Utenriksminister Ine Eriksen Søreide (H) styrte norsk Israel-Palestina-politikk etter en klassisk norsk modell i perioden 2017–2021. De to førende prinsippene i norsk politikk var å bevare et godt forhold til USA og å jobbe for tostatsløsningen. Under hennes periode ble disse pilarene motstridende ettersom president Trump (R) utraderte muligheten for en tostatsløsning. Søreide uttrykte tidvis sterk kritikk av amerikansk, så vel som israelsk og palestinsk politikk, men hun endret aldri kurs. Søreide evnet å sikre Norges diplomatiske posisjon ved å lede Giverlandsgrupppa (AHLC) gjennom en turbulent periode, få et midlertidig sete i FNs sikkerhetsråd og ved at norske diplomater fikk ledende posisjoner i internasjonale organ som håndterer konflikten. I praksis medførte dette at Norge var et veldig godt posisjonert vitne til at tostatsløsningen døde. Gjennom å sikre vedvarende bistand til palestinerne bidro Norge til at denne politiske løsningens endelikt var så smertefri som mulig. Abstract in EnglishA Well-positioned Witness to an Impending Tragedy: Ine Eriksen Søreide and the Conflict Between Israel and the PalestiniansNorwegian Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide (H) governed Norwegian Israel-Palestine policy according to a classical Norwegian model in the period 2017–2021. The two core principles of this Norwegian policy are to maintain a close relationship with the USA and to work for the establishment of a two-state solution. During her tenure the two pillars of this policy became contradictory as President Trump (R) destroyed the two-state option. At times Søreide expressed strong criticism of American, as well as Israeli and Palestinian politics, but she never changed course. Søreide’s main accomplishment as Foreign Minister was to secure Norway’s diplomatic position by leading the international donor group (AHLC) through a turbulent period, gain a temporary seat at the UN Security Council and through the appointment of Norwegian diplomats to leading international positions in dealing with the conflict. In practice this meant that Norway was a very well place witness to the demise of the two-state solution. By securing continued aid to the Palestinians Norway eased the pain of the end of this political solution.
When Menachem Begin, Israeli prime minister and founder of the Likud party, formulated Israel's claim to the West Bank, he did not utilise the classic terra nullius settler argument. Instead, his ideological claim was that the land was a terra morata, a territory which had been in a state of 'extratemporal hiatus', to borrow a term from Bakhtin. This was illustrated through his insistence on using the Biblical names Judea and Samaria to denote the West Bank. The Zionist claim to the land was thus not that it lacked a sovereign, but rather that the sovereign had returned. The Israeli occupation was thus construed as a resumption of history, while the Palestinians were placed outside history, negating their historical and contemporary claim to the land. This article analyses how Begin's worldview played out by investigating the self-rule proposal for the Palestinians which he launched in 1977. This proposal (if implemented) would have postponed any claims of sovereignty over the territory indefinitely, while ensuring that the Palestinians gained no national autonomy. In essence, Palestinian self-rule was a sleight of hand. For Begin the West Bank (and Gaza) were eternally Jewish territories, and the Palestinians mere residents on the land. Unlike Israeli settlers, they were not considered to be of the land.
This article compares the efforts of the Palestinians and the Kurdsthe two largest stateless nations in the Middle Eastto obtain recognition. While Kurdish movements are spread across four countries in the region -Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, with specificities dependent on the historical context and relations with the particular host statein this article we focus on the Syrian Kurds as a contrast to the Palestinians. This is because these two communities arrive at different end-points in their national liberation projects despite sharing similar self-determination aims. These differences provide an opportunity to analyse and comment on the factors which impact on self-determination trajectories. The article examines the emancipatory potential of nationalism while simultaneously reflecting on the limitations imposed by regional dynamics and intra-group tensions. We compare the constraints faced by these two groups as non-state actors in a region shaped by the realpolitik of powerful states, recognizing that both of themas transnational actorsin turn impact on these states as well.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.