DOCSLIB.ORG

The Quarterly Magazine of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Quarterly Magazine of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel Issue No 5, 2007 ChainReactionThe quarterly magazine of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel How long O Lord? The EAPPI is a World Council of Churches programme Editorial By Rifat Odeh Kassis EAPPI International Programme Coordinator and Project Manager Dear readers, In 1977, the General Assembly called for the annual Israel managed to find its seat within the international observance of the 29 of November as the International community whereas the Palestinians became a refugee Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. On that problem and a nation seeking self-determination and day, in 1947, the same Assembly adopted the resolution freedom. The resolution, which was taken to divide the on the partition of Palestine. country, was done in a rush and in an irresponsible way. In another resolution on 1 December 2004, it again The countries that took the decision did not understand requested the Committee on the Exercise of the the context. Instead of calling for one state where Jews Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the and Arabs would each enjoy self-determination, these Division for Palestinian Rights, as part of the observance same countries choose to divide the country as an easy of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian solution. This “easy” solution paved the way to one of People on 29 November, to continue to organize an annual the world’ greatest tragedies and resulted in continuous solidarity day on Palestinian rights in cooperation with bloodshed between the two people. the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations. It also encouraged Member States to continue The UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people to give the widest support and publicity possible to this should not be only just another day, but a day to remind Day of Solidarity. the world that the injustice needs to end. Israel needs to end its occupation and the Palestinians should be I believe that the reason for all these resolutions is the able to at last see the realisation of their rights. The feeling of the assembly that the 1947 resolution same countries responsible for the resolution on the committed a major injustice against the Palestinian partition of Palestine in 1947 should be the ones to carry people. The resolution intended the creation of two states out this task. for both nations, but it was never completely enacted. Continued on Page 24 World Council of Churches Published by: The EAPPI EAPPI- 150 route de Ferney, International Programme Coordinator: Rifat Odeh Kassis, [email protected] P.O. Box 2100 CH-1211 Geneva 2, Editor: Gemma Abbs, Communication and Advocacy Officer, [email protected] Switzerland Web Sites: Cover Photo: by Gemma Abbs. www.eappi.org, www.wcc-coe.org Inset photo by Osten Gunnersson. Design and printing: Emerezian Est. [email protected] Palestinian Christians in Jerusalem 4 An interview with Bishop Munib Younan, By Gemma Abbs My home became my prison 7 By Madeleine Dahl A Demographic Threat (Home Demolitions in Al-Walaja) 10 By Goren Buren The E1 Plan A Step towards a Dead End 14 By Suhail Khaliliah Accessing medical care in Jerusalem 18 By Karen-Elizabeth Heskja We refuse to be enemies 21 By Goren Buren Leaving Jerusalem 24 By Ian Alexander No ordinary English lesson 28 By Karen-Elizabeth Heskja Contents Sections of articles and photos may be used freely, with proper attribution to the EAPPI and the author. For information regarding subscriptions, please contact the editor at: [email protected] The views contained here do not necessarily reflect those of EAPPI or the World Council of Churches. Issue No.5, 2007 Introduction Much ado about nothing? The relevance of international law in the Middle East conflict By Christiane Gerstetter (Ecumenical Accompanier) “Almost all nations observe almost Geneva Conventions. In addition, state does not comply? There is all principles of international law there are numerous other more simply no police to send in to and almost all of their obligations specific resolutions by the UN enforce international law. Moreover, almost all of the time”, stated Lou Security Council and General not all international law is legally Henkin, a famous international law Assembly, and, let us not forget, the binding. A big part of international scholar from the US, in 1979. One recent 2004 Advisory Opinion of the law is so-called ‘soft law’ - wonders whether the late Henkin International Court of Justice, which declarations, resolutions and other would have wished to modify this states the illegality of the separation documents that state what states statement had he taken a closer look barrier in its current form under should do, but do not legally bind at how the State of Israel has international law. them. While international human complied with its obligations under rights treaties and the Fourth Geneva international law so far. There is a None of the states in the region, and Convention, which deals with the myriad of international legal especially not Israel, seem to feel behaviour of an occupying power in instruments pertaining to the Middle any urge to bring their behaviour the territories occupied, are legally East conflict and stipulating into compliance with what is set out binding, this is not true for obligations for both Israel and its in these instruments, however. As resolutions of the UN General neighbouring countries. They include some of the articles in this issue of Assembly and with few exceptions binding international agreements ChainReaction will show in more for resolutions and recommendations which are not specifically designed depth, Israel obeys its obligations by the UN Security Council. Equally, for the Middle East conflict - under international law almost none an ICJ Advisory Opinion like the one international human rights treaties of the time. It is true to say that in on the legality of the Separation and international humanitarian law many cases, and not only the Israeli Barrier is - as one might guess- only such as the Fourth Geneva one, compliance with international advisory, i.e., non-binding in nature. Convention. Israel has ratified law is less automatic than with several human rights treaties and the domestic law. What happens when a Yet more UN resolutions have been 4 Chain Reaction Issue No 5, 2007 adopted concerning Israel, than desirable to do so, because Very often, and most other member states of the international law is incorporated especially when it United Nations. Why is it that with into municipal law (for which the comes to universally such regularity the UN bodies adopt compliance record is much better) applicable pieces of new resolutions aimed towards a or because a state’s government international law like more peaceful and human rights fears for its reputation and resulting human rights treaties or observant Middle East? Window negative consequences, e.g., that the Geneva dressing by diplomats that have other states will decrease foreign Conventions, the rules nothing better to do? The answer is investment or political support. contained in obviously a bit more complex. Firstly, international law are it can generally be observed that Let us take a look at the last one of the written embodiment although the degree of compliance those: reputation. Very often, and of a moral consensus. with international law is lower than especially when it comes to what can be observed within universally applicable pieces of domestic legal systems, it is equally international law like human rights true that many countries comply treaties or the Geneva Conventions, with their international legal the rules contained in international obligations most of the time. Recent law are the written embodiment of research by political scientists has a moral consensus. Most of us would convincingly demonstrated that agree that nobody should be there are several factors why states subjected to arbitrary arrest or do often comply with international detention to cite just one example law, among those that the of a human rights norm that the competent decision-makers at state Israeli state continues to violate in level consider it normatively the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Chain Reaction Issue No 5, 2007 5 Governments in general are quite Fourth Geneva Convention is not Palestinian Territories. Their success reluctant to appear as the bad guys- applicable to Israeli behaviour in the may sometimes only be minor when those that act against the moral and Occupied Palestinian Territories (this it comes to inducing more lawful political consensus embodied in can, for example, be found on the behaviour of Israeli state actors. international law. It’s bad publicity. website of the Israeli Foreign However, by evoking relevant Rather than admitting that they are Ministry). international law as a moral, neutral in breach of international law, yardstick for how states in general governments tend to try to interpret The fact that governments, among and the Israeli state in particular the law in a way that they would them the Israeli government, try to should behave, they manage to not be breaking it. This is what the avoid appearing to be acting against generate a great deal of political Israeli government does when it their obligations under international solidarity with Palestinians suffering comes to the Fourth Geneva law has something to say about how from human rights violations. This Convention. This Convention important they think compliance in turn may enable them to directly regulates how an occupying force is with international law is for their alleviate some human suffering. Its supposed to behave in the territory reputation. Even if a government character as a moral yardstick for it occupies. For example, the Fourth does not ultimately comply, there is state behaviour is thus one of the Geneva Convention prohibits the the possibility to capitalise on the more indirect ways in which permanent transfer of civilian fact of non-compliance for other international law may help to foster population to the territories actors.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Hezbollah-Israeli
    The Hizbullah-Israeli War: an American Perspective Aaron David Miller It was unusual for an Israeli Prime Minster to break open a bottle of champagne in front of American negotiators at a formal meeting. But that’s exactly what Shimon Peres did. It was late April 1996, and Peres was marking the end of a bloody three week border confrontation with Hizbullah diffused only by an intense ten day shuttle orchestrated by Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Those understandings negotiated between the governments of Israel and Syria (the latter standing in for Hizbullah) would create an Israeli-Lebanese monitoring group, co-chaired by the United States and France. These arrangements were far from perfect, but contributed, along with on-again-off-again Israeli-Syrian negotiations, to an extended period of relative calm along the Israeli- Lebanese border. The April understandings would last until Israel’s withdrawal. The recent summer war between Hizbullah and Israel, triggered by the Shia militia’s attack on an Israeli patrol on July 12, masked a number of other factors which would set the stage for the confrontation as well as the Bush administration’s response. Six years of relative quiet had witnessed Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in June of 2000, a steady supply of Katushya rockets—both short and long range—from Iran to Hizbullah, the collapse of Israel’s negotiations with Syria and the Palestinians, and the onset of the worst Israeli-Palestinian war in half a century. A perfect storm was brewing, spawned by the empowerment of both Hizbullah and Hamas, Iranian reach into the Arab-Israeli zone, Syria’s forced withdrawal from Lebanon, a determination by Israel to restore its strategic deterrence in the wake of unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, and an inexperienced Israeli prime minister and defense minister uncertain of how that should be done.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamas in Power
    PALESTINIANS, ISRAEL, AND THE QUARTET: PULLING BACK FROM THE BRINK Middle East Report N°54 – 13 June 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 II. THE INTER-PALESTINIAN STRUGGLE ............................................................... 2 A. HAMAS IN GOVERNMENT ......................................................................................................3 B. FATAH IN OPPOSITION...........................................................................................................9 C. A MARCH OF FOLLY? .........................................................................................................13 D. THE PRISONERS’S INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM................................................................16 III. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND THE PALESTINIAN CRISIS.. 21 A. PA BUDGETARY COSTS, DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONOR ATTITUDES ..........................21 B. A NATION UNDER SIEGE .....................................................................................................26 C. CAN A HUMANITARIAN COLLAPSE BE AVOIDED WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE PA? ........27 IV. CONCLUSION: WHAT SHOULD BE DONE? ....................................................... 32 A. SUBVERTING HAMAS? ........................................................................................................32 B. STRENGTHENING ABBAS? ...................................................................................................34
    [Show full text]
  • Division for Palestinian Rights
    DIVISION FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS UNITED NATIONS ASIAN MEETING IN SUPPORT OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE UNITED NATIONS FORUM OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN SUPPORT OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 15-17 December 2006 07-54067 CONTENTS I. United Nations Asian Meeting in Support of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People Paragraphs Page Introduction ……………………………………………………………… 1-6 3 Opening statements…….………………………………………………… 7-33 3 Plenary sessions...………………………………………………………… 34-75 7 Plenary I…………………………………………………………………... 34-47 7 Plenary II………………………………………………………………….. 48-62 8 Plenary III…………………………………………………………………. 63-75 10 Closing session……………………………………………………………. 76-82 12 II. United Nations Forum of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People Opening statements.....………………………………………………….. 83-86 14 Plenary I…………………………………………………………………. 87-99 14 Plenary II………………………………………………………………… 100-117 16 Closing session…………………………………………………………… 118-119 19 Annexes I. Kuala Lumpur Declaration……………………………………………………………………. 20 II. Call for Action………………………………………………………………………………… 23 III. List of Participants……………………………………………….……………………………. 24 2 I. United Nations Asian Meeting in Support of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People Introduction 1. The United Nations Asian Meeting in Support of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was held in Kuala Lumpur on 15 and 16 December 2006, under the auspices of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and in accordance with the provisions of General Assembly resolutions 60/36 and 60/37 of 1 December 2005. The Meeting was followed, on 17 December 2006, by a United Nations Forum of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People held at the same venue. 2. The Committee was represented by a delegation comprising Paul Badji (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee; Rodrigo Malmierca Díaz (Cuba), Vice-Chairman of the Committee; Ravan A.G.
    [Show full text]
  • The NEGOTIATION and ITS DISCONTENTS
    The ANNAPOLIS PROCESS (2007-2008) NEGOTIATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS Omer Zanany The Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research Translation: Michelle Bubis Design: Yosef Bercovich ISBN: 978-965-555-926-2 Printed in Jerusalem ©2015 - The Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv & Molad - the Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy. All rights reserved. The Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research The ANNAPOLIS PROCESS (2007-2008) Negotiation and its Discontents Omer Zanany The Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research THE TAMI STEINMETZ CENTER FOR PEACE RESEARCH The Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research which was established in 1992 is an interdisciplinary academic unit at Tel Aviv University. Its mandate is to promote academic activity related to conflict resolution and peace-making, with special reference to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Within this framework, the center: • Initiates, encourages and supports research projects on subjects related to its mandate both in the Middle East and in other regions of the world. • Holds research workshops and local and international conferences dealing with relevant subjects. • Fosters academic collaboration with similarly oriented institutions in Israel and abroad. Molad is an independent, non-partisan Israeli think tank that works to reinvigorate Israeli society by injecting new ideas into all spheres of public discourse. Our vision combines progressive values with a realistic approach to the political and geopolitical challenges of Israeli reality. We inform public debate with responsible content that meets the highest possible standards of research and analysis – the dearth of which has played a crucial role in Israel’s ongoing state of crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Dictionary of Palestinian Political Terms
    Dictionary of Palestinian Political Terms PASSIA Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, Jerusalem PASSIA, the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, is an Arab, non-profit Palestinian institution with a financially and legally indepen- dent status. It is not affiliated with any government, political party or organization. PASSIA seeks to present the Question of Palestine in its national, Arab and interna- tional contexts through academic research, dialogue and publication. PASSIA endeavors that research undertaken under its auspices be specialized, scientific and objective and that its symposia and workshops, whether interna- tional or intra-Palestinian, be open, self-critical and conducted in a spirit of har- mony and cooperation. Copyright PASSIA 3rd updated and revised edition, December 2019 ISBN: 978-9950-305-52-6 PASSIA Publication 2019 Tel.: 02-6264426 | Fax: 02-6282819 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.passia.org PO Box 19545, Jerusalem Contents Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………………………………. i Foreword …………………………………………………………………….….…………..……………. iii Dictionary A-Z ………………………………………………………………………….………………. 1 Main References Cited…………………………………………..……………………………… 199 Abbreviations ACRI Association for Civil Rights in PCBS Palestinian Central Bureau of Israel Statistics AD Anno Domini PFLP Popular Front for the Liberation AIPAC American Israel Public Affairs of Palestine Committee PFLP-GC Popular Front for the Liberation ALF Arab Liberation Front of Palestine – General ANM
    [Show full text]
  • Statements from U.S. Government Officials Concerning Israeli Settlements
    1 Statements from U.S. Government Officials Concerning Israeli Settlements Introduction The policy of all Israeli governments since 1967 of settling Israeli citizens in the territories Israel occupied in the 1967 war is regarded by most governments as a violation of international law defined by the “Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.” In 2004, the International Court of Justice confirmed this in an advisory opinion. The United States supported the applicability of the Geneva Convention and the unlawful character of settlements until February 1981 when President Ronald Reagan disavowed this policy by asserting that settlements are “not illegal.” President Reagan’s policy has been sustained, implicitly, by subsequent U.S. administrations, all of whom have declined to address the legal issue, although they have all opposed, with varying emphasis, settlements or settlement expansion. However, on April 14, 2004, President George W. Bush, in a further retreat from past policy, told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that, “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949…” The following is chronology of statements by U.S. officials, beginning with the Johnson administration. It was initially prepared by Matt Skarzynski, an intern with the Foundation for Middle East Peace, Churches for Middle East Peace, and Holly Byker, a former staff member of Churches for Middle East Peace. Additional updates researched by Alexandra Stevens, an intern with Churches for Middle East Peace.
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement Monitor Author(S): Geoffrey Aronson Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol
    Settlement Monitor Author(s): Geoffrey Aronson Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Winter 2007), pp. 150-161 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Institute for Palestine Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jps.2007.36.2.150 . Accessed: 26/02/2015 16:25 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of California Press and Institute for Palestine Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Palestine Studies. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 108.45.56.202 on Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:25:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SETTLEMENT MONITOR EDITED BY GEOFFREY ARONSON This section covers items—reprinted articles, statistics, and maps—pertaining to Israeli settlement activities in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Unless otherwise stated, the items have been written by Geoffrey Aronson for this section or drawn from material written by him for Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories (hereinafter Settlement Report), a Washington-based bimonthly newsletter published by the Foundation for Middle East Peace.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel and the Middle East News Update
    Israel and the Middle East News Update Thursday, February 1 Headlines: ​ ● Israel Vows to Retain West Bank Control in Any Peace Deal ● Israel Presents Plan for Palestinians, Demanding PA in Gaza ● UN Examines 206 Companies Over Links to Settlements ● US Classifies Hamas Chief Haniyeh as Global Terrorist ● Netanyahu Corruption Probe in ‘Final Stretch’ ● Cabinet to Vote on Steps to Authorize Illegal Outpost ● ‘Multicultural’ Bill Responds to Jewish State Proposal ● Israel Sends 14-Year-Old Palestinian Girl to Gaza Commentary: ● Washington Post: “The road to an Israeli-Palestinian deal is vanishing” − By David Ignatius, Columnist, Washington Post ● Al Monitor: “Israeli Labor Chief’s New Diplomatic Plan” − By Mazal Mualem, Columnist, Al Monitor S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace 633 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 The Hon. Robert Wexler, President ● Yoni Komorov, Editor ● Aaron Zucker, Associate Editor ​ ​ News Excerpts ​ February 1, 2018 Associated Press Israel Vows to Retain West Bank Control in Any Peace Deal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday said Israel will retain security control over the Palestinians as part of any future peace deal, deepening Palestinian fears that Israel and the Trump administration are colluding on a proposal that will fall far short of their dreams of independence. In an awkward exchange, German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel said his country is “very much in favor” of the two-state solution. “I was very thankful to hear that of course also the government of Israel wants to have two states, but (with secure) borders,” he said. Netanyahu broke in with a clarification, adding Israel’s “first condition,” would be to control security west of the Jordan River, the heartland of the Palestinians’ hoped-for state.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Opinion in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    S Public Opinion in the Israeli-Palestinian RK Conflict From Geneva to Disengagement to Kadima and Hamas Jacob Shamir EW AC UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE PE Library of Congress Control Number: 2007930700 Peaceworks No. 60. First published June 2007. The views expressed in this report are those of the author alone. They do not necessarily reflect views of the United States Institute of Peace. UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE 1200 17th Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036-3011 Phone: 202.457.1700 Fax: 202.429.6063 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.usip.org Contents Summary 1 Preface 4 1. Introduction 5 2. Over the Table and Behind the Table: A Two-Level Game 11 3. The Nature of Public Opinion as a Domestic Imperative 15 4. The Israeli and Palestinian Publics: Differences and Similarities 17 5. Public Opinion, Policy Opportunities, and Constraints: Data Analysis 27 6. Policy Implications and Recommendations 43 7. Epilogue 53 Notes About the Author About the Institute 1 Summary Israeli analysts and pundits enjoy quoting Henry Kissinger’s assertion that “Israel has no foreign policy, only domestic policy.” Kissinger’s comment, while stressed too strongly, captures well the common understanding among political scientists and international relations specialists that domestic considerations have a significant effect on foreign policy. This monograph focuses on one particular domestic imperative of utmost importance in periods of conflict and its resolution: public opinion. Intercommunal and international conflicts affect the most basic elements holding societies together: beliefs, value systems, collective memories, and identity perceptions. The disruption of these same elements—due to conflict—can heighten emotions and increase stress, a situation that often takes a costly toll on society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Middle East Peace Process, 2003 – Present by Zulaikha Abdullah
    The Middle East Peace Process, 2003 – present By Zulaikha Abdullah Background ‘The Peace Process’ is the term that has come to be used to describe Middle Eastern diplomacy and peace negotiations following the 1967 War in which Israel on one side attacked its neighbours, Egypt, Jordan and Syria on the other. It has taken shape over many years and refers to the gradualist US- led approach to resolving the resultant conflicts which emphasises the ‘process’ of reaching peace rather than its substance. Following the war of 1948 when the state of Israel was established in historic Palestine, three quarters of a million Palestinians were driven out of the territory and forced to become refugees in exile. They were left with only a fraction of the territory that had once been theirs. During the 1967 war waged 19 years later, a second wave of refugees was created and the land that remained to the Palestinians was occupied by Israel along with some Syrian and Egyptian territory. A year after the military occupation commenced, Israel began establishing illegal settlements on Palestinian territory. The refugees have never been allowed to return. In the 43 years since the 1967 War, there have been numerous attempts at resolving the Arab- Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. Some have managed to reach settlement; in 1979 and 1994 Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan respectively. Nevertheless, the core conflict that rages between Israel and Palestinians is yet to reach a settlement. The intractability of the core conflict stems from a range of sources. Some of these include differing views regarding Palestinian sovereignty, the status of Jerusalem, settlements, borders, the allocation of water resources and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.
    [Show full text]
  • Netanyahu's Attempt to Delink Israel-Arab Relations from the Palestinian Issue
    Netanyahu’s Attempt to Delink Israel-Arab Relations from the Palestinian Issue Published as part of the publication series: Israel's Relations with Arab Countries: The Unfulfilled Potential Dr. Yuval Benziman April 2018 Netanyahu’s Attempt to Delink Israel-Arab Relations from the Palestinian Issue Dr. Yuval Benziman* April 2018 The claim that emerged in 2000 that Israel has “no Palestinian partner" to negotiate with on the final status agreement has become a fixture in the Israeli public discourse ever since. During the premiership of Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, the working assumption was that even without a Palestinian partner, Israeli-Palestinian relations should change. However, ever since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to power, he has been promoting an alternative political discourse and perception: it is possible to change Israel’s regional reality by significantly improving relations with the entire Arab world, even without making progress in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. This paper compares the discourse promoted by the Israeli government, especially by the Prime Minister, that seeks to create an alternative discourse with the one that prevailed until a decade ago. The new discourse is constructed around two main pillars: hope for better relations with the Arab world, but not for a real "peace" or "agreement", and the belief that it is possible to promote such relations even without attending to the relations with the Palestinians. According to the new working assumptions of the Israeli leadership, this is possible because the Arab world no longer takes interest in the Palestinian struggle as it did in the past, due to two reasons: first, the conflicts within the Arab world (especially the Shia- Sunni conflict) push the moderate Arab states to view Israel as a partner rather than an enemy; and second, because of joint regional interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Kadima – Forward in a Dealigned Party System
    Kadima – Forward in a Dealigned Party System Michal Shamir, Raphael Ventura, Asher Arian and Orit Kedar Michal Shamir – Tel Aviv University Raphael Ventura – Israel Democracy Institute Asher Arian - Israel Democracy Institute and City University of New York Orit Kedar – MIT and Tel Aviv University Kadima – Forward in a Dealigned Party System Kadima – Forward in a Dealigned Party System I. Introduction At a press conference held on November 21, 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced the formation of a new party, initially called “National Responsibility”, but later renamed "Kadima" ("Forward" or "Onward" in Hebrew). On that same day he resigned from Likud and asked President Moshe Katsav to dissolve the Knesset. Sharon thus set in motion the process leading to early elections in March, and launched the long-rumored "Big Bang". The background to this dramatic move was multifaceted. The short-term triggers were the loss of Labor as a coalition partner following the surprise victory of Amir Peretz over Shimon Peres in the Labor primaries for the head of the party just eleven days before, and Sharon's difficulties with rebels in his own Likud party. Just two weeks before his move Sharon was unable to get approval by the Knesset for several ministerial appointments he wished to make. Likud MKs joined the opposition in voting against his proposal, a vote which was a source of frustration and personal humiliation for Sharon. Sharon's difficulties within his party were evident from the moment he decided on the disengagement agenda for the Gaza Strip. The "Big Bang" however, is more properly linked to the stagnation of the Israeli party system and its Left and Right camps.
    [Show full text]