Latest Articles

This paper examines the implications of Egypt’s military coup on Gaza and its ruling party Hamas. This study is undertaken in light of the escalation of Egyptian media incitement against Hamas and the Palestinians, including accusations that the movement was involved in violent acts on Egyptian soil during the January 2011 Revolution. These rumored actions are paralleled with apparent recent involvement of Hamas in the “terrorist” attacks in the Sinai. Since media incitement has resulted in the tightening of an Egyptian blockade on Gaza, and the destruction of tunnels that represented the lifeline of people in the coastal enclave, a full investigation of the allegations is critical.​

The study discusses the position of the European Union on Jerusalem and the so-called "Deal of the Century," with US recognition of the city as Israel's undivided capital. In view of the special nature of the European-American relationship, the study tries to clarify the extent to which Europe's existing position regarding the city will remain intact, given reluctance on the part of many international parties to take part in "the Deal," or if Europe now will follow and support America. The classic (and generally sustained) European position that Jerusalem is one of the "permanent status" issues between the Palestinians and the Israelis comes under scrutiny, along with the possibilities of Europe deviating from its stance and politically drifting towards America – giving in to pressures that could arise with implementation of the "the Deal".

​This study investigates the forced displacement of Palestinians in the context of Zionist settler colonialism in Area C, including in the Jordan Valley, which represents more than 60 percent of the West Bank. The study details colonial policy in this region, analyzing the patterns of forced displacement in the villages of Bardala, al-Farisiyah, Al-Sakot, Khirbet Humsa, Al-Malih and Khirbet Al-Hama, based on the position of the region within the colonial project. It also evaluates the impact of this displacement on the geographical and demographic reality on the ground. It attempts to discuss the relationship between the use of forced displacement as a means to take control of the land, and to exploit and expel the Palestinians.

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 presents an overview of trends in public opinion in four Arab countries—Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine (covering the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) towards events in the Syrian crisis. The data presented in this paper draws on opinion polls, comprising of face-to-face interviews with representative samples within each of the countries named above, and conducted as part of the 2012 Arab Opinion Index. The results of the survey demonstrate that there is no sharp divide in public attitudes towards the Syrian crisis, with firm majorities across all countries believing that an ideal solution to the Syrian crisis lies in the overthrow of the current regime. Only 8% of respondents held the view that the best solution to the crisis in Syria would lie in the total vanquishing of the opposition.

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.

This paper presents an overview of trends in public opinion in four Arab countries—Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine (covering the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) towards events in the Syrian crisis. The data presented in this paper draws on opinion polls, comprising of face-to-face interviews with representative samples within each of the countries named above, and conducted as part of the 2012 Arab Opinion Index. The results of the survey demonstrate that there is no sharp divide in public attitudes towards the Syrian crisis, with firm majorities across all countries believing that an ideal solution to the Syrian crisis lies in the overthrow of the current regime. Only 8% of respondents held the view that the best solution to the crisis in Syria would lie in the total vanquishing of the opposition.

This paper seeks to investigate the reasons behind the latest Palestinian national reconciliation, signed on April 23, 2014, and the circumstances in which it took place, and which prompted Fatah and Hamas to set aside their long-standing divisions which had pitted the West Bank against the Gaza Strip. The paper attempts to determine if this latest reconciliation between the two largest Palestinian political factions will be any more successful than previous attempts to end Palestinian in-fighting. It also seeks to understand what drove the present (Fatah-led) Palestinian National Authority based in Ramallah to defy both the White House and the Israeli government in seeking to turn a page with Hamas. Where do the prospects for the success of this latest reconciliation stand?