حامد موسوی

The significance of having an alliance was defined in the Great War when weak European and strong countries decided to ally to fight the mighty power of the Central Powers. Afterward, fragile countries decided to join strong alliances to overcome threats from their neighbors. The Second World War was another example of being allied with strong countries to cope with threats from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Japanese Empire. During the Winter War and Russia-Ukraine War, Finland, and Ukraine, respectively, resemble weak countries with limited military and economic capabilities taking on a dominant and belligerent force. Neorealism is one of the structural theories in International Relations, which states that states intend and follow the balance of power to ensure their security. Neorealism posits that security organizations and alliances are vital tools in the pursuit of balancing threats and ensuring national security. This research aims to highlight the importance of alliances with Russia's neighbors to avoid future conflicts with Russia. The main question of this research is why Russia's neighbors need to form or join alliances to hedge against Russia's aggression and assist member states in reducing the large amount of budget spent on military expenses. This research argues that Finland's position in 1939 and Ukraine's in 2022 are the consequence of self-reliance under an anarchic system without having an alliance and leading to final defeat or territory cession. This paper argues alliances can secure European countries and act as a shield from Russia's threats. This research will employ the explanatory method as its research method.

This article examines the rise and fall of the Peace Process and questions the reason for which the United States of America was successful in bringing the two sides to the negotiating table during the 1990s. It investigates the reason for which the process ultimately failed, as well as the reason for which Washington was unsuccessful in restarting the peace process in the past decade. It is argued that the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the Arab states’ most important ally, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)’s decision to back Saddam Hussein during the First Persian Gulf War, and the rise of Islamic movements in the occupied territories were the main reasons for which the PLO decided to negotiate with Israel. The subsequent Peace Process was a major political, economic and public image success for Washington and Tel-Aviv, while it was damaging to the Palestinian cause. Not only did the PLO recognize Israel and the Zionist movement, but it also ceded most of the West Bank in the process. Finally, it is argued that after the collapse of the process during the early 2000s, Donald Trump has attempted to restart the negotiations, but has failed thus far due to the inexistence of strong leaders in both Palestinian and Israeli sides, the rise of Hamas as a resistance movement, and the disenchantment of the Palestinian people with the Peace Process.

The paper uses the case study of the controversy regarding the construction of a mosque near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Manhattan, New York, to analyze the different theoretical approaches to the concept of solidarity. It is argued that the presence of affectional solidarity which is based on feelings of caring, friendship and love was very limited in the case under study. Instead the primary form of solidarity present in the ground zero mosque debate was conventional solidarity, which is based primarily on common interests and concerns that are established through shared traditions and values. Nevertheless, conventional solidarity uses membership within a group to advocate for solidarity. In many instances however, people in need of solidarity might fall outside of the boundaries of “we,” and as a result limiting the utility of the approach. This is why the paper advocates for a revised form of Jodi Dean’s reflective solidarity, which is based on mutual responsibility toward each other despite our differences. It is argued that in its current form this approach is a normative universal ideal which holds great potential but is unclear, underspecified and impractical. However, by injecting some “realism” into this theoretical approach, reflective solidarity is superior to affectional and conventional approaches.