Nonneman, Gerd A. J.

Lancaster E-Prints

On Wednesday, April 26, 2006, the EuroMeSCo Steering Group held a meeting in Paris to discuss the current EuroMeSCo work programme 2005-2006, as well as the forthcoming EuroMeSCo Annual Conference.On 25 April 2006, EuroMeSCo, in the context of the preparation of its Annual Conference, organized a seminar entitled "Migrants and their communities as actors of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership" at the CERI in Paris. The first debate on the issue of "The influence of migrant communities on political reforms in the Euro-Mediterranean area" was introduced by Alima Boumediène-Thiery (Senate of France, Paris) who stressed the need for acommon vision on migration. In her presentation, Boumediène-Thiery argued that the issue ofmigration must be seen in a mutual way, i.e. from the perspective of the sending and host country respectively and that both can benefit from it. This is particularly true, she claimed, with respect to socio-economic development, and the high amount of remittances regularly transferred by migrants to their country of origin prove this visibly. With this in view, she raised the question how the EU and its member-states can improve the resources and the status of migrants in order to make them full-fledged actors of societal development in their host countries and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership.The subsequent debate paved the way for the second session on "The role of migrant communities in the processes of national and European political decision-making" which was introduced by Christophe Bertossi (IFRI, Paris) and Emmanuelle Le Texier (Charles de Gaulle University, Lille III). In his presentation, Bertossi touched upon the issue of citizenship, nationality and political participation and pointed to the different categories of migrants living within the borders of the EU. While he identified an enormous lack of migrants' political participation, not least due to the absence of a standardised and common EU-wide transnational system of voting rights, Le Texier enlarged the debate by focusing on migrants' rights in North America. By way of comparing the two cases, Le Texier argued that the EU and the US are confronted with similar problems as regards their southern neighbourhoods. Yet, in contrast to the EU and the southern Mediterranean partner countries, both the US and Latin American sending countries, such as for example Mexico, have adopted specific policies and operate with different strategies in response to the phenomenon of migration and the corresponding challenges.In response to these presentations, Kamel Qureshi (Danish Parliament, Copenhagen), added a more policy-oriented perspective and informed the audience of the situation of migrants in Denmark. He argued that the treatment of the latter contrasts sharply with the positive image Denmark has abroad, and the deterioration of migrants' rights is to a large extent the result of an increasing islamophobia, partly spurred by the Danish People's Party and the adoption of restrictive laws.In the subsequent panel Michel Péraldi (Centre Jacques Braque, Rabat) and Sami Zemni(University of Ghent) focused their presentations on "The role of transnational networks in the Euro-Mediterranean space". Departing from a sociological standpoint, Peraldi pointed to the fact that the phenomenon of migration is no longer what it used to be in the 1950s simply because a large number of migrants have become merchants operating on major market places such as Istanbul, Marseille and Dubai thus utilising the viscosity of trans-border passages. In contrast, Zemni questioned the innovative character of the underlying terminology and emphasised the fact that the main characteristics of today's non-institutionalised networks of migrants is de-territorialisation.The seminar concluded with numerous recommendations, such as, for example, that the issue should be linked to the overall debate on the construction of Europe, and a plea was made in favour of the abolition of existing political and societal vacuums migrants too often face in EU member states.On behalf of the EuroMeSCo network and in the framework of its contract MED-2005/109-063 with the European Commission / EuropeAid, we are pleased to announce the new EuroMeSCo website at www.euromesco.com.ptThe cliché, for once, is precisely appropriate: the Israel-Palestineconflict has reached a critical juncture, and it is therefore of critical importance to reassess European policy. The failures of the peace process thus far have produced the current impasse. Continued failure will not bring a simple repeat of past ups and downs, but a far more dangerous future of violence.EU and European contributions thus far have consisted essentially of (1) sustaining the 'peace process' through damage limitationand keeping open future possibilities; and (2) aid, training and facilitation. Yet the end result of 13 years of the 'process' that these contributions have kept on life-support has been, precisely, Hamas's arrival in power: it is the very nature of the process and the way it was implemented, that brought about the current crisis. Effectively kicking the fundamentals, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, of 'people' (whether occupied or in diaspora), 'land', and 'Jerusalem', into the long grass, without providing any credible confidence-building measures, and leaving the more-than-doubling of the settlements in occupied territory (along with the separation barrier and the vast network of Israeli-controlled connecting roads cutting across the West Bank) as the only tangible result, while allowing the Palestinian economy to slide into the abyss, was never a viable strategy to sustain a coherent moderate Palestinian leadership. Indeed the Fatah PA's ineffectiveness and some of its perceived authoritarian tendencies were themselves in part a result of never having been allowed the tools to construct a viable administration while nevertheless being expected to function as the guarantor of Israeli security.The Hamas victory was not the result of any intrinsic Palestinian opposition to the possibility of peace with Israel. 'Hamas' itself is not one entity but a conglomeration of interests and views, constantly evolving in various directions; by the same token, support for Hamas does not reflect any single-minded vision either: it has fluctuated in reverse proportion to the ups and downs in the peace process. The key question with regard to such support, and to the possible evolutionary paths of Hamas, therefore must be how to isolate the core hardline ideologues from the other components of the movement itself and its potential support base. The key for this, in turn, is twofold.First, engagement, not isolation. Blanket demands that, prior to any dealings being possible, Hamas must disarm, and recognise Israel's right to exist (as opposed to recognising the reality of the state of Israel and the need to deal with it - in 'unredeemed' time, to borrow a Judaic religious phrase), is both unjustified and counterproductive. The parallels with Sinn Fein /IRA, Herri Batasuna, and indeed the PLO show why. Acting on the mistaken assumption that Hamas (like other such movements) is one unchanging (and uncompromising) thing, is the one thing that can make it so.The second part is a credible blueprint for a sustainable end-game. Apart from the one fundamental that has consistently and rightly been focused on - Israeli security - any chance of moving towards such an endgame requires a focus also on those that matter to the Palestinians: people, land, Jerusalem, and a truly viable Palestinian state. Ignoring, in any but declaratory terms, these minimum needs of any imaginable coalition of peace-oriented Palestinians, for the sake of maintaining what was left of the 'process', is a recipe for disaster. Escaping the proven dead-end of incrementalism (effectively one step forward, two steps back), there must be a credible international commitment to an end-state that, while guaranteeing Israeli security, gives the Palestinians the absolute minimum identified in such blueprints as the Clinton parameters-based Taba 'acquis' (noted down by the former EU special envoy and current Spanish foreign minister Miguel-Angel Moratinos); the unofficial 'Geneva accords'; andthe detailed proposals of the International Crisis Group's Endgame report.It is often observed that 'everyone knows what an eventual final-status should look like'. But such an outcome now risks being made impossible once and for all, through a combination of the new Israeli government's designs, the Israeli public's (and even the left's) resigned assumption that 'hunkering down and hoping for the best' is a feasible strategy, and the international community failure to act.If such failure allows the unilateral creation of the kind of Israeli state now being envisaged by the Israeli leadership, this is a recipe for another 50 years of conflict - just as the outcome of the failures thus far was the Hamas victory. But this time around there is a difference. In 1993 and for some time after, moderate Palestinian voices in favour of the uncertain peace process could still argue that there was some credible hope of such a process delivering something worthwhile. After 13 years of the process, the vast expansion of settlements, the determined push to carve greater Jerusalem out of any future Palestinian entity altogether, and the envisaged effective cantonisation of the Occupied Territories, means that moderates will no longer be able to deploy such arguments credibly - unless credible international action reverses the trend and demonstrates that there will, after all, be something left worth negotiating over.Gerd Nonnemann is a Professor of International Relations & Middle East Politics at Lancaster UniversityThe European Institute (EI) of the Ghent Law Faculty is primarily a university department assuming classical academic functions. Recent developments in the law and policies of the European Union are closely monitored. This includes the internal as well as the external dimension of EU Law and policies. As far as the internal dimension is concerned, attention is paid to the legal aspects of the Internal Market (free movement of goods, persons, services and capital as well as competition law or intellectual property rights). With regard to the EU's external relations, issues such as the enlargement process, EU's proximity strategies (European Neighbourhood Policy, Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, Strategic Partnership with the Middle East, Association and Stabilisation process, European Economic Area, Micro States, Russia), WTO and EU/EC external agreements receive special attention.Ghent University has received the Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence (JMCE) recognition in 2003 and the European Institute acts as a coordinator of the JMCE activities. The JMCE Steering Group comprises, besides the European Institute, representatives of the Faculties of Arts, Political Sciences and Economics (http://www.jmce.ugent.be/).Research undertaken at the European Institute is both general and specific in character and covers the above-mentioned areas. Several PhD's in different fields of EU law and EU institutions have been or are being prepared and specific projects have been or are currently being sponsored or commissioned by institutions and authorities such as the Belgian Federal Government, the Ministry of the Flemish Community, the Fund for Scientific Research and the European Commission. The European Institute also acts as a regular host for foreign researchers.The European Institute regularly organises conferences, workshops and seminars in various formats and for various audiences. These range from four major international colloquia on the relations with Central and Eastern Europe, to specialised academic workshops and educational seminars or lectures on selected topics. Special attention has been recently given to the European Neighbourhood Policy through the organisation of a number of "Monday evening lectures: good neighbours good friends" where a number of Ambassadors accredited to the EU had the opportunity to present their views on the subject.The EI cooperates in a systematic way with other academic institutions in Belgium and abroad, often in the framework of joint research projects. Special ties exist, for example, with CambridgeUniversity, Leiden University, Université de Liège, the Université Libre de Bruxelles and theUniversité de Rennes I. The European Institute has also special relationships with the College ofEurope (Bruges and Natolin).The EI has a specialised library and is a documentation centre recognised by institutions such as the European Commission, the Council of Europe, the WTO and the UN Economic Commission for Europe.Among the most recent publications of members of the EI one should note:Marc Maresceau "EC External Bilateral Agreements", Recueil des cours de l'Académie dedroit international de La Haye, Brill Academic Publisher, Leiden, in print, 2006.Erwan Lannon et Joël Lebullenger (sous la direction de) Les défis d'une adhésion de laTurquie à l'Union européenne, Collection Rencontres européennes, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2006, 350 p. (Bruylant.com).BooksJacques Austruy (2006), Islam face au développement (Paris: L'Harmattan). 132 pages.Mary Buckley and Robert Singh (Eds.) (2006), The Bush Doctrine and the War on Terrorism: Global Responses, Global Consequences (London: Routledge). 240 pages.Drude Dahlerup (Ed.) (2005), Women, Quotas and Politics (London: Routledge). 304 pages.Gershom Gorenberg (2006), The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977 (New York: Times Books). 454 pages.Jef Huysmans (2006), The Politics of Insecurity: Security, Migration & Asylum in the EU(London: Routledge). 192 pages.Maria Petmesidou and Christos Papatheodoru (Eds.) (2006), Poverty and Social Deprivation in the Mediterranean: Trends, Policies and Welfare Prospects in the New Millennium(London: Zed Books Ltd). 416 pages.Paul Rogers (2006), A War Too Far: Iraq, Iran and the New American Century (London: Pluto Press). 320 pages.Sami Zubaida (2006), Law and Power in the Islamic World (London: I.B. Tauris). 256 pages.Articles in journals, papers and studiesSamir Amghar (2006), Le Salafisme en Europe: la mouvance polymorphe d'une radicalisation, Politique étrangère, 1, pp. 67-78.Mark Fitzpatrick (2006), Iran and North Korea: The Proliferation Nexus, Survival, Volume 48, 1, pp. 61-80.Richard Gillespie (2006), 'This Stupid Little Island': A Neighbourhood Confrontation in the Western Mediterranean, International Politics, Volume 43, 1, pp.110-132.Mary Kaldor and Andrew Salmon (2006), Military Force and European strategy, Survival, Volume 48, 1, pp. 19-34.Bahgat Korany (2006), Egypt's Overdue Reform: A Prototype of the Middle East to Come? : Profiles, Mediterranean Politics, Vol. 11, 1, pp. 83-99.Juliette Mayaleh (2006), Le Hamas au pouvoir: de la confrontation au dialogue ?, ActualitéMaghreb / Moyen-Orient nº5, 7 pages.Søren Schmidt (2006), The Missed Opportunity for Economic Reform in Syria, Mediterranean Politics, Vol. 11, 1, pp. 91-97.Jonathan Stevenson (2006), Martyrs, Nationalism and the Jihad, Survival, Volume 48, 1, pp. 19-34.Imaculada Szmolka (2006), The Algerian Presidential Elections of 2004: An Analysis of Power Relationships in the Political System, Mediterranean Politics, Vol. 11, 1, pp. 39-57.The EuroMeSCo Steering Group has a general responsibility for the organisation of the network of institutes that discharges the new contract with the European Commission. Currently, the Steering Group is composed of the representatives of twenty institutes, equally divided between Northern and Southern Partner states.ACPSS - Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies Al Galaa Street, 11511 Cairo, EGYPTAEI - Association des Etudes Internationales Rue J.J. Rousseau; Centre Babel, Escalier B 1er étage, BP 156, 1012 Tunis, TUNISIACERSS - Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches en Sciences Sociales FSJES, Boulevard des Nations-Unies, B.P 721 Rabat, MOROCCOCSS - Centre for Strategic Studies University of Jordan, P.O. Box 302, Amman, JORDANCSSR - Centre for Strategic Studies and Researches Damascus, SYRIALCPS - Lebanese Centre for Policy Studies Tayyar Centre, Sin el-Fil, Box 55215, Beirut, LEBANONINESG - Institut National des Etudes de Stratégie Globale Route les Verges, B.P. 137, Birkhadem – Algiers, ALGERIAJCSS - Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies Tel Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978, ISRAELPASSIA - Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs PO Box 19545, 97500 JERUSALEMTESEV - Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation Bankalar Cad. Minerva Han, Nº 2 – Karaköy, 80020 Istanbul, TURKEYCIDOB - Centre d'Informació i Documentació Internationals a Barcelona Elisabets, 12, 08001 Barcelona, SPAINELIAMEP - Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy 49 Vasilissis Sofias Ave., 10676 Athens, GREECEIAI - Istituto Affari Internazionali Via Angelo Brunetti, 9, 00186 Roma, ITALYIEEI - Instituto de Estudos Estratégicos e Internacionais Largo de S. Sebastião, 8, Paço do Lumiar, 1600-762 Lisboa, PORTUGALIFRI - Institut Français des Relations Internationales 27, rue de la Procession, 75015 Paris, FRANCEIPA - Institute of Public Affairs Ul. Szpitalna 5 lok 22 , 00-031 Warszawa, POLANDRIIA - Royal Institute of International Affairs Chatham House, 10 St. James Square, London SW1Y 4LE, UNITED KINGDOMSWP - Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik Ludwigkirchplatz 3-4, 10719 Berlin, GERMANYTLI - Teleki László Institute Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Szilágyi Erzsébet fasor 22/C, H-1125 Budapest, HUNGARYUI - Swedish Institute for International Affairs Drottning Kristinas väg 37, Box 27035, 102 51 Stockholm, SWEDEN

Hamas, the Palestine question, and the role of the EU.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Lancaster E-Prints