The geopolitics of peacemaking in Israel–Palestine (2022)

Table of Contents
Political Geography Abstract Introduction Section snippets The political geography of peace and conflict A political geography laboratory: Israel/Palestine The symbolic and tangible dimensions of territorial conflict The dynamics of territorial change Borders and settlements: The impact of “facts on the ground” Configuring the territories of peace Boundaries, territories and identities: the structural impacts Shared or separate territories: the national–binational state discourse The management of boundaries Conclusion References (65) Political Geography Quarterly Political Geography Quarterly Political Geography Quarterly Geoforum Political Geography Quarterly Political Geography Geopolitics: Re-visioning world politics Israel’s boundaries The “Green Line”: functions and impacts of an Israeli–Arab superimposed boundary A treaty of Silicon for a treaty of Westphalia: new territorial dimensions of modern statehood Geopolitics Jerusalem—bridging the four walls: A geopolitical perspective The geopolitics of israel’s border question. Jaffee Center for strategic studies, Tel Aviv University Global geopolitical change in the post cold-war era Annals of the Association of American Geographers Gaza now: Prospects for a Gaza microstate Mediterranean Quarterly Gaza viability: the need for enlargement of its land base Israel’s place names as reflection of continuity and change in nation building Names Place names in Israel’s ideological struggle over the administered territories Annals of the Association of American Geographers The politics of planting: Israeli–Palestinian competition for control of land in the Jerusalem periphery Town planning under military occupation Reordering the world: Geopolitical perspectives on the twenty first century National identity and geopolitical visions The end of the nation state: borders in the age of globalization The politics of Jerusalem since 1967 Land fragmentation and spatial control in the Nazareth metropolitan area The Professional Geographer Living together apart: residential segregation in mixed Arab–Jewish cities in Israel Urban Studies Between city and suburb: Urban residential patterns and processes in Israel The end of the nation state War and settlement change: the Golan Heights and the Jordan Rift valley, 1967–1977 Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers A path strewn with thorns: along the difficult road of Israeli–Palestinian peacemaking Cited by (54) Palestine-Israel Sport tourism and peace: crossing the contested wall Recommended articles (6) FAQs Videos
ScienceDirect

Corporate sign inSign in / register

ViewPDF

  • Access throughyour institution

Political Geography

Volume 21, Issue 5,

June 2002

, Pages 629-646

Abstract

The study of the Israel–Palestine conflict is a live laboratory for political geographers and this is reflected in a number of studies undertaken by Saul Cohen during his career. Despite the recent collapse of the Israel–Palestine peace process, the ongoing attempts at conflict resolution continue to focus on the territorial dimensions of the conflict. All attempts to configure State territories which are acceptable to both sides must take account not only of the tangible dimensions of boundary demarcation and strategic sites, but also the symbolic aspects of territory and the way in which such territories are part of the process through which national identities are constructed and maintained. Notions of territorial partition remain much the same as they were prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. However, the changing demographic and settlement realities that have emerged during this period have resulted in the creation of new facts on the ground which must constantly be re-fed into the negotiation process at any given time.

Introduction

The world continues to experience rapid territorial change, as new states are formed, old states fragment, globalization affects the functional nature of boundaries and the territories that are enclosed within them (Cohen, 1991, Agnew, 1998, Demko and Wood, 1994). Two major processes have affected the changing configurations and functions of the world political map during the past decade. The first is the changing distribution of political power because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellites (O’Loughlin and van der Wusten, 1993, Kolossov, 1992, Peters, 1999) and the onset of conflict resolution processes on the other, as in Southern Africa, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, the Czech Republic and Israel/Palestine (Darby & MacGinty, 2000). The second is the structural impacts of globalization, resulting in the flow of people, goods, corporate markets, information and ideas over state boundaries, challenging accepted norms of sovereignty practiced by the state within its territorial confines (O’Tuathail, 1996, Brunn, 1998, Kohen, 2000). The former is but another “new world order” (one of several during the past century), illustrating that the precise territorial configuration of the world political map is highly dynamic and not the passive outcome of political processes as is often assumed. In contrast, the latter is more structural, challenging the basis of the Westphalian state model and querying the nature of territorial sovereignty practiced by states within their boundaries (Murphy, 1996, Taylor, 1994, Taylor, 1995).

This chapter focuses on changing territorial configurations within the Israel/Palestine zone of conflict. The process of conflict resolution that commenced in Oslo in 1993 and which, at the time of writing, appears to have collapsed, was the most significant attempt to configure the territorial domain within which Israelis and Palestinians practice their respective, and separate, political power. However, while the basic issues of power, sovereignty and self-determination have not changed greatly during the past 50 years, today’s structural and geographic realities differ considerably. Negotiating a final territorial agreement must take into account these new realities, while enabling each protagonist to achieve the degree of separation and political sovereignty that affords them the status of “equal” (in the case of the Palestinians) or frees them from existential and other security threats (in the case of Israel).

(Video) Peacemaking in an Unstable Neighborhood: The Arab Awakening, Iran & Regional Dynamics

Some of Saul Cohen’s writings have dealt with political geographical dimensions of the Arab–Israel conflict. His study of the changing geopolitics of Jerusalem was the first of this type (Cohen, 1977), predating others by 20 years (Dumper, 1997, Cohen, 1993). This was followed by an analysis of the wider geopolitical issues of borders and strategic territories, as they would affect attempts at conflict resolution (Cohen, 1986). More recently, he has discussed the need to enlarge the territorial land base of the Gaza Strip as part of any final peace agreement (Cohen, 1992, Cohen, 1994). While most of his work in this area has focused on tangible political dimensions of territory, his work with Kliot on the role of placenames in strengthening control over territory and deepening man-land bonding through territorial socialization adds an important symbolic dimension to his work (Cohen and Kliot, 1981, Cohen and Kliot, 1992).

This chapter discusses the process of territorial change within the Israel/Palestine arena, focussing on the long-term rather than any specific event. Assuming that a final peace agreement is eventually reached, this will change the significance of the territorial lines demarcated, transforming them into international boundaries for the first time. At the same time, increased boundary permeability means that the future function of such territorial boundaries will differ from those in the past.

Section snippets

The political geography of peace and conflict

The transition from violence, warfare and active conflict to what are euphemistically termed “peace processes” requires a mind switch by the protagonists in their ability and willingness to recognize, legitimate and communicate with each other. The euphoria surrounding first agreements or public demonstrations of mutual recognition and handshakes is usually followed by periods of mutual frustration as former enemies force themselves into dialogue and to negotiate about such issues as territory,

A political geography laboratory: Israel/Palestine

There are few better live laboratories for the study of political geography and attempts at conflict resolution than Israel/Palestine. It involves the study of territory and territorial change at several spatial levels, from attempts to demarcate national boundaries between states, to control and ownership of resources (land, settlements, water), through residential segregation of Jews and Arabs in their exclusive mono-ethnic settlements and neighborhoods. It is an excellent example of how

The symbolic and tangible dimensions of territorial conflict

Territorial conflict has two dimensions, the tangible and the symbolic (Newman, 1999a). While the tangible element is central to resolve conflicts, the symbolic explains the deep sense of attachment felt by groups to the territory within which they reside and which is perceived as eternally theirs. Notions of ‘homeland’ are nurtured through processes of territorial socialization, which focus on the historical and cultural rights to specific territory. The formation of national identity is

The dynamics of territorial change

Political, social and economic maps are usually perceived as static or passive. However, the territorial configuration of states is continually changing, contrary to the general perception of stasis at any specific time. Mental images of the world political map are often rooted in the period during which people first become acquainted with cartographic images of the political world. Reality is different, particularly when taking the longer term into account. The continuous changes in states

Borders and settlements: The impact of “facts on the ground”

While the symbolic rhetoric of historical rights and claims are central to the public discourse relating to conflict and conflict resolution, the tangible geopolitical realities determine the contours of a peace agreement. The establishment of settlements to extend territorial control and ownership has constituted one of the most discussed political geographical themes of the Arab-Israel conflict in general, and of Israeli activity in the West bank in particular (Harris, 1978, Hasson and

Configuring the territories of peace

The territorial question that will face Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in the future is no different to the one they have faced since the early 20th century—how best to divide the small piece of real estate between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River into two separate national territories (Falah and Newman, 1995, Newman and Falah, 1995, Newman, 1998). The debate over partition that began in the 1930s, remains at the heart of all attempts to find a practical solution to the conflict,

Boundaries, territories and identities: the structural impacts

While the practical dimensions of conflict resolution relate to changing territorial configurations, the structural dimensions are concerned with the politics of identity. The territorial dimension of identity politics, especially as it relates to the distribution of ethnic groups throughout a state’s territory, has figured heavily in political geography (Knight, 1982, Knight, 1994, Hooson, 1994, Herb and Kaplan, 1999, Dijkink, 1998). As boundary permeability increases, the precise course of

Shared or separate territories: the national–binational state discourse

The assumption underlying the attempt to find an acceptable territorial solution for the creation of an independent Palestine is rooted in the idea of a state for each people. The notion of a single, bi-national, state within which Jews and Arabs could live under an equitable power-sharing system has never been acceptable to a majority of both peoples. When proposed, before 1948, such notions were usually seen as academic conceptions, divorced from reality. While exclusive control by one side

The management of boundaries

Contemporary notions on boundaries do not deal only with the tangible dimension of configuring and demarcating state territories. It is as important to understand the changing functional impact of boundaries in an era of increased trans-boundary movement and growing boundary permeability. The world is not becoming “borderless” but the relative impact of boundaries as barriers is declining. Boundaries no longer hermetically seal peoples and territories, nor do they continue to determine the

Conclusion

This essay has attempted to address some of the longer-term structural significance of territorial conflict in general, and attempts at Israel–Palestinian conflict resolution in particular. Politicians, negotiators and diplomats often overlook the fact that territorial and geographic features of the landscape are dynamic factors in the process of political change. Yet many such conflicts focus entirely on the territorial issues. Solving these will have a major impact on the identities,

References (65)

  • S. WatermanPartitioned states

    Political Geography Quarterly

    (1987)

  • J. PortugaliJewish settlement in the occupied territories: Israel’s settlement structure and the Palestinians

    Political Geography Quarterly

    (1991)

  • D. NewmanThe role of civilian and military presence as strategies of territorial control: The Arab–Israel conflict

    Political Geography Quarterly

    (1989)

  • S. Hasson et al.Israeli frontier settlements: a cross-temporal analysis

    Geoforum

    (1980)

  • I. GalnoorTerritorial partition of Palestine: the 1937 decision

    Political Geography Quarterly

    (1991)

  • G. Falah et al.The spatial manifestation of threat: Israelis and Palestinians seek a “good” boundary

    Political Geography

    (1995)

  • J. Agnew

    Geopolitics: Re-visioning world politics

    (1998)

  • M. Brawer

    Israel’s boundaries

    (1988)

  • M. Brawer

    The “Green Line”: functions and impacts of an Israeli–Arab superimposed boundary

  • S.D. Brunn

    A treaty of Silicon for a treaty of Westphalia: new territorial dimensions of modern statehood

    Geopolitics

    (1998)

  • S.B. Cohen

    Jerusalem—bridging the four walls: A geopolitical perspective

    (1977)

    (Video) Peacebuilding in the Palestinian-Israeli Context: Challenges and Prospects- Context Video

  • S.B. Cohen

    The geopolitics of israel’s border question. Jaffee Center for strategic studies, Tel Aviv University

    (1986)

  • S.B. Cohen

    Global geopolitical change in the post cold-war era

    Annals of the Association of American Geographers

    (1991)

  • S.B. Cohen

    Gaza now: Prospects for a Gaza microstate

    Mediterranean Quarterly

    (1992)

  • S.B. Cohen

    Gaza viability: the need for enlargement of its land base

  • S.B. Cohen et al.

    Israel’s place names as reflection of continuity and change in nation building

    Names

    (1981)

  • S.B. Cohen et al.

    Place names in Israel’s ideological struggle over the administered territories

    Annals of the Association of American Geographers

    (1992)

  • S.E. Cohen

    The politics of planting: Israeli–Palestinian competition for control of land in the Jerusalem periphery

    (1993)

  • A. Coon

    Town planning under military occupation

    (1992)

  • G. Demko et al.

    Reordering the world: Geopolitical perspectives on the twenty first century

    (1994)

  • G. Dijkink

    National identity and geopolitical visions

    (1998)

  • H. Dittjen

    The end of the nation state: borders in the age of globalization

  • M. Dumper

    The politics of Jerusalem since 1967

    (1997)

  • G. Falah

    Land fragmentation and spatial control in the Nazareth metropolitan area

    The Professional Geographer

    (1992)

  • G. Falah

    Living together apart: residential segregation in mixed Arab–Jewish cities in Israel

    Urban Studies

    (1996)

  • A. Gonen

    Between city and suburb: Urban residential patterns and processes in Israel

    (1995)

  • J. Guehenno

    The end of the nation state

    (1995)

  • W. Harris

    War and settlement change: the Golan Heights and the Jordan Rift valley, 1967–1977

    Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers

    (1978)

  • T. Hermann et al.

    A path strewn with thorns: along the difficult road of Israeli–Palestinian peacemaking

  • Cited by (54)

    • Messianic time, settler colonial technology and the elision of Palestinian presence in Jerusalem's historic basin

      2020, Political Geography

      Advancing the settler colonial paradigm through a temporal perspective on territoriality, this article argues that the Jewish messianic idea is a distinctive feature of Israeli settler colonialism and an important element of Zionist territorial production. Specifically, the article contends that messianic time constitutes a specific settler colonial technology of domination which finds place-based expression in the ‘historic basin’ of occupied East Jerusalem. This is illustrated through two sites: the City of David archaeological park in the Palestinian village of Silwan and the Temple Mount/Haram al-Shariff, current home of the Dome of the Rock and prophesised location of the Third Jewish Temple. Both are at the frontier of settlement in the historic basin and the messianic conception of a mythical past and redemptive future aids claims to territorial exclusivity by ‘disappearing’ Palestinians in the present. The article concludes by reflecting on the value of an analytical focus on time for settler colonial scholarship on Israel-Palestine and in political geography more broadly.

    • “Refusing to be a victim, refusing to be an enemy”. Form-of-life as resistance in the Palestinian struggle against settler colonialism

      2017, Political Geography

      As Harker (2009: 321) also recalls in his study of Palestinian home demolitions, more work needs to be done to explain the complexities of Palestinian spaces that “bear a relation to, but are not fully determined by, the Israeli Occupation”. Approaches such as those framing Palestine as a ‘site of geopolitics’ (Newman, 2002), ‘matrix of control’ (Halper, 2000), or with abstract geometries of ‘vertical politics’ (Elden, 2013), merely recreate, Harker (2009:328) claims, “Palestine as a space that is only known through practices of occupation and violence they entail”. This being said, it is hardly an exaggeration to add that the techniques of occupation, from the occupation architecture (Weizman, 2007) to the deficient legal cover (Joronen, 2016b) and the issues raised by Gordon, continue to have a significant effect on the different domains of everyday Palestinian life.

      (Video) Unmaking Peacemaking: Expert Politics and the Middle East - Genève Histoire et Cité 2015

      This paper focuses on practices of non-violent resistance as they are played out in the ongoing Palestinian struggle against the Israeli settler colonialism in the occupied West Bank. By looking at the resistance of expanding settlements, demolition and land confiscation orders, and livelihood destruction in two Palestinian sites, the paper shows how Israeli settler colonial apparatuses, and the variety of techniques and practices of erasure they mobilize, can be fruitfully studied through site-specific ways of Palestinian resistance. In order to do so, the paper turns to discuss a peculiar form of non-violent resistance grounded in what Giorgio Agamben calls ‘destituent power’. It shows how the acts of destituent resistance in the two sites under study function by playing with the apparatuses of control in creative but non-violent ways; namely, by using the potentialities of that form-of-life that the settler colonial apparatuses try to cancel, overrule, control, weaken, criminalize, and erase. The idea of ‘destituent play’ is hence elaborated, and special attention paid to its ability to slow down and hamper the repressive functions of the settler colonial apparatuses through the creative use of the potentialities of Palestinian everyday life.

    • Mimicking state diplomacy: The legitimizing strategies of unofficial diplomacies

      2012, Geoforum

      While nuanced and influential work within political geography has deconstructed the discourses of foreign policy (Dodds, 1993; Ó Tuathail and Agnew, 1992), attended to the role of diplomacy in imperial geopolitics (Kearns, 2009) and examined the agency of geopolitical elites (Kuus, 2008; Müller, 2008), there is something of a dearth of geographical research that attends to the practices and legitimizing role of diplomacy per se. Exceptions include quantitative studies of diplomatic connections (Neumayer, 2008; van der Wusten and van Korstanje, 1991), systematic reviews of the location of diplomacy (Henrikson, 2005) and case studies of particular diplomatic contexts and negotiations (e.g. Campbell, 1999; Chaturvedi, 1998; Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2006; Newman, 2002). While such work maintains a state-centered focus on formal diplomacy, two trends have diverged from this literature in recent years and are central to the theoretical framing of this paper.

      Diplomacy and recognition play central roles in the conventional conferral of state legitimacy and functioning of the inter-state system. In broadening the diplomatic frame by stepping outside the conventional state-system, this paper brings a poststructuralist and performative toolkit to mimetic diplomatic practices. Adapting Bhabha’s notion of mimicry to diplomatic discourse, it demonstrates how non-state diplomacies draw on, mimic and intervene in the realm of formal political action in ways which both promote ‘official’ state diplomacy as an ideal and dilute its distinction from other, ‘unofficial’ diplomacies. In thereby examining the enactment of international diplomacy in unexpected spaces, this paper brings together three empirical studies: a Government-in-Exile, a religious community and micropatrias (self-declared parodic nations). In each of these cases, attention focuses on: discourses of recognition; sovereignty and legitimacy; the diplomatic relationships fostered and institutions of diplomacy constructed; and the strategic position of such diplomacy vis-à-vis the conventional state-system. Unpacking the relationship between legitimacy, recognition and diplomacy and exploring the tension between state-centric and non-state diplomatic practices, this paper foregrounds the points of connection between the official and the unofficial. As a result, this paper expands the analytical gaze of diplomacy studies while incorporating lessons from the margins into our understandings of legitimacy, recognition, statecraft and sovereignty.

    • Geopolitics and family in Palestine

      2011, Geoforum

      This includes work that has traced the shifting production of different territories and boundaries that constitute Palestine and Israel. (Falah, 1997, 2003, 2004, 2005; Falah and Newman, 1996; Newman, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002; Reuveny, 2003). Some of this work has also produced a series of statements about state formation that seek to address politicians, negotiators and diplomats, very much in the mould of what I have referred to above as classical geopolitics (Falah, 1996; Falah and Newman, 1995; Newman and Falah, 1997; Arab World Geographer, 2005).

      This paper questions geographers’ ability to think about power and violence through different epistemological registers, specifically by examining the discursive production of Palestine as place in geopolitical studies. Although the banner of geopolitics groups together a variety of approaches, these studies more or less cohere around a very particular type of imaginative geography of place – as violent and political. Recent arguments for cosmopolitan approaches to place – particularly when encountering non-Euro/American sites – are used to argue for more diverse approaches to places such as Palestine within Anglophone geographical scholarship. Using research on Palestinian family spaces and spacings, an alternative approach is outlined that exposes some geographies of dealing with and getting by the Israeli Occupation that are largely ignored by geopolitical approaches. These tropes prompt a return, in the conclusion, to the question of how geographers analytically apprehend power and violence, and the possibilities for doing this at the limits of, and beyond, the framework of geopolitical analysis.

    • Palestine-Israel

      2021, Global Jihadist Terrorism: Terrorist Groups, Zones of Armed Conflict and National Counter-Terrorism Strategies

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Recommended articles (6)

    • Research article

      States of difference: Refiguring ethnicity and its ‘crisis’ at India's borders

      Political Geography, Volume 35, 2013, pp. 14-24

      This article critically rethinks the possibilities and paradoxes of identity at the interstices of South Asia. Through ethnographic and historical analyses, I chronicle the varying forms, (dis)contents, and failures of ethnic identity in the geo-politically sensitive region of Darjeeling, India. In this Himalayan corner of the nation-state, borders have proven simultaneously generative yet undermining of identity and its politics—at once amplifying communities' desires for national inclusion, while rendering them largely unable to meet the Indian state's criteria for national recognition. As is the case along India's other borders, anxieties over national belonging have subsequently spawned violent subnationalist agitations in Darjeeling, as well as more legal quests for right, recognition, and autonomy. But to little avail. A perennial ‘identity crisis’ thus haunts (and charges) the people and politics of this Himalayan borderland. Refiguring the crisis at hand, this paper asks how certain forms of human difference become viable identities in India, while others do not. Doing so, I locate the crisis not within the realm of identity, but rather its rightful recognition. The paper accordingly develops ‘states of difference’ as an analytic for understanding the accentuated, paradoxical interplays of identity, state, and difference at the borders of South Asia and beyond.

      (Video) Peace in the Middle East: What Role for Europe?
    • Research article

      The shifting regional geopolitics of Mekong dams

      Political Geography, Volume 51, 2016, pp. 63-74

      The Mekong is a region whose geopolitics are shifting in complex ways. They are shifting with the post-Cold War reconfiguration of ideological as well as strategic power deployments. They are also shifting with rapid economic development and associated regional integration. This paper employs these various dimensions of shifting geopolitics to explore and partially explain the (re)emergence of hydropower development in the Mekong. It does so by outlining both the shifting geopolitics of river and region, and showing how the Mekong as metaphor extends to much more than the materiality of the river from which the multiply constructed region derives its name. It suggests that the regional geopolitics produced by these shifts is key to the re-emergence of mainstream hydropower.

    • Research article

      The geopolitics of climate change

      Political Geography, Volume 37, 2013, pp. 38-47

      In his 2012 Political Geography plenary at the 2012 Royal Geographical Society meeting, Stuart Elden posed the possibilities of a “geopolitics” that engages the earth, the air and volumetric understandings as an alternative to geopolitics as a synonym for global politics with its two dimensional cartographic imagination. More is needed than political geography writ large: a material sensibility is necessary to think about security and geography but one that is not linked to traditional determinist formulations. Climate change has a long connection to geopolitics, but now humanity is determining the future of the planetary climate. Picking up Elden's themes, this paper explores how taking the physicality of climate change seriously requires a rethinking of politics in the face of numerous transformations in what is becoming the more obviously artificial planet in the Anthropocene epoch. The geometrics now needed in security analysis include the volumes of global carbon dioxide and Arctic ice. Geopolitical discourse needs a fundamental overhaul to deal with the new circumstances and incorporate climate change as a production problem in the making of a new world, not as a deterministic phenomenon shaping human life in coming decades.

    • Research article

      Interventions in the political geographies of walls

      Political Geography, Volume 33, 2013, pp. 52-62

    • Research article

      Vittel as a model case in PES discourse: Review and critical perspective

      Ecosystem Services, Volume 48, 2021, Article 101247

      The Vittel case serves as a salient reference point in academic and policy discussions related to user-financed payments for ecosystem services (PES), but critical views are scarce. Part I introduces Vittel and outlines how discourses about model cases may shape PES theory and practice. Part II presents a review and analysis of 72 recent PES articles referencing Vittel, finding that just six mention any limitations, while 91% rely exclusively on a single, largely favorable report. Part III revisits the broader Vittel literature to challenge the dominant framing of the scheme as ideal in terms of its process, structure, or outcomes. It emphasizes how well-resourced actors can exert non-obvious influences over the terms of negotiations and suggests potential limitations for Coasean bargaining in the presence of large power differentials between parties. The paper concludes with a call for increased scrutiny of this famous case and greater integration between the English- and French-language literatures surrounding it.

    • Research article

      Affective atmospheres, urban geopolitics and conflict (de)escalation in Beirut

      Political Geography, Volume 61, 2017, pp. 1-10

      The article joins literature on urban geopolitics and on affective atmospheres to trace the intensities of feeling that propagate during escalation and de-escalation of urban conflict in Beirut. Based on two months of fieldwork in 2010 in the Lebanese capital, it considers the deadly clashes of May 2008 between government- and opposition-affiliated militias. Political decisions and deliberate interventions involving the urban built environment before and after the clashes, contributed to propagating affective atmospheres of (de)escalation, which in turn impacted on the residents’ practical and emotional responses to violence. The paper proposes an atmospheric urban geopolitics that moves away from techno-centric, disembodied approaches to urban conflict, and that instead takes seriously the lived experiences of urban (de)escalation.

      (Video) Shell Distinguished Lecture Series: The Arab-Israeli Peace Process

    View full text

    Copyright © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

    FAQs

    What was the peace agreement between Israel and Palestine? ›

    The agreement, officially titled the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (DOP), was signed on the White House lawn on 13 September 1993. Various "transfers of power and responsibilities" in the Gaza Strip and West Bank from Israel to the Palestinians took place in the mid-1990s.

    What is the main conflict between Israel and Palestinian? ›

    The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is one of the world's most enduring conflicts, beginning in the mid-20th century. Various attempts have been made to resolve the conflict as part of the Israeli–Palestinian peace process, alongside other efforts to resolve the broader Arab–Israeli conflict.

    Does Hamas want peace with Israel? ›

    The stated goal of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is to conquer Israel and replace it with an Islamist state. Both groups reject the Oslo Accords and other plans for peace with Israel. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, the two groups worked together to derail the peace process by attacking Israeli civilians.

    Why is Israel bombarding Gaza? ›

    Israeli warplanes launched an attack in the Gaza Strip targeting what the military said was a weapons manufacturing site belonging to Hamas, the Palestinian group that administers the coastal enclave. No casualties or injuries were reported by the Palestinian health ministry on Tuesday.

    Why has peace between Israel and Palestine been so difficult to achieve? ›

    peace between israel and palestine has been difficult to achieve due to concerns for palestinian refugees. the refugees want their homeland back, but the israelis believe they will overwhelm the israelis living there. another reason is jerusalem, the most important city to christians, jews, and muslims.

    Who made a peace treaty with Israel? ›

    Egypt–Israel peace treaty
    Peace Treaty Between the State of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt
    Signed26 March 1979
    LocationWhite House, Washington, D.C.
    EffectiveJanuary 1980
    SignatoriesMenachem Begin (Prime Minister of Israel) Anwar Sadat (President of Egypt) Jimmy Carter (President of the United States of America)
    5 more rows

    What is an obstacle to establishing peace between Israeli and Palestinian leaders? ›

    What is an obstacle to establishing peace between Israeli and Palestinian leaders? Both groups believe they should be afforded the "right of return." Which leader signed Israel's Declaration of Independence?

    Do Palestinians have rights in Israel? ›

    Most Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories live under Israeli occupation and are not Israeli citizens. They are not allowed to vote in Israel. Women faced significant cultural barriers in political parties representing conservative religious movements and, to a lesser degree, the Arab minority.

    Is the Israel Palestine conflict still happening 2022? ›

    On 15 April 2022, clashes erupted between Palestinians and Israeli Security Forces on the Al-Aqsa Compound in the Old City of Jerusalem.
    ...
    2022 Al-Aqsa clashes
    The Al-Aqsa compound, also known as the Temple Mount, where the clashes occurred
    Date15 April 2022 (3 months ago)
    LocationJerusalem
    6 more rows

    Does Israel recognize Palestine? ›

    The Israeli government has accepted in general the idea that a Palestinian state is to be established, but has refused to accept the 1967 borders.

    Was Palestine a country before Israel? ›

    Israel Becomes a State

    In May 1948, less than a year after the Partition Plan for Palestine was introduced, Britain withdrew from Palestine and Israel declared itself an independent state, implying a willingness to implement the Partition Plan.

    Why did Palestine bomb Israel? ›

    2017. The Israeli military reported that 35 rockets and mortars were launched from the Gaza Strip in 2017, the vast majority of them in December. This wave of rocket attacks came amid Palestinian outrage over the United States government decision to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

    Why is Israel occupying Palestinian territories? ›

    Ongoing home demolitions are one of the main reasons for continuous transfer today. These measures allow Israel to maintain control of Palestinian land and resources, to enable illegal settlement expansion and push Palestinians out of certain areas deemed strategic, such as the fertile Jordan Valley or East Jerusalem.

    What is the problem in Israel and Gaza? ›

    In 2014, Israel invaded Gaza after 10 days of aerial bombardment failed to stop Palestinian militants from showering Israeli cities with rockets. The bloody conflict, which lasted for 50 days in July and August, ended in a truce. By then, 2,251 Palestinians, of whom 1,462 were civilians, had died.

    Why has peace between Israel and the Palestinians been so difficult to achieve include issues from both perspectives quizlet? ›

    What is one reason that peace between Israel and the Palestinians has been so difficult to achieve? Both Israel and the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital. What is one way in which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict affected Lebanon? The INFLUX of Palestinian refugees contributed to the unrest in Lebanon.

    What is the purpose of a peace treaty? ›

    Peace treaties, while varied, generally have one broad common goal: to outline conditions for permanent resolution of hostilities between two warring parties. To this end, peace treaty provisions tend to address common issues.

    What is the peace treaty with Israel? ›

    The Israel–Jordan peace treaty (formally the "Treaty of Peace Between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"), sometimes referred to as the Wadi Araba Treaty, is an agreement that ended the state of war that has existed between the two countries since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and established mutual ...

    Has the peace treaty with Israel been signed? ›

    The agreement was signed at the White House on September 15, 2020. It was approved unanimously by the Israeli cabinet on October 12 and was ratified by the Knesset on October 15.

    Which issue presents a major obstacle to settling the Arab Israeli conflict? ›

    Which issue presents a major obstacle to settling the Arab-Israeli conflict? Conflicting claims to territory.

    Why is control of Jerusalem a major obstacle to peace? ›

    Why is control of Jerusalem a major obstacle to peace? It is claimed as a capital by both sides.

    How human rights are violated in Palestine? ›

    The violations of the rights of the Palestinian people showed Israel's disregard for international law and international humanitarian law. Its imposition of the apartheid regime against the defenceless Palestinian people had been manifest through many policies, including home demolitions and expansion of settlements.

    Who started the war in Israel 2021? ›

    The crisis was triggered on 6 May, when Palestinians in East Jerusalem began protesting over an anticipated decision of the Supreme Court of Israel on the eviction of six Palestinian families in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah.

    Is Jerusalem in Israel or Palestine? ›

    Jerusalem is a city that straddles the border between Israel and the West Bank. It's home to some of the holiest sites in both Judaism and Islam, and so both Israel and Palestine want to make it their capital.

    Is Palestine a country Yes or no? ›

    Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين, romanized: Filasṭīn), officially the State of Palestine (دولة فلسطين, Dawlat Filasṭīn), is a de jure sovereign state in Western Asia. It is officially governed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and claims the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

    What is Palestine famous for? ›

    Uniquely, Palestine is a holy land in three of the world's major religions: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Jerusalem is home to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock Mosque in Islam. The Ummayad Dynasty built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem in the 7th century CE.

    Did Israel steal Palestine's land? ›

    Declaration of “state land”

    Israel has declared at least 26 percent of the West Bank as “state land”. Using a different interpretation of Ottoman, British and Jordanian laws, Israel stole public and private Palestinian land for settlements under the pretext of “state land”.

    What is the old name of Palestine? ›

    After Herodotus, the term `Palestine' came to be used for the entire region which was formerly known as Canaan. The region is part of the so-called fertile crescent and human habitation there can be traced back to before 10, 000 BCE.

    Why did Britain give Palestine to Israel? ›

    In 1917, in order to win Jewish support for Britain's First World War effort, the British Balfour Declaration promised the establishment of a Jewish national home in Ottoman-controlled Palestine.

    Who won Israel or Palestine? ›

    The war ended in 1949 with Israel's victory, but 750,000 Palestinians were displaced and the territory was divided into 3 parts: the State of Israel, the West Bank (of the Jordan River), and the Gaza Strip.

    What is the conflict between Israel and Palestine 2021? ›

    The year 2021 was one in which Israel advanced ties with its Arab allies, while war broke out with the Palestinians. The Right lost government control in Washington and Jerusalem, but that dramatic shift did not necessarily empower the Left to make major changes with respect to the conflict.

    How much land has Israel taken from Palestine? ›

    Israel seizes 85% of land in West Bank: Palestine.

    Why is Israel settling the West Bank? ›

    Israel has cited several reasons for retaining the West Bank within its ambit: a claim based on the notion of historic rights to this as a homeland as affirmed in the Balfour Declaration of 1917; security grounds, both internal and external; and the deep symbolic value for Jews of the area occupied.

    When did the conflict between Israel and Palestine start? ›

    The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.

    When did Israel invade Palestine? ›

    Israel's military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza began in 1967. Up to that point, Gaza had been (more or less) controlled by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan. But in 1967 there was another war between Israel and its Arab neighbors, during which Israel occupied the two Palestinian territories.

    Who owns Jerusalem? ›

    Israel, which annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, considers that "Jerusalem, whole and united, is the capital of Israel", and wants the City to "remain forever under Israel's sovereignty."1/ Its de facto control on the ground has enabled it to invest vast resources and efforts into changing the physical and demographic ...

    What treaty was signed with Israel? ›

    Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement
    Abraham Accords Peace Agreement: Treaty of Peace, Diplomatic Relations and Full Normalization Between the United Arab Emirates and the State of Israel
    SignedSeptember 15, 2020
    LocationThe White House, Washington, D.C., US
    7 more rows

    What was the first major peace agreements in the Middle East? ›

    Camp David Accords, agreements between Israel and Egypt signed on September 17, 1978, that led in the following year to a peace treaty between those two countries, the first such treaty between Israel and any of its Arab neighbours.

    What did Israel agree to during the Oslo peace accords? ›

    Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel's right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period.

    What was the implication of the Oslo agreement? ›

    Among the notable outcomes of the Oslo Accords was the creation of the Palestinian National Authority, which was tasked with the responsibility of conducted limited Palestinian self-governance over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and the international acknowledgement of the PLO as Israel's partner in ...

    What is the purpose of a peace treaty? ›

    Peace treaties, while varied, generally have one broad common goal: to outline conditions for permanent resolution of hostilities between two warring parties. To this end, peace treaty provisions tend to address common issues.

    Which countries have peace treaties with Israel? ›

    Israel maintains full diplomatic relations with two of its Arab neighbours, Egypt and Jordan, after signing peace treaties in 1979 and 1994 respectively. In 2020, Israel signed agreements establishing diplomatic relations with four Arab League countries, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Morocco.

    Who signed the peace treaty? ›

    In a ceremony at the White House, Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin sign a historic peace agreement, ending three decades of hostilities between Egypt and Israel and establishing diplomatic and commercial ties.

    What started a peace process in the Middle East? ›

    The Middle East Peace Process was initiated in October 1991 at the Madrid Middle East Conference after an uprising in the occupied Palestinian territories (first "Intifada" in 1987) and the Gulf War in 1991 had triggered sustained shocks in the region.

    What was the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel called? ›

    The Camp David Accords, signed by President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in September 1978, established a framework for a historic peace treaty concluded between Israel and Egypt in March 1979.

    How many peace treaties have been signed and broken? ›

    Of the nearly 370 treaties negotiated between the U.S. and tribal leaders, Stacker has compiled a list of 15 broken treaties negotiated between 1777 and 1868 using news, archival documents, and Indigenous and governmental historical reports.

    What did Israel agree to during the Oslo peace accords Brainly? ›

    The peace plan saw Israel's withdrawal from Sinai and Egypt's recognition of Israel. The accords also pledged Israel to expand Palestinian self-government in the West Bank and Gaza.

    Does Norway recognize Palestine? ›

    Palestine has a diplomatic mission in Oslo, while Norway has a representative office in Al-Ram. Norway has not yet granted official diplomatic recognition to Palestine.

    What is meant by a two state solution to the Palestine Israeli conflict? ›

    The two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict envisions an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River.

    Is Palestine recognized as an independent state by the UN? ›

    On 22 November 1974, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236 recognised the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty in Palestine.

    What did Israel agree to during the Oslo peace accords quizlet? ›

    In The Oslo Peace Accords, Israel agreed to grant the Palestinians self-rule in the Gaza Strip and West bank beginning with Jericho.

    How did the Declaration of Principles also called the Oslo peace accords affect Palestinians living in Gaza in 1993? ›

    How did the Declaration of Principles affect Palestinians living in Gaza in 1993? They were able to elect their own political representatives.

    Videos

    1. Israeli Annexation in the West Bank? Scenarios and Implications
    (WashingtonInstitute)
    2. Peacebuilding Through Tech: Lessons From Eurasia and the Middle East
    (Carnegie Live)
    3. The Art of Middle East Diplomacy
    (Chicago Council on Global Affairs)
    4. Thirsty Planet: How Water Can be a Source of Conflict or Cooperation
    (WoodrowWilsonCenter)
    5. The United Nations After the Iraq War & the Arab Awakening
    (American University of Beirut)
    6. Benny Morris on the 1948 Arab Israeli War
    (Jewish Learning Channel)

    Top Articles

    Latest Posts

    Article information

    Author: Duncan Muller

    Last Updated: 11/13/2022

    Views: 6434

    Rating: 4.9 / 5 (59 voted)

    Reviews: 82% of readers found this page helpful

    Author information

    Name: Duncan Muller

    Birthday: 1997-01-13

    Address: Apt. 505 914 Phillip Crossroad, O'Konborough, NV 62411

    Phone: +8555305800947

    Job: Construction Agent

    Hobby: Shopping, Table tennis, Snowboarding, Rafting, Motor sports, Homebrewing, Taxidermy

    Introduction: My name is Duncan Muller, I am a enchanting, good, gentle, modern, tasty, nice, elegant person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.