DOCSLIB.ORG

SUCCESSION and the PEACE PROCESS by Lenore Martin*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SUCCESSION and the PEACE PROCESS by Lenore Martin* ARAFAT’S DUELING DILEMMAS: SUCCESSION AND THE PEACE PROCESS By Lenore Martin* This article analyzes the intersecting dilemmas involved in the succession to Yasir Arafat. Succession theory explains the first dilemma: Arafat’s refusal to designate his successor for fear of usurpation encourages a succession struggle. The smooth transition of power after Arafat depends on the political legitimacy of his Fatah-controlled regime. The second dilemma: the unresolved peace process threatens to undermine that legitimacy which is already under challenge by factions within and outside of Fatah that oppose the peace process. How Arafat and his regime resolve these dilemmas will determine the future of a Palestinian state. INTRODUCTION Arafat to leave the scene without a political The fate of the nascent Palestinian state resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. still hangs in large measure on the answer to In that event, it is more likely that a the question: who will succeed Yasir Arafat? succession struggle will erupt, pitting The answer, while never entirely transparent, mainstream candidates against each other appeared somewhat easier to reach before and against rejectionists. Moreover, even if the recrudescence of the intifada in the fall a single candidate emerged, there would of 2000 and the apparent breakdown of the likely be an extended period of uncertainty peace process. Most analysts then predicted or instability within the Palestinian polity. A a succession contest dominated by violent succession contest would seriously candidates within Fatah and the ruling elite, destabilize the foundations of a still fragile while at the same time recognizing the Palestine and its repercussions would impact possibility of a violent succession the entire region. struggle.(1) The second intifada and the The issues confronting a stable suspension of peace talks, however, put into succession and a stable peace are interlocked question the feasibility of a smooth on the horns of dueling dilemmas linked to succession and underscore the need for the the legitimacy of the regime. The first is a Arafat regime to repair the rifts in the larger dilemma of succession. Every autocrat Palestinian political community in order to hesitates to groom a successor for fear of achieve it. usurpation. Yet, in the absence of an This article seeks to provide an in-depth acknowledged successor, candidates for explanation for why the succession to Arafat succession may engage in violent struggles would be smooth or turbulent. It argues that for power and put into issue the legitimacy the divisions within the Palestinian polity of the autocrat’s regime. over the legitimacy of the Arafat regime and The second dilemma results from the the feasibility of the peace process to stymied peace process born of the Oslo achieve Palestinian national aspirations Accords of 1993 and 1995. The peace foreshadow an even greater crisis were process was, in part, a search for alternatives 60 Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 1 (March 2002) Lenore Martin to the anger and frustration on both the may change over time as some candidates Palestinian and Israeli sides begotten from drop off, as when Faisal Husseini died in the violence of the first intifada that had 2001, or newer names may appear as the begun in 1987. The peace process result of political maneuvering or popular legitimized the establishment of the recognition. Palestinian Authority (PA) and contributed Social science succession theorists warn to the legitimization of the Arafat regime. us not to engage in such speculation.(3) However, the final status negotiations called Outcomes of succession struggles are for profound compromises that many in the unpredictable, particularly where the rules of Palestinian political community were not succession themselves may be challenged. prepared to accept. The failure to resolve Such is often the case in the authoritarian the passionately controversial issues regimes of the developing world where the involved in the peace process increased the political legitimacy of the regime has not challenges to the political legitimacy of the become entrenched.(4) By contrast, in the Arafat regime. The second intifada has western democracies where political again given vent to anger and frustration and legitimacy has been well entrenched, the the violent responses on both Palestinian and rules of succession have been Israeli sides threaten to destroy any chance institutionalized and violent succession for renewal or progress in the peace process. struggles are considered a very low risk.(5) This article will first explore the Nonetheless, even in well-established development of these interlocking dilemmas, authoritarian regimes, there is always a risk and then address their implications. that the regime might collapse and the rules of succession would change, as occurred in ARAFAT’S SUCCESSION DILEMMA the former Communist states of the Soviet Succession Theory and the Middle East Union and Eastern Europe.(6) That is There is always considerable speculation certainly the case if overturning a regime is over who may succeed the aging and the result of a social revolution, as witnessed sometimes ailing President of the PA, the 72 in the Middle East: the Arab nationalist year-old Yasir Arafat. Arafat himself fuels regimes that deposed monarchies in Egypt, the speculation by refusing to designate a Syria and Iraq; the Islamist revolution in successor. Will his successor be a member Iran; and the Ataturk revolution in Turkey. of the old-line Fatah leadership such as the Why the lack of predictability, Oslo peace process advocate and Secretary particularly in an autocratic regime? The General of the PLO Executive Committee, answer involves the autocrat’s dilemma. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen); or an Oslo On the one horn, autocrats do not designate peace process rejectionist, such as the Head successors for fear of encouraging premature of the Political Department of Fatah and usurpation of the their power. Rather, “Foreign Minister” of the PLO, Faruq autocrats prefer to encourage competition Qaddami; or even the more middle of the among subordinates,(7) sometimes creating road, speaker of the Palestinian Legislative overlapping bureaucracies. To induce Council, Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala)? Or, will loyalty the autocrats offer patronage to their it be a Palestinian notable such as Zakariya subordinates,(8) thereby providing them al Agha, or a Fatah Young Turk such as with opportunities to indulge in personal Marwan Barghouti, or the leader of one of corruption. On the other horn, the struggle the security forces, such as Jibril Rajoub on for power among potential successors, as the West Bank, or his counterpart well as bureaucratic inefficiencies and the Muhammad Dahlan, in Gaza?(2) The lists personal corruption of subordinates, can Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 1 (March 2002) 61 Arafat’s Dueling Dilemmas: Succession and the Peace Process undermine the effectiveness of the regime not to formally announce his designation of and encourage opponents to challenge its a successor, Hussein has not completely political legitimacy. All of which, in turn, resolved the dilemma. He still risks a breed new contenders for power, risking bids struggle for succession between his sons and to usurp the ruler, or at least invite their respective allies.(13) And in instances succession struggles, again risking the where there may be a number of hereditary longevity of the regime. successors, the autocrat may still wait to To try to resolve this dilemma, the designate a successor at the last minute, as autocrat has two possible options, neither of did King Hussein of Jordan. which offers a perfect solution. The first The alternative option is for the autocrat option may be to appoint a family member to confer succession upon a weak or neutral as successor, thereby introducing (or if candidate, as reportedly Nasser did in already a monarchy, thereby continuing) a selecting Anwar Sadat as his successor in rule of hereditary succession. Although Egypt. This too may not resolve the there are multiple choices for principles of dilemma, because, if the so-called weak hereditary succession, such as agnatic designee shows too much strength, the seniority (the oldest son) and agnatic- autocratic may then revoke the designation, cognitic (oldest child, including female as Mao did with his revocation of Lin Biao children), there is often a preference for as his successor. Also, the designation of a selecting the oldest son.(9) The rationale successor may stimulate potential rivals to behind appointing typically the oldest male try to eliminate the designee, as did Deng child, whom the autocrat can both dominate Xiao Ping in purging Hua Guofeng in the and trust, anticipates that familial affection struggle for Mao’s succession.(14) and favoritism will breed greater loyalty and Ultimately, if the autocrat chooses not to lower the risk of usurpation than with resolve the succession dilemma and dies or unrelated subordinates. We have seen this leaves power without having appointed a phenomenon recently even in staunchly successor, it becomes the task of the regime republican states in the Middle East. Thus, to appoint the new leader. If the regime Hafiz al-Asad designated his son, Bashar, as faces a power struggle that could lead to its his successor in Syria, and Saddam Hussein destruction, the ruling elite may try to appears to be grooming both of his sons to forestall the succession struggle by succeed him in Iraq.(10) appointing a weak or neutral candidate. This Introducing hereditary succession, may be only a temporary measure until however, does not always work to resolve another strongman comes to power, as the dilemma. Hafiz al-Asad had in fact evidenced by the Ba’thist successions in originally designated his eldest son, Basil, as Syria and Iraq that ultimately brought Hafiz his successor. After Basil’s untimely death al-Asad and Saddam Hussein to power.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Palestinian Forces
    Center for Strategic and International Studies Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy 1800 K Street, N.W. • Suite 400 • Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 1 (202) 775 -3270 • Fax : 1 (202) 457 -8746 Email: [email protected] Palestinian Forces Palestinian Authority and Militant Forces Anthony H. Cordesman Center for Strategic and International Studies [email protected] Rough Working Draft: Revised February 9, 2006 Copyright, Anthony H. Cordesman, all rights reserved. May not be reproduced, referenced, quote d, or excerpted without the written permission of the author. Cordesman: Palestinian Forces 2/9/06 Page 2 ROUGH WORKING DRAFT: REVISED FEBRUARY 9, 2006 ................................ ................................ ............ 1 THE MILITARY FORCES OF PALESTINE ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 2 THE OSLO ACCORDS AND THE NEW ISRAELI -PALESTINIAN WAR ................................ ................................ .............. 3 THE DEATH OF ARAFAT AND THE VICTORY OF HAMAS : REDEFINING PALESTINIAN POLITICS AND THE ARAB - ISRAELI MILITARY BALANCE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY FORC ES ................................ ................................ .......... 5 Palestinian Authority Forces During the Peace Process ................................ ................................ ..................... 6 The
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Stage Presents the Winner of the 2017 Tony Award for Best Play
    NORTHERN STAGE PRESENTS THE WINNER OF THE 2017 TONY AWARD FOR BEST PLAY ABOUT THE PLAYWRIGHT J.T. Rogers is a multiple award-winning, internationally recognized American playwright who lives in New York. His plays include Oslo, Blood and Gifts, The ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Overwhelming, White People, and Madagascar. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ In May 2017, Rogers won the Lucille Lortel Award for Best Play, the Outer Critics Circle Award for Outstanding New Broadway Play, and the 2017 Drama League Award for Outstanding Production of a Play, all for Oslo. Oslo was nominated for ​ ​ seven 2017 Tony Awards, including Best Play, as well as two 2017 Drama Desk Awards, including Outstanding Play. It ultimately won the Tony Award for Best Play and the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Play. In 2017, Oslo also won the ​ Obie Award for Best New American Theatre Work. “As a playwright, I look to tell stories that are framed against great political rupture. I am obsessed with putting characters onstage who struggle with, and against, cascading world events — and who are changed forever through that struggle. While journalism sharpens our minds, the theater can expand our sense of what it means to be human. It is where we can come together in a communal space to hear ideas that grip us, surprise us — even infuriate us — as we learn of things we didn’t know. For me, that is a deeply, thrillingly, political act.” TERMS TO KNOW ● PLO: Palestine Liberation Organization. The PLO represents the world’s Palestinians (Arabs who lived in Palestine before the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel).
    [Show full text]
  • Fatah and Hamas: the New Palestinian Factional Reality
    Order Code RS22395 March 3, 2006 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Fatah and Hamas: the New Palestinian Factional Reality Aaron D. Pina Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary For the first time in its history, the Palestinian parliament is set to be led by Hamas, which the United States and European Union have designated a foreign terrorist organization. Although some lauded the generally free and fair election in January 2006, others criticized the outcome and accused Hamas of “hijacking” democracy. This report provides an overview of the new political realities in the West Bank and Gaza after the election, the challenges Fatah and Hamas face, and possible implications for U.S. policy. This report will be updated as warranted. For more information on the Palestinians, see CRS Report RL33269, Palestinian Elections, by Aaron D. Pina, CRS Issue Brief IB91137 The Middle East Peace Talks, by Carol Migdalovitz, and CRS Report RS22370, U.S. Assistance to the Palestinians, by Jeremy M. Sharp. Background On January 25, 2006, Palestinians voted in parliamentary elections and Hamas emerged as the clear winner, with 74 out of 132 parliamentary seats. Fatah, the dominant party in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), won 45 seats, and 13 seats went to other minor parties. Since then, several governments, including the United States, have cautioned that unless Hamas disavows terrorism, recognizes Israel, and accepts all previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements, diplomatic and economic relations with the Palestinian Authority may be circumscribed or ended altogether. Hamas1 During the 1970s and 1980s, Palestinians experienced a rise in political Islam, embodied in Hamas, founded in 1987 by the late Sheik Ahmad Yasin.
    [Show full text]
  • The Palestinians: Background and U.S
    The Palestinians: Background and U.S. Relations Jim Zanotti Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs August 17, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34074 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The Palestinians: Background and U.S. Relations Summary This report covers current issues in U.S.-Palestinian relations. It also contains an overview of Palestinian society and politics and descriptions of key Palestinian individuals and groups— chiefly the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Palestinian Authority (PA), Fatah, Hamas, and the Palestinian refugee population. The “Palestinian question” is important not only to Palestinians, Israelis, and their Arab state neighbors, but to many countries and non-state actors in the region and around the world— including the United States—for a variety of religious, cultural, and political reasons. U.S. policy toward the Palestinians is marked by efforts to establish a Palestinian state through a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; to counter Palestinian terrorist groups; and to establish norms of democracy, accountability, and good governance within the Palestinian Authority (PA). Congress has appropriated assistance to support Palestinian governance and development amid concern for preventing the funds from benefitting Palestinian rejectionists who advocate violence against Israelis. Among the issues in U.S. policy toward the Palestinians is how to deal with the political leadership of Palestinian society, which is divided between the Fatah-led PA in parts of the West Bank and Hamas (a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization) in the Gaza Strip. Following Hamas’s takeover of Gaza in June 2007, the United States and the other members of the international Quartet (the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia) have sought to bolster the West Bank-based PA, led by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Palestinian Cabinet | the Washington Institute
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 493 A New Palestinian Cabinet by Ben Fishman Feb 25, 2005 ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ben Fishman Ben Fishman is a Senior Fellow in The Washington Institute's Geduld Program on Arab Politics. Brief Analysis n February 24, 2005, the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) approved the new cabinet presented by Prime O Minister Ahmed Qurei by a vote of fifty-four to ten, with four abstentions, establishing the first official government appointed after the January election of President Mahmoud Abbas. After a week of political infighting over the makeup of the cabinet, Qurei yielded to pressure from the Fatah bloc and offered a list composed almost exclusively of technocrats with professional expertise in the fields of their respective ministries. Nearly all of Yasser Arafat's political appointees from the old guard were removed. The reformers within Fatah who led the opposition to Qurei compromised as well by agreeing that no sitting member of the council (other than the prime minister and the new deputy prime minister, Nabil Shaath) could be in the cabinet, thereby keeping the most prominent political proponents of reform outside the executive branch. Changing of the Guard The new twenty-four-member cabinet features seventeen individuals without prior experience at that level of government. This is a stark contrast to Qurei's proposed list of February 21, which contained only four new members. The seventeen new ministers were selected largely as a result of their expertise in specific fields—ten have doctorates in economics, political science, or engineering, and nearly all have experience working as bureaucrats within Palestinian Authority (PA) agencies or nongovernmental organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Decree No. 26 of 2005 Concerning the Re-Formation of the National Security Council
    Presidential Decree No. 26 of 2005 Concerning the Re-Formation of the National Security Council The Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, The President of the Palestinian National Authority, Having reviewed the Amended Basic Law of 2003 and its Amendments, Based upon the powers bestowed upon me and In accomplishment of the public interest, I hereby promulgate the following decree: Article 1 a) The National Security Council shall be formed again as follows: 1. Mahmoud Abbas President of the Palestinian National Authority as Chairman as Deputy- 2. Ahmed Qurei’ Chairman of the Council of Ministers Chairman Head of the Negotiations Department of the 3. Saeb ‘Ureiqat as Member Palestine Liberation Organisation 4. Al-Tayyeb Abdul-Raheem Secretary-General of the Presidency as Member 5. Nassr Yousef Minister of the Interior and National Security as Member 6. Mohammed Dahlan Minister of Civilian Affairs as Member 7. Salam Fayyad Minister of Finance as Member 8. Nasser Al-Qudwah Minister of Foreign Affairs as Member 9. Ahmed Mohammed Head of the General Intelligence as Member Shanyourah The President’s Advisor on National Security 10. Jibreel Al-Rajoub as Rapporteur b) The President may, as occasion may require, call any of the heads of the other security agencies or their representatives to attend the meetings of the National Security Council. Article 2 The National Security Council shall be responsible for the following: 1. Drafting security policies and plans and defining the mechanisms of their implementation and their issuing by decision of the President. 2. Defining the security responsibilities of the National Authority in accordance with the requirements of the political, economic and social circumstances, and supervising their implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • 20 Years Oslo
    Twenty Years after Oslo: Tactics and Strategy towards New-Zionism ••• By Dr. Ron Pundak On September 13, 1993, exactly twenty years ago, the Oslo Accords were signed on the southern lawn of the White House. The extraordinary and clandestine endeavor that led to this historic event and to the symbolic handshake between Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat had actually begun nine months earlier at a preliminary secret meeting in Norway that launched the process. Before we set out, on the morning after the Knesset decision to rescind the law prohibiting meetings between Israeli citizens and PLO representatives, Dr. Yair Hirschfeld and I humbly hoped that we would be able to return to Israel and provide decision makers here with information that could help them advance the official negotiations, which were stalled in Washington at the time. Even in our wildest dreams, we did not imagine that this meeting might lead to a process that would eventually culminate in the signing of a Declaration of Principles. During the very first meeting, however, it became apparent to us that we were engaged in what might become a historic turning point. The messages conveyed to us by Abu ‘Ala (Ahmed Qurei) on behalf of Arafat and Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) were revolutionary: they want peace; they will settle for a state within the 1967 border; they understand that neither side has time to waste; they oppose terror; they approach the Right of Return pragmatically; they are interested in close economic cooperation; they support the regional approach to resolution of the conflict; they advocate meetings between individuals and communities across the Green Line; and they understand that there is no alternative to a solution that shares and divides Jerusalem between the two parties.
    [Show full text]
  • The Daniel Abraham Israeli-Palestinian Workshop Making Gaza Disengagement Work: Israeli,Palestinian, and International Requirements
    THE SABAN CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST POLICY AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION PROCEEDINGS Number 2, June 2004 THE DANIEL ABRAHAM ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN WORKSHOP MAKING GAZA DISENGAGEMENT WORK: ISRAELI,PALESTINIAN, AND INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENTS WASHINGTON,DC MAY 11–13, 2004 THE SABAN CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST POLICY AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION PROCEEDINGS Number 2, June 2004 THE DANIEL ABRAHAM ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN WORKSHOP MAKING GAZA DISENGAGEMENT WORK: ISRAELI,PALESTINIAN, AND INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENTS WASHINGTON,DC MAY 11–13, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . V LIST OF PARTICIPANTS . IX PROGRAM . XI INTRODUCTION . XIII I. TIMELINE . 1 II. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS . 5 A. CEASE-FIRE . 5 B. PALESTINIAN POWER SHARING . 6 C. PALESTINIAN SECURITY REFORM . 8 D. ISRAELI COMMITMENT TO FULL WITHDRAWAL . 9 E. ROBUST INTERNATIONAL ROLE . 11 F. LINKAGE TO WEST BANK AND BROADER POLITICAL PROCESS . 15 G. U.S. LEADERSHIP . 16 APPENDICES 1. THE DISENGAGEMENT PLAN OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL (MAY 28, 2004) . 19 2. LETTER FROM PRESIDENT BUSH TO PRIME MINISTER SHARON (APRIL 14, 2004) . 25 3. LETTER FROM PRIME MINISTER SHARON TO PRESIDENT BUSH (APRIL 14, 2004) . 29 4. LETTER FROM PRESIDENT BUSH TO PRIME MINISTER AHMED QUREI (MAY 11, 2004) . 33 5. LETTER FROM DOV WEISSGLAS TO CONDOLEEZA RICE (APRIL 14, 2004) . 37 6. QUARTET STATEMENT ON UNILATERAL DISENGAGEMENT PLAN (MAY 4, 2004) . 41 T HE S ABAN C ENTER AT T HE B ROOKINGS I NSTITUTION III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he Israeli government’s decision to disengage Although all of these requirements are unlikely to be Tfrom the Gaza Strip and a limited number of achieved in their entirety, it is important to under- settlements in the northern West Bank provides an stand the symbiotic relationship between them.
    [Show full text]
  • Corruption in the Palestinian Authority
    SPECIAL REPORT Corruption in the Palestinian Authority The Middle East Monitor is a not-for-profit policy research institute that provides research, information and analyses of primarily the Palestine-Israel conflict. It also provides briefings on other Middle East issues. Its outputs are made available for use by journalists, academics and politicians with an interest in the Middle East and North Africa region. MEMO aims to influence policy and the public agenda from the perspective of social justice, human rights and international law. This is essential to obtain equality, security and social justice across the region, especially in Palestine. Title: Revealed: Corruption in the Palestinian Authority First Published: December 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission of the copyright owner. This report is available to download free of charge on the Middle East Monitor Website: www.middleeastmonitor.com SPECIAL REPORT Corruption in the Palestinian Authority Sawsan Ramahi Corruption in the Sawsan Ramahi Palestinian Authority Corruption is endemic in the Palestinian Authority, the private sector and NGOs. It is spreading across all sections of Palestinian society. A report prepared by the European Union stated that financial corruption in the PA led to the “loss” of aid amounting to around €2 billion, which was transferred to the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the period 2008 to 2012. London’s Sunday Times reported that there is great imbalance in the spending and management of European money in the Palestinian territories. The report was written after EU monitors visited Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank and told of their inability to confront “high-level risks” such as “bribes and misuse of aid”.
    [Show full text]
  • Peace Talks on Jerusalem a Review of the Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations Concerning Jerusalem 1993-2013
    The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies Peace Talks on Jerusalem A Review of the Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations Concerning Jerusalem 1993-2013 Lior Lehrs The JIIS Series no. 432 Peace Talks on Jerusalem A Review of the Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations Concerning Jerusalem 1993-2013 Lior Lehrs © 2013, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies The Hay Elyachar House 20 Radak St. 92186 Jerusalem http://www.jiis.org.il E-mail:[email protected] About the Author Lior Lehrs is a researcher at the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. He is a doctoral student at the Department of International Relations of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The topic of his PhD research is “Private Peace Entrepreneurs in Conflict Resolution Processes.” Recent publications include Y. Reiter and L. Lehrs, The Sheikh Jarrah Affair, Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 2010; L. Lehrs, “Political Holiness: Negotiating Holy Places in Eretz Israel/Palestine, 1937-2003,” in M. Breger, Y. Reiter, and L. Hammer (eds.), Sacred Space in Israel and Palestine: Religion and Politics (London: Routledge, 2012). Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies’ Work Group: Jerusalem between management and resolution of the conflict Since 1993 a Work Group of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies has been engaged in studying the political future of Jerusalem. The group aims to present policymakers, public-opinion shapers, and the interested public with reliable, up- to-date information about the demographic, social, and political trends in East Jerusalem and in the city as a whole, and to formulate alternatives for management of the city in the absence of a political agreement as well as alternatives for future management.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Law of the Palestinian National Authority
    Strasbourg, 4 March 2009 CDL(2009)008 Opinion No. 504 / 2008 Engl. only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) BASIC LAW OF THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL AUTHORITY This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL(2009)008 - 2 - Amended Basic Law (promulgated on August 13, 2005 Concerning the Amendment some of the Provisions of the Amended Basic Law of 2003. The Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization; The President of the Palestinian National Authority. Having reviewed the Amended Basic Law of 2003 A.D., particularly Article (120) thereof; Based upon what the Legislative Council approved during its session, which convened on July 27th, 2005, A.D.; Based upon what the public interest necessitates; and In the name of the Palestinian People, I hereby promulgate the following Law: Article 1 Articles 36, 47/Clause 3 thereunder, 48, and 55 of the Amended Basic Law of 2003 A.D. shall be amended so as to become as follows: Article 36 The term of the presidency of the National Authority shall be four years. The President shall have the right to nominate himself for a second term of presidency, provided that he shall not occupy the position of the presidency more than two consecutive terms. Article 47 – Clause 3 The term of the Legislative Council shall be four years from the date of its being elected and the elections shall be conducted once each four years in a regular manner. Article 48 The members of the Legislative Council shall be elected in general, free and direct elections in accordance with the provisions of the Elections Law, which shall determine the number of members, electoral constituencies and electoral system.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Current Challenge to Arafat | the Washington Institute
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 467 Assessing the Current Challenge to Arafat by David Makovsky Jul 22, 2004 ABOUT THE AUTHORS David Makovsky David Makovsky is the Ziegler distinguished fellow at The Washington Institute and director of the Koret Project on Arab-Israel Relations. Brief Analysis alestinian Authority (PA) chairman Yasir Arafat is facing a serious challenge to his authority, perhaps the P most serious since he arrived in the territories from Tunis a decade ago this month. Yesterday, the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) voted by a 43-4 margin to accept the resignation of Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (a.k.a. Abu Ala), who earlier this week warned he would quit due to the lack of reform in the PA and the lack of authority granted him to halt chaos in the West Bank and Gaza. In doing so, the PLC called for the formation of a new reform-oriented government, a move that could actually serve to strengthen Qurei's position in a power struggle with Arafat. The resignation marks the second time in ten months that a Palestinian prime minister has resigned due to complaints about lack of authority. European Union (EU) envoy Javier Solana pointedly refrained from visiting Arafat during his current trip to the area, hinting at potential negative consequences for EU relations with Arafat in the event that the chairman does not allow his prime minister to carry out reforms. Moreover, the PLC vote came just days after young Palestinians rioted in Gaza, protesting Arafat's appointment of his cousin Musa Arafat as security chief and adding fire to ongoing demonstrations regarding lack of reform.
    [Show full text]