realizes she is no longer interested in him. Similarly, she needs her mother's help to reject Captain Denisov's marriage proposal. By the time she meets Anatole Kuragin, she is willing to take her fate into her own hands, at least enough to elope with him (although someone else is still controlling the situation – in this case, Anatole and Dolokhov). By the end of the novel, Natasha is in full control of her relationship with Pierre; she enters it and conducts it according to her own free will.

Does Tolstoy believe that individuals have free will? Why or why not?

Although Tolstoy argues that history is predestined, he still has faith in individual free will. He reconciles these apparently contradictory viewpoints by explaining that the course of history is determined by infinite small choices, freely made. He adds that God reconciles the course of history with free will, and as long as one has faith in God, the contradiction between the two isn't a significant intellectual problem.

Compare Pierre's behavior at the battle of Borodino with his behavior in occupied Moscow. How does he change? How does he stay the same?

At both Borodino and Moscow, Pierre serves as a Don Quixote-like figure, who wanders through important events without fully realizing their significance. In doing so, he serves as a vehicle for the author's critique of the situation. At Borodino, Pierre's naïveté about the conditions of war highlights the battle's absurdity and violence. In Moscow, his privileged background again serves as a relief against which the city's deprivation is especially stark. However, in Moscow he is more mature and actively tries to help those around him, whereas at Borodino he is only concerned about glory for himself. When he is willing to so quickly abandon his glory-driven quest to kill Napoleon in favor of helping suffering people in the city, we see how suffering has led him to choose selfless morality over self-satisfactions. This step prefigures his ultimate acceptance of simple faith as the path to happiness.

War and Peace Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for War and Peace is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

With which statement would the author most likely agree 

I'm sorry, "with which statement" implies this is a multiple choice question. Please provide all necessary information in your posts.

how did rostov distinguish himself in his first real battle.

D:he led a calavry charge down a hill and caputred a french captain.

Why does Prince Andrew's father insist his son goes abroad for a year.

Prince Andrew wishes to marry, and his does not approve. He tells his son to wait a year and go abroad, hoping that the time away, in addition to the experiences, will change his mind about rushing into marriage.

Study Guide for War and Peace

War and Peace study guide contains a biography of Leo Tolstoy, literature essays, a complete e-text, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About War and Peace
• War and Peace Summary
• Character List

Essays for War and Peace

War and Peace essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy.

• Pierre's Abortive Mission
• Self-Begotten Fantasy in Gatsby and War and Peace: Satiating the Spiritual Void
• Liza's Significance in War and Peace
• The Question of Suicide in War and Peace and Anna Karenina
• The Tolstoyan Ideal of Divine Love: Platon and Natasha Examined

Lesson Plan for War and Peace

• About the Author
• Study Objectives
• Common Core Standards
• Introduction to War and Peace
• Relationship to Other Books
• Bringing in Technology
• Notes to the Teacher
• Related Links
• War and Peace Bibliography

E-Text of War and Peace

War and Peace e-text contains the full text of War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy.

• Book I, Chapters 1-5
• Book I, Chapters 6-10
• Book I, Chapters 11-15
• Book I, Chapters 16-20
• Book I, Chapters 21-25

Wikipedia Entries for War and Peace

• Introduction
• Composition history
• Background and historical context

• Social Issues

Essay on War and Peace

War is a state of armed conflict between nations, states or groups, usually led by someone. War is something that happens unplanned, but inevitably. It can happen anywhere, at any time regardless of the situation it’s causing, nor the damage it does. It affects everyone and everything. It is indestructible, causing death and destruction. So why does it occur?

War and peace are in a way, consequences of actions, words, ideas or goals that a person displays. It depends on the people/opposers who determine whether they are “good” or agreeable. This leads to war or enables peace. For years, people have been in arguments that elevate and eventually lead to war. This is likely to continue happening in the future. At present there is war in many countries in the world. Most reasons for war can be narrowed down to economic, political and military factors. It is in human nature that when we want something, if nothing else works to believe in using force to obtain or fulfill our needs. And in using force, we are inclined to get through anything in our pathway to our view of success. But what if we turned to peace? On the infrequent occurrences when war resided due to peace on both or either sides, it was for the better. When comparing war and peace in any circumstance, when has the former been a better solution? And this is thinking reasonably while considering all aspects. Of course, there is a level of understanding that I don’t have, but it is not inaccurate from a general point of view.

If peace overruled war, there wouldn’t be death of beings. Damage to lives, people, animals, nature, property would be almost nonexistent. There would be less pain and heartache over meaningless fighting. Declaring war is also a display of power and/or dominance. The film “Princess Mononoke” shows the animals living in the forest who defend the forest spirit seeing the humans who oppose them as monsters. When the war ends, the nature that was previously destroyed comes back to life, showing them the beauty of the things they ruined. They show the animals as hopeless unless they fight. In this situation, war was unavoidable, with a power hungry leader opposing the forest. At times like this, war is inexorable. It just comes to show that sometimes, one has to defend oneself unless they are ready to lose everything they have. The film also gives a demonstration of a tyrannical leader (Lady Eboshi) who wants something that will destroy everything. Yet, they won’t give up. 

There can be love found in anything if you try hard enough. We are capable of showing love and maintaining peace to everyone and everything deserving. Not that you should show it to someone who is undeserving of your compassion and attempts unneededly, but everyone deserves a chance to fix their mistakes, whether it be through actions, words or thoughts that they committed it.

I believe that we should try to avoid war at all costs. In the rare position in which war is unavoidable, then take action. Otherwise, peace will always be superior to war.

Related Samples

• George W. Bush Speech Analysis Essay Example
• Effects of Nuclear Weapons Essay Sample
• Public Health Emergency Does Not Justify Limiting Civil Liberties Argumentative Essay
• Essay on Homosexuality: The Fear of Societal Norms
• Free Essay Sample on Minority Representation
• American Dream in The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald (Essay Example)
• Essay Sample on Human Trafficking
• Homelessness as a Social Problem Essay Example
• Argumentative Essay on Social Media and Personal Space of Employees
• Gun Control: The Prevention of Mass Shootings Essay Sample

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Patriarch Sabbah: The real cause of the war in Gaza—and the only path to peace

Editor’s note: America is committed to publishing diverse views on the pressing issues of our time. For additional perspectives on the war in Gaza, read “ There Is a Right and Wrong Way for Catholics to Criticize Israel ,” by Karma Ben Johanan, and Gerard O’Connell’s interview with David Neuhaus, S.J.

We have already seen six months of war in Gaza. Now, it seems that Israel is beginning its last phase of conquest, after ordering a million and a half people to take refuge in Rafah, a border town with Egypt. Soon, there may be almost no one left in the rest of Gaza.

There have been several wars in Gaza, but this time there are thousands of human victims, and ruins like never before, and peace does not seem to be near. More than suffering, more than the loss of men and women, children and babies, humanity is lost.

Why this new war? The immediate cause is the horrific Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023. But another direct cause is the permanent siege imposed upon all Gazan territory in 2007, when the Hamas political party became the governing authority of the enclave. Since then, the entire territory—2.5 million people over an area of 141 square miles​​—has been under total military siege imposed by Israel and Egypt. And since Oct. 7, Israel’s military operations have limited even the most necessary humanitarian aid for Gaza, to the point that it now stands on the cusp of famine.

The real cause is the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, begun in 1948, which no peace agreement has been able to end and which the international community seems to have neglected.

Under Israeli military occupation, Gaza—and all of Palestine—has suffered thousands of deaths, thousands more taken as political prisoners, demolished houses, military checkpoints on all roads that disrupt freedom of movement and daily life, and a paralyzed, dependent Palestinian economy. In short, we are in a permanent state of war. This is the root cause of all wars in Gaza, including the one following Oct. 7. And despite the useless, inhuman violence of the present war, more will come if a just and lasting peace is not reached between the two peoples.

The war must stop without further delay because it is no longer a war. It is a massacre. But what comes after the war?

Israel, as the occupier of Gaza, must take responsibility for seeking a sustainable peace with equal justice for all. Otherwise, we will see an unnecessary defeat for all. It is time for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be put back on the international agenda and for the global community to take responsibility for building peace, which has seemed impossible until today.

Peace means the security of Israel and, at the same time, the security of the Palestinian people. In fact, the fundamental question that arises today is: Do the Palestinian people have the right to stay at home, on their own land, in their own towns and villages? To this question, the current government in Israel has said no. Instead, Israel has been trying to forcibly displace the Palestinian people, making it virtually impossible for them to live a normal, humane life and raise their families on their own land. That cannot be a path to peace or security for anyone.

To achieve peace, we must simply admit that even in this conflict, human beings are equal. Israelis and Palestinians are equally created by God, in the image of God, and are capable of loving as opposed to killing. On this holy land, there is room for both peoples to exercise the same political rights: two states, each at home, independent, free and capable of resisting a return to war. We have experienced war for decades; we now need a new way of thinking that brings about a lasting peace.

Who is responsible for building this peace? First, the two peoples themselves, Israeli and Palestinian. Then, the international community, the friends of Israel and Palestine. The true friends of Israel are those who help Israel achieve peace. Making Israel militarily stronger, to win wars but remain insecure, is not friendship or true help to Israel.

One can ask the question: Are the two peoples capable of living in peace, each in their own state? Why not? There is much suffering and injustice in living memory, that is true. But there is also the will to live and the fundamental goodness that God has placed in everyone. God created the human being capable of life rather than death, love rather than killing.

The surest path to peace is direct engagement with the enemy, especially when two enemies share the same land. A sustainable peace cannot be brokered by outside forces. So for Israel, peace must be made first with the Palestinian people, then with all the nations in the region. But improving relations with other nations in the region, in what has been called the “ Abrahamic alliance ,” while maintaining hostilities with the Palestinian people, does not ensure peace. First comes peace at home, then it is possible with the neighbors.

It should also be noted that peace among current regimes in the region is not the same as peace with the peoples of the region. Peoples can remain enemies despite peace treaties between governments. Peace will come only when peace is made with the Palestinian people . The world powers can try to impose solutions, but these do not erase the determination of the oppressed.

Therefore, the international community must finally take the necessary steps to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people, and end the 1948 war with a peace treaty between the two peoples.

The world’s religions can and must help. Pray, raise your voice and act. The Holy Land is both Israeli and Palestinian, and the Christian community there is part of the two peoples. Everyone needs peace. You can help them. Christ came to bring peace to the world—and to his Holy Land, too. The church has the same mission today.

Patriarch Emeritus Michel Sabbah served as the archbishop and Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem from 1987 to 2008, the first native Palestinian to hold the office for centuries. He is a co-author of the Kairos Palestine Document and a member of the Kairos Palestine board.

Most popular

Your source for jobs, books, retreats, and much more.

The latest from america

Essay on War and Peace

People enjoyed perfect happiness without fear or sorrow or disease. Everyone was in harmony with his neighbour. The four pillars of religion-truth, purity, mercy and charity-stood firm in all the world. None was poor and none was unfortunate. The goat and the lion lived in peace together.

Such was the time of peace there. The above conditions show the contrast between western society and peace loving humanity. Literature and history gives us many bad examples of war and its hardening effect on human mind.

The war in old days was based on the “laws of war”. Thus, in the midst of war men learn self-control, fulfil their promise not to destroy public propety and notto slay innocent people at large. With this practiced self control they were able to learn the way of peace even in wars. War passes, peace succeeds. And men will remember the wars of the past-the wars of the Greeks and the Roman, of Europe and Napolean, Japan, China, America-as dreams of awful times in the history of mankind but time that will never come again.

More Educational Resources

Explore similar educational resources that improve a variety of skills and cultivate a love for learning.

A Street Hawker

The Day I Met a Friendly Alien

The Carpenter

Leonardo da Vinci

A Cheat Sheet to the Middle East’s Web of Friends and Enemies

By Daniel Levy Graphics by Gus Wezerek

Mr. Levy is the president of the U.S./Middle East Project and a former peace negotiator for Israel.

At the U.N. General Assembly in September, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, brandished a map titled “The New Middle East” and asserted that Israel’s ties with Arab states were helping to create a corridor of peace from India through the Persian Gulf, via Israel, to Europe. A week later, the U.S. national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, declared, “The Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.”

A lot has changed in six months. The Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands — ignored in those expressions of optimism — has come back to the fore. Missiles are darting across the Middle East as the war between Israel and Hamas spills over into neighboring countries, with Iran and Israel exchanging direct missile and drone strikes for the first time.

To keep track of what is going on between some of the key players, we sketched out a social network of friends, enemies and frenemies involved in the region. Examining the web makes it clear how snarled and precarious the current situation is.

Here’s a simplified guide to the friendly , hostile and complicated dynamics between a handful of major countries and forces in the Middle East.

In one corner, so to speak, stand Israel and the United States. The U.S. government sends billions of dollars in arms and aid to Israel every year and has been the primary supporter of the country’s military. The nations’ closeness stretches back to Israel’s founding in 1948 and the Cold War, when Israel partnered with America to counter Soviet influence in the Middle East. Today, the benefits of rigid support for Israel are less obvious to the United States. Israel has built strong relations with China and has neither cut ties with Russia nor offered military support to Ukraine.

More consequentially, America’s support for Israel enables the country’s brutal treatment of Palestinians, which is deeply unpopular across the region and beyond. Iran, Syria and the Houthis, a political and armed group that controls much of Yemen, maintain a hostile position toward Israel (and vice versa). And Israel has formal diplomatic relations with just a handful of neighboring countries.

Afghanistan

No formal relations

with Israel

Arabian Sea

Israel’s primary military engagement at the moment is with Hamas, which has controlled Gaza since 2007. Hamas led the Oct. 7 attacks that killed about 1,200 Israelis.

For years, Qatar provided financial aid to Gaza at Israel’s encouragement and with American support. Mr. Netanyahu’s government now uses those payments to blame Qatar for helping Hamas stay in power — a policy that he in fact supported.

While Israel’s relationship with Qatar is complicated , the United States counts the small, natural-gas-rich state as a friend and has a large air base there. Qatar has often coordinated with the United States as a mediator in various conflicts, including the current war between Israel and Hamas. Their friendship was tested in 2017 when then President Trump supported a blockade of Q atar led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Qatar’s relationship with Saudi Arabia improved after the blockade ended in 2021, and President Biden has worked much more closely with the country than his predecessor did.

• In 2015, Saudi Arabia launched a military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen.
• Last year, Prince Mohammed helped welcome the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, back into the Arab League.
• Before the Oct. 7 attack, the Saudis were in serious talks, led by the United States, to recognize Israel.

Israel has a major incentive to strengthen relations with Saudi Arabia. Gaining the approval of the richest Arab state could open the door to recognition from other Muslim nations and, more importantly for Israel, deflect criticism of the country’s treatment of Palestinians. Saudi Arabia, for its part, would benefit from direct access to the Israeli military and technology sector. But its main interest in a pact with Israel is upgrading its relationship with Israel’s ally, the United States.

The Biden administration was initially cold toward Saudi Arabia and its ambitious crown prince. But as the United States focused more on China, Russia and Ukraine, the Arab oil juggernaut started to look like an indispensable partner in managing global and regional threats, such as Iran’s growing political power, and resumed nuclear efforts . Saudi Arabia shares many of the United States and Israel’s concerns about Iran but has kept its options open, resuming and deepening diplomatic ties with Tehran in a deal brokered last year by China.

The United States’ defeat of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Iran’s greatest regional adversary, and the power vacuums created by the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings have allowed Iran to increase its influence in the Middle East. Iran’s allies include the Houthis, militias in Iraq , President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and Hezbollah, a political and resistance movement in Lebanon. They have all maintained or gained strength in recent years. Together with Hamas, they constitute an “axis of resistance” against Israel and the United States.

• Houthis have targeted ships in the Red Sea registered to Israel or its supporters and have been bombed by the United States in response.
• Hezbollah and Israel have exchanged intense fire across the Lebanese border, which could become the epicenter of a wider regional conflagration.
• Senior Iranian military officials were killed when Israel bombed the country’s embassy complex in Syria. Iran retaliated with drone and missile strikes.

Given the largely antagonistic relations in the region, further provocations by Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-right government could be all it takes to tilt the Middle East into all-out war.

Our network is far from comprehensive in its scope. Two of Israel’s neighbors with whom it has peace treaties — Egypt, which is part of mediation efforts with Hamas, and Jordan — are not featured here. In Jordan in particular, public outrage is palpable, often spilling into the streets. Anger rose a notch following Jordan’s cooperation (hesitantly acknowledged by its leadership) in responding to the April 13 Iranian drone and missile strike on Israel.

Also excluded from the graphic are countries that normalized relations with Israel, including under the Abraham Accords: Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Morocco. These ties have proved resilient under the strain of six months of war, and the inaction of these Arab states as Israel kills tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians lays to rest any naïve notion that the Abraham Accords could help deliver Palestinian rights and freedoms.

Readers may notice that the Palestinian node in our graphic shows Hamas rather than the Fatah-led Palestine Liberation Organization and its arm of limited governance in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority. The Authority is deeply unpopular, and continues to cooperate with Israel even as Israel entrenches its control over the Palestinians while expanding illegal settlements. Calls for political change are rife in Palestinian society, at home and abroad. Excluding Hamas from future Palestinian political arrangements is an Israeli-U.S. pipe dream .

Meanwhile, successive U.S. administrations have sought to pivot away from entanglement in the Middle East, especially in the wake of America’s disastrous invasion of Iraq, a trend accelerated by America’s sharper focus on China and now Russia. Both the Trump and Biden administrations had seen promise in a version of a Pax Americana with less of a direct role for the United States and deeper military cooperation with regional allies as deterrence, particularly against Iran and its axis. That, in turn, would necessitate closer cooperation between Israel and more Arab states.

The human cost and horror of Israel’s actions in Gaza have diminished these possibilities. Moreover, the shattering of the myth of Israeli invincibility and the Israel Defense Forces’ intelligence and operational shortcomings since Oct. 7, combined with the Israeli government’s growing extremism, render closer relations with Israel far less attractive for many Arab states.

Countries in the region have also driven de-escalation on their own in recent years. The four-state blockade of Qatar, led by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, came to an end, and the Gulf states are all back on talking terms. Turkey (also not in our network) has mended fences across most of the region. The Saudi-led military action in Yemen has been winding down. In March 2023, China brokered a breakthrough, re-establishing ties between two of the region’s heavyweights, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Our network also shows that America is still somewhat trapped in this region. (Imagine that we swapped out the United States for China or Russia; neither would be connected to any other node by a red line of hostility.) America’s options remain circumscribed while it continues a lockstep alliance with an Israel that appears unwilling to shift course on the Palestinian question and is increasingly internationally defined as an apartheid regime. Israel’s campaign in Gaza — the killing of some 14,000 children, according to the Gazan health ministry, the devastation of cities and the humanitarian crisis, all while the United States has continued to arm Israel and support it at the United Nations — may only exacerbate America’s troubles.

Amid current tensions, it’s hard to imagine a transition toward regional de-escalation that would include rights and justice for Palestinians. But the magnitude of the current war in Gaza has upended calcified strategies, and that could be a harbinger of previously unlikely openings.

More on the widening war in Israel and Gaza

What Happened to the Joe Biden I Knew?

By Nicholas Kristof

How to Be Pro-Palestinian, Pro-Israeli and Pro-Iranian

By Thomas L. Friedman

Keeping U.S. Power Behind Israel Will Keep Iran at Bay

By Reuel Marc Gerecht and Ray Takeyh

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Daniel Levy is the president of the U.S./Middle East Project and served as an Israeli peace negotiator at the Oslo-B talks under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Taba negotiations under Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

• Share full article

Advertisement