President of the PA since 2005
Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen)
Explain the differences between Fatah, the PLO and the PA
1) Fatah ("Victory") is a political party founded by members of the Palestinian diaspora in 1959 in Kuwait. Yasser Arafat became its most prominent leader. 2) Founded by the Arab League in 1964, the PLO was an umbrella organization embracing several Palestinian political parties. But by 1968 Fatah had established itself as the dominant group within the PLO, and it remains so today. The PLO was long regarded as the only authentic expression of Palestinian nationalism.3) The Palestinian Authority was created in 1994 under the Oslo accords as a Palestinian state-in-embryo. Today the PA is recognized by many countries as a more or less full-fledged state, the state of Palestine.The relation between these three movements may be compared to three nested Russian wooden dolls […] In practice Fatah dominates the PLO, which in turn dominates the PA
What are the three possibilities of one state solution for the conflict and why are they unlikely
Open answer: 1) one-state solution, 2) two-state solution, 3) three-state solution.
List some historic examples of American decisions that did not conform to the Israel lobby thesis
e.g. 1) Carter forced Israel to evacuate Sinai in the 1970s against Likud opposition; 2) The lobby could not stop US exports of weapons to Saudi Arabia in 1980s 3) Iran deal and 4) Obama’s refuse to veto resolution on settlements in 2016
What is the Palestinian view of the failure of Camp David? List three points
5 major errors by Barak/Clinton : 1) rush talks without sufficient preparation time out of selfish political concerns (end of presidential mandate) 2) Barak coalition was weak and he was unable to stop settlements 3) concessions were inadequate, especially on right of return 4) fatal error to allow Sharon visit on the temple mount 5) IDF overreaction once intifada starts off
List some differences and similarities in current Palestinian and Israeli politics and views of a possible solution of the conflict (refer to lecture 22)
Open ended question. According to lecture 22, they differ because, 1) at least until recently, people demanding a winner-take-all approach were weaker in Israel than in Palestine. Until 2014 polls showed that some 70% of Israelis would accept a permanent two-state solution, but in that same period some 70% of Palestinians wanted not a permanent two-state solution, but Israel's destruction.
But in a broader sense the two sides' are similar for at least two reasons: 1) Self-justifying myopia: both sides portray themselves as recipients of undeserved hostility from their nasty neighbors. Hamas and the PA focus on Israeli oppression w/out acknowledging their contribution to that cycle, but by the same token, Israeli complain endlessly about Palestinian terrorism and violence while they fail to recognize the virtual inevitability, the naturalness of Palestinian resistance. Furthermore, they fail to see how settlements deepen Palestinian bitterness.
2) Second, they are both trapped by an existential logic: Israelis can't accept a Palestinian state w/ an independent military or foreign policy because they fear such a state would threaten their existence, but Palestinians can't accept being reduced to an Israeli puppet state. More basically whatever security arrangements are on offer, Palestinians are unlikely ever to accept any two-state solution because they would have to surrender their dream of regaining all of Palestine; It would mean abandoning their national aspirations. They prefer the current situation... They take a long-view of decades or centuries and think (or imagine) things are slowly moving in their favor.
What are the main elements of Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis about the “Israel lobby”? What are its main limitations according to Prof. Lieberman?
According to Mearsheimer and Walt 1) the US policy towards Israel is not based on strategic considerations or on commonality of institutions and values, but is the consequence of the political action of the “Israel lobby”,2) a series of about 80 interest groups and organizations—primarily but not only Jewish--whose common aim is to steer American policy in pro-Israel direction. 3) They contend that the “lobby” is not particularly unpatriotic; it is comparable to other American lobbies like the AARP or NRA and 3) distinguishes itself only for its “extraordinary effectiveness”. The main limitations of this thesis are: 1) it doesn’t account for the overall primacy of US strategic interests, especially in the Cold War and 2) it doesn’t account for support of Israel among non-Jewish Americans