Latest Articles

This study addresses the intricate issues posed by the State of Palestine's legislation concerning the redefinition of the Palestinian. Despite the fact that these laws seem to be regulatory for particular situations, they propose a fragmented and different definition of that which is proposed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) charters. One of its manifestations was the controversy surrounding who the Palestinian is during the postponed general elections of 2021. This contributed to the creation of the current practical framework for the legal text that categorizes Palestinians according to where they live; allowing one group to exercise their right to self-determination and not others. It also had an impact on how the definition of two concepts—the Palestinian and the right to self-determination—were altered, and the extent to which the effects of the legislation may impact the legal basis of the PLO. The PLO enjoys an international legal personality recognized by the international community as the sole representative of all Palestinians, regardless of their place of residence.

This paper examines the positions of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council vis-à-vis the Palestinian issue between 1979 and 2013. Using the voting patterns of the US, Russia/former USSR, United Kingdom, France, and China in international bodies, this paper – with a focus on the US as leader of the current international system—examines the points at which international law and foreign policy overlap and intersect. This contributes a wider theoretical understanding of the positions of major powers in international organizations.

This study measures Arab public opinion regarding Palestine, whether it is considered a central Arab issue or only a Palestinian one. It analyses how Arab citizens define themselves as either “one nation”, meaning that every Arab populace is part of a larger nation with shared concerns and destiny or as belonging to individual “nation states”, where country is defined by its own specific characteristics and concerns. It also analyses the relationship of this belief to their outlook on the Palestinian issue. This study focuses on the ACRPS Arab Opinion Index results since 2011.

This paper presents Arab public opinion trends on the Palestinian issue, through data collected by the ACRPS-conducted Arab Opinion Index. It assesses whether Palestine is a pan-Arab issue or one that concerns Palestinians alone. It also evaluates Arab regional attitudes towards recognition of Israel and towards the positions and policies adopted by some international or regional powers towards Palestine. The paper demonstrates that Arab public opinion strongly leans towards dealing with Palestine on the basis that it is a pan-Arab issue, not specific to the Palestinian people alone. It also shows that public opinion in the region is almost unanimous (at a rate of 88%) in rejecting any national recognition of Israel and that the assessment of Arab public opinion of regional or international powers in the region is determined by their policies towards the Palestinian issue.

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.

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.

​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 paper presents the findings of a number of public opinion polls surrounding public attitudes towards the Palestinian Cause and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The author focuses on three distinct themes/questions: Do respondents believe that the Palestinian Cause concerns all Arabs, or merely the Palestinians themselves? The second theme concerns Arab public opinion towards the peace treaties signed by the Arab states and Israel. The third theme covers Arab public support for, and opposition, the official recognition of Israel by their governments. The results show a wide-reaching and deep consensus across the countries surveyed in support of pan-Arab solidarity with the Palestinians, and in opposition to official recognition of Israel by their governments. The Camp David Accord between Egypt and Israel was the most accepted such agreement, supported by 27% of the aggregate respondents, contributed to by 44% of Egyptians, and opposed by 54%.

This study focuses on the legal status of the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (PDI) issued in 1988 by the Palestinian National Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in light of the Palestinian Constitutional Court 2018 decision, which granted the declaration a "supra-constitutional" status—placing it above the Basic Law issued by the Palestinian Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The authors characterize the legal nature of the PDI as a "Declaration of Rights" and argue that the Court, in issuing its decision, overstepped its interpretive power, deeming the decision flawed due to the political considerations behind it, aiming at enhancing the legitimacy of the PA by invoking the symbolic legitimacy of the PLO. The study comparatively showcases experiences from the United States, France, Egypt, and Algeria, revealing that none of these jurisdictions have granted Declarations of Rights a status superior to that of the constitution. The authors conclude that the Court's decision was unsound and that the PDI should be treated as a reference constitutional document, but not one that supersedes the Basic Law.

This study discusses successive Palestinian governments and provides a reading of their features, focusing on the 15th, 16th and 17th governments, five years after Rami Hamdallah became prime minister. The first section examines the emergence and development of governments since 1994. The second section gives an overview of the three cabinets in question and their agendas while the third section examines the failures of these governments and the impact of that failure on the Palestinian political scene. The final section examines the traditional operating assumptions of the political system. The study argues that the origin of the problem lies in the political system that has emerged since 1994 which restricts the operations of Palestinian governments, and that the formation of "technocratic" cabinets has only exacerbated the Palestinian political crisis.