Doomed to Instability: Israel's West Bank Annexation Plan in a Turbulent Region

Israel's recent plan to annex parts of the West Bank threatens the stability of Jordan along with the Palestinian territories and Israel itself. To understand the repercussions of annexation, we must examine the positions of the relevant actors and their potential responses to the Israeli plan. Three constellations of actors can be singled out: de facto accepters, weak opposers, and militant revisionists. Despite the Gulf states' and Egypt's condemnation of the annexation plan, they will not take concrete measures to thwart it, due to their evolving relations with Israel and their reliance on the United States. This de facto acceptance by Egypt and the Gulf states weakens the position of the Kingdom of Jordan and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in advocating against the proposed plan. The prospective annexation will directly and negatively impact the Kingdom of Jordan and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. However, because of their own internal challenges, the absence of regional Arab support, and their dependence on Israel and the United States on different issues, Jordan and the PA lack the capacity to offset the Israeli plan. The Islamist militant factions in the Palestinian territories oppose the annexation plan and seem capable of turning their escalatory rhetoric against Israel into violent action. The probability of this happening might increase if the Palestinian Authority collapses in the West Bank. The annexation plan runs counter to the EU's foreign policy vis-à-vis the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. The EU should work collectively to dissuade Israel from implementing the annexation plan by applying diplomatic and, if necessary, economic pressure. Additionally, the EU should support Jordan's anti-annexation diplomatic campaign. The Palestinian Authority should receive the EU's political and financial backing as long as the PA commits to comprehensive reforms

Not a Storm in a Teacup: The Islamic State after the Caliphate

Despite the loss of its territorial "caliphate" in 2019, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (IS) still poses a daily threat to the societies of the region and beyond. To account for the resurgence of IS, we need to look at its dynamism, in addition to the domestic and regional complexities that facilitate its persistence in Iraq and Syria. The gradual, drastic loss of territorial control in Iraq and Syria since 2015 has deprived IS of crucial assets to launch large-scale terrorist attacks and compelled it to change its tactics. Since 2019, IS has intensified its guerilla warfare and, by destabilising large parts of Syria and Iraq, managed to maintain leverage in those areas. The organisational and ideological cohesion of IS has not deteriorated significantly, even after losing its territorial base and its "caliph," Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. IS exploits the political, security, social, and economic fragmentations that continue to plague both Iraq and Syria and that contributed to its rise in the first place. Refugee camps and detention centres, especially in northeast Syria, are currently being targeted by IS for infiltration and radicalisation. If these campaigns are successful, IS may be able to regain thousands of fighters. The EU should increase its support vis-à-vis the refugee camps in Syria and Iraq by providing humanitarian aid and adopting an institutionalised policy for repatriating its citizens who have joined IS, along with their families. This should be complemented by measures of prosecution, rehabilitation, and reintegration. If not addressed efficiently, today's legal conundrums and poor humanitarian conditions of European citizen detainees could become tomorrow's security challenges

Neighbourhood Matters for Peacebuilding

Academic and political debates on peace and conflict dynamics increasingly acknowledge the relevance of the interaction between global and subnational or local dynamics but rather neglect the regional neighbourhood as an important intervening variable. The concept of "regional peace formations" either as an enabling or hindering factor for peacebuilding fills this gap. Empirical evidence from Latin America, the Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa shows the added value of the concept for explaining regional differences. Peacebuilding is a complex undertaking shaped by a variety of factors such as the nature of conflicts, the actors involved, and local contexts. A regional perspective regarding patterns of conflict and violence shows high levels of variation between regions. The concept of regional peace formations is an important tool to analyse the region-specific variation in actors and conflict dynamics. It allows us to identify either convergent or divergent contexts for peacebuilding. Empirical evidence from Latin America, the Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa identifies relevant differences and the need to incorporate regional factors into peacebuilding strategies. The regional level of peacebuilding offers the possibility for meaningful donor coordination and joint multilateral action. But a minimalistic approach seeking only the end of war or a certain degree of stabilisation is not enough. Initiatives need a clear focus on long-term peacebuilding, as a process of constructive conflict transformation. Regional economic and social networks are central to sustainable development, and to transforming structural conditions - leading either to the violent escalation of conflict or to the fostering of more peaceful societies

Peacebuilding after war and violence - Neighbourhood matters

Sustainable Development Goal 16 on "peace, justice, and strong institutions" is widely considered a central pillar of sustainable development. Based on a comprehensive concept of peace that goes beyond the mere absence of war, it might also be the most difficult to realise. Debates in Peace and Conflict Studies have followed other Social Science debates in exiting the "national container," namely by focusing on the interaction between global and subnational or local dynamics. However, the regional dimension is no longer acknowledged as an important intervening variable in peace and conflict dynamics. This article thus develops the concept of "regional peace formation," arguing that the neighbourhood matters either as an enabling or hindering factor for peacebuilding. Based on empirical evidence from Latin America, the Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa, we show the usefulness of this concept in explaining regional differences