Search

Begin New Search Topic Conflict Resolution Author Khalil Shikaki

1. The future of Israel-Palestine: a one-state reality in the making

Author:
Khalil Shikaki
Publication Date:
05-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution
Abstract:
With no agreement on a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in sight, one-state dynamics are gaining momentum – a development that will be difficult to reverse or even contain. In the medium and long term, no one benefits from such a development. Indeed, all might lose: an ugly one-state dynamic has no happy ending, and such a solution is rejected by Palestinians and Israelis alike. Instead, the emerging one-state reality increases the potential for various kinds of conflicts and contradictory impulses. The international community too finds itself unprepared and perhaps unwilling to confront this emerging reality, but in doing so it imperils the prospects for peace in the region – the exact thing it seeks to promote.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Treaties and Agreements, and Territorial Disputes
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Arabia

2. Special Policy Forum Report: Assessing Palestinian-Israeli Violence: Two Years On

Author:
David Makovsky and Khalil Shikaki
Publication Date:
10-2002
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
On September 17, 2002, Khalil Shikaki and David Makovsky addressed The Washington Institute's Special Policy Forum. Mr. Shikaki is an associate professor of political science at Bir Zeit University, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Mr. Makovsky is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute, a contributing editor for U.S. News and World Report, and an adjunct lecturer at Johns Hopkins University's Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. The following is a rapporteur's summary of their remarks.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution
Political Geography:
United States, Middle East, and Arab Countries

3. Special Report: The Rationale for Palestinian Reform

Author:
Khalil Shikaki
Publication Date:
07-2002
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
On June 27, 2002, Khalil Shikaki addressed a special Washington Institute seminar on reforming the Palestinian Authority (PA). Dr. Shikaki is an associate professor of political science at Bir Zeit University and director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah. The following are excerpts from his presentation, as transcribed by the Institute. "Initially, Palestinian interest [in reform] was basically an effort to address the issue of waste. . . . One year into the establishment of the Palestinian Authority [PA], the Palestinian comptroller issued a report which shocked everybody because the report basically said we have been wasting something like $250 million. . . . Waste, corruption, violation of human rights in Palestinian jails, security forces essentially ignoring any law and order, were all factors that became of serious interest in the early two or three years of the Palestinian Authority. . . . The reason for all of this is the fact that the Palestinians so far have failed to build strong institutions, structurally speaking. . . ."
Topic:
Conflict Resolution
Political Geography:
United States, Washington, Middle East, Palestine, and Arab Countries

4. Special Policy Forum Report: Palestinian Attitudes During the Bush/Sharon Era

Author:
Khalil Shikaki
Publication Date:
04-2001
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Among the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there are three perspectives as to why violent confrontations began in September: The Camp David II negotiations uncovered underlying differences in Israeli and Palestinian interests that are simply unbridgeable. Recent confrontations are basically the product of these differences. In this scenario, no return to negotiations is going to improve the situation. The current situation reflects domestic political constraints in both societies. Weak leaders, populations that are not prepared for the compromises needed for a final settlement, coalition politics, and questions of legitimacy are working against a solution. In this scenario, a permanent settlement is possible but certainly not easy. The two negotiating teams could have wrapped up the talks if they had had more time; indeed, they came very close to a compromise at Taba in January. According to this scenario, a matter of procedural difficulty — a miscalculation, misperception, or simply a lack of time — probably impeded the finalization of an agreement at Taba, while violence was still flaring in the territories. Most Palestinians are of the second school of thought. They did not believe that a deal was imminent at Camp David II or at Taba. Indeed, the belief that a comprehensive deal is imminent has eroded over time. Yet most Palestinians continue to hope that strong leaders in Israel and among the Palestinians can make essential compromises. Recently, a prominent perception among the Palestinian public was that Israel's weak government initiated the violence after Camp David II because Israel wanted the Palestinians to accept something that they had rejected. This perception, plus the heavy causalities and the collective punishment sustained over the past few months, has helped to radicalize Palestinian society.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution
Political Geography:
United States, Washington, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, and Arab Countries

5. Special Policy Forum Report: Democracy And The Palestinian Authority — Is Good Governance Essential For Peace?

Author:
David Schenker and Khalil Shikaki
Publication Date:
02-2000
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
In 1996, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian Affairs Robert Pelletreau described democracies as "the best partners for making peace and building prosperity." Nevertheless, democracy is a term seldom mentioned with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. U.S. policy toward the Palestinians and the peace process has been focused on security, but that does not necessarily have to come at the expense of democracy. In fact, a more democratic Palestinian Authority (PA) would enhance security. En route to a peace agreement with Israel, Palestinians will be required to make concessions that will be easier to achieve if a popular consensus for those concessions is built through a democratic process. Democracy will promote better governance, resulting in an improved economy and therefore a better Palestinian neighbor for Israel. Furthermore, Palestinians will be discontented without democracy, for they have a long history of democratic civil institutions, including student councils and municipal elections, as well as an extensive knowledge of and appreciation for Israeli democracy.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, and Diplomacy
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Arab Countries