The two-state impasse in Israel/Palestine—The EU caught between egalitarian norms and expansionist realpolitik

IF 2.3 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Frontiers in Political Science Pub Date : 2023-06-26 DOI:10.3389/fpos.2023.1049938
Lisa Strömbom, A. Persson
{"title":"The two-state impasse in Israel/Palestine—The EU caught between egalitarian norms and expansionist realpolitik","authors":"Lisa Strömbom, A. Persson","doi":"10.3389/fpos.2023.1049938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, many academics as well as local actors have started to question the feasibility of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Increased Israeli unilateralism, expansionism as well as weak Palestinian institutions have instead pointed toward a “one-state-reality” where Israel is in de facto control over all lands. This in turn reveals a paradox, where international policymakers, most prominently in the EU and the US, and international organizations like the UN, seem determined to insist on a two-state solution, even though all facts on the ground indicate a move away from such a vision where the egalitarian principles inherent in the two-state solution exists in constant tension with expansionist attempts to establish Israeli sovereignty also on Palestinian land. This article unpacks various visions for the future in Israel-Palestine, based on egalitarian principles on the one hand and expansionist ones on the other and display how they current co-exist in a very uneasy relationship. The over-arching aim of the article is to understand how the EU relates to this paradox. We do this in three steps; first we conduct a mapping of visions for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict according to either egalitarian or expansionist principles, where we find one- as well as two-state solutions; second, we conduct a historical analysis on EU positions with regards to the abovementioned principles for solving the conflict, related to other powerful international actors' visions; lastly, we move to an investigation of current developments captured through recent speeches, documents and semi-structured interviews with centrally placed EU staff. Our main conclusion is that even though the EU is determined to hold on to the two state-solution, it however lacks willingness and/or power-resources to push Israel in that direction. Our interviewees seem painfully aware of the lack of viability of the two-state-solution and hence welcome criticism which could push for more egalitarian tendencies in Israel by appealing to its democratic-self-image. Here the current spread of the apartheid narrative among international organizations and an increased international human rights rhetoric emphasizing equal rights for two peoples seem to have left the EU balancing on a tight-rope where they have to choose between standing by status quo, risking supporting ultra-nationalist Israeli sovereignty-aspirations, or criticizing those, instead exposing itself to accusations of antisemitism.","PeriodicalId":34431,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1049938","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, many academics as well as local actors have started to question the feasibility of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Increased Israeli unilateralism, expansionism as well as weak Palestinian institutions have instead pointed toward a “one-state-reality” where Israel is in de facto control over all lands. This in turn reveals a paradox, where international policymakers, most prominently in the EU and the US, and international organizations like the UN, seem determined to insist on a two-state solution, even though all facts on the ground indicate a move away from such a vision where the egalitarian principles inherent in the two-state solution exists in constant tension with expansionist attempts to establish Israeli sovereignty also on Palestinian land. This article unpacks various visions for the future in Israel-Palestine, based on egalitarian principles on the one hand and expansionist ones on the other and display how they current co-exist in a very uneasy relationship. The over-arching aim of the article is to understand how the EU relates to this paradox. We do this in three steps; first we conduct a mapping of visions for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict according to either egalitarian or expansionist principles, where we find one- as well as two-state solutions; second, we conduct a historical analysis on EU positions with regards to the abovementioned principles for solving the conflict, related to other powerful international actors' visions; lastly, we move to an investigation of current developments captured through recent speeches, documents and semi-structured interviews with centrally placed EU staff. Our main conclusion is that even though the EU is determined to hold on to the two state-solution, it however lacks willingness and/or power-resources to push Israel in that direction. Our interviewees seem painfully aware of the lack of viability of the two-state-solution and hence welcome criticism which could push for more egalitarian tendencies in Israel by appealing to its democratic-self-image. Here the current spread of the apartheid narrative among international organizations and an increased international human rights rhetoric emphasizing equal rights for two peoples seem to have left the EU balancing on a tight-rope where they have to choose between standing by status quo, risking supporting ultra-nationalist Israeli sovereignty-aspirations, or criticizing those, instead exposing itself to accusations of antisemitism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以巴两国僵局——欧盟夹在平等主义准则和扩张主义现实政治之间
近年来,许多学者和当地行动者开始质疑以色列和巴勒斯坦两国解决方案的可行性。以色列日益增长的单边主义、扩张主义以及软弱的巴勒斯坦机构反而指向了“一国现实”,即以色列事实上控制着所有土地。这反过来揭示了一个悖论,国际政策制定者,尤其是欧盟和美国,以及联合国等国际组织,似乎决心坚持两国解决方案,尽管当地的所有事实都表明,两国解决方案中固有的平等主义原则与以色列在巴勒斯坦土地上建立主权的扩张主义企图之间存在着持续的紧张关系,但这种愿景已经偏离。这篇文章揭示了以色列-巴勒斯坦未来的各种愿景,一方面基于平等主义原则,另一方面基于扩张主义原则,并展示了它们目前是如何在一种非常不稳定的关系中共存的。这篇文章的主要目的是了解欧盟与这一悖论的关系。我们分三个步骤来做到这一点;首先,我们根据平等主义或扩张主义原则对解决以巴冲突的愿景进行了规划,在那里我们找到了一个以及两国解决方案;第二,我们对欧盟在上述解决冲突原则方面的立场进行了历史分析,并与其他强大的国际行为者的愿景相关联;最后,我们将通过最近的演讲、文件和对欧盟中央工作人员的半结构化采访来调查当前的事态发展。我们的主要结论是,尽管欧盟决心坚持两国解决方案,但它缺乏将以色列推向这一方向的意愿和/或权力资源。我们的受访者似乎痛苦地意识到两国解决方案缺乏可行性,因此欢迎批评,这可能会通过吸引以色列的民主自我形象来推动其更加平等的倾向。在这方面,当前种族隔离叙事在国际组织中的传播,以及强调两国人民平等权利的国际人权言论的增加,似乎让欧盟在一条绷紧的绳索上保持平衡,他们必须在坚持现状、冒着支持极端民族主义以色列主权愿望的风险或批评这些愿望之间做出选择,反而暴露在反犹太主义的指责之下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Political Science
Frontiers in Political Science Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
135
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Human involvement in autonomous decision-making systems. Lessons learned from three case studies in aviation, social care and road vehicles Deciphering the maritime diplomatic properties of Malaysia's oil and gas explorations in the South China Sea Dimensions of cultural sustainability—Local adaptation, adaptive capacity and social resilience Neurorights as reconceptualized human rights Interactions among national and supranational identities: mobilizing the independence movement in Scotland
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1