Forwarded on behalf of the
Institute for Palestine Studies
IN THE NEW ISSUE of
the Journal of Palestine Studies
* Free and online: The Rise of
Christian Zionism... In just two years,
Christians United for Israel attracted almost
as many participants to its annual conference as AIPAC,
the far longer established pro-Israel lobby. How did
CUFI come into being? What is its power base and who
are its allies? Read all about it in this piece, which draws
on the group’s 2007 conference to paint the bigger picture.
Full text here.
* 242 at 40… Since it was adopted in November
1967, Politicians and diplomats have clung to UN
Security Council Resolution 242 as the basis for a
resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Forty
years and many failed initiatives later, the core
principle of land for peace has been gutted by
Israel’s illegal settlement of occupied Palestinian
land. In addition to its pronouncements on the
territories occupied in 1967, 242 bears on the
Palestinian right of return and the fate of the
Palestinian citizens of Israel. In this special issue
coordinated by George Bisharat, five top legal
scholars examine the history, legacy, and
present-day relevance of Res. 242.
Read abstracts here.
Purchase all five articles here.
* Spotlight on Jerusalem... In the wake of Annapolis,
Jerusalem and its future are once again in the
international spotlight. The Journal invites
readers to go back in time to witness the
invasion of Arab Jerusalem, with four
first-hand accounts of the city’s capture and
subsequent occupation.
* Free and online – three full JPS book reviews...
Sara Roy’s book on Gaza is reviewed by Bruce B. Lawrence,
read it here; Ali Abunimah’s book advocating a one-state
solution is reviewed by Oren Ben-Dor,
read it here; and a new anthology of work
by the late Ahmad Eqbal is reviewed
by Stuart Schaar, read it here.
* PLUS all the regular sections readers find invaluable:
Quarterly Update on Conflict and Diplomacy;
Chronology; Documents (including the scathing
confidential report by Alvaro de Soto, the UN’s
former special coordinator for the Middle East
peace process, and the “controversial” interview
with U.S. Rep. Jim Moran in Tikkun); Book
Reviews and Bibliography; Settlement Monitor;
Hebrew Press selections, photographs
& cartoons. Purchase here.
MORE HIGHLIGHTS & BRIEF EXTRACTS BELOW from
JPS Issue 145 (Vol. 37, no. 1, Autumn 2007)
*But first, available free online for the first time
is the full text of Adila Laïdi-Hanieh’s critical essay
“In the Mirror of the Occupier: Palestinian Art
through Israeli Eyes,” published in JPS 144
(Summer 2007), a lively review of very different
books by two Israeli art scholars.
Read the full text here.
HIGHLIGHTS & EXTRACTS
FROM JPS 145
** READ FULL ARTICLE ONLINE “The Second
Annual CUFI Conference: The Christian Zionist
Coalition Hits Its Stride” by Brian Wood.
“Christian Zionism is hardly a new phenomenon in the United
States, but until recently, the efforts and activities of the
many Christian Zionist groups spread across the country were
mainly local, with little coordination among them. No longer.
On 25 February 2006, Christians United for Israel (CUFI)
was born, opening—in all likelihood—a new era of
Christian Zionist activism.”
IPS researcher Brian Wood reports on CUFI’s second
annual conference, which attracted more than 4,000
attendees and featured speakers like Newt Gingrich,
Joseph Lieberman, and John McCain. Wood writes on
the history of CUFI and its principal founder,
megachurch pastor John Hagee, and also on the
events, panels and workshops designed to spur
Christian Zionist activism in Congress and at home.
Among Wood’s observations: “The overriding conference theme was
the U.S.-Israeli relationship and the values shared by the two countries.
[CUFI board member Gary] Bauer’s remark that ‘Israel and the U.S.
are joined at the heart’ was expressed in numerous ways
throughout the proceedings; some panelists noted that,
unfortunately, not everyone in government or government
circles recognizes this truth. In this regard, [Clifford] May,
who had been a member of the advisory committee to the
Baker-Hamilton Study Group on Iraq, said that he had
considered it ‘my job [on the committee] to thwart
[Israel-critical] consensus whenever possible.’
“By far the most prominent sub-theme, which intervened in
every presentation, was the pernicious danger posed by
Islam and Muslims. … Terms such as ‘Islamofascists’ and
‘Islamist totalitarianism’ were bandied about, and the very
existence of ‘moderate Muslims’ was called into doubt.
In response to a question from the floor about moderate
Muslims, for example, self-described ‘Lebanese Zionist’
[Brigitte] Gabrielle demanded rhetorically, ‘Where are the
demonstrations by moderate Muslims? Why are they not
coming to D.C. like we are?’ She answered her own
question by dismissing ‘moderate Muslims’ as ‘irrelevant’
and declaring that ‘with their silence they have become
part of the radical agenda.’ She received two standing
ovations during these few sentences.”
** Extract from “Conceived in Law: The Legal
Foundations of Resolution 242” by Michael Lynk.
“Read within the context of the UN debates surrounding
its formulation and the foundations provided by international
law, the most important and contentious provision in
Resolution 242—Israel’s obligation to withdraw from
territories conquered in 1967—escapes the interpretative
fog that has shrouded it for much of the past forty years.
“Unsurprisingly, a broad and purposive legal reading of Resolution
242’s withdrawal provision has been frequently challenged.
Legal scholars from Israel and others sympathetic to it have
given the resolution a claustrophobic interpretation over the
years. They have argued that 242 does not compel Israel to
make more than a partial withdrawal from the captured
territories; that the waging of a defensive or preemptive war
does not force Israel to surrender the lands it conquered;
and that Israel’s occupation is legal until a final peace agreement
establishes ‘secure and recognized borders.’ But these
interpretations are possible only by cherry-picking the diplomatic
record and diluting the liberal purposes of modern international
law. Resolution 242—whether it retains any life today as a viable
tool for regional peace or survives only as the museum relic of a
failed diplomatic opportunity—does not deserve to be disfigured
into a justification for the acquisition of the fruits of conquest
rather than the protection of universal rights. ...”
Read abstract and purchase article here.
** Extracts from “Forty Years without Resolve:
Tracing the Influence of Security Council Resolution
242 on the Middle East Peace Process”
by Omar M. Dajani.
“Has UN Security Council Resolution 242 advanced the cause of
peacemaking in the Middle East? Is the resolution ‘the building
block of peacemaking,’ or has it served, instead, to impede
progress toward building a durable peace?
“Security Council recommendations play roles in international dispute
resolution that are analogous to those played by the rules of
international law. As with legal norms, moreover, their effectiveness
turns to a significant extent on their determinacy—that is, the
extent to which they ‘convey a clear message’ such that ‘one
can see through the language ... to its essential meaning.’ …
“While ambiguity—which is merely indeterminacy by another name
—may facilitate building consensus around a set of recommendations,
it may also diminish their effectiveness as tools of conflict resolution.
Indeed, as the long history of Security Council Resolution 242 indicates,
what may be perceived as a useful device for persuading parties to
commence a peace effort can stymie efforts to proceed much further...”
Read abstract and purchase article here.
** Extracts from “Forty Years after 242:
A ‘Canonical’ Text in Disrepute?”
by Richard Falk.
“A characteristic of 242 that has not attracted sufficient
commentary is its failure to call upon the parties to resolve their
disputes in accordance with international law. …This failure to
bring international law to bear explicitly in a conflict resolution
situation almost guarantees that resulting arrangements will bear
the imprint of geopolitical asymmetries. Such an observation is
particularly true with respect to Israel and Palestine, where the
inequalities associated with all dimensions of power are so
pronounced.
“According relevance to international law would have had
some equalizing effects on what could be reasonably expected
to result from negotiations. The exclusion of international law
from the interpretative context, both with respect to 242
itself and the wider realities of relations between the parties,
has gradually made the resolution appear to be less deserving
of its canonical status. It has also made Palestinians and their
supporters increasingly feel that 242 now serves primarily as a
smokescreen for the conduct of a geopolitics that consistently
ignores rights and duties under international law, an impression
reinforced by Israel’s continuing efforts to reshape the situation
in occupied Palestine to its great advantage…”
Read abstract and purchase article here.
** Extracts from “Security Council Resolution
242 and the Right of Repatriation”
by John Quigley.
“In one clause of Resolution 242, the Security Council called
for ‘a just settlement of the refugee problem.’ This was a reference
to the Palestine Arabs displaced in 1948 from the territory that
became Israel that year. The phrase ‘just settlement’ has given
rise to controversy—whether it requires repatriation to home areas,
or whether it might be satisfied by solutions involving resettlement
elsewhere, even against the will of those who were
displaced and their progeny.…
“It is unclear to what extent General Assembly delegates were
familiar with the circumstances under which the Arabs had departed.
Israel was claiming that it had not forced them out. Israeli archival
material has since demonstrated that the Palestinian Arabs who were
displaced in 1948 were, in the main, forced out, having left either
under direct compulsion or out of fear. Nonetheless, it
is irrelevant whether persons leave voluntarily or under
compulsion. A right of return obtains in either situation….”
Read abstract
and purchase article here.
** Extracts from “People without Borders for Borders
without People: Land, Demography, and Peacemaking
under Security Council Resolution 242”
by Jamil Dakwar.
“While the territorial/population exchange has not to date been
formally proposed, it has been openly endorsed by Likud, Kadima,
and Labor leaders alike. It is within this context that negotiations
for a Palestinian-Israeli final settlement—still ostensibly based on
Resolution 242—has come to involve, at least potentially,
Palestinians who remained in what became Israel in 1948. …
“Although Israel has never defined its own legal borders, the green
line has been considered its de facto border ever since 1967. Indeed,
Resolution 242 recognized and confirmed the green line as Israel’s
frontier. … Therefore, to be acceptable under international law,
any alteration to the 1967 borders has to be approved by the
Security Council and—some would even argue—by the General
Assembly, which has inherited the authorities of the League of
Nations which created the British Mandate in Palestine.…”
Read abstract and purchase article here.
**********
The full Table of Contents, all abstracts, the first two pages
of the Chronology and Bibliography sections
are available here.
All articles can be purchased here.
Subscribe today and make sure to get your regular copy
The Institute for Palestine Studies
has produced authoritative studies on Palestinian affairs and
the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1963. Its flagship Journal
of Palestine Studies accounts for nearly 20% of all articles
downloaded from Middle East publications
carried by JSTOR, the leading
US database of scholarly journals.
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment