Palestinian legislative elections are scheduled for May 22. Whether or not the vote takes place, finally scheduling elections was nothing short of remarkable. Palestinian politics has been in gridlock, with elections suspended since the terrorist group Hamas won a parliamentary majority in 2006. However, PA President Abbas could still postpone the elections.
United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s assertion that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law” is merely the latest example of how US and Israeli policies have marched almost in lockstep since Donald Trump’s inauguration as president. However, the United States and Israel have shared an intense and intimate relationship that long predates the Trump Administration and goes beyond the chemistry of individual leaders. In many respects, in fact, that relationship is unique in American foreign relations and uniquely critical to Israeli security.
Has the "Deal of the Century" injected energy into Israel's third election and perhaps provided an incentive for Arab Israelis to turn out in higher numbers than September? Election rallies for the Arab parties in Israel rarely garner much attention or excitement. But recent policy proposals engineered thousands of miles away may have re-energized a once stagnant and unreliable voting bloc. Arik Rudnitzky uses the village of Bartaa as a possible case study.
Historically, the strategic foundation for U.S. involvement in the peace process has been twofold. First, the peace process was a way for the United States to manage seemingly contradictory partnerships with Israel and the Arab states, few of which recognized Israel and several of which had waged war repeatedly against the Jewish state. Second, the peace process was a means of ensuring Israel’s security, which successive presidents have ranked among our key national security interests in the Middle East. In recent years, however, both of these strategic foundations for U.S. involvement in the peace process have crumbled.
The economic workshop in Bahrain is the first part of the "deal of the century"; the political portion will apparently be presented only after the Israeli elections in September. The workshop in Bahrain leans heavily on Donald Trump's political doctrine, whereby the economic power of the United States is the key to resolve economic, political, and social issues. However, a review of peace treaties that Israel has signed shows that the economy has consistently played only a secondary role, behind significant political solutions. The economic incentives were not the main channel of Israel's peace treaties, but rather, a complement to the political channel. Therefore, despite the American desire to present a chiefly economic agenda for the Middle East, the success of the plans presented at the conference are tightly tied to the forthcoming political portion of the “deal of the century.”
Twenty-five years after the signing of the Jordan-Israel peace treaty, the bilateral relationship is in a challenging phase, but nothing should obscure the crucial benefits strategic and security cooperation affords to both sides, and the centrality of the relations to each side’s national security.
Demographic pressures lie behind much of what is happening in Gaza. In 1948, 250,000 Palestinian refugees fled to Gaza, where the existing population was 80,000. Today, the population of Gaza is about 1.9 million of whom 1.3 million (68%) are refugees. Palestinians are the only people to retain refugee status generation after generation as a result of United Nations support.
The developing economic crisis In the Palestinian Authority warrants a heightened alert in Israel as to a possible strategic shift in the Palestinian system. The crisis, should it prove protracted, and all the more so should it worsen, is liable to ignite several threats concerning Israel: an expansion of the circle of Palestinians involved in violent acts, specifically civil disturbances and terrorist attacks; difficulties for the PA to provide services in the civilian realm, which could deepen the Palestinian public's dependence on Israel; Hamas’s intensified presence and tactics in face of the PA’s weakness; and compromises in the security cooperation.
In 2018, a record 4.1 million tourists visited Israel from all over the world. The figure is particularly impressive, given the security incidents in this period, the extensive coverage of security-related events by the foreign press and social media, and the BDS campaign. While global tourism between 2007 and 2018 increased 60 percent, tourism in Israel in the same period rose 100 percent.
Arab society in Israel is not a homogenous political or ideological community, but rather -- a mosaic made up of four main streams: Arab-Israeli (Zionist); Arab-Jewish non-Zionist (communist); Islamic, and Nationalist. The Arab-Israeli stream is represented in Jewish-- Zionist political parties (on the Right and Left), and the other three are currently represented by the Joint List. The latter three streams all emphasize the Arab community’s Palestinian identity, but differ in certain aspects of their world views. Whereas the nationalist stream stresses the Palestinian nationalist component of the Arab minority's identity, the Islamic stream stresses the religious (Islamic) component, and the Arab-Jewish stream believes in Arabs and Jews joining forces in social activism.
The Six Day War, which broke out on the morning of June 5, 1967, was a formative event that changed the face of the State of Israel and, to a large extent, the entire Middle East. Prior to the war, Israel had been under existential threat and in six days, the Israel Defense Forces succeeded in removing the threat by achieving a decisive military victory and positioning Israel as a significant force in the region.
When a leader of one country considers whether the time is ripe to commence peace negotiations with the leader of an enemy, there are two important questions that the leader must consider: Is the other leader willing to make the sacrifices necessary to attain peace? Is that leader strong enough to make those sacrifices and enforce the deal internally, that is, is he capable? The answer to both of these questions must be ‘yes.’ A willing but incapable leader is as bad for reaching a peace treaty as a capable but unwilling leader.