1 - 5 of 5
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Shifting Paradigms for Israel-Palestine: Why the EU Must Answer the Wake-Up Call Now
- Author:
- Akram Ezzamouri and Miriam Zenobio
- Publication Date:
- 04-2023
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Abstract:
- Three months ago, the most far-right government in the history of Israel was sworn in by the Knesset under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu. Notably, Itamar Ben-Gvir, the Kahanist leader of Jewish Power and former convict for racist incitement, has been appointed the head of the newly created Ministry of National Security.[1] Additionally, Bezalel Smotrich, leader of the settler-based Religious Zionism party, has been given major control over the administration of the occupied West Bank as the head of the Finance Ministry.[2] The new government has spurred a nationwide mobilisation in Israel, as many criticise the proposed judicial reform aimed at curtailing the Supreme Court’s power to exercise judicial review of legislation, giving the government control over judicial appointments and granting the Knesset the power to override the Court’s rulings. After weeks of protests – mainly attended by secular liberal Jewish Israelis[3] – the reform has been put on hold as part of a coalition agreement which includes the establishment of a National Guard led by Itamar Ben-Gvir and tasked with handling “Arab unrest”, thus anticipating even more state-sanctioned violence on Palestinians.[4] In fact, the number of Palestinians killed in 2023 is already set to surpass last year’s data, with at least 95 deaths since January.[5] This record in violence has been characterised by near-daily raids carried out by the Israeli military across the occupied West Bank, particularly in Jenin, Nablus and Jericho, aiming at curbing the resurgence of Palestinian armed resistance to the occupation.[6] In the same time span, at least 16 Israelis have been killed.[7]
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Human Rights, European Union, and Occupation
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Gaza
3. A Glimpse of Freedom: Allied Occupation and Political Resistance in East Germany
- Author:
- Luis Martinez, Jonas Jessen, and Guo Xu
- Publication Date:
- 04-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Empirical Studies of Conflict Project (ESOC)
- Abstract:
- This paper studies costly political resistance in a non-democracy. When Nazi Germany surrendered in May 1945, 40% of the designated Soviet occupation zone was initially captured by the western Allied Expeditionary Force. This occupation was short-lived: Soviet forces took over after less than two months and installed an authoritarian regime in what became the German Democratic Republic (GDR). We exploit the idiosyncratic line of contact separating Allied and Soviet troops within the GDR to show that areas briefly under Allied occupation had higher incidence of protests during the only major episode of political unrest in the GDR before its demise in 1989 - the East German Uprising of 1953. These areas also exhibited lower regime support during the last free elections in 1946. We argue that even a “glimpse of freedom" can foster civilian opposition to dictatorship.
- Topic:
- Democracy, Occupation, World War II, Dictatorship, and Resistance
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Germany, and East Germany
4. Court of Justice of the EU Ruling on Products from Territories Occupied by Israel
- Author:
- Michał Wojnarowicz and Szymon Zaręba
- Publication Date:
- 01-2020
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- The Polish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- On 12 November 2019, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) issued a judgment on products from Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Golan Heights. It states that EU members are required to ensure that the origin is properly marked. The implementation of this requirement may cause disputes in the EU because of differences in Member States’ policies towards Israel. Tensions in relations with the U.S. are also possible, especially in the context of that country’s recent change in policy favouring the Israeli position on settlements. Hence, it is advisable for the EU to develop a uniform policy regarding imports and labelling of products from all occupied territories.
- Topic:
- International Law, Territorial Disputes, European Union, Occupation, Judiciary, and Trade
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, United States of America, West Bank, and Golan Heights
5. 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