Search

Begin New Search Topic Occupation Publishing Institution Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies

1. Area C: From a Hub of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict to a Space for “Creeping Peace”

Author:
Omer Zanany
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
Area C of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is a key hub of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict claimed by Israelis and Palestinians and left under temporary Israeli responsibility by the Interim Agreement (1995). For almost three decades, Israel has been reducing the Palestinian living space in the area and deepening its hold, managing all planning and building processes, expanding settlement areas and so-called “state lands” and demarcating “military zones” and “nature reserves” for itself. The collapse of the peace process also encouraged the Palestinian Authority (since 2009) to act unilaterally on the ground. While Israel has assumed a “piecemeal” approach and sees Area C as a vital space for settlement and security, the Palestinians have taken a “holistic” approach, viewing the area as a necessary space for a contiguous and sustainable state. The campaign currently being waged on the ground perpetuates friction and a bloody struggle over land and infrastructure, distances the chance of a stable Israeli-Palestinian agreement, prevents development and construction for Palestinians, poses a tangible danger to nature and the environment, and deepens humanitarian and legal challenges of population expulsion and relocation. Turning this important area into a foundation for Israeli-Palestinian progress requires two types of policies – a reactive policy in the short term to prevent further deterioration, and a long-term policy of practical cooperation. In light of the new radical right-wing government’s policy advocating the de facto annexation of Area C to Israel, the pro-peace camp must take preventive measures: promote a campaign to “unmask” the government’s moves and intentions and expose the dangers of annexation as a fatal blow to Israel’s identity, security, and political and economic standing; expand demonstrations in conjunction with the overall protest against the new government’s anti-democratic policies; file objections to settlement construction and to harmful measures against the Palestinians. Down the line, Israel and the Palestinians must abandon their “zero sum game” approach and instead formulate joint systemic planning and promote positive steps in Area C: approve outline plans for Palestinian construction that were already submitted to Israel for approval, prevent crime and piracy, and promote joint projects with international and Arab assistance. These include solar power fields, agricultural and food cultivation areas, water and wastewater treatment facilities, and industrial zones. Advancing these measures without a political horizon will result, at most, in some specific improvement. On the other hand, advancing measures with a view to a political settlement – including the transfer of parts of Area C to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the advancement of a comprehensive economic plan for the Palestinians – will lead to a real change, strengthen Palestinian ability and motivation to prevent terrorism, and make it possible to gradually advance the two-state vision based on the “Creeping Peace” strategy.
Topic:
Occupation, Conflict, Peace, and Peacebuilding
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

2. Leveraging Friction: Using Israel’s tensions with normalization countries to engage them in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking

Author:
Gil Murciano
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
Since the signing of the Abraham Accords, Israeli governments have successfully isolated the normalization process from events in the Israeli-Palestinian arena. This separation has assisted the development of the process but, at the same time, impeded its potential to expand and deepen. In the last few months, the Netanyahu-Smotrich government has pursued policy efforts to challenge the status quo in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), increasing the risk of Israeli-Palestinian escalation. These steps changed the normalization countries’ attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinian issue. Their attempt to minimize involvement in the Palestinian issue has been replaced by a strong stance against Israeli government policy, and increased involvement, especially by the United Arab Emirates, in the Palestinian arena. Moreover, normalization countries appear to be reconsidering their policy of normalization vis-à-vis Israel and the value of further developing relations with it if the government continues its current line of escalation. The mainstream political right has branded the normalization process a historic success story. Its popularity among the general public, particularly moderate right-wing voters, turns normalization countries into significant leverage points to stop Israeli annexation and escalation activities. The threat of downgrading relations could incentivize the Israeli government to refrain from violating the status quo in the OPT. Subsequently, the specific involvement of the normalization countries in halting the escalation trends may serve as a basis for expanding their overall political involvement in the Palestinian issue, as separate countries or as part of international coalitions. Paradoxically, this Israeli right-wing government and its escalatory policies create an opportunity to finally leverage the normalization process to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Occupation, Normalization, Abraham Accords, and Peacebuilding
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

3. ‘Peace through Health’ in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Ground for dialogue or guise for continued occupation?

Author:
Yotam Rosner
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
“Peace through Health” is a theoretical and applied approach that sees humanitarian health initiatives as a primary basis for dialogue and cooperation between adversaries. This approach posits that health initiatives can spawn increased discourse and dialogue between parties to a conflict, build trust and promote cooperation on various issues, eventually facilitating the transition from conflict to peace. Based on interviews with representatives of an Israeli human rights organization that provides health services in the Occupied Territories, this article examines the implementation of the “peace through health” approach in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under the Oslo Accords, Israel handed responsibility for the health of the Palestinian population to the Palestinian Authority (PA).However, continued Israeli control and absence of full Palestinian sovereignty have resulted in a weakened and poor Palestinian health system. The severe shortage of health resources has created growing Palestinian dependence on local and international humanitarian health organizations, including health professionals from the Israeli side. An analysis of the interviews conducted for this article indicates that the humanitarian assistance by Israeli health professionals provides an opportunity to develop dialogue, achieve logistical cooperation, and establish trust between the peoples.At the same time, the article discusses the possible disadvantages of this approach in the Israeli-Palestinian test case as an example of humanitarian work that fosters normalization and preserves the status quo of occupation.
Topic:
Health, Occupation, Conflict, Peace, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

4. The Differences between the EU’s Differentiation Policy and the BDS Movement

Author:
Maya Sion-Tzidkiyahu and Shira Hirsch
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
The differentiation policy led by the European Union (EU) distinguishes between the sovereign State of Israel within the 1967 borders and the occupied territories. The BDS Movement calls for what its initials stand for – boycott, sanctions and divestment – to be inflicted upon the whole State of Israel. Although they differ in essence, public discourse in Israel often confuses the two – whether unintentionally, stemming from ignorance, or intentionally because of certain political views. This paper aims to draw a clear distinction between the two policies in order to enable a more nuanced, less impassioned and more conducive dialogue in Israel and with the EU, along with an uncompromising fight against the BDS movement. The EU’s differentiation policy seeks to maintain trade and cooperation with the State of Israel within its 1967 borders, in adherence to international law and Europe’s consumer protection laws – unlike the BDS movement that seeks to boycott and sanction the entire State of Israel. Recognizing the value of EU-Israel relationship, the EU's differentiation policy aims to incentivize Israel to resume negotiations with the Palestinians. The BDS movement, on the other hand, sets goals (such as revoking the right of return and abrogating the Law of Return) that if fully achieved would mean Israel’s end as a Jewish state. The differentiation policy includes an element of normative condemnation but not delegitimization of the State of Israel as a whole, as espoused by the BDS movement. Whereas the differentiation policy implements existing international law, the BDS movement aspires to change the international perception of Israel even within its 1967 borders. Currently, the economic implications of both the differentiation policy and the BDS movement are negligible. However, in the long term, the threat posed by the BDS activities is greater than that of the differentiation policy, since the BDS is not limited to the settlements. The UN recently issued a list of companies operating in the settlements, which could serve in the future to boycott the settlements and damage major companies that play a significant role in Israel’s economy. The EU does not see any connection between its differentiation policy and the BDS movement, to which some European states oppose.
Topic:
European Union, Economy, Occupation, Borders, and BDS
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine