What’s in a Ceasefire?

Israel and Palestine: Alternative Perspectives on Statehood., 2016

The literature on conflict resolution recognizes, among different forms of conflict resolution, a model of reconciliation, which seeks to address central issues in ethnic and national conflicts, including historical justice; truth pertaining past wrongdoings; historical responsibility and redistribution of resources. Most studies refer to reconciliation as a process in a post-conflict areas. In this sense, reconciliation is a continuous, in-depth process, which reaches beyond the formal peace agreement. There is only a dearth of studies that scrutinize reconciliation components in peace agreements themselves. This study will attempt to fill this gap by analyzing the Geneva Accord, signed in 2003, by key Israeli and Palestinian figures. The Geneva Accord proposes a model for a permanent agreement for the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, buttressed by the Oslo accords' layout of a two state solution. The analysis will especially focus on Article 7 in the Geneva Accord, which deals with the issue of the Palestinian refugees, since, of all controversial issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the 1948-9 War and its consequences underlies the identities of Israelis and Palestinians alike. The two peoples regard the right of return to the refugees as having a decisive influence on their national existence in the present as in the future. As for the Palestinians, the centrality of the issue of the refugees is reflected in that 1948 marks the central event in the current history and identity of the Palestinian people. From the point of view of the Jewish Israeli society, the possibility of return of refugees raises an existential fear. The analysis will demonstrate that the Geneva Accord peace agreement does not contain components of reconciliation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, except several items which constitute a preliminary step toward a reconciliation. I will recommend exploring these points further, not only in a peace agreement according to the two state solution model, but particularly in some form or other of one state encompassing the area of Mandatory Palestine: from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.

School Magazine, 2024

In the midst of conflict in the Middle East, as scholar-activists we advocate for and urge for a crucial pause—a ceasefire, not just in battles waged with weapons, but in the politicization of war between Israel and Palestine and the discourse that divides and wounds. Every plea for a ceasefire is a testament to our unwavering dedication to justice—a commitment not to silence perspectives but to elevate them within a space that values inclusivity, respects differences, and nurtures the seeds of reconciliation. Reconciliation for whom and by whom? That is where the real discussion should take place involving complexities and nuances. This is not a binary discussion of good versus bad, innocent versus guilty, or self-defence versus terrorism. Let’s be clear: supporting justice for Palestine doesn’t equate to hostility towards Israel or being anti-Jewish. Just as being pro-Palestine does not mean you support Hamas. It is a call for fairness and dignity from a humanitarian lens and a plea for empathy across borders, races, cultures, and ethnicities. It is to value human lives on both sides of the conflict but recognize unequal power relations at stake, and what is required to resolve the conflict from a sustainable lens where more innocent human lives are not lost, including many children, seen as collateral damage. The killing of civilians or terrorizing them is unequivocally wrong regardless of who it is committed by.

2014

A new paradigm for peace … indigeneity. (Land is sacred, not arms.) By Martin Edwin Andersen Creative use of the UN-approved definition of "indigeneity" would have the effect of creating a new and unquestionably appropriate paradigm that would establish even among some of the most vociferous critics the right of existence of the Jewish state of Israel while at the same time nurturing the kind of process of transformation needed for a viable Palestinian nation-state to emerge and evolve. Only by both sides accepting the origins, construction and definition of the national identity of the “Other” can the means be agreed upon so that each accepts and recognizes the other as a nation state. And only a two-state solution ensures, as Indyk tellingly pointed out, that the state of Israel remain a largely homogenous democratic state, as well as being finally recognized by its neighbors as a people with a right to a homeland in the Holy Land. Settling once and for all the question about who is "indigenous" to the lands of Israel and the Occupied Territories would help put the two-state option currently on life support on much firmer ground. The seemingly unending twin problems posed by Hamas and by illegal Israeli settlers are firmly rooted in erroneous assumptions that one people or the other, but not both, are indigenous to the Holy Land. As the UN definition of indigeneity has already been successfully used in other places of the world, and continues to be the world body's last word and ultimate judgment on the authenticity of claims on the subject, its application in the case of Israel and the Occupied Territories would make it exceedingly hard for one side or the other to continue to deny its mutual promise in the homelands of three of the world's most important religions. A recent essay--"Indigeneity: Opening the Door to Path of Peace Between the Jewish State of Israel and the Palestinians" (@ goo.gl/wAJgOJ )--written in the period immediately before the current hostilities broke out fleshes out the new paradigm, originally offered earlier this year in "Common lands, common ground: The indigenous agenda, Israel, Palestine and breaking the post-Oslo Accords logjam" ( @ http://goo.gl/OYCkYP ). In addition, Elza S. Maalouf's forthcoming book, Emerge! The Rise of Functional Democracy and the Future of the Middle East, has a telling chapter on "Uncovering the Indigenous Intelligence," underscoring the need to focus Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts on the paradigm of indigeneity. In it, Maalouf points out that the Palestinian population has, outside of Israel, one of the highest percentages of engineers per capita in the region. She outlines the necessity of teaching youth on the West Bank to build "their own sustainable, indigenous constructs" as part the Palestinians’ need to focus on building their own institutions essential to creating there “the Mumbai of the Arab World.” “Many of the youth who join the Intifadas out of frustration and boredom could have employment in high-tech manufacturing and in call centers that cater to 300 million Arabic-speaking customers. Once a culture gets a taste of that … success, it will be difficult to get its young men to pick up arms or rocks and destroy what they built with their own hands.”

International Peacekeeping, 2021

The causes and consequences of ceasefires have become a burgeoning area of research. The concept of ceasefire success is integral to this research and plays a key role as either the dependent or independent variable in both qualitative and quantitative work. Despite its importance, it is not clear how ceasefire success should be conceptualized. This critically hampers the progress of theoretical and empirical research on ceasefires. This article offers a conceptual framework based on the central proposition that ceasefire success should be assessed in terms of two inter-related but conceptually distinct criteria: the immediate objective and the underlying purpose. The immediate objective, which is embedded in the definition of a ceasefire, is the cessation of hostilities (either permanently or temporarily). While all ceasefires share this objective, their underlying purpose, which is the reason for establishing the ceasefire, varies widely across cases. The immediate objective and the purpose, while conceptually distinct, are linked since the purpose informs the temporal and geographic scope of the cessation of hostilities. Based on this framework, we argue that researchers interested in ceasefire success need to clearly identify their assumptions and conceptual choices, which should take account of the political context of the ceasefires in question.

Xavier Pons Rafols, 2024

The purpose of this essay/editorial - closed on 8 January 2024 - is to formulate as fully as possible, although necessarily provisional, an approach from the perspective of International Law to the war in Gaza that began a little over three months ago, and more generally to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has lasted at least seventy-five years, with the creation of the state of Israel, the first Arab-Israeli war and the Nakba to which the Palestinian people have been condemned. In other words, this is a brief international legal approach to a moment of crisis and intensification of a historic conflict that, in these months, has been a real turning point in the endless cycle of violence that has plagued the region for decades. To this end, this essay addresses various issues of international legal relevance in relation to the current war in Gaza, such as the conceptualisation of international terrorism; the justification of legitimate self-defence used by Israel and, in particular, the conditions required by International Law for its exercise; as well as the possible commission of serious crimes of international concern - war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide -, the applicability of International Humanitarian Law and the call for individual criminal responsibility in this context. This essay also analyses the response of the international community organized in the United Nations to the current war in Gaza, highlighting the insufficient action of the Security Council during these months of acute crisis, the majority reaction of the General Assembly calling for a cessation of hostilities, and the repeated and futile humanitarian appeals made by its Secretary-General. In order to place the current crisis in the perspective of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, there are also briefly discussed the historical and political context, in particular the results of the occupation of territories in the Six-Day War of 1967, the consistent position of the General Assembly on the Palestinian question, the United Nations action on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as the Security Council’s action on these Territories and the proposed peace initiatives, in particular with regard to the two-State solution. The essay concludes with concluding remarks and an epilogue where, in view of the current humanitarian catastrophe and the protracted nature of the conflict, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the release of hostages, and for the current phase of the conflict to become a genuine turning point that can be grasped as an opportunity for peace in the region.

Palestine National Liberation Movement FATEH International Relations Commission The mandate of the international peace conference, guided by the United Nations' relevant resolutions should be how to implement the resolution i.e. to end the Israeli occupation of the state of Palestine.

Wars inevitably spark change. That is no truer than with the war in Gaza in 2014, no matter what Hamas and Israel say. The signs of changing attitudes of Israel and Hamas towards one another go significantly beyond the fact that the two sworn enemies who refuse to recognize one another are negotiating even if only indirectly. They also go beyond the fact that the road to the Cairo talks was paved in part on indirect negotiations between Hamas and the United States, which like Israel has declared Hamas a terrorist organization

New Politics, 2023

This paper starts with the historical background to the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 on Israel and the Israeli response of bombing the Gaza Strip while blocking all food, water, medicines and fuel from reaching its population of 2.3 million people. It attempts to explain the responses of world leaders, which in the case of Western countries contrast sharply with the responses of their people, especially on the issue of a ceasefire. It ends by looking at ways of supporting the human and democratic rights of Palestinians while also combating antisemitism, a task made easier by the pivotal role played by Jewish scholars and activists in the struggle for truth and justice in Palestine.

2011

Political Geography, 1997