Latest Articles

This paper analyses of some of the most salient Israeli laws and legal instruments used to entrench control over Jerusalem and alter the city spatially and demographically. The first of three sections examines the Israeli legal instruments used, since the 1948 occupation of western districts of the city, to control Jerusalem. The second section explores the repercussions of US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 2017. The same section also examines the enshrinement of "Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel" law of 1980, amendments to which require an overwhelming majority of Knesset members. The third and final section explores the avenues potentially available to the Palestinians in confronting Israeli plans for the re-settling of Jerusalem, a task which requires the formulation of a clear, multi-faceted strategy implemented by both grassroots and official Palestinians.

This paper analyses of some of the most salient Israeli laws and legal instruments used to entrench control over Jerusalem and alter the city spatially and demographically. The first of three sections examines the Israeli legal instruments used, since the 1948 occupation of western districts of the city, to control Jerusalem. The second section explores the repercussions of US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 2017. The same section also examines the enshrinement of "Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel" law of 1980, amendments to which require an overwhelming majority of Knesset members. The third and final section explores the avenues potentially available to the Palestinians in confronting Israeli plans for the re-settling of Jerusalem, a task which requires the formulation of a clear, multi-faceted strategy implemented by both grassroots and official Palestinians.

Following the transformations in the Levant’s regional system since the beginning of World War II to the rise of the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, this paper examines the new context of the region with regard to Washington’s resumption of direct military intervention. It finds that the Levant – as a soft area easily subject to geopolitical influences – has always been subject to changes based on shifts in world order, from the Cold War, followed by unipolarity, to the relative decline of US power. Thus, while the main actors of the Levant’s regional system were Arabs during the Cold War, the region has become a battleground for non-Arab parties – namely Turkey and Iran – following the invasion or Iraq and the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutions.

Since the publication of Horowitz's Ethnic Groups in Conflict, comparative political scientists have increasingly converged on their classification of ethnic identities. But there is no agreement on the definition that justifies this classification— and the definitions that individual scholars propose do not match their classifications. I propose a definition that captures the conventional classification of ethnic identities in comparative political science to a greater degree than the alternatives. According to this definition, ethnic identities are a subset of identity categories in which membership is determined by attributes associated with, or believed to be associated with, descent (described here simply as descent-based attributes). I argue, on the basis of this definition, that ethnicity either does not matter or has not been shown to matter in explaining most outcomes to which it has been causally linked by comparative political scientists. These outcomes include violence, democratic stability, and patronage.

​تعــرض هــذه الورقــة، أولًا، أحــدث الاتجاهات في الــرأي العام الفلســطيني، وتحلل هــذا الرأي تجــاه الحكومــة الحاليــة في الضفة الغربية. وتبحــث، ثانيًا، تأثير الاستقطاب في الرأي العام الفلســطيني. وتتنــاول، أخيــرًا، الــرأي العــام الفلســطيني فــي ما يتعلــق بمســتقبل القضية الفلسطينية.

This paper presents the latest trends in Palestinian public opinion. The paper analyzes Palestinian public opinion towards the current government in the West Bank. Secondly, the paper examines the effect of polarization on Palestinian public opinion. Finally, the paper addresses Palestinian public opinion regarding the future of the Palestinian cause.

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.

In an effort to understand the characteristics of "virtual communities" and specifically "information societies," this study attempts to test the argument that virtual communities, with their networked structure, pose a challenge (or represent an alternative) to traditional hierarchical structures, due to the former's ability to self-organize, and settle their internal disputes without the need for authoritative intervention. The study uses the case study approach, applied to 3 Wikipedia's edit wars. The chosen cases are related to a number of Middle East informational crises. The study concludes that mechanisms of virtual societies (e.g. self-organization) can work efficiently in cases of limited disputes, but in cases of sharp disagreements, traditional (hierarchical) mechanisms that include authoritative intervention and exercising some form of power, in a "top-down" approach, remain essential for conflict resolution. This implies that the factor of "authority" remains significant even in the context of virtual communities.

This paper elucidates Arab public opinion towards the international aerial campaign against ISIL (the “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant”) in Iraq and Syria, based on the findings of a dedicated opinion survey. The survey included representative, randomized samples in seven countries: Tunisia, Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, in addition to communities of Syrian refugees in three host countries (Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey). Respondents were asked the extent of their support for the aims of the international campaign as well as the conduct of the airstrikes. Survey questions also take in respondents’ views on a number of related issues. The findings show that the vast majority of Arabs are firmly opposed to ISIL, with only 11% of respondents expressing views which are positive, to varying extents, towards the group.