July 26


Politics of Peace-Building and Humanitarianism in the Region: The Case of Oslo 

Gelvin, 244-247

Avi Shlaim, “The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process,” in International Relations of the Middle East, ed. Louise Fawcett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 241-259. 

[Note: You don’t worry about the details that Shlaim discusses in his article (such as  names of places or individuals); understand the basic dynamics and sequence of events]

Ilana Feldman, “Gaza’s Humanitarianism Problem,” The Journal of Palestine Studies 38, 3 (Spring 2009), 22-37. 

Edward Said, “Truth and Reconciliation,” Al-Ahram Weekly 14-20 January 1999. 

Ian Lustick, “Two-State Illusion,” The New York Times September 14, 2013. 

Podcast (or text): Nathan Thrall, “Israel-Palestine: the real reason there’s still no peace,” The Guardian’s Audio Long Reads, June 2, 2017. 

***


Recommended Reading: 


Darryl Li, "The Gaza Strip as Laboratory: Notes in the Wake of Disengagement," Journal of Palestine Studies 35: 2 (Winter 2006), 38-55.



Nicholas Pelham, “Gaza’s Tunnel Complex,” Middle East Report 261(Winter 2011), 30-35.

Fifty Years of Occupation: A Forum (Part 1),” Middle East Research and Information Project, June 5, 2017. 


Alex Kane, “Combat Proven: The Booming Business of War in Israel,” The Intercept 5 June 2015.






Prompt for Reading Response:

This week, we are learning about the logistical history of numerous “solutions” put forth to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We are also thinking more broadly about the ways in which such “solutions” are framed, how different communities respond to and are effected by proposed solutions, and why such solutions have consistently failed to bring about a lasting peace. In your response, put at least two of this week’s authors in conversation with one another regarding the topic of “solutions.” Possible questions to address include the following: 

Why, according to Avi Shlaim, did the Oslo peace process break down? 
How does Shlaim’s explanation for Oslo’s failure fit into the argument put forth by Nathan Thrall in his piece for The Guardian
What is Said’s critique of the peace process and what is his solution? 
Would Ian Lustick, writing 13 years later, agree with Said? Why does he call the two-state solution a "fantasy"? 
According to Ilana Feldman, what is the problem of finding a humanitarian solution to a political problem? 



3 comments:

  1. Conflicts between Israel and other Arab states has been the main theme of middle east area since the war of 1948. And conflicts between Israel and Palestine is also “the longest running nationalist conflict still in play” (Gelvin 247). Many efforts had been made to bring peace among Israel and Palestine, but they all didn’t bring long-lasting peace. The one-state solution had been abandoned, and has little support in all communities. Now, the most popular solution is the two-state solution, which lots of people putted efforts in but progressing slowly. In the foreseeable future, the two-state solution is unlikely to become reality, and no better solution had been raised.
    The difficulties of solving the conflict comes from everyone sit around the negotiating table. In the Israel-Palestine conflict, people sit around the negotiating table are US, Israel and Palestine. But neither Israel nor Palestine have a strong dedication to accomplish the negotiation.
    The conflicts between Israel and Palestine are fundamental to both nations. There are three major conflicts between these two countries, the conflicts of territory, the conflicts of nationalism, and the conflicts of religion. The conflicts of territory is the most fundamental one. Indeed, both Jews and Palestinians need the land for the surviving of their nations. Palestinians has no other territories. Even Jews will survive without the west bank or the Golan Heights, but the fear of dimension is not only real also huge possibility for Israelis. “The most common phrase in Israeli political discourse is some variation of ‘If X happens (or doesn’t), the state will not survive!’ ” (Lustick 11). The fear of losing their home also force Israel to be persistent in territory problems. The conflicts of nationalisms are that made Israelis and Palestinians mentally oppose to each other. “Like all nationalisms, both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism defined themselves in relation to what they opposed” (Gelvin 247). Basically Israel and Palestine keep their people united by confronting the outside enemy. In this case, the hatred and opposition has already planted deeply in both Israelis and Palestinians that any compromise between the two government will be opposed by their people. Finally, the conflicts of religion might seems the easiest to resolve, but if one put this conflict in a big picture, one will find the conflict of religion not only involve Israel and Palestine, it also involves other Arab countries. Those countries supported Palestine because they share the same religion. Also Jerusalem as the capital of israel also has significance in both Judaism and Islam. Palestine insists the east of Jerusalem as their capital.
    In the Two-state Illusion, the author Ian Lustick called the negotiation around the two-state solution “phony”. It goes back to the point that neither Israel nor Palestine has a strong commitment to the negotiation. US as an outsider, doesn’t have interest in pushing the negotiation neither. The Two-state solution has already become a slogan which represents beautiful future, and serve the three countries well, as long as it is not real. As Lustick said in his work, Palestine need the slogan to unify its people and continue asking international help. Israel needs the slogan to avoid international accusation and gain popularity within the country. US needs the slogan to hide their disability to actually brings peace and keep the pro-Israel lobbying on their side. The three nations are only using the two-state solution as a tool to serve their political needs. No actual progress can be made in the two-state solution in this circumstance.


    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (Michelle Cao)
    Edward Said argues in his piece that the creation of separate nations of Arabs and Jews by partitioning Israel is unrealistic and, quite frankly, a waste of time. His main points being that there is no feasible solution to physically separating the integrated population of indigenous Palestinians and Jews. In the most extreme sense, the only solution would be by violent means such as ethnic cleansing, which Said also argues does not necessarily work, “there is no way for Israel to get rid of the Palestinians or for Palestinians to wish Israelis away” (Said 3). The solution Said provides is the sharing of land and equal rights for both peoples; Jews and Arabs. Some specific suggestions Said provides boil down to the basic idea and practice of citizenship (Said 6). In comparison to this, Ian Lustick, also contends the two- state solution by providing various examples as how revolution was imminent in Israel and the emergence of two independent states is by such processes and not by the outcomes of diplomatic negotiations. Lustick cites Northern Ireland, the USSR, and Algeria as examples of independent nations that have successfully emerged as an independent nation from revolution. Which then leads to the second part of his argument in which he explains that the creation of a multi-ethnic and religious nation is more favorable because of the current platform Israel sits on and the ostensible negotiations that have lasted for decades. Together, he suggests that if a two independent states were to happen, it should emerge organically rather from diplomatic measures (Lustick). Lustick argues the same solution to the issue as Said, “The issue is no longer where to draw political boundaries between Jews and Arabs on a map but how equality of political right is to be achieved” (Lustick). Lustick also points out that Palestinians believe that two-state solution is favorable because of economic and diplomatic progressions and that Israeli governments reflect the wants of the Jewish majority (Lustick). The two- state solution is referred to as a fantasy because of the endless collusion and supposed negotiations that never truly progress. Lustick argues that a two-state solution will lead to the deterioration of Palestinian authority and the rise of Israeli control which will then lead to an array of violence and oppression. Even with a thirteen year difference, Said and Lustick argues for the same solution to the Palestinian- Israeli conflict. Although with different supporting arguments, the basic call for an equal state for two peoples seem timeless. Yet, it is still ignored. Which then leads to a bigger question concerning the overall parties in negotiating peace concerning the arrogance of nationalism; in what ways does nationalism seem to stifle the progression of a greater equality?

    ReplyDelete