Arab-Israeli Conflict Syllabus
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Pragmatic Dimension of the Palestinian Hamas: a Network Perspective
Mishal 569 The Pragmatic Dimension of the Palestinian Hamas: A Network Perspective SHAUL MISHAL n the wake of the 11 September attack on the World Trade Center in INew York and President Bush’s “war on terrorism,” it is important to try to understand the cultural, political, and social dimensions of such radical Islamic groups as the Palestinian Hamas. Within political and academic circles in the Western world, it is common to portray Islamic movements in categorical terms that utilize binary classifications that mark real or imaginary social attributes rather than relational patterns.1 Much of this perception derives from the violence accompanying Islamic reli- gious fervor and the fanaticism marking some of its groups and regimes, raising fears of “a clash of civilizations” and “a threat” to Western liberal democratic values and social order.2 Hamas, an abbreviation of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (Is- lamic Resistance Movement), did not escape the binary perception, and has been described solely as a movement identified with Islamic funda- mentalism and suicide bombings. The objectives at the top of its agenda are the liberation of Palestine through a holy war (jihad) against Israel, establishing an Islamic state on its soil, and reforming society in the spirit of true Islam. It is this Islamic vision, combined with its nationalist claims and militancy toward Israel, that accounts for the prevailing image of Hamas as a rigid movement, ready to pursue its goals at any cost, with no limits or constraints. Islamic and national zeal, bitter opposition to the SHAUL MISHAL teaches at the Department of Political Science at Tel Aviv University, where his research focuses on Arab and Palestinian politics. -
The Origins of Hamas: Militant Legacy Or Israeli Tool?
THE ORIGINS OF HAMAS: MILITANT LEGACY OR ISRAELI TOOL? JEAN-PIERRE FILIU Since its creation in 1987, Hamas has been at the forefront of armed resistance in the occupied Palestinian territories. While the move- ment itself claims an unbroken militancy in Palestine dating back to 1935, others credit post-1967 maneuvers of Israeli Intelligence for its establishment. This article, in assessing these opposing nar- ratives and offering its own interpretation, delves into the historical foundations of Hamas starting with the establishment in 1946 of the Gaza branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (the mother organization) and ending with its emergence as a distinct entity at the outbreak of the !rst intifada. Particular emphasis is given to the Brotherhood’s pre-1987 record of militancy in the Strip, and on the complicated and intertwining relationship between the Brotherhood and Fatah. HAMAS,1 FOUNDED IN the Gaza Strip in December 1987, has been the sub- ject of numerous studies, articles, and analyses,2 particularly since its victory in the Palestinian legislative elections of January 2006 and its takeover of Gaza in June 2007. Yet despite this, little academic atten- tion has been paid to the historical foundations of the movement, which grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Gaza branch established in 1946. Meanwhile, two contradictory interpretations of the movement’s origins are in wide circulation. The !rst portrays Hamas as heir to a militant lineage, rigorously inde- pendent of all Arab regimes, including Egypt, and harking back to ‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam,3 a Syrian cleric killed in 1935 while !ghting the British in Palestine. -
Introduction
Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-87598-1 - The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Second Edition Edited by Eugene L. Rogan and Avi Shlaim Excerpt More information Introduction The Palestine War lasted less than twenty months, from the United Nations resolution recommending the partition of Palestine in November 1947 to the final armistice agreement signed between Israel and Syria in July 1949. Those twenty months transformed the political landscape of the Middle East forever. Indeed, 1948 may be taken as a defining moment for the region as a whole. Arab Palestine was destroyed and the new state of Israel established. Egypt, Syria and Lebanon suffered outright defeat, Iraq held its lines, and Transjordan won at best a pyrrhic victory. Arab public opinion, unprepared for defeat, let alone a defeat of this magnitude, lost faith in its politicians. Within three years of the end of the Palestine War, the prime ministers of Egypt and Lebanon and the king of Jordan had been assassinated, and the president of Syria and the king of Egypt over- thrown by military coups. No event has marked Arab politics in the second half of the twentieth century more profoundly. The Arab–Israeli wars, the Cold War in the Middle East, the rise of the Palestinian armed struggle, and the politics of peace-making in all of their complexity are a direct con- sequence of the Palestine War. The significance of the Palestine War also lies in the fact that it was the first challenge to face the newly independent states of the Middle East. -
Georgetown University the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1917-2010 Spring Term 2011 Class 444: Monday, Wednesday 2:40-3:55 Pm Room ICC 104 Syllabus
Georgetown University The Arab-Israeli Conflict 1917-2010 Spring Term 2011 Class 444: Monday, Wednesday 2:40-3:55 pm Room ICC 104 Syllabus Professor Amatzia Baram E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Office Hours: Monday, 1.30-2.30 pm, Tuesday 2-3pm or by appointment Office: room 653, 6th floor, ICC Building Phone: (H) 202 640 1962 Office: 202 687 8389 Course Description: This course deals with the most central issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict in both historical and contemporary terms. The first and briefest part of the course deals with the growing clash between the Zionist Yishuv and Arabs of Palestine. It will follow its path since World War One from acceptance to discord and into a long-term conflict. We will begin by examining the roots of Jewish and Arab nationalisms, rival claims to Palestine, and growing conflict during the period of the British Mandate, including the growing involvement of Arab states. The second and main part of this course will cover the years 1947-1985, analyzing the causes and effects of six wars between Israel and the Arab states; those of 1948, 1956, 1967, 1969-70, 1973 and 1982, and the circumstances that made possible the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty of 1979. This stage of the course will also examine the impact of regional and global factors, such as inter-Arab rivalry and the Cold War. The third part of the course, time allowing, will begin with Israel’s withdrawal from most of the Lebanese territories (1985) that was followed by the Palestinian intifada of 1987-1993 and then deal with the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles of September 1993 (the Oslo Agreement) and the Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement of 1994. -
Dealing with Hamas
DEALING WITH HAMAS 26 January 2004 ICG Middle East Report N°21 Amman/Brussels TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 II. HAMAS: ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT.............................................................. 4 A. ORIGINS................................................................................................................................4 B. TRANSFORMATION................................................................................................................5 C. ASCENDANCY .......................................................................................................................6 D. THE CHALLENGE OF OSLO ....................................................................................................8 III. HAMAS AND THE POLITICS OF VIOLENCE ..................................................... 10 A. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE ...........................................................................................10 B. THE HAMAS CHARTER ........................................................................................................11 C. HAMAS AND THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION ............................................................................13 D. HAMAS AND THE USES OF VIOLENCE ..................................................................................16 IV. OPTIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS.................................................................. -
A Comparative Analysis Between the Palestinians of Lebanon and Jordan
Taylor University Pillars at Taylor University Global Studies History, Global & Political Studies Department Spring 2021 A Comparative Analysis Between the Palestinians of Lebanon and Jordan Kassidy Grace Hall Taylor University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://pillars.taylor.edu/globalstudies Part of the International and Area Studies Commons, International and Intercultural Communication Commons, and the Peace and Conflict Studies Commons Recommended Citation Hall, Kassidy Grace, "A Comparative Analysis Between the Palestinians of Lebanon and Jordan" (2021). Global Studies. 1. https://pillars.taylor.edu/globalstudies/1 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the History, Global & Political Studies Department at Pillars at Taylor University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Global Studies by an authorized administrator of Pillars at Taylor University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Comparative Analysis Between the Palestinians of Lebanon and Jordan: The History, Integration, and Role of Refugees in the Arab-Israel Conflict and Peace Process Kassidy Hall GBS 480 November 2020 Introduction In many Arab countries, Palestinian affairs are domestic affairs. This is especially true of Jordan, where the US State Department estimates that over half of the population is of Palestinian origin.1 Lebanon, Israel/Palestine’s neighbor to the north, presents a different case. There, Palestinians account for around 10% of the population and are overall poorer and met with more resentment from the government compared to other countries.2 In the wake of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Lebanon and Jordan are two countries out of many in the Middle East that absorbed these Palestinian refugees. -
1948 Arab‒Israeli
1948 Arab–Israeli War 1 1948 Arab–Israeli War מלחמת or מלחמת העצמאות :The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew ,מלחמת השחרור :, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet HA'sikhror) or War of Liberation (Hebrewהשחרור Milkhemet Hashikhrur) – was the first in a series of wars fought between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours in the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict. The war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948. The fighting took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.[1] ., al-Nakba) occurred amidst this warﺍﻟﻨﻜﺒﺔ :Much of what Arabs refer to as The Catastrophe (Arabic The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Background Following World War II, on May 14, 1948, the British Mandate of Palestine came to an end. The surrounding Arab nations were also emerging from colonial rule. Transjordan, under the Hashemite ruler Abdullah I, gained independence from Britain in 1946 and was called Jordan, but it remained under heavy British influence. Egypt, while nominally independent, signed the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 that included provisions by which Britain would maintain a garrison of troops on the Suez Canal. From 1945 on, Egypt attempted to renegotiate the terms of this treaty, which was viewed as a humiliating vestige of colonialism. Lebanon became an independent state in 1943, but French troops would not withdraw until 1946, the same year that Syria won its independence from France. -
The Promise and Failure of the Zionist-Maronite Relationship, 1920-1948
The Promise and Failure of the Zionist-Maronite Relationship, 1920-1948 Master’s Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Ilan Troen, Graduate Advisor In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Master’s Degree by Scott Abramson February 2012 Acknowledgements I cannot omit the expression of my deepest gratitude to my defense committee, the formidable triumvirate of Professors Troen, Makiya, and Salameh. To register my admiration for these scholars would be to court extravagance (and deplete a printer cartridge), so I shall have to limit myself to this brief tribute of heartfelt thanks. ii ABSTRACT The Promise and Failure of the Zionist-Maronite Relationship, 1920-1948 A thesis presented to the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Waltham, Massachusetts By Scott Abramson Much of the historiography on the intercourse between Palestinian Jews and Lebanese Maronites concerns only the two peoples’ relations in the seventies and eighties. This thesis, in contrast, attempts a departure from this scholarship, joining the handful of other works that chart the history of the Zionist-Maronite relationship in its earliest incarnation. From its inception to its abeyance beginning in 1948, this almost thirty-year relationship was marked by a search of a formal alliance. This thesis, by presenting a panoptical survey of early Zionist-Maronite relations, explores the many dimensions of this pursuit. It details the Zionists and Maronites’ numerous commonalities that made an alliance desirable and apparently possible; it profiles the specific elements among the Zionists and Maronites who sought an entente; it examines each of the measures the two peoples took to this end; and it analyzes why this protracted pursuit ultimately failed. -
The Oslo Process in Israeli Perspective
Difficult Dialogue: The Oslo Process in Israeli Perspective Avraham Sela I. Preface The Oslo Accords seemed to represent the new post-Cold War/ post-Gulf War era, which ostensibly heralded the beginning of a “new world order” under American hegemony. The weakened Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Arab radical actors, such as Syria and Iraq; the belief that the American-led capitalist, market-oriented ideology had scored its final victory—best expressed by Francis Fuku- yama’s “End of History” thesis; Israel’s vulnerability to Iraq’s medium- range missiles and to American financial pressures; and the perceived loss of Israel’s status as a reliable U.S. ally in a tumultuous Middle East all seemed to have created ripe conditions for a historical breakthrough in the long-stalemated Arab-Israeli peace process. Indeed, the first two years following the signing of the Oslo Accords were especially marked by international optimism, together with a growing temptation to foresee a “new Middle East,” characterized by joint economic ventures, development projects, and social coopera- tion, on both regional and Israeli-Palestinian levels. During this period, Israel and the PLO seemed determined to cement their partnership: implementing the Gaza-Jericho phase, signing the Paris Economic Pro- tocol which defined their economic relations, and signing the Oslo II Accord by which Israel would withdraw from all Palestinian cities, thus transferring responsibility for most of the Palestinians in the West Bank, in addition to Gaza, into the hands of the Palestinian Authority (PA). 105 Macalester International Vol. 23 This discernible progress, however, could hardly blur the signifi- cance of formidable obstacles, first and foremost the internal opposi- tion, with which the leaders on both sides had to cope in the process of implementation of the agreement. -
Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress
Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress Jim Zanotti Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs December 2, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41514 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress Summary This report and its appendixes provide background information on Hamas, or the Islamic Resistance Movement, and U.S. policy towards it. It also includes information and analysis on (1) the threats Hamas currently poses to U.S. interests, (2) how Hamas compares with other Middle East terrorist groups, (3) Hamas’s ideology and policies (both generally and on discrete issues), (4) its leadership and organization, and (5) its sources of assistance. Finally, the report raises and discusses various legislative and oversight options related to foreign aid strategies, financial sanctions, and regional and international political approaches. In evaluating these options, Congress can assess how Hamas has emerged and adapted over time, and also scrutinize the track record of U.S., Israeli, and international policy to counter Hamas. Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist military and sociopolitical movement that grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood. The United States, Israel, the European Union, and Canada consider Hamas a terrorist organization because of (1) its violent resistance to what it deems Israeli occupation of historic Palestine (constituting present-day Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip), and (2) its rejection of the off-and-on peace process involving Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since the early 1990s. Since Hamas’s inception in 1987, it has maintained its primary base of political support and its military command in the Gaza Strip—a territory it has controlled since June 2007—while also having a significant presence in the West Bank. -
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in Partial Fulfil
THE DAHIYEH DOCTRINE: THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH STATES CAN ESTABLISH ASYMMETRIC DETERRENCE A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Government By Rafael D. Frankel, M.S. Washington, DC July 3, 2013 Copyright 2013 by Rafael D. Frankel All Rights Reserved ii THE DAHIYEH DOCTRINE: THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH STATES CAN ESTABLISH ASYMMETRIC DETERRENCE Rafael D. Frankel, M.S. Thesis Advisor: Daniel L. Byman, Ph.D. ABSTRACT For the last decade, a growing body of research has sough to understand how classical deterrence methods could be adapted by states to establish asymmetric deterrence against non-state militant groups. Various strategies were suggested, but the research undertaken to date focused nearly exclusively on the actions of the defending state. This research project is the first formal effort to discover under what conditions deterrence against such groups can be established by focusing on important attributes of the non-state groups themselves. The result is the development of the Asymmetric Deterrence Matrix (ADM), which in eight temporally-bound case studies involving Hamas and Hezbollah successfully predicts the level of deterrence Israel should have been able to achieve against those groups at given periods of time. This research demonstrates that there are four main causal factors related to a non-state group’s characteristics that constrain and encourage the success of asymmetric deterrence strategies by states: elements of statehood (territorial control, political authority, and responsibility for a dependent population), organizational structure, ideology, and inter- factional rivalries. -
A Historiographic Review of Literature on the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict "
"A Historiographic Review of Literature on the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict " by Kenneth W. Stein in THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW DECEMBER 1991 VOL 96 NUMBER 5, pp. 1450-1465 A recently completed study analyzed the status of Middle Eastern history in colleges and universities in the United States. It revealed that American and European historians have maintained an imposing preponderance within academic departments of history. Curriculum and scholarship about "Third World" countries continue to be represented by proportionately few historians. Furthermore, within the "Third World" area, there are fewer teaching positions for the Middle East than for Africa, East Asia, or Latin America. 1 In North America and Western Europe, academic centers for the study of the Middle East developed slowly after World War II. Studying and teaching Middle Eastern history took place at a limited number of institutions, introduced only as adjuncts to the coursework on Semitic languages, philology, or religion. Today, the number of properly trained Middle Eastern historians remains low, partly because of the challenging requirements of intricate foreign languages, the prolonged time needed to complete a doctorate, and lower remuneration than in alternative job opportunities for those with a Middle Eastern academic interest. In comparison to other fields of historical study, Middle Eastern history is a relatively young specialty, sparsely populated, and undeveloped in range and depth of scholarly publications. Since Middle Eastern historians are few in number, they are usually responsible for teaching regional courses that require broad historical coverage and often encompass issues that range chronologically from the Prophet Muhammad's life to Ayatollah Khomeini's death.