The Experts below are selected from a list of 12144 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Efraim Karsh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
why the oslo process doomed Peace
Middle East Quarterly, 2016Co-Authors: Efraim KarshAbstract:Twenty-three years after its euphoric launch on the White House lawn, the Oslo "Peace process" between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) stands out as one of the worst calamities to have afflicted the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For Israel, it has been the starkest strategic blunder in its history, establishing an ineradicable terror entity on its doorstep, deepening its internal cleavages, destabilizing its political system, and weakening its international standing. For the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, it has brought subjugation to the corrupt and repressive PLO and Hamas regimes, which reversed the hesitant advent of civil society in these territories, shattered their socioeconomic wellbeing, and made the prospects of Peace and reconciliation with Israel ever more remote. This in turn means that, even if the territories were to be internationally recognized as a fully-fledged Palestinian state (with or without a formal Peace Treaty with Israel), this will be a failed entity in the worst tradition of Arab dictatorships at permanent war with both Israel and its own subjects.False Partner, Missed Partner"We make Peace with enemies," Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin reassured a concerned citizen shortly after the September 13, 1993 conclusion of the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles on Interim SelfGovernment Arrangements (DOP, or Oslo I). "I would like to remind you that the [March 1979] Peace Treaty with Egypt had many opponents, and this Peace has held for 15 years now."1 True enough. But Peace can only be made with enemies who have been either comprehensively routed (e.g., postWorld War II Germany and Japan) or disillusioned with the use of violence-not with those who remain wedded to conflict and war. And while Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was a "reformed enemy" eager to extricate his country from its futile conflict with Israel, Yasser Arafat and the PLO leadership viewed the Oslo process not as a springboard to Peace but as a "Trojan Horse" (in the words of prominent PLO official Faisal Husseini) designed to promote the organization's strategic goal of "Palestine from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea"-that is, a Palestine in place of Israel.2Arafat admitted as much five days before signing the accords when he told an Israeli journalist, "In the future, Israel and Palestine will be one united state in which Israelis and Palestinians will live together"3-that is, Israel would cease to exist. And even as he shook Rabin's hand on the White House lawn, the PLO chairman was assuring the Palestinians in a prerecorded, Arabic-language message that the agreement was merely an implementation of the organization's "phased strategy" of June 1974. This stipulated that the Palestinians would seize whatever territory Israel surrendered to them, then use it as a springboard for further territorial gains until achieving the "complete liberation of Palestine."4The next eleven years until Arafat's death on November 11, 2004, offered a recapitulation, over and over again, of the same story. In addressing Israeli or Western audiences, the PLO chairman (and his erstwhile henchmen) would laud the "Peace" signed with "my partner Yitzhak Rabin." To his Palestinian constituents, he depicted the accords as transient arrangements required by the needs of the moment. He made constant allusion to the "phased strategy" and the Treaty of Hudaibiya-signed by Muhammad with the people of Mecca in 628, only to be disavowed a couple of years later when the situation shifted in the prophet's favor-and insisted on the "right of return," the standard Palestinian/Arab euphemism for Israel's destruction through demographic subversion. As he told a skeptical associate shortly before moving to Gaza in July 1994 to take control of the newly established Palestinian Authority (PA):I know that you are opposed to the Oslo accords, but you must always remember what I'm going to tell you. The day will come when you will see thousands of Jews fleeing Palestine. …
-
why the oslo process doomed Peace
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Efraim KarshAbstract:Twenty-five years after its euphoric launch on the White House lawn, the Oslo “Peace process” between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) stands out as one of the worst calamities to have afflicted the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For Israel, it has been the starkest strategic blunder in its history, establishing an ineradicable terror entity on its doorstep, deepening its internal cleavages, destabilizing its political system, and weakening its international standing. For the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, it has brought subjugation to the corrupt and repressive PLO and Hamas regimes that reversed the hesitant advent of civil society in these territories, shattered their socioeconomic well-being, and made the prospects of Peace and reconciliation with Israel ever more remote. This in turn means that, even if the territories were to be internationally recognized as a fully-fledged Palestinian state (with or without a formal Peace Treaty with Israel), this will be a failed entity in the worst tradition of Arab dictatorships at permanent war with both Israel and its own subjects.
Galia Pressbarnathan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the neglected dimension of commercial liberalism economic cooperation and transition to Peace
Journal of Peace Research, 2006Co-Authors: Galia PressbarnathanAbstract:This article examines the role of economic factors in facilitating the transition to Peace between former enemies. It examines a less developed angle of the commercial liberalism approach, namely, when and how economic incentives can play a positive role in the process of building Peace, rather than the standard focus on how economic interaction can reduce the likelihood of armed conflicts. It does so by distinguishing between two stages in the transition to Peace: Stage I of a Peace Treaty (cold Peace) and Stage II (normalization and movement toward warm Peace), and by examining the role of economic factors in each of them. The article examines the impact of three factors: (1) the domestic balance of winners and losers from the process; (2) the economic power disparities between the two parties; and (3) the role of third-party (economic) involvement. There are different dynamics in the two stages in the transition to Peace, and understanding them also has important practical implications for decisionmakers who want to promote Peace. These arguments are examined in a qualitative comparative analysis of the transitions to Peace between Egypt and Israel, Jordan and Israel, and Japan and the Philippines and Indonesia. The qualitative method provides a better understanding of the various causal mechanisms linking economic considerations, political considerations, and transition from conflict to Peace.
Avi Brisman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Climate Change and Peacemaking Criminology: Ecophilosophy, Peace and Security in the “War on Climate Change”
Critical Criminology, 2015Co-Authors: Bill Mcclanahan, Avi BrismanAbstract:Some commentators have recently sought to cast climate change as primarily an issue of national security, thereby necessitating a “war on climate change.” In this article, we argue that the adoption of a securitizing and war-making approach is problematic in that it proposes solutions that parallel the very human actions that contribute to climate change. Because the securitizing responses to the problem of climate change only further the hierarchical domination that contributes to the problem, we contend that we must approach climate change from a critical perspective informed by Peacemaking and liberation rather than war-making. Given the harms attendant to war, neoliberal capitalism, security and domination, we maintain that solutions to climate change that rely on making war, securitizing and commoditizing are likely to only exacerbate and extend the negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change. As such, this article proposes that Peacemaking and liberation be integrated into human–environment interaction(s) by calling for the rejection of a “war on climate change” and by suggesting what a “Peace Treaty with the earth” would look like.
Lee Webster - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
from the private to the public sphere new research on women s participation in Peace building
Gender & Development, 2013Co-Authors: Zohra Moosa, Maryam Rahmani, Lee WebsterAbstract:Despite the United Nation's landmark Security Council Resolution on women, Peace and security in 2000 which highlighted the importance of women's participation in Peace-building, only one in 40 Peace Treaty signatories over the last 25 years has been a woman. Yet evidence from non-government organisations and women's rights organisations shows that women are active agents of Peace, resolving conflicts at all levels of society with little or no recognition. This article discusses new research which tracks women's roles in building Peace at local levels in five conflict-affected contexts: Afghanistan, Liberia, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sierra Leone. The article highlights the significance of violence against women as a barrier to Peace-building, and explores how and why women's exclusion and marginalisation from Peace processes tends to increase the more formal the processes become. The article uses two case studies of women's rights organisations in Afghanistan and Nepal to illustrate the research findings and ...
M. N. Novichkova - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Peace Process on the Korean Peninsula: Problems and Ways of Development
Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2020Co-Authors: O. V. Davydov, M. N. NovichkovaAbstract:A wide range of topics associated with the challenges of ensuring solid and lasting Peace on the Korean Peninsula is considered. The issue of a Peace Treaty to replace the Armistice Agreement is the cornerstone in building a new nonconfrontational system of relations in Korea that will ensure the security of all parties involved and their equal cooperation. According to the authors, the implementation of these tasks was greatly facilitated by the positive developments achieved in the past year in US–North Korean and inter-Korean relations. At the same time, despite the warming of the general climate, the transition from political declarations to practical steps in the interests of a comprehensive Peace settlement turned out to be difficult due to the continuing deep contradictions between the participants in this process. Considerable attention is paid to the position of Russia in the article. It is shown that participation in the Peaceful settlement of key Korean problems meets the vital interests of the Russian Federation in the context of the tasks of creating a security and cooperation mechanism in Northeast Asia.