Palestine Question Research Articles

Donald Trump's Punitive Politics and the Question of Palestine: A Gaze into his Psychological Makeup and Business Ethics

So much of what Donald Trump says and does is linked to his self-perception and proclivity towards exaggerating his accomplishments, talents and skills. Psychologically oriented analysts find him lacking in the important dimension of ‘emotional intelligence’ and the ability to empathise with others. Right from the outset, this set off a clash and breakoff with prospects for dialogue with the Palestinians. The Arab World remains unwilling to effect any perceptible change in the American and Israeli positions due to its own political agenda that centers on regime self-preservation, confrontation with Iran and admiration for Donald Trump.

Noura Erakat, Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine

Noura Erakat, Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine

Palestine in UN Discourse: A Critical Discourse Analysis

This paper examines UN resolutions 242 and 338 to find whether these two milestone texts of UN discourse on the Palestine Question, taken as the basis for “the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” genuinely and practically work towards an amicable solution to this prolonged problem, this almost century-long unequal conflict. The study seeks to find out whether such UN discourse is linguistically structured to achieve such an end; with the ultimate goal being offering us “the possibility that we might profitably conceive the world in some alternative way” (Fowler, 1981 cited in Jaworski & Coupland, 1999, p. 33) as is the case with any discourse study that adopts ‘critical’ goals. The study therefore employs Ruth Wodak’s Discourse Historical Approach (DHA) — an approach within the pluralistic framework of CDA. The findings show that temporisation of the Palestine Question has been an indirect result of the bad faith and linguistic manipulation of the powerful forces; that the way these discourses are structured is responsible for perpetuating rather than ending Israeli occupation. So rather than redressing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and ending Israeli occupation as the core of the Palestine Question, UN discourse is found to protract the status quo — the consolidation of Israeli power and expansionism.

Review: Justice for Some: law and the question of Palestine by Noura Erakat, Stone Men: the Palestinians who built Israel by Andrew Ross

Review: <i>Justice for Some: law and the question of Palestine</i> by Noura Erakat, <i>Stone Men: the Palestinians who built Israel</i> by Andrew Ross

From pan-Asianism to safari-Zionism: gendered Orientalism in Jewish-Austrian literature

ABSTRACTThis essay reviews representations of Palestine and its Arab inhabitants through studying a set of Jewish-Austrian texts. It aims to investigate how the question of Palestine and the issue of the Palestinian “presence” were imagined by Jewish-Austrian authors beyond the reductive binary of Zionism and anti-Zionism. I will discuss Theodor Herzl’s texts, Der Judenstaat (1896), Altneuland (1902), and Herzl Relo@ded: Kein Märchen (Herzl Relo@ded: It’s no fairy tale, 2016) by Doron Rabinovici and Natan Sznaider. I will compare Zionist imaginaries among these texts and contrast them to the writings of Moshe Yàakov Ben-Gavriêl (1891–1965) who advocated for a pan-Asianist union between orientals: a category that included both Jews and Arabs for him.My essay seeks to answer three main questions: first, can the tradition of thinking described by Edward Said as “Orientalism” be found in my corpus of analysis? Second, what forms of resistance and deconstruction of orientalist tropes can be found? Last, how would an analysis of Jewish-Austrian literatures and their gendered representations on Palestine and Palestinians complicate the current historiography of Zionism? I will answer these questions by offering both a literary analysis of the texts above alongside an appraisal of recent historiography on Zionism.

ПАЛЕСТИНСЬКА ПРОБЛЕМА ЯК ОДИН ІЗ НАЙВІДОМІШИХ ТА НАЙГОСТРІШИХ МІЖНАРОДНИХ КОНФЛІКТІВ

У сучасних міжнародних відносинах одним із найгостріших і найтриваліших конфліктів є Палестинська проблема, витоки якої вбачаємо глибоко в історії. Отже, після посилення сіоністського руху в першій половині ХХ ст. почалась активна імміграція євреїв, що викликало невдоволення в арабів. Декларація Бальфура, яка фактично проголосила підтримку Англії, створення єврейського національного осередку в Палестині ще більше загострили мусульман і підштовхнули їх до військових дій. Результатом такої політики були криваві бунти 1920-х рр., події 1930-х. Після проголошення незалежності Ізраїлю (14 травня 1948 р.) конфронтація отримала нові, більш політизовані ознаки. Незважаючи на численні мирні угоди, укладені за участю впливових міжнародних суб’єктів, до кінця ХХ ст. палестинське питання залишалося невирішеним. Отже, на початку XXI ст. палестинсько-ізраїльська опозиція, що має давнє історичне походження, і досі залишається ефективною. Незважаючи на територіальну обмеженість ведення дій, палестинське питання привертає увагу всієї світової спільноти, зокрема, тим, що має також глибоке етнічнорелігійне коріння. Ураховуючи гостроту етнічних і релігійних протистоянь у сучасному світі, їх наслідки не лише для ворогуючих сторін, а й для інших міжнародних акторів, вивчення питання формування та розвитку Палестинської проблеми є надзвичайно актуальним. У статті описано процеси та події, які зумовили формування Палестинської проблеми, цілі учасників конфлікту, основні події. Здійснено комплексний аналіз процесу формування й розвитку палестинської проблеми в середині – другій половині ХХ ст. Визначено суть міжнародних відносин і міжнародних конфліктів у трактуванні сучасною наукою.

The End of Intellectuals

Abstract In 1979, Edward Said attended a colloquy on Middle East politics hosted by Jean-Paul Sartre and Les Temps Modernes in the apartment of Michel Foucault. He would later go on to publish his reflections on this experience in a short piece titled “Diary.” Reading this piece alongside Said’s larger oeuvre, as well as those of his predecessors Foucault and Antonio Gramsci, this article attempts to offer a theory of intellectual responsibility that may be applied to the BDS movement today. In turn, Orientalism and The Question of Palestine, published in the same year as the colloquy, offer a salient political allegory for the relation of the United States to the question of Palestine writ large when read as a dyad as they are intended to be. In closing, the article attempts to apply the theory of intellectuals derived from Said’s work by reflecting on the potential for the particular case of BDS to speak to a set of universal concerns on the Left.

Sobre os rastros da reportagem: a experiência de duas repórteres brasileiras na Palestina

This article takes on the experience and narrative of two Brazilian reporters, Helena Salem and Adriana Mabilia, in the coverage of the Palestine question. In different moments, both summarize as books an intense trajectory of reporting on the subject. Palestinians, the new Jews (Palestinos, os novos judeus in the original), published in 1977 by Salem, and Trip to Palestine: outdoor prison (Viagem a Palestina: prisao a ceu aberto), published in 2013 by Mabilia, project over time some possible meanings for the conflict between Israeli and Palestinians. The cartography they compose results from the narrative position and the politics of the sources explored by them. Given that both women come from a developing country and are journalists, they are personally interested in problematizing the conditions that made possible the time and space chosen for their exploration. The clues they offer in their narration do not reprise naturalizations on the subject, an effort which allows also for a debate on some aspects of the practice of journalism based on their books.Keywords: Journalism. Narrative. Books. Palestine. Brazil.

British foreign policy towards the Palestinian cause since 2003

The topic area of that’s paper dealing with role of Britain in established of Israel, so the paper argued the historical developments of Palestinian question and Role of Britain Government toward peace process since 1992, and then its insight toward plan of Palestinian State.&#x0D; That’s paper also argued the British Policy toward Israeli violations toward Palestinians people, and increased with settlement policy by many procedures like demolition of houses, or lands confiscation, the researcher argued the Britain position toward that’s violations beside the political developments which happens in Britain after Theresa May took over the power in Ten Downing Street

The Question of Palestine and the Muslim World

The question of Palestine (and the city of Jerusalem) is a core issue that remains at the centre of the Muslim mind in our time. This is because most Muslims feel that the Zionist Movement created the State of Israel in Palestine after World War II by depriving the local population of their fundamental right to exist in their ancestral homeland. The global Zionist Movement conspired, resorted to terrorist tactics and executed an ethnic cleansing campaign to create the State of Israel. The Zionists first secured the support of British politicians and then the American leaders in favour of their search for an exclusive Jewish state covering the entirety of the former British Mandate of Palestine. Although the Palestinians – like Muslims in various parts of the world – quickly developed a national consciousness in the inter-war period and tried to protect their fundamental rights, they were no match for the Zionists who had already secured the support of major powers of the globe (e.g. Britain and the US). Later, Israel managed to obtain UN membership in its third attempt with the commitment to allow all Palestinians to return to their ancestral home. But in practice, Israel has ignored all UN resolutions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has gradually developed a legal framework to deny the citizenship rights of the original population of Palestine and continues to build new Jewish settlements by demolishing Palestinian homes. While the Palestinians continue to suffer under Israeli repression, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and most Muslim governments have largely abandoned the Palestinian cause of liberation. This, in turn, frustrates much of the Muslim youth around the world – fuelling fundamentalism and extremism.

Reconsidering the Palestine Issue in the Shade of Israel’s Expanding Sovereignty Claim

The Palestine question is among the most important and longstanding conflicts in the world. A lasting solution could not be found and problems have multiplied after the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948, mainly because the sovereignty of the Palestinian people has been disregarded. Though the conflict includes complex issues such as the legal status of Jerusalem, the refugees’ right to return to their ancestral lands and the rapid increase in Jewish settlements; the root of the problem is the lack of an equal sovereign rights approach for both sides. The Palestine issue has been rendered more and more tragic over the years as Israel does not permit the Palestine Authority to exercise its sovereign rights in its own lands and the international community refrains from imposing sanctions on Israel despite its continuous violations of international law and UN (United Nations) resolutions. Especially as a result of Israel’s recent policies towards expanding its sovereignty claims over the entire Palestinian territory, an even darker period seems to cloud Palestine’s sovereignty in the near future. This study claims that the source of the longstanding Israel-Palestine conflict is the inequality in exercising sovereign rights between the two parties and discusses how Israel’s expansionist activities may shape the Palestine issue in the forthcoming years. Furthermore, the study scrutinizes how the “Jewish Nation State Basic Law” – that was recently approved by the Israeli parliament – will sabotage the ongoing search for peaceful solutions and it may destroy all hopes for establishing a lasting peace between the two peoples in the foreseeable future.

Evidence for Hope? Assessing the Role of the UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteurs on the Course of the Palestinian Question

The Palestinian Question has been at the heart of the United Nations (UN) since its establishment. Yet, the “intergovernmental” mechanisms of the world organization have proven to be largely ineffective in finding a just and sustainable solution to one of the most important and intractable issues of the UN-era. In between political and diplomatic struggles, the UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteurs on Palestine are increasingly regarded as the only truly independent and expert voices as well as valuable sources of information regarding the issue. However, the special rapporteurs are one of the least studied aspects of the UN regarding the Palestinian question. Drawing highly on the social constructivist premise on the role of ideas and norms in constructing/deconstructing the legitimacy discourse in international politics, this study attempts to theoretically question and empirically analyse how the “actorness” of the special rapporteurs have the potential to affect the course of the Palestinian question. The article concludes that the mobilization of normative arguments on the Palestinian Question at the transnational level and framing the issue for collective debate supported by technical and knowledge-based legal expertise of UN Special Rapporteurs may confer a renewed legitimizing role for the United Nations.

The Palestine Policy of the US before the Israel Lobby

In their well-known book, The Israel Lobby, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt argue that the Israel lobby has a significant influence on American policy towards the Middle East. As a consequence of Israeli lobbying, US-Israeli relations warmed by late 1950s and the United States became more committed to protecting Israel’s interests. In my article, I analyse the policy of the US towards the Palestinian question before the Israel lobby gained that influence on US foreign policy, and I try to understand the making of American policy during the establishment of Israel. I also examine the factors that shaped the American policy and focus on Zionist lobbying in this period and question its influence. The period that I examine starts just before World War II under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945) and I end the period with the recognition of Israel by the US under the presidency of Harry S. Truman (1945-1953). Many different domestic and foreign factors shaped the Palestine policy of the US in that period. However, I argue that even before the Israel Lobby was consolidated in the country, the Zionists had already gained a significant influence on American policy towards the Middle East region.

‘The most momentous epochs in Jewish life’. American Jewish Congress in Philadelphia (December 15–18, 1918)

The American Jewish Congress began its activities as an organization established to represent all Jews living in the United States during the Congress in Philadelphia. On December 15–18, 1918, a meeting of 400 delegates representing all Jewish political parties and social groups in the USA took place. It aroused great hopes because new opportunities were opening up for the Jews to resolve the Palestinian question, the main Zionist project, and to guarantee equal rights for Jewish minorities in East-Central Europe. The article answers questions about how the American Jewish Congress was convened. How did the main political groups of Jews in the USA respond to it? What was the subject of the debate? What decisions were made? And then how were they implemented and what was the future of the initiative launched in Philadelphia? Answers to these questions will allow us to draw a conclusion as to the importance of the December congress in the history of Jews in the USA and whether it fulfilled its tasks.

British Policy on the Palestinian Question in the Middle East Peace Negotiations: From Conservative to Labour (1970-1979)

From 1970 to 1979, the Middle East peace negotiations were led and dominated by the United States. Thus, less scholarly attention has therefore been given to the British policy on the Middle East peace settlement through this period, particularly regarding the issue of the Palestinian question. The British government role and participation in the Arab Israeli settlement seemed inactive and marginal. However, a solution of the Palestinian question was consistently viewed by the British as the most important issue in a comprehensive plan that could lead to a just and durable peace in the Middle East. Although Britain did not involves directly with the US’s peace negotiation, London has repeatedly declared her policy in the public, either unilaterally or jointly with her European Allies. By analysing archival records recently declassified in London, this paper examines the British policy and diplomacy towards the Palestinian question during the peace negotiations period from 1970 to 1979. In spite of a political change of the British government between Conservative and Labour, the finding of this study proven that Britain under both parties was remains consistent with her policy towards the Palestinian question.

Modernity's Past, Present, and Future in the Middle East

Nathan Citino uses the theme of “modernization” to explain U.S.-Middle East relations between 1945 and 1967. He demonstrates how, after the Second World War, modernization became manifest in “not only economic development policies, but also the ideas elites used to explain social change” (1). Those elites, Arab and American, considered the quantitative and qualitative aspects of modernization within the legacy of Ottoman reforms, the prospect of secular nation-building, the politics of the Cold War, and the Palestinian question. A veteran researcher of American and Arab histories, Citino reconstructs the many lives of a generation that “envisioned an Arab future” with “a shared set of widely held concepts” and in “a Middle Eastern and a universal framework” (1). Citino’s methodological aim is, to borrow from a recent piece written by his Rice University colleague, Ussama Makdisi, to “de-exceptionalize” the study of U.S.-Middle East relations.1 Ussama Makdisi, “The Privilege of Acting Upon Others: The Middle Eastern Exception to Anti-Exceptionalist Histories of the U.S. and the World,” in Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, eds. Frank Costigliola and Michael Hogan (Cambridge, UK, 2016), 203–16.

„Jedna z najdonioślejszych epok w życiu Żydów”. Kongres Żydów Amerykańskich w Filadelfii (15–18 grudnia 1918 roku)

Kongres Żydów Amerykańskich jako organizacja mająca na celu reprezentowanie wszystkich Żydów zamieszkujących Stany Zjednoczone zapoczątkował swoją działalność od zjazdu w Filadelfii. W dniach 15–18 grudnia 1918 r. doszło do spotkania 400 delegatów reprezentujących wszystkie żydowskie stronnictwa polityczne i grupy społeczne w USA. Budził on ogromne nadzieje, ponieważ przed Żydami otwierały się nowe możliwości co do rozwiązania kwestii palestyńskiej, głównego projektu syjonistów, a także zagwarantowania równych praw mniejszościom żydowskim w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej. W artykule została udzielona odpowiedź na pytania o to, jak doszło do zwołania Kongre­su Żydów Amerykańskich. Jak ustosunkowały się do niego główne ugrupowania polityczne Żydów w USA? Co było przedmiotem obrad? Jakie decyzje podjęto? A następnie w jaki sposób je zrealizowano i jakie były dalsze losy inicjatywy zapoczątkowanej w Filadelfii? Odpowiedzi na powyższe kwestie pozwolą sformułować wniosek co do tego, jaką wagę miał grudniowy kongres w dziejach Żydów w USA oraz czy wypełnił stawiane przed nim zadania.

Zionist Approaches to the Palestinian Question

Liberal Zionists blame Israel’s five decade long occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip primarily on Revisionist Zionist ideology and its manifestation in right wing parties such as the Likud. They also argue that the “Two State Solution”, the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, will forever solve this issue. This paper on the other hand argues that while the Israeli left have divergent opinions from the revisionists on many issues, with regards to the “Palestinian question” and particularly on the prospects of allowing the formation of a Palestinian state, liberal Zionists have much closer views to the right wing than would most like to admit. To demonstrate this, the views of Theodore Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, David Ben-Gurion, the most important actor in the founding years of the state, as well as the approach of left wing Israeli political parties are examined. Finally, it is argued that none of the mainstream Zionist political movements will allow the creation of a Palestinian state even on a small part of Palestine.

PRE-CONDITIONS OF CREATION OF THE STATE ISRAEL IN THE FIRST HALF OF XX CENTURY

The article highlights the formation of prerequisites for the creation of a modern state of Israel. The role played by Teodor Herzl in this process, who in 1896 published a brochure «The Jewish State- Experience of the modern solving of the jewish question», and who in 1867 convened the first Zionist Congress in Bazel, was anylazed. His role in the searching territories for the formation of the Israel state is also revealed. The content of the Balfour Declaration and its impact on the formation of British policy on the Palestinian authority is elucidated. The article also examines the forms and methods of jewish settlement of the Palestinian territory, the number of settlers in 20–40 years of the 20th century. The role of the first and second «White Book», which regulated the restriction of the number of immigrants from the number of jews to the territory of Palestine, was investigated. However, in response to restrictions, illegal jewish immigration began primarily from Europe, as well as from Iran, Syria, Egypt and other territories. After the end of the Second World War, the situation in Palestine began to sharpen dramatically. The zionists tried to force the English administration to satisty their demands and went to large-scale terrorist activity. They started to ervange provocations on the railroad, commit attack on police stations and British military bases. The American president George Truman, who in August 1945 demanded the admission of 100,000 jews to Palestine, had a great influence on the formation of a Jewish State Israel. At the same time, several conferences were held with the participation of the United Kindom and the United States to resolve the Palestinian problem. The British government put forward a plan that predicted the division of Palestine into four regions: two under direct British control and two autonomies (Arabic and Jewish). However, this plan was rejected by both the arabs and the zionists. Subsequently, the Palestinian question was proposed to the discussion by the United Nations Organization. As a result, a resolution of the UN General Assembly NO. 181 of November 29, 1947, was adopted, and it became the basis for the proclamation of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.

To Exist Is to Resist: Palestine and the Question of Queer Theory

This article provides an outline of the project of queer theory and the ways that this project has (and has not) engaged with the question of Palestine. Ultimately, the author argues that queer theory and Palestinian liberation share, albeit perhaps unwittingly, a defining resistance to elimination and an enduring commitment to unsettlement. As such, queer politics is and can surely become decolonial praxis, just as decolonization has a clear affinity with dissident queer resistance.