Latest Articles

This paper discusses the position taken by Israeli elite in welcoming the military coup in Egypt. It asks to what extent this attitude reflects the official Israeli position, even if it is not publicly announced. The paper outlines the intense efforts undertaken by Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and the ruling Israeli elite, which deployed both international relations and diplomatic capabilities to secure recognition for the Egyptian government that came after the coup, especially from the US Administration. The paper explains the Israeli position, highlighting Israel's interest in supporting the coup; from restoring the strategic partnership with Egypt, to breathing life into the axis of 'Arab moderation,' draining the financial resources of Islamist movements, besieging Hamas, stimulating peace negotiations, delaying a resolution in Syria, expanding the rift and polarization in the Arab World, and tightening the noose around Iran, as well as a host of economic benefits that are even now being accrued.

This study discusses several hypotheses proposed by political culture literature, especially those that adopt a structural approach to understanding the relationship of social structures and institutions to actors, and the values generated by the nature of this relationship that inspire political action. The paper posits that research into the pattern of political culture arising from the relationship between social structures and actors is not limited to studying this direct relationship, but rather requires an examination of intermediary factors. Hence, the study outlines a supportive conceptual interpretive framework, through Pierre Bourdieu's Social Theory. It begins by reviewing the concepts discussed by Bourdieu to explain the relationship between social structures and actors. The second section presents a comparative analysis of concepts taken from political culture and those of Bourdieu that explain the emergence of political culture through the reciprocal relationship between social structures and actors. The third examines the outcomes of this comparison in light of the 2007 Palestinian political division.

This paper monitors the post-2007 trends of US foreign policy towards the Gaza Strip. This paper's discussion first examines the general framework of the US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict before discussing the quandary posed by the Gaza Strip to that framework. The paper then focuses on the role played by President George W. Bush's administration in creating the impasse over Gaza, deconstructs the efforts to overthrow Hamas, and tracks the attempts to isolate and marginalize the Gaza Strip. Finally, it analyses the status of the Gaza Strip in the respective administrations of US presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The paper concludes that the Gaza Strip represents a predicament to both the US and Israel, to a large extent the outcome of flawed and biased US policies as well as symptomatic of the Zionist project in occupied Palestine; an outcome that cannot justify the crushing crisis caused by the official Egyptian blockade on the Gaza Strip.

This study distinguishes between three Interrelated theoretical approaches prevalent in writings of researchers seeking to understand the emergence of the Islamic Resistance Movement, "Hamas". The first of these approaches examines the movement from the portal of ideology, stressing the importance of international and regional dimensions and the rise of political Islam after the "setback" (Naksa) of the 1967 Six Day War. The second approaches Hamas as representing a social movement seeking to revisit the historical narrative of Palestinian society. The third considers it to be the heir of the Palestinian national liberation movement, attributing its rise to transformations witnessed in Palestinian identity and the Palestinian community's definition of itself. Although the three readings do not contradict each other, a focus on one of them can lead to oversimplification or exaggeration: emphasis on the first approach is at risk of overlooking transformations in the movement in its later stages and a marginalization at the micro level of local dimensions; emphasis on the second approach can result in the overestimation of the effectiveness of collective action; exaggerated emphasis on the third approach deprives social actors of their effectiveness. Hence this study proposes situating Hamas in the intersection of these three approaches.

"Humanitarian space" refers to an operational environment that allows humanitarian actors to deliver humanitarian aid according to humanitarian principles and in line with international humanitarian law. The paper reviews how the Gaza Strip exemplifies the decline of humanitarian space under a prolonged siege. It is divided into three sections. First, it examines the concept of the humanitarian space. Second, it highlights the main features of the siege and analyses the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis experienced by Gaza Strip over the last 12 years in various fields. The third section discusses the factors led to the shrinking of the humanitarian space in the besieged Gaza Strip. "Humanitarian space" refers to an operational environment that allows humanitarian actors to deliver humanitarian aid according to humanitarian principles and in line with international humanitarian law. The paper reviews how the Gaza Strip exemplifies the decline of humanitarian space under a prolonged siege.

This article traces the different paths taken by constructivism in International Relations, from its emergence as a critical social theory in the 1980 s, in response to the third debate between positivist rationalists and post-positivist reflectivists, to Alexander Wendt's project to seize a middle ground and to bridge the rationalist–reflectivist epistemological gap. The article, then, examines the intra-debates among conventional and critical constructivists on Went's project, as well as the rise of the new constructivism after Wendt left the constructivist research program. The article explores the Wendtian project's epistemological tensions and demonstrates how such tensions led to a plurality within constructivism: modernist conventional and postmodernist critical (reflectivist). It highlights that Wendt's leaving constructivism and his shift to a quantum approach have not caused constructivism to decline, but instead, it continued to thrive through the efforts of a new generation of constructivists. The article argues that three main developments in International Relations over the past twenty years have contributed to its ongoing thriving: the decline of epistemological polarization among IR theories; the rise of critical realism as a philosophy of science in International Relations, and the emergence of analytical eclecticism.

The study takes up the topic of the evolution of Hamas' military action from the foundation of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades between 1987 and 1992, the movement's military wing, and beyond, drawing upon memoirs and testimonies of the movement's political and military leaders in Palestine and on available data regarding military confrontations with the Israeli occupation. The study starts from the assumption that the evolution of Hamas's military action as an active "agent" in the region differs across the different stages of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on the one hand, and with the development of the movement's political thought and relations with regional and international systems on the other. These stages have been formational of the movement's variable identity, one that has led it to defining its regional interest and role on the basis of military strength. It transformed into a "semi-classical" army in Gaza specifically, after having been a movement of modestly equipped and armed groupings, as it continues to be to this day in the West Bank. This study attempts to monitor this evolution across the successive confrontations with the Israeli occupation in the wars of 2008, 2012 and 2014.

Scholarship explains impediments to democratic transition in Middle Eastern countries as forms of neopatrimonialism - a combination of patrimonial tradition and cosmetic electoral procedures. However, this approach conflates two spheres of governance: firstly, the government as a sphere of appointed or elected politicians, secondly, the state's bureaucracy as a sphere of administrative staff necessary for the government to execute its planned actions. The impediments Hamas governments (2006-2007) faced highlight the difference between the two spheres. Accordingly, I conceptually differentiate between two types of government: government in office and government in power. While the Hamas government was supposed to rule, the administrative personnel refused to comply. Thus, the elected government in office faced local-institutional and external constraints which prevented its functioning, and provoked power struggles that led to internecine war and the collapse of the electoral democracy.

ﺗﺮﺻﺪ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﺗﺠﺎﻫﺎت اﻟﺮأي اﻟﻌﺎم اﻟﺴﻌﻮدي ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ اﻟﻔﻠﺴﻄﻴﻨﻴﺔ وﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ اﻻﻋﺘﺮاف ﺑﺈﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻞ، اﺳﺘﻨﺎدا إﻟﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻤﺆﺷﺮ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﺎم 2016. وﺗﺄﺗﻲ أﻫﻤﻴﺔ ذﻟﻚ ﻓﻲ ﺿﻮء اﻟﺘﻄﻮرات واﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﺪات اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺸﻬﺪﻫﺎ اﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ وﺻﻮل دوﻧﺎﻟﺪ ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ إﻟﻰ ﺳﺪة اﻟﺮﺋﺎﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة اÇﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ؛ إذ أﺑﺮزت اﻻﺻﻄﻔﺎﻓﺎت اÅ ﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة ﻣﻴﻠ ﺎ ﻟﺪى ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺪول اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ إﻟﻰ إﻋﺎدة ﺗﺼﻨﻴﻒ اÇﻋﺪاء واﻟﺤﻠﻔﺎء، وﻇﻬﺮت أﺻﻮات ﻋﺪة ﺗﻨﺎدي ﺑﺘﻄﺒﻴﻊ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت ﻣﻊ إﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻞ ﺑﻤﺒﺮر اﻟﺘﻼﻗﻲ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺪاء إﻳﺮان، أو ﺣﺮﻛﺎت اÅﺳﻼم اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ وﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎوﻣﺔ اÅﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ ﺣﻤﺎس. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: اﻟﺮأي اﻟﻌﺎم، اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ، إﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻞ، ﺣﻤﺎس Tis paper relies on findings from the 2016 Arab Opinion Index to chart Saudi public attitudes towards a number of issues related to the Palestinian Cause, and specifically how Saudis feel about a potential normalization of diplomatic relations between their country and Israel. Tis latter question has added urgency in the present-day climate in the Arab world, with the arrival of Donald Trump to the White House underscoring increasing demands within a number of Arab states for a normalization of ties with Israel, which some see as a natural ally against Iran or political Islamist groups, including the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas).

Since the time of President Thomas Jefferson, and on through the presidents of the 20th century, the United States has talked about itself as the propagator, protector, and defender of democracy around the world. Yet America has never showed any qualms of forming military and political alliances with authoritarian regimes in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The US justifies these international alliances on the basis that “not all dictatorships in the world are enemies of the United States, but all the United States’ enemies are dictatorships.” The US therefore adopted a two-track diplomacy: while working to spread democracy (directly or by means of international organizations and NGOs) the US has no issue in supporting autocratic governments when its interests are involved. How did US policy apply to the democratic transformation in the former Eastern bloc states in Europe on the eve of the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and subsequently, when American values and interests went hand in hand, and how did it then apply to the Arab Spring of 2011, when US values and interests were congruent in some cases and out of sync in others, according to the situation in each country and its strategic importance from America’s perspective? What are the results of these policies and what differences emerge from such a comparison of the Arab and East Europe cases.