Number of results to display per page
Search Results
32. Why Pakistan won’t be next to normalize with Israel
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Domestic constraints, support for Palestine and growing ties with Iran will likely continue to keep Pakistan and Israel apart.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, Normalization, and Domestic Policy
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine
33. Breaking the Israel-Palestine Status Quo
- Author:
- Zaha Hassan, Daniel Levy, Hallaamal Keir, and Marwan Muasher
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- A new U.S. approach should prioritize protecting the rights and human security of Palestinians and Israelis over maintaining a peace process and attempting short-term fixes. The authors of this paper identified four overarching areas of focus: (1) prioritize rights and protect people, (2) roll back the Trump administration’s actions and reassert international law, (3) clarify expectations for Palestinians and Israelis, and (4) support new multilateral approaches and accountability.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America
34. The Boundaries of Jerusalem
- Author:
- Gideon Biger
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Polish Political Science Yearbook
- Institution:
- Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
- Abstract:
- Earlier this year, President Donald Trump presented his Peace Plan for Israel and the Palestinians. The plan also dealt with the future boundaries of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the only city ruled by a sovereign regime, the State of Israel, which declared Jerusalem as its Capital city and draw its boundary lines. Except for the US, the status and boundaries of Jerusalem are not accepted by any other international or national entity. Only the United States, which accepts Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel, agreed to accept its Israeli declared boundaries. Jerusalem’s status and boundaries stand at the core of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which wishes to restore the pre-1967 line. The city of Jerusalem was divided during the years 1948-1967 between Israel and Jordan. The Palestinian Authority thus calls for a separation of Jerusalem between two independent states. Today, Jerusalem has an urban boundary that serves partly as a separating line between Israel and the Palestinian Autonomy, but most countries do not accept the present boundaries, and its future permanent line and status are far from establishing. Jerusalem is a unique city. This article presents a brief history that should help understanding its uniqueness.
- Topic:
- International Cooperation, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, and Urban
- Political Geography:
- Israel, Palestine, and Jerusalem
35. A New U.S. Strategy for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
- Author:
- Ilan Goldenberg, Michael Koplow, and Tamara Coffman Wittes
- Publication Date:
- 12-2020
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
- Abstract:
- Today’s realities demand that the United States change its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its current focus is on high-profile diplomatic initiatives that aim for a permanent agreement in which the United States is the central mediator. Instead, the United States must focus on taking tangible steps, both on the ground and diplomatically, that will improve the freedom, prosperity, and security of all people living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, while also cultivating the conditions for a future two-state agreement negotiated between the parties.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, and Negotiation
- Political Geography:
- Israel, Palestine, and United States of America
36. Trump’s “Deal of the Century” Is Not the Reversal of US Policy toward Israel– Palestine —The Reversal Is What We Need
- Author:
- Sadiq Saffarini
- Publication Date:
- 01-2020
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Harvard Journal of Middle Eastern Politics and Policy
- Institution:
- The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
- Abstract:
- The article analyzes President Trump’s vision for a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, the so-called Deal of the Century announced on January 28. While the proposal uses the language of hope and prosperity and expresses support for the two-state solution, its provisions actually render the Palestinian “state” inviable. The plan does not empower the Palestinian state with full sovereignty over its territory nor does it recognize its internationally accepted borders, while at the same time nullifying the Palestinian right of return. In short, the plan seeks to legalize and legitimize the status quo by enabling Israeli expansionism and the systemic denial of Palestinian rights, which is a flagrant violation of international law and has no legal validity.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Sovereignty, Treaties and Agreements, Territorial Disputes, Peace, and Donald Trump
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America
37. Palestinian Non-Violence Examples in Facing Internal Disputes
- Author:
- Talal Abu-Rokba and Islam Musa
- Publication Date:
- 09-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Pal-Think For Strategic Studies
- Abstract:
- Throughout history, Palestinian non-violence culture was based on a large historical stock of tolerance and coexistence within the Palestinian community. Over time, the Palestinian people have been shaping one nation; they share the same culture, civilization, and political environment as well as equal shared prospects and future. For fifteen centuries, Muslim, Christian, Jewish Palestinians lived together. Usually, their different beliefs were not a reason for dispute or schism. Coexistence and a culture of respect were demonstrated in the Palestinian community. Thereby, it appears in numerous aspects of their lifestyle. For instance, they lived in the same neighborhoods, villages, and cities. Historically, population distributions showed non-religions-based demographics; they were even integrated into social, educational, and political institutions Contemporarily, Palestinians are one body. They are all related to one land where they share and cooperate on social, cultural, political, and economic levels.
- Topic:
- Religion, Territorial Disputes, Violence, and Community
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, and Palestine
38. The US and the Israeli –Palestinian Conflict: One-state solution, two-state solution or no solution at all?
- Author:
- Raffaella A. Del Sarto, Rashid Khalidi, Gideon Levy, and Cengiz Günay
- Publication Date:
- 11-2020
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
- Abstract:
- The online discussion explored the situation on the ground, elaborated on whether and how the Trump administration’s policies have impacted the conflict in the long-run, its repercussions on the broader Middle East region, and assess the role a Biden administration might play in the next future?
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, Negotiation, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America
39. The Palestinians and U.S. Elections: What’s at Stake?
- Author:
- Khaled Elgindy, Martin Indyk, Nour Odeh, and Shibley Telhami
- Publication Date:
- 10-2020
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- Middle East Institute (MEI)
- Abstract:
- As Americans head to the polls in November the results will have far reaching implications for Americans and the global community alike—perhaps none more so than Israelis and especially Palestinians. Insofar as Israelis and Palestinians are concerned, the differences between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden could not be more stark. While Trump has upended one sacred pillar of the peace process after another Biden has pledged to reverse the most destructive of these policies in the hope of salvaging what remains of a two-state solution and to restore U.S.-Palestinian relations, now at an all-time low. Even as the Trump administration has worked to preempt virtually all issues of concern to the Palestinians—from Jerusalem and refugees to the prospect of self-determination—Palestinians are themselves beset by a host of internal and external challenges. Internal political division, institutional paralysis, and a chronic economic crisis, have brought the Palestinian Authority (PA) to the verge of collapse and sapped its legitimacy. Meanwhile, the recent normalization deals between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, and the possibility further normalizations, have underscored the marginalization of the Palestinian cause, both in the region and in the global policy discussion. What is—or should be—the Palestinian national strategy in light of these unprecedented challenges? Can the PA survive another Trump term? Would an ostensible return to the status quo ante by a Biden administration be enough to save the two-state solution?
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Elections, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America
40. After the Trump “Peace Plan”: One-State Solution is the Only Way Forward
- Author:
- Diana Buttu
- Publication Date:
- 03-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Arab Reform Initiative (ARI)
- Abstract:
- Last month, a Palestinian think tank, the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research, revealed its survey results following the release of the Trump/Netanyahu plan. In announcing the results, Dr Khalil Shikaki, the head of the polling centre, noted that 94 percent of Palestinian respondents opposed the plan: “I don't think we've ever seen such a level of consensus among the Palestinian public,” he said. These results are unsurprising, of course, as the Trump/Netanyahu plan effectively seeks Palestinian approval for Israeli land theft, ethnic cleansing and continued subjugation. But alongside the results of the question pertaining to the Trump/Netanyahu plan was a more important question: “Do you support the two-state solution?” A mere 39 percent of surveyed respondents answered affirmatively, while 37 percent indicated that they support a one-state solution. These results should be placed in their proper light: for more than two decades, as the Palestinian leadership and the international community have repeatedly called for the implementation of the two-state solution, increasing numbers of Palestinians have moved away from this view and increasingly supported one state, even though there is not a single Palestinian party – whether inside ‘48 borders or in the occupied territories – advocating for it. In fact, Palestinian leaders and the international community both espouse the common view of decrying the concept of one state and adamantly holding that “There is no Plan B.” The reason for this steadily increasing Palestinian support for one state has both everything and nothing to do with the Trump/Netanyahu plan. This plan makes clear that it aims to ensure that Palestinians will never have a state and instead remain forever under Israel’s boot. But it isn’t just the Trump plan. Over time, Palestinians increasingly have seen that the version of “two states” that the international community will support – and indeed press for – is not the version of two states that Palestinians demand. To the contrary, while the world spoke of a two-state settlement, Palestinians witnessed a tripling of the number of Israeli settlers living on their land. The international community appears content with allowing Israel to build and expand settlements, while at the same time allowing it to demolish Palestinian homes and schools and imprison Palestinians into cantons. This approach condones Israel holding our economy hostage and mercilessly besieging the Gaza Strip, with only the mildest, mealy-mouthed international condemnations. The world community has blocked attempts to press for a condemnation of Israeli settlements in the International Criminal Court and has, in some cases, criminalized support for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). Even the European Union has been loath to uphold its trade agreement with Israel, under which Israeli settlement products should be labelled separately and should not benefit from free trade status. It has become clear that while the international community speaks of wanting a two-state settlement, it has shown itself wholly unwilling to do anything to make that happen. As someone who participated in the peace negotiations, I observed that a state for Palestinians was the furthest thing from the Israeli public and political leadership’s thinking. Instead, they were concerned with how to forever contain and control Palestinians, and how to maintain longstanding international community support in this endeavour. In short, the concept of two states has become devoid of all meaning, with the focus instead on form – whether labelled as a “state” and however dysfunctional and lacking any of the powers that actually define a state. This increasing realization has led many Palestinians to abandon the statehood project. This may sound like a defeatist position or the expression of frustration. Indeed, over the years, we have heard PLO leaders threaten to abandon the two-state project and, separately, threaten to dissolve the Palestinian Authority. Some support for one state is undoubtedly borne of that feeling. But not all. To be clear, my support for one state grew not from the futility of negotiations – even though they were indeed futile – but from a sense that the approach was incorrect. The attempt to divide land simply modelled the power structures I was attempting to fight – economic and political structures that aim to maintain Israeli power and control over Palestinians lives. Therefore, rather than focus on land – where Israel always has an advantage –, the focus should be on people and how we, as people, should live. The time has come to look to a model that focuses on equal rights for all, irrespective of religion; a model which seeks reconciliation and not separation and where people are protected and not viewed as subjects of control or, in the case of refugees, of wholesale and heartless exclusion. Today Israel and the occupied territories function as one territory, with rights and privileges granted to some and not to others. There are no separate border crossings for “Palestine” and no separate Palestinian currency. Yet Palestinians, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, are denied the same rights and privileges as Israeli Jews. I am under no illusion that achieving this equality will be easy. Power is never voluntarily given up by those who wield it but taken through pressing for rights. Palestinians will be better able to break down the system of ethnic-religious privilege that plagues Palestinians (a similar system ruled apartheid South Africa) by getting to the root cause – that of Zionism, a nationalist project that favours one group over another –, by pushing for BDS and for accountability internationally and by challenging racist Israeli laws. In short, we can and must create a just system for all, irrespective of whether we demand one or two states. History demonstrates that ethnic privilege ultimately fails in a multi-ethnic world. And given that Palestinians and Israelis are fated to live together, the real question is whether we will continue to allow this system of ethno-religious privilege to prevail or whether we will press for equality, irrespective of religion. Borders, flags, and currencies can wait.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Borders, Peace, and Settlements
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, and Palestine