The Palestinian National Movement

This article addresses Rachel’s Tomb as a site of heightened ritual activity and pilgrimage, whose popularity increased during the latter years of the British Mandate in Palestine, and whose role and meaning as a symbolic public site have been transformed. We examine how a set of meanings has been established at the site at the particular historic moment, converging local and national meanings, on the one hand, with religious, heritage and touristic meanings, on the other. Our approach is integrative, and we situate our inquiry by addressing three main conceptual points: the first is the site’s geo-physical characteristics, by which we refer to its functionality in terms of location, accessibility, and mobility, as well as in terms of the site’s size and material characteristics. The second point concerns the agentive interventions of the site’s renowned shamash, Shlomo Eliyahu Freimann, and the crucial role that he played in transforming the site’s collective function and public status. The third point concerns a corpus of documents, most of which were written in situ, that center around the site’s impressive visitor books, filled with numerous notations. Study of these documents suggests a hybrid genre that is part of the site’s changing discursive ecology.

כיצד התעצבה התנועה הלאומית הפלסטינית, כיצד נראתה בראשית דרכה, מה היו הישגיה ומה היו האפשרויות שנדחו והוחמצו? בשאלות אלו עוסקת הביוגרפיה הפוליטית של מוסא כאט'ם באשא אל-חוסיני (1934-1850), מנהיגה המרכזי של התנועה הלאומית הפלסטינית מראשית ימי הכיבוש הבריטי ועד מותו ב-1934. צמיחתו של מנהיג לאומי אנטי אימפריאלי ומאבקו להגדרה עצמית, מסופרים כאן דרך היסטוריה של מפגשים בעידן של שינויים מרחיקי לכת: מפגשיו של איש מנהל בכיר באימפריה העוסמאנית עם אנשי המנהל של האימפריה הבריטית; מפגשיו של מנהיג לאומי פלסטיני עם מנהיגי התנועה הציונית המתרחבת ומתבססת; ומפגשיו עם תומכיו ומתנגדיו בקהילה הפלסטינית המשתנה במהירות.

I palestinesi sono tra i protagonisti della cronaca politica contemporanea. Simboli legati alla storia di questo popolo – Yasser Arafat, la kefyah e la bandiera palestinese – sono entrati a far parte della nostra cultura pop, ma anche dell’immaginario legato agli incubi post 11 settembre e al terrorismo suicida; gli eventi che caratterizzano il conflitto israelo-palestinese – spesso considerato come il nodo gordiano della politica mediorientale – occupano continuamente i titoli d’apertura dei telegiornali. Questa sovraesposizione mediatica rende a volte difficile cogliere la complessa realtà della Palestina. Obiettivo del volume è andare al di là della cronaca, fornendo al lettore le chiavi necessarie per interpretare la storia di un popolo e di una terra così spesso sotto la luce dei riflettori.

The Palestinian national movement reached a dead end and came close to disintegration at the beginning of the present century. This critical analysis of internal Palestinian politics in the West Bank traces the re-emergence of the Palestinian Authority's established elite in the aftermath of the failed unity government and examines the main security and economic agendas pursued by them during that period.

Based on extensive field research interviews and participant observation undertaken across several sites in Nablus and the surrounding area, it provides a bottom-up interpretation of the Palestinian Authority's agenda and challenges the popular interpretation that its governance represents the only realistic path to Palestinian independence. As the first major account of the Palestinian Authority's political agenda since the collapse of the unity government this book offers a unique explanation for the failure to bring a Palestinian state into being and challenges assumptions within the existing literature by addressing the apparent incoherence between mainstream debates on Palestine and the reality of conditions there.

This book is a key addition to students and scholars interested in Politics, Middle-Eastern Studies, and International Relations.

The paper discusses historical lessons offered by the experience of two leftwing movements, the pre-1948 Palestinian Communist Party, and the post-1948 Israeli Socialist Organization (Matzpen). The focus of discussion is the relationship between class and nation as principles of organization.

This article examines how the rural folkdance dabkeh has, in the last century, been appropriated and reinvented as a tradition in order to construct the imagined communities of Zionism, pan-Arabism, and Palestinian Nationalism within Palestine/Israel. This appropriation has led to extensive debates and suppositions on the source, meanings, and cultural ownership of dabkeh. The following historical narratives, emerging from interviews with dance practitioners and dance advocates in the West Bank, Israel, and Lebanon, and from literature in libraries and archives in the West Bank, Israel, and Great Britain, draw attention to the salient links between dance and politics and the multiple ways in which collective identities can be constructed and deconstructed. These histories further raise questions about how local cultural autonomy and sustainability within the Occupied Palestinian Territories have been affected by the process of political appropriation.

Lo «Stato degli ebrei» è una necessità mondiale, tanto per gli ebrei quanto per i gentili: con questa affermazione perentoria, il giornalista ebreo di origini ungheresi Theodor Herzl (1860Herzl ( -1904 lanciava sull'arena politica ebraica e mondiale il suo progetto di Stato degli ebrei. La formula approvata dal I Congresso sionista di Basilea parlava di «focolare nazionale assicurato dal diritto pubblico», una circonlocuzione che esprime il progetto di Stato-asilo per una nazione oppressa garantito dal «concerto delle nazioni» (quello che il gius-filosofo Schmitt avrebbe definito jus publicum europaeum).

Questo saggio si prefigge lo scopo di narrare la storia del paradigma sionista ricostruendone la genesi, lo sviluppo e la crisi. Il sionismo, oltre che essere l'ideologia fondante lo Stato d'Israele, non esaurisce tuttavia la sua funzione e legittimità storica in una difesa o giustificazione delle ragioni di una parte, prendendo qui per buona una concezione «valutativa» di ideologia 2 . É anche e soprattutto una visione del mondo 3 , un discorso dotato di un nucleo «forte» che -come tutte le fedi razionalizzate del «secolo breve» (non per questo prive di un proprio apparato mitogenetico)possiede una propria logica interna difficilmente confutabile 4 . Al centro di questo nucleo, 1 Il termine «paradigma» indica, in una definizione che riprendo da Thomas Kuhn (La struttura delle rivoluzioni scientifiche, 1962), qualcosa di più di uno schema e di un modello: è una sorta di verdetto giuridico accettato dal diritto comune, lo strumento per una ulteriore articolazione e determinazione sotto nuove e più restrittive condizioni, che consente di operare in maniera anche innovativa nel risolvere problemi imposti quotidianamente. Nel prosieguo del saggio ricorrerò ad espressioni come «nucleo» ed «euristica» (un potente apparato per la soluzione di problemi che digerisce le anomalie e le trasforma in evidenza positiva), che traggo dal programma di ricerca scientifici di Imre Lakatos (La falsificazione e la metodologia dei programmi di ricerca scientifici, 1970); e come «discorso» e «apparato», che traggo dall'archeologia del sapere e dalla genealogia del potere di Michel Foucault (Le parole e le cose, 1966; L'archeologia del sapere, 1969; Microfisica del potere, 1977). La crisi del paradigma storiografico sionista è un fenomeno più generalizzato, cioè interessa il sionismo come ideologia fondante lo Stato d'Israele. Per questa ragione il saggio affronterà i due problemi, se necessario, incrociandoli e trattandoli contemporaneamente, nella consapevolezza che non si dia una memoria storica collettiva laddove non è legittimata la «civil religion» su cui è fondata la cittadinanza politica. Una precisazione. Nel corso del saggio richiamerò in nota i principali studi apparsi sui nodi via via affrontati, indipendentemente dal fatto che gli autori facciano parte o meno della «nuova storiografia», per due ragioni: innanzi tutto, per completezza; in secondo luogo, per sottolineare lo scarto esistente tra la nuova storiografia (fondamentalmente a-sionista) e la storiografia del settore, orientata fondamentalmente in senso anti-o sionista. Sulla nuova storiografia israeliana cfr. G. Valabrega, Aspetti e problemi della nuova storiografia israeliana, «Studi piacentini», 22, 1997, pp. 117-151; Id., Politica e polemiche nel dibattito storiografico su Palestina e Israele, «Italia contemporanea», 211, giugno 1998, pp. 411-416; D. Bidussa, La nuova storiografia israeliana. Note di lettura, «La rassegna mensile d'Israel», LXV, 2, maggio-agosto 1998, pp. 81-96; G. Valabrega (cur.), Palestina e Israele. Un confronto lungo un secolo tra miti e storia, Milano, Teti, 1999. 2 Nell'accezione di Karl Mannheim in Ideologia e utopia (1929): una concezione avalutativa (o «totale») del termine ideologia si limita a constatare e a ricercare i nessi verificabili fra coscienza e ambiente sociale. Essa si contrappone a una concezione valutativa (o «particolare»), che presuppone, nel senso marxiano classico, una preliminare distinzione fra verità e falsità. 3 Nell'accezione di Wilhelm Dilthey in I tipi di visioni del mondo : la visione del mondo è un diverso modo di rapportarsi alla realtà nel suo assieme che definisce un'epoca storica. 4 «Il discorso -scrive Stuart Hall -definisce e produce gli oggetti della nostra conoscenza. Esso governa il modo in cui un argomento può essere significativamente discusso e ragionato. Esso influenza anche il modo in cui le idee sono circondato da una «atmosfera» con un'euristica composta di varie ipotesi di lavoro (ad esempio, il diritto storico degli ebrei a rientrare in possesso della propria patria atavica), è collocato un postulato ben preciso: l'esistenza di una questione ebraica universale e sempiterna che definisce la condizione ebraica.

Based on a critical analysis of the Arab educational policy, from Israel's independence in the 1970s, this article examines the pivotal role of the state in engendering the trends of Palestinianization and Israelization that arguably characterize the attitude of the Arab minority to the Israeli state. Exploring the educational reforms of the 1960s and 1970s, it shows the contingent relation between ethnicity and the state, and also, the interrelationship between the intra-Jewish and Jewish-Arab divides. Looking at the ethnicization of social relations not as a preordained upshot of primordial realities, the history of the reforms unravels the changing patterns of inclusion and exclusion that result in demarcating the Arab minority as both Israeli and Palestinian, and in constructing the oxymoronic category of “Israeli-Arabs”. Seen from the perspective of the goals for Arab and Jewish education, this category manifests the internalization of the “Arab Question” and the shift in educational policy from preclusion to incorporation, but also the limits of inclusion. These goals thus epitomize the ways in which the new discourse of meritocracy (resulting from the liberalizing of the economy and society) had determined civic equality between Arab and Jewish citizens, but equally important, the seclusion of the Arab minority from both the Jewish (ethnic) society and the Palestinian (national) collective. In this sense, I argue, neither Israelization nor Palestinianization were a matter of choice. Rather, both constitute the inevitable dual path for social and political inclusion, limited as it is.

L'analogie entre l'apartheid et la situation en Israël-Palestine envahit les commentaires et les analyses. Elle prend cependant différentes formes. L'usage radical et systématique de l'analogie vise à condamner l'Etat d'Israël et le sionisme dans leur nature même. Cette approche infondée est aisément réfutable par l'analyse comparée des deux systèmes politiques et sociaux, y compris la discrimination des Arabes israéliens par rapport à celle des non Blancs en Afrique du Sud de l'apartheid. L'usage conjoncturel à visée critique ou constructive de l'analogie s'applique quant à elle exclusivement au traitement des Territoires occupés par Israël et fait référence à la politique du « grand apartheid » et ses bantoustans. Bien que s'appuyant sur quelques éléments communs, cet usage de l'analogie ne résiste pas à une analyse technique et contextualisée des ingénieries territoriales et politiques. Là où le « grand apartheid » relevait d'un système politico-territorial profondément raciste mais de nature postcoloniale, la politique israélienne vis-à-vis des Territoires occupés et plus généralement le sionisme contemporain, apparaissent comme un nationalisme de pratique coloniale, au sens étroit du terme (primat de l'appropriation foncière et de l'annexion sur les autres formes de domination). Les perspectives de résolution du conflit font également l'objet d'approches comparatives qui s'intéressent à l'expérience sud-africaine. Là aussi l'analogie entre les deux situations offre peu de points communs sur lesquels s'appuyer pour concevoir les modalités d'un compromis géopolitique et d'une réconciliation. En revanche, le rapport renouvelé au territoire et à la souveraineté, esquissé à Genève, relève d'un post-sionisme territorial qui semble porteur de solutions.

While the 1967 war placed the “Palestine question” at the forefront of international attention with the PLO gaining worldwide prominence as “the sole representative of the Palestinian people” while maintaining its terrorist ways, the Arab states have shown no real interest in Palestinian statehood beyond the customary lip service.
The Assad regime has never abandoned its perception of Palestine as Syria’s southern province and its outright rejection of “peace” that did not entail Israel’s destruction. However, Anwar Sadat went to great lengths to attach the Palestinian issue to the Egyptian-Israeli peace negotiations. Yet the agreed formulation spoke about a transient autonomy without specifying statehood as the end result, let alone insisting on its attainment, and Sadat was not deterred from opting for a separate Egyptian-Israeli peace once Arafat rejected his overture. Similarly, despite Jordan’s 1988 renunciation of claims to the West Bank, the Hashemite monarchy has neither shown any desire for the establishment of a Palestinian state, which it fears might subvert its rule. Neither has Amman shied away from making peace and closely collaborating with Israel with the kingdom’s possible return to the West Bank occasionally mooted by both sides.
This half-hearted approach toward Palestinian nationalism notwithstanding, decades of staunch anti-Zionist propaganda have entrenched the “Palestine question” in the collective Arab psyche to the extent of making it exceedingly difficult for these states to conclude formal peace treaties with Israel without a pro forma Palestinian-Israeli agreement. Yet while this state of affairs gives the Palestinians some veto power over inter-Arab politics, it is unlikely to derail the intensifying, multifaceted, and increasingly overt Arab-Israeli collaboration even in the event of severe deterioration in Israeli-Palestinian relations, as the “Abraham Accords” shows.

This paper explores the activities of the New York-based Palestine Arab Refugee Office (PARO), the first unofficial Palestinian-led organization that defended Palestinian self-determination in the United States following the establishment of Israel. Based mainly on the private papers of PARO public-relations officer Sami Hadawi, the memoirs and writings of PARO president Dr. Izzat Tannous, as well as rare PARO publications (such as its monthly newsletter), it examines how this small, two-person operation attempted to culturally decolonize U.S. state and society, and thus Palestinians in the process.

تحاول هذه الورقة دراسة تأثير نتائج حرب حزيران 1967 على المشروع الوطني الفلسطيني، ومعرفة مدى تأثير نتيجة الحرب على التوجهات العربية تجاه القضية الفلسطينية، من خلال استخدام منهج التحليل النقدي التاريخي، وبشكل خاص فيما يتعلق بالمشروع الوطني الفلسطيني، وعلاقة المنظمة بالأطراف المختلفة، بالإضافة إلى استخدام منهجية ميشال فوكو Michel Foucault في تحليله للخطاب، بهدف تحليل كلاً من الميثاق القومي الفلسطيني والميثاق الوطني، والتغيرات الجذرية التي حدثت على الميثاق القومي بعد هزيمة حزيران/ يونيو. قسمت الورقة إلى مبحثين أساسيين أولهما يتناول منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية منذ التأسيس إلى نهاية الحرب (1964-1967)، وثانيهما المشروع الوطني الفلسطيني بعد حرب سنة 1967. وتكمن أهمية الورقة في الموضوع الذي تعالجه وهو تأثيرات حرب سنة 1967، التي ما زالت حتى يومنا الحاضر تتفاعل، وفي الإضافة المعرفية من خلال تحليلها للميثاقين القومي والوطني. خرجت الورقة بعدة استنتاجات من أهمها، تسبب الحرب بتغيرات على المشروع الوطني الفلسطيني، الذي تمثل بترسيخ الكيانية الفلسطينية، والتي وجدت نفسها فيما بعد أمام معضلة تعريف من هو الفلسطيني وما هي فلسطين، المفترض تحريرها.

Το παλαιστινιακό ζήτημα από το τέλος του Ψυχρού Πολέμου μέχρι σήμερα 1 ΠΕΡΙΕΧΟΜΕΝΑ: 1. Εισαγωγή 3 2. Το παλαιστινιακό ζήτημα από το τέλος του Ψυχρού Πολέμου μέχρι σήμερα 5 3. Επίλογος 12 Βιβλιογραφία 13 1. Εισαγωγή 2 Η περιοχή της Παλαιστίνης εδώ και χιλιάδες χρόνια αποτελεί πεδίο σύγκρουσης μεταξύ λαών 1 . Στα νεότερα χρόνια όμως ιδιαίτερα μετά την ίδρυση του κράτους του Ισραήλ, πράξη που αποφασίστηκε σύντομα μετά τη λήξη του Δευτέρου Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου, η περιοχή ταράζεται από νέες συγκρούσεις μεταξύ Παλαιστινίων και Ισραηλινών. Το γεγονός της απόφασης των Ηνωμένων Εθνών που προέβλεπε παράλληλη ίδρυση αυτόνομου Παλαιστινιακού κράτους, που ποτέ δεν εφαρμόστηκε, έπαιξε σίγουρα σημαντικό ρόλο στις εχθροπραξίες που επακολούθησαν στα επόμενα χρόνια και οι οποίες συνεχίζονται μέχρι και σήμερα. Η διχοτόμηση που επιβλήθηκε από τον ΟΗΕ το 1947 με την οποία αποφασίστηκε η διχοτόμηση της Παλαιστίνης σε δύο διαφορετικά κράτη, τα οποία διέφεραν σε ποιοτικά χαρακτηριστικά μεταξύ τους, ως προς τη γλώσσα, τον πολιτισμό και την θρησκεία, οδήγησε στην πόλωση δυο στρατοπέδων τα οποία συγκρούονταν μεταξύ τους με σκοπό την κυριαρχία της περιοχής. Οι συγκρούσεις αυτές κλιμακώθηκαν το επόμενο έτος και έτσι το 1948 έφθασαν στο σημείο να συγκρουστούν με σφοδρότητα οι Ισραηλινοί με τους Παλαιστινίους, οι οποίοι όμως συνεπικουρούνταν και από άλλες αραβικές χώρες 2 . Κατά τη διάρκεια του Ψυχρού Πολέμου οι Παλαιστίνιοι διαβλέποντας την ανάγκη συγκρότησης ενός οργανωμένου σώματος που θα διεκδικεί τα δικαιώματά τους για απελευθέρωση συγκρότησαν το 1964 την Οργάνωση για την Απελευθέρωση της Παλαιστίνης (PLO). Μάλιστα κατά τον Οκτώβριο του 1974 στη συνάντηση κορυφής των αραβικών χωρών που διεξήχθη στο Ραμπάτ του Μαρόκου ο Αραβικός Σύνδεσμος αναγνώρισε τη συγκεκριμένη οργάνωση ως τη μοναδική που μπορεί να εκπροσωπεί τον αραβικό πληθυσμό της Παλαιστίνης 3 . Μάλιστα λίγο πριν τη λήξη του Ψυχρού Πολέμου, το 1988, το Εθνικό Παλαιστινιακό Συνέδριο προχώρησε στη διακήρυξη της ανεξαρτησίας του Κράτους της Παλαιστίνης, 1 Ροπς, Ν., Η καθημερινή ζωή στην Παλαιστίνη στους χρόνους του Ιησού, σ. 87-93. 2 Moors A., Discourse and Palestine Power, Text and Context, σ. 2-4. 3 ΕΛΕΣΜΕ Περιοδικό Προβληματισμοί, Μέση Ανατολή, Παλαιστίνη και Παλαιστινιακό Ζήτημα. Δυο Έθνη στην ίδια γη (2009) [online], διαθέσιμο στο: http :// nrdisaster . blogspot . com /2009/02/ blog -post _01. html [Πρόσβαση 11 Νοεμβρίου 2010]

Hajj Amīn al-Ḥusaynī – the «Grand Muftī of Jerusalem» – is often portrayed as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in the first part of XX century. Due to his collusion with Nazism, such a position implies that the Palestinian people are, at least in principle, responsible for their own tragic destiny. This study challenges that assumption and sheds light on how and why the Grand Muftī was imposed on the Palestinian people by London. Analyzing the rise to power of Hajj Amīn al-Ḥusaynī and the means granted to him is crucial for understanding the ways through which the British authorities related to the local realities in post-World War I Palestine and to what extent these practices have marked the subsequent development of Palestinian society.

Even whilst the US engages in intensive efforts to revive final status negotiations, lack of progress in recent years and apparent gaps between Israeli and Palestinian leaders are causing some to claim that the window is closing on a two state solution. This policy paper makes the case that there is no alternative one state ‘solution’ to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and that whilst adverse trends are making a two-state agreement harder to achieve, none of these are fatal to it. Although scepticism abounds, the briefing points out that majorities on both sides still favour in principle a two-state solution, and looks at ways in which third parties can support the process.

The mothers’ discourse is a reflection of the culture of martyrdom as present in modern Palestinian society. The armed groups that wage war foster this culture and actively infuse themes of martyrdom and religio-nationalist duty to the youths. When the mothers relay this culture via representation in the media, and when they teach it to their children, they are acting within a traditionally female role as a repository and transmitter of culture. These communicative roles are both public and private, yet they remain within a feminine sphere of involvement as they are reactionary in nature, and inseparable from the actions of the children. Within the roles adopted by the mothers of Palestine, they are positioned to reproduce the nation in both sexual reproduction and discourse reproduction. In this role, the mother is positioned as a dual reproducer—birthing both future fighters and the dominant narrative that serves to continue the intifada until nationhood is achieved

Premessa. Che cos'e la Palestina? Palestinese non si nasce, ma lo si diventa: un'ingiunzione etica di questa risma racchiude compiutamente il percorso intellettuale e politico di Ghassan Kanafanil'. Scrittore poco noto a chi non si sia occupato di letteratura araba contemporanea, Kanafani rappresenta in un certo senso il simbolo di un'intera generazione di palestinesi deracines che, affetti da un'ipersensibile e traumatica rielaborazione della perdita del la propria terra natia, hanno saputo rappresentare nella forma narrativa tut ti i travagli interiori e le difficolta esteriori incontrate da un popolo senza terra. Nato ad Acri nel 1936, ma subito trasferitosi a Giaffa, Kanafqni e co stretto a rifugiarsi in Libano con la famiglia nel 1948, quando viene procla mata la nascita dello Stato di Israele. Intellettuale autodidatta, egli vive dap prima a Damasco, dove inizia a pubblicare i primi racconti e lavora per l'Unrwa (l'agenzia delle Nazioni Unite preposta al soccorso dei profughi po litici), e, dal 1956, in Kuwait, dove insegna sino al 1960. Dal 1962 al 1965 studia letteratura araba all'Universita di Damasco, prima di esservi espulso per il coinvolgimento nell'attivita panarabista di Al-Qawmiyyun al-Arab (Movimento nazionalista arabo). Venuto a contatto con la resistenza arma ta palestinese, Kanafani torna a Beirut per curare la parte letteraria del set timanale <<al-Hurriyyah? (La Liberta) e, dal 1969, dirige <<al-Hadaf? (L'O biettivo), l'organo ufficiale del Fronte popolare per la liberazione della Pa lestina (Fplp) guidato da George Habash, di orientamento marxista-lenini sta2. Sino alla sua tragica morte, avvenuta a Beirut in seguito a un attentato dinamitardo nel 1972, l'uomo natio di Acri conduce un'intensa attivita gior

This paper analyzes the ways in which complicity and dissent feed and subvert one another, or the ways in which the subjugated self becomes a political subject. The formative event of Palestinian collective identity is the loss of home and homeland in the aftermath of the Nakba of 1948. “The Catastrophe” divided the Palestinian community to two: Those who remained within the borders of the Israeli state and became Israeli citizens, and the Palestinian refugees, who came to establish the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and led an armed struggle. While examining the two narratives, I also explore two communal modes of resistance: Palestinians who struggled with a psychology of defeat, and came to challenge the authority of the state; and PLO supporters who began as members of a militant liberation movement, and ended up signing the Oslo Accords and contributing to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA). In short, complicity brought with it resistance, and resistance ended in complicity. If resistance ends in complicity, and complicity could turn into resistance, then the Palestinian is the example for where this interplay—between subjectivity and subjugation—takes place.

This review essay examines recent studies of Israeli society and politics, with a focus on questions of identity, conflict and political boundaries. It looks at different scholarly attempts to address these issues, and reflects on their relevance for broader theoretical paradigms. It concludes by asserting the need for an approach that would combine a focus on culture and identity with an analysis of legal and material realities. This can be done effectively only by including the perspectives of Palestinians (citizens and subjects alike) as an essential part of the analysis.

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour Presses universitaires de Rennes. © Presses universitaires de Rennes. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.

Se a capacidade palestina de defender sua soberania (nas modestas parcelas de território onde a AP exerce limitada autoridade) depende da OTAN, os mesmos poderes que iniciaram o conflito de 1914 – Reino Unido, França, Alemanha, Áustria, Turquia e uma potência emergente do século passado, os EUA – seriam os novos tutores da Palestina.

Essa inusitada nostalgia nos fornece três lições sobre a ordem internacional contemporânea.

Primeiro, na ressaca da Primavera Árabe, a questão palestina perdeu apelo. Em seguida, as potências emergentes não-pertencentes à OTAN (BRICS – Brasil, Índia, China, África do Sul e a Rússia, rival histórica da OTAN) – trouxeram desconforto aos EUA no Oriente Médio, mas não a ponto de modificar substancialmente a questão palestina. Por fim, décadas após o fim da Guerra Fria e a despeito das diferenças entre União Europeia e EUA, a OTAN permanece uma força a ser reconhecida fora do Atlântico.

A proposta de Abbas parece desesperada, mas é pragmática. Na ausência de alternativas, propostas de viabilidade duvidosa ganham força. Cabe aos emergentes – que não podem se refugiar na nostalgia de 1914 ou nos impasses do status quo – mudar esse quadro. Oportunidade para tal não falta; o Brasil acaba de assumir a liderança do Conselho de Peacebuilding da ONU.

This book analyses the present European Union (EU) approach to state-building, both in policy and operation. It offers a review of the literature on peace-building, EU state-building and conflict resolution, before examining in detail the EU’s role as a state-builder in the case of the Occupied Palestinian Territories following the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Drawing on extensive fieldwork and over 140 interviews carried out in Brussels, London, Jerusalem and Ramallah with EU, Palestinian and Israeli officials as well as academics, members of NGOs and civil society, the author evaluates the present approach of state-building and offers a framework to test the effectiveness of the EU as a state-builder. Examining security sector reform, judiciary sector reform and the rule of law, the book brings the ‘voices from the field’ to the forefront and measures the contribution of the EU to state-building against a backdrop of on-going conflict and a polarised social setting.

This book will be of interest to students and scholars of international relations, EU politics, Middle Eastern politics, conflict resolution and state-building."

Reviews

"Bouris’s book is an important contribution to understanding statebuilding in the oPt because of its focus on the EU, whose central role is often ignored or downplayed. Through his assessment of security sector reform and rule of law promotion, Bouris lays bare the incoherence and inconsistency in EU policy and practices, and shows how statebuilding is not a technical project, but is highly political. He usefully reminds us of how Europe has a major responsibility not only historically for the situation in Israel/Palestine, but also for the current democratic deficit witnessed in the oPt." -

Mandy Turner, Director of the Kenyon Institute in Jerusalem.

"Bouris’ book offers a coherent and detailed assessment of the EU’s role in the Palestinian state-building after the Oslo Accords. What makes the book unique is that it places the EU at the centre of the state-building project conducted in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, an endeavor that has so far been missing from the academic literature. The book is based on Bouris’ exhaustive research providing the reader with crucial empirical material linked to a clear theoretical framework. It is an important contribution, which should be read by scholars, researchers, students and policy-makers across the EU and beyond."

Richard Youngs, Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Professor of International Relations at Warwick University.

"Dimitris Bouris’ book offers a unique insight into the EU’s role in the Palestinian institution-building. The book demonstrates how the different tools like security sector reform and support to the judiciary, and policies of the EU do come together in pursuing the EU's political goal of supporting a 'two-state solution' in the Middle East with Israel and the future Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security. Bouris' analysis highlights the EU's indispensable role despite the many drawbacks and pitfalls that come with a long-lasting conflict like the one in the Middle East."

Christian Berger, Director for North Africa, Middle East, Arabian Peninsula, Iran and Iraq, EEAS - European External Action Service.

"This is an important monograph that advances our knowledge on both conceptual and empirical grounds. Bouris delivers a fascinating account of the EU’s engagement with the Palestinian territories that is well informed and sharply analytical. A must-read for those who wish to understand the limitations and opportunities of the European Union’s role in the Middle East Peace Process. It is also highly recommended for scholars interested in the wider field of the European Union’s external relations and literature on conflict resolution and contested statehood."

Dimitris Papadimitriou, Professor of Politics, University of Manchester.

"The Palestinian issue would seem to be well trodden scholarly ground, but Dimitris Bouris does us a tremendous service by placing the European Union and Palestinian state-building at the center rather than at the margins of his story. Indeed he shows the EU to be a significant actor. Bouris shows how the EU, well grounded in theory and deeply experienced in practice, sought to knit together an approach to peace making that was anchored in part in building the institutions of a Palestinian state. But by taking us through the details of two particular areas—security sector and courts—Bouris shows the shortcomings of the EU efforts. His evaluation is balanced and fair. While sympathetically aware of the difficult circumstances under which the efforts took place and mindful of some accomplishments, his overall judgment is both reflective and critical."

Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University and Nonresident Senior Associate Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Asmar shared his thoughts about the Arab uprisings and the importance of culture to the Palestinian liberation movement, in the context of analyzing the problematics of Zionism, Israeli nationhood and related matters that affect the lives and well-being of Palestinians. Here Dr. El-Asmar discusses Al-Ard [The Land], a political organization he helped found in Palestine during the late 1950s but whose history and perspective have been marginalized if not largely absented from most narratives about the Palestinian liberation movement. In turn Dr. El-Asmar draws instructive connections between that political experience and relevant issues shaking the contemporary Arab and Muslim world. TG: It is probably fair to say that most narratives about Palestinian liberation situate the origins of post-1948 Palestinian political activity at the formation and founding of the PLO. In turn, ensuing discussion of Palestinian politics to this day tends largely to focus on recognized institutional, especially national and religious, structures at the expense of people's movements and initiatives. By contrast, the composition and history of Al-Ard calls into question such a limited narrative. Can you give readers some background of Al-Ard and explain the rationale for its founding?