Conflict transformation and civil society in an ethnic conflict : the European Union in Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine

(1)

Conflict Transformation and Civil Society in an Ethnic

Conflict:

The European Union in Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine

Aimee Louise Carton 11253347 Date: 23r d_{June 2017}

Supervised by: Dr. Dimitris Bouris Second Reader: Dr Jana Krause

Master Thesis Political Science: European Politics and External Relations Submitted to: University of Amsterdam MSc Political Science, 2017

(2)

(3)

Acknowledgements

I want to take the time to thank my supervisor, Dr Dimitris Bouris, for taking the time to support and help me through this master thesis. This research would never have

been completed without his continuing support.

Secondly, I would like to thank my parents and sisters for their help, love and everlasting belief in my abilities. Whenever I doubt myself or fall, it is you who pull

me up. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Lastly, I would like to thank my friends, your moral support and continuing help when things got tough made this thesis a reality.

(4)

List of Illustrations

Figure 1. A Typology of Violence (Galtun, 1969, p173) ... 26

Figure 2. PEACE Programme Funding ... 42

Figure 3. Total Peace Index - Ireland and the UK ... 45

Figure 4. Total Peace Index - Israel ... 45

Figure 5. Human Rights Index (1990-2011) ... 48

Figure 6. Terrorism Index (2001-2016) ... 50

Figure 7. Seven functions for civil society in peacebuilding (Paffenholz, 2010)... 53

(7)

Abbreviations

CIRA Continuity Irish Republican Army CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy CSO Civil Society Organisation

DUP Democratic Unionist Party

EIDHR The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights EMP Europ-Mediterranean Partnership

ENP European Neighbourhood Policy EPI European Peacebuilding Initiative

EU European Union

Fatah Harekat al-Tahrir al-Wataniyyeh al-Falastiniyyeh Hamas Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya

IRA Irish Republican Army NI Northern Ireland

NPE Normative Power Europe ONH Óglaigh na hÉireann PA Palestinian Authority

PEGASE Mécanisme Palestino-Européen de Gestion de l'Aide Socio-Economique

PLO Palestinian Liberation Organisation RIRA Real Irish Republican Army

RoI Republic of Ireland

UN United Nations

(8)

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Is peace the absence of violence or the unification of society? Moreover, in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian and Northern Irish conflicts, which type of peace has the European Union (EU) aspired to achieve? Such questions stand at the core of this research, as they summarise the conceptualisation of the conflict transformation school of thought, which seeks to create sustainable peace by working with social structures to create human rights and reconciliation throughout society. As Brewer highlights, in the context of ethnic conflicts- a further sociological approach is required when engaging in the peace process, as the legacy caused from fundamental divisions in society will having lasting consequences in resolution initiatives (2010). From this perspective, further action must occur to find a lasting solution that moves the concept of ‘peace’ beyond the realms of the absence of violence and into true integration and prosperity in society (2010). Consequently, it is entirely plausible to argue that in this analysis, the conflict transformation theory is a justifiable framework in which to gain insight into the EU’s positions in these conflicts, particularly within the realms of their civil society initiatives. It is clear that the EU has increasingly been identifying itself as a conflict transformation actor since the 2003 Security Strategy was adopted. For some the EU can be viewed as a conflict transformation project within itself, as peace has been the historical raison d’etre of the EU (Manners, 2008). Therefore, the EU needs to be continuously evaluated to ensure that such an identification is appropriate. While there have been significant economic and political events that led to the peace agreement in Northern Ireland and to the continuing violence in Palestine, this research focuses exclusively on the EU’s role in civil society organisations. In Northern Ireland through the PEACE programme, the EU has contributed a total €1.3 billion to peacebuilding initiatives and grassroots organisations since 1995. This financial aid has been seen to provide many opportunities for dialogue and cross-community development, which alongside economic and social stability, are the primary aims of the PEACE programme. These aims are similar to those of the EU’s support for civil society in Palestine, which is allocated through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights

(9)

(EIDHR), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the European Peacebuilding Initiative (EPI). The EU is the largest provider of humanitarian assistance and financial support to the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian society. However, lasting peace or rather a lasting absence of violence, has always been out of reach. In contrast, the Northern Irish peace agreement and integration process has regularly been viewed as the most successful peacebuilding policy project in the EU’s repertoire. However, it appears that his ‘success’ is perhaps only in terms of an absence of violence as opposed to a truly transformed society. This research will argue that these initiatives and projects are examples of the conflict transformation theory and equally that they provide evidence to answer the research question as discussed in the next section of this chapter.

1.1 Research question

The aim of this research is to investigate if the EU has impacted the transformation of the case studies by becoming involved in civil society as a peacebuilding method in an ethnic conflict. While there is pre-existing research in the broader subject of civil society and conflict transformation (Tocci, 2008), there is little research looking to analyse how the EU has impacted conflict transformation through the financing of civil society organisations (CSOs). Therefore, this problem needs to be addressed, thus this research proposes the question:

How has the European Union’s support to civil society organisations impacted the transformation of the conflicts in

Northern Ireland and Palestine?

By asking this question it is clear that sub-questions will need to be introduced in order to create a more comprehensive answer. By uniting the sub questions and full research question, this investigation will analyse conflict transformation, the EU’s engagement with civil society and how such engagement has influenced, either positively or negatively, the creation of sustainable peace in both conflicts. Consequently, the three sub questions to be addressed are:

- Does civil society effect the transformation of a conflict?

(10)

- Have the conflicts in Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine transformed? In answering these questions, this research will expand upon the original research question and provide a more conclusive answer to the problem found.

1.2 Methodology

This research brings together theory and empirical data, questioning if such theory is applicable to the EU in the context of two real-life ethnic conflicts. The design framework will be based upon the data collected from both qualitative and quantitate methods, also referred to Mixed Methods Research (MMR). While academics such as Collier, Hoeffler and Sambanis (2005) note that such MMR approaches are often considered as “substitutes rather than complements in political science” (2005, p2, cited in Thaler, 2015, p10), such a methodology in the realms of conflict improve results, as there is a benefit of integrating social agency and interactions to the wider structural context (2015). Thaler also highlights the importance of using the MMR approach when analysing violence as a method for enhancing empirical studies of social reality, given the importance of understanding the root causes, consequences, and remedies (2015). He argues the pragmatism of this approach, given the subjectivity that surrounds human interactions that become apparent in qualitative methods, by utilising additional quantitative measures such methods ‘render structures more legible” (2015, p4). Moreover, in the specific analysis of violence and conflict there is a very important divide between individual experiences and processes at the micro level and overarching social trends and patters at the macro level (2015).

While this research will include quantitative methods, the primary source of data will come from qualitative interviews with members of CSOs, the SEUPB and academia. While it is important to recognise the flaws of such a methodology such as its subjectivity, difficulties in replicating the analysis, generalisation, and a lack of transparency (Bryman, 2015), the benefits of using such a method outweigh such critiques. The inability of quantitative methods to provide enough insight into the social interactions that are essential to understanding conflict transformation (Thaler, 2015) is core to the rationale for using additional qualitative methods. According to

(11)

Bryman qualitative based research emphasises “treating theory as something that emerges out of the collection and analysis of data” (2015, p381); this is an integral element to this research as it is not to be assumed that the EU has successfully proven itself to be a conflict transformation actor. The participants involved in the interviews include 5 representatives of EU-funded CSOs, an editor for the Palestine Israel Journal, a member of the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) and a directing manager of SEUPB. The justification for such a mixture of interviewees is due to the belief that a varied selection of participants will create less biased and more transparent results, particularly given the subjective nature of interviews as has been recognised in the critiques of this method. The focus of these interviews will surround the research question and sub-questions, aiming to open this subject to wider debate.

The aim of this research is to answer if the EU’s involvement in civil society organisations and projects has transformed both of the case studies. Evidence of transformation at a broader level will be analysed in terms of terrorism, human rights, and lasting peace, which hopefully will indicate whether such a transformation has occurred or not. Subsequently, the results provided from the interviews of civil society and political actors will provide a much deeper analysis of how the EU’s work has influenced the conflicts, transcending the macro level data seen by the quantitative analysis. It is hoped that by engaging in this question at a much deeper level, this research will create a more comprehensive answer.

1.3 Justification

The explanation for such research is multi-layered, driven by both an emotional passion and a rational need to conduct a further analysis into the EUs work in an ethnic conflict. This research is necessary due to the duty of social scientists to constantly challenge the world we live in, to question the work of policy-makers, and improve upon current initiatives through constant vigilance and evaluation. Simply put “social scientists have a complex relation with societies. On the one hand, they belong to their societies and are influenced by their evolution. On the other, they observe social developments and contribute to shaping them” (ISSC, 2010, p286). As

(12)

such, when human life is at stake, as is seen in a conflict, continuous investigation and resolution of such a conflict is an integral goal to aspire towards. This is all the more essential when analysing the EU. Throughout academic literature that looks at the conceptualisation of the EU’s peacebuilding mechanisms and role in the global order, one particular theory stands out: Normative Power Europe as formulated by Iain Manners (2002). Within this theory one can view normative power as the exporting of societal and international norms, for example human rights, democracy, liberty, peace, and rule of law (2002). The EU has constantly depicted itself as a champion for normative power, to the extent that the then European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso stated “we are one of the most important, if not the most important, normative powers in the world” (2007). However, this must not be taken at face value as noted by academics such as Diez and Pace, who analyse the concept of NPE and conflict transformation, declaring the EU to be “ambiguous and patchy” in its commitments to the normative principles (Whitman, 2011, p224) and therefore a continuous assessment of the EU as a conflict transformation actor must be evaluated.

The specific case studies of Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine have been selected due to their strong links as conflicts and the relationship that has developed between the two communities over time. Marie-Violaine Louvet has drawn a strong link between these two conflicts given the occupational and colonial history they share, stating that post-colonial theories have brought their stories together, accepting and integrating this historical narrative (2016, p6). Ziad AbuZayyad also notes this link, dedicating an entire publication of the Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture to this comparison, believing lessons can be learned from the Northern Irish peace process and possible be applied to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2017).

The final justification for this thesis must also be recognised as a limitation and an issue to be considered throughout all elements of the thesis. The author of this research is a Catholic Irish national and thus the driving force behind this research is due to the personal interest in the resolution of both conflicts. However, one must be wary for inherent biases that may influence the narrative portrayed throughout this

(13)

research. Moreover, due to personal ties to victims of the conflict, any comparison between the different communities was intentionally left out of this research, thus preventing any bias. Additionally, as noted above, the Catholic community within Ireland has declared strong sympathies for the Palestinian causes and therefore might also implicate the analysis Israeli-Palestinian conflict, thus the analysis of the differing communities was also left out.

1.4 Limitations

The scope of this research has had to be narrowed down significantly given the size of this subject, the length and complexities of the two case studies, and due to the complicated nature of peacebuilding as a subject in political science. Limitations are a natural element of any research project, but it is important for the sake of transparency to acknowledge their presence amongst the investigation. On a more practical level one of the most influential restrictions is the timeline that this analysis has been carried out over, particularly in contrast to a more in depth PhD project. Additionally, given the geographical locations of the two conflicts, there are substantial restraints regarding the access to participants for interviews, as well as the varying languages used and the lack of availability for some subjects. In terms of the investigation itself there are several issues that have arisen: the comparability of the two conflicts and the timeline of this investigation.

The first critique that faces this research is the comparison itself, although it is arguable that the two case studies are perhaps more similar that it would originally appear. Evidently there are substantial differences with regards to culture, religion, economy and the fact that Northern Ireland has been a member of the EU since 1973, while Palestine is only a member of the European Neighbourhood Policy with the first Association Agreement on Trade and Cooperation issued in 1997. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, there has been no official conclusion to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In contrast the Northern Irish conflict is debatably said to have ended with the renowned Good Friday Agreement (GFA) in 1998. While these issues are irrefutably heavily influential elements of this research and should be considered

(14)

as such, there are equally undeniable similarities between these two conflicts, as has been argued across the literature. As a means to overcome these issues, this is not a comparative analysis, rather an examination of the EUs ability to impact the transformation of a conflict, using two case studies as a means to illuminate this subject.

In terms of the timeline, it is extremely relevant that both of these conflicts have occurred over a significantly longer time frame than that under investigation; the Northern Irish conflict is noted as beginning at the Battle of the Bogside in 1969 while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be understood to have begun as early as 1948 following the establishment of the State of Israel. However it is also arguable that Palestinian nationalism truly gained momentum during the Six Day war and the beginning of the Israeli occupation in 1967. However, due to the constrictions on the depth of this research due to the timeline, the comparison focuses purely on civil society, therefore excluding high politics and diplomatic negotiations. Therefore, this thesis’ scope will begin with the introduction of the PEACE programmes in Northern Ireland in 1995 and the renowned Oslo Accords for Palestine in 1993. The closeness of the timeline allows this research to have a more consistent analysis and prevents complications that might arise with the transition of the European Union from the European Community following the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Additionally, given the current truce in Israel and Palestine since May 2016, the context of Northern Irish 1994 cease fire and Palestine today are comparable, and thus appear to be an appropriate time to investigate conflict transformation as a method of peacebuilding in more detail.

1.5 Thesis Outline

This thesis is comprised of seven chapters. In addition to the introduction, there is also an investigation into the theory, a historical overview, an investigation into the EU’s role in civil society within two case studies, a breakdown of the data collected, a discussion into question of transformation, and finally the conclusion. Chapter 2, the theoretical overview, will be broken down into several sub-sections:

(15)

peacebuilding theory, the conflict transformation school of thought, civil society and conflict transformation, human rights and conflict transformation, terrorism and conflict transformation, and finally peace and conflict transformation. It is hoped that providing an in-depth theoretical investigation that conflict transformation as a concept will be understood in greater detail, thus improving the overall investigation into the EU’s role in Northern Ireland and Palestine. Chapter 3, the historical overview, will introduce the wider debate surrounding this thesis, including a historical overview of both conflicts independently, thus creating a broader understanding of the context of both conflicts before entering into the analysis section of this thesis. Chapter 4, will introduce the data collected from the quantitative methods; this will focus on human rights, terrorism and peace statistics. The qualitative results of the research will be included throughout chapters 5 and 6, illuminating the data provided through the quantitative research on a more personal level. Chapter 5 will challenge the importance of civil society in peacebuilding measures as well as perform an investigation into the EU’s role in civil society in the two case studies. Chapter 6 will unify the comparative research with the data provided throughout the primary data collected, drawing from all elements of the research to answer the research question. Finally, chapter 7, the conclusion, will summarise this thesis, drawing attention to the results of the analysis and its relationship with previous scholarship regarding the issues discussed.

(16)

Chapter 2 – Theoretical Overview

2.1 Introduction

The conceptualisation of peacebuilding in a conflict has proven to be an unending challenge within the realm of international relations. However, within the context of an ethnic conflict, where generational and identity struggles are at the core of violence, this research proposes conflict transformation given its emphasis on social structures to be the primary theoretical framework in which a conflict can be analysed and further understood. Yet this theory equally faces challenges, particularly when comparing it to others such as conflict management and conflict resolution given their similarity, thus an investigation into the elements that define conflict transformation is core to this research. This chapter will conclude with a brief investigation into the varying themes of this thesis- peace, terrorism and human rights, and their relationship with conflict transformation.

2.2 Conflict Transformation

When looking to the specific case of armed conflicts, especially those with strong ethnic divisions, the conflict transformation school of thought enables the greatest degree of comprehension (Paffenholz et al, 2009). Miall justifies the need to develop theories such as peacebuilding towards conflict transformation due to the changes in modern conflicts as a whole. He highlights that contemporary violence is characterised with asymmetry, with considerable inequalities in power and status (2001). Additionally, recent conflicts repeatedly move in and out of violence, indicating that the current peacebuilding methods fail to create true peace (2001). Finally, he notes that prolonged conflicts “warp the societies, economies and regions in which they are situated, creating complex emergencies fuelled on the one hand by local struggles and on the other by global factors such as the arms trade and support for regimes or rebels by outside states” (2001, p3). Paffenholz et al, also note that the necessity for conflict transformation inspired methods as opposed to traditional approaches, in an ethnic conflict is due to the typical longevity of such conflicts and as

(17)

a result of the divides within the core of the conflicting society (MacGinty, 2013). Furthermore, traditional peacebuilding methods were mainly “supported from the outside, and consequently often implemented, are mostly driven by liberal and sustainable peacebuilding discourses rather than by the actual needs of the people and the peace process” (2013, p354). In contrast to this, Tocci highlights that civil society “can provide the necessary push for peaceful social change, especially when the top echelons within a conflict are unwilling or unable to budge on the fundamental conflict issues… local CSOs can act as the seed of group formation, mobilization, communication and empowerment, which are necessary to induce peaceful social change” (2008, p4-6). As this thesis has placed great emphasis on civil society within the research, one can find all the more reason to use this concept throughout this research in order to create a better evaluation of the EU’s role in peacebuilding in both Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine.

2.2.1 Definition:

Since the 2003 Security Strategy, the EU has made a commitment to focusing more specifically on conflict transformation as opposed to conflict management and settlement; this addresses the need to further scrutinise and define what the term conflict transformation means. Simply put, conflict transformation can be defined as “transforming the way that societies deal with conflict, moving them from violent to non-violent means” (Frazer and Ghettas, 2013, p6). However, when analysing the evolution of defining conflict transformation as a framework for analysing conflicts, it is important to begin with the founders of this theory: Johan Galtung and John Paul Lederach. Whilst defining peace, the aim of this peacebuilding method, Lederach states that conflict transformation “understands peace as embedded in justice. It emphasizes the importance of building right relationships and social structures through a radical respect for human rights and life. It advocates nonviolence as a way of life and work” (2003, p3-4).

Witt and Balfe take a more in depth approach when interpreting this theory, believing that “an approach that seeks to transform the very systems, structures and relationships which give rise to violence and injustice” (2016, p7). Additionally, they

(18)

show that conflict transformation is composed of three major components. Often described as the ABC Triangle Analysis, these are: the attitudes of those involved, their behaviour and the context of the situation (2016). Additionally, they note that cohesive conflict transformation based initiatives are comprised of four elements: 1) engaging in processes that focus on long term goals; 2) prioritising changing relationships and emphasising the power dynamics in these relationships; 3) interpreting the society in terms of structures, behaviours and attitudes; 4) conflict actor mapping on a local-national and multi-level analysis (2016). An alternative definition is provided by Parlevliet, who describes conflict transformation as “addressing the various manifestations of conflict and the underlying conditions, attitudes and relationships that give rise to, and sustain violent conflict, with the view to developing sustainable peace” (2010, p12). Interestingly, she notes in the context of German development cooperation, conflict transformation is often used interchangeably with peacebuilding (2010). However, Miall indicates that each definition is contested due to the different paradigms and intervenors that are included in the transformative process- including non-state and state actors, as well as at an internal and external level (2001).

Therefore, this is thesis proposes that a more holistic approach is required given its aim to analyse two conflicts with differing levels of actor involvement and because an ethnic conflict is not a simple win-win situation (Miall, 2001). Such an example of this includes the research conducted by Johan Galtung, who argued that conflict transformation occurs at “all levels of conflict, global, social and inter/intra personal levels” (2000, p3). Within his research, he calls to attention the need to provide a broader understanding of what such a framework requires, thus he argues that there are twelve processes that define this theory:

i. Mapping conflict formation

ii. Including minority or ‘forgotten’ parties who have stakes within the conflict iii. Engaging in empathetic dialogue with all parties involved

iv. Specializing engagement with each party individually v. Identifying goals that are acceptable to all parties vi. Reviving forgotten goals

(19)

vii. Achieving goals that are acceptable to all viii. Emphasizing goal-based initiatives

ix. Defining tasks for parties involved through goal-based initiatives x. Evaluating how these initiatives would achieve said goals

xi. Aiding parties in obtaining self-sustaining peace xii. Withdrawing from conflict

Alternatively, Lederach continues the research into the processes of conflict transformation, proposing that processes influence a conflict through four central modes: the personal, the relational, the structural and the cultural (2003). All of these are integral elements of the role civil society plays within a conflict, thus reaffirming the belief that “relationships are at the heart of conflict transformation” (2003, p10). Therefore, the conceptualisation of conflict transformation that this research will promote throughout the remainder of this research is the utilization of the processes outlined by Galtung (2000) in order to achieve the definition of peace as depicted by Lederach (2003). Consequently, the three central themes of evaluating whether or not conflict transformation has occurred or not will include the primary elements of peace described by Lederach: the non-violent way of life and work, adherence to human rights and positive peace.

2.2.3 Conflict management, conflict resolution, and conflict prevention:

A challenge appears within the basic understanding of this theory when compared to conflict resolution, conflict prevention, and conflict management due to their undeniable similarities. As noted above, these are all different theories represented under the overarching peacebuilding theory, but it is within the slight differences that this thesis will prove that conflict transformation is key to understanding ethnic conflicts.

Conflict management is the oldest school of thought and closest linked to the umbrella term of peacebuilding; in its most basic form, it is seen to end conflicts through diplomatic initiatives (Poffenholz, 2009). While conflict management has since been less of a priority for the EU in more recent years, Parlevliet highlights that the major difference between it and conflict transformation is the focus on wider

(20)

social, cultural, and political causes of a conflict (2010). Miall (2001) uses the definition presented by Bloomfield and Reilly (1998) in order to create a more in depth understanding of this school of thought:

Conflict management is the positive and constructive handling of difference and divergence. Rather than advocating methods for

removing conflict, [it] addresses the more realistic question of managing conflict: how to deal with it in a constructive way, how to bring opposing sides together in a cooperative process, how to

design a practical, achievable, cooperative system for the constructive management of difference (Bloomfield and Reilly

1998, 18).

From this definition, one can interpret conflict management as the acknowledgement that the resolution of a conflict is an unrealistic goal, and therefore by utilizing the appropriate interventionist methods, international actors can maintain pressure and support to encourage conflicting parties to induce peace. However, it has faced much criticism due to its sole focus on top-down approaches (Lederach, 1997) and its tendency to ignore the internal and external actors beyond high politics, both during and after negotiations (Poffenholz, 2009).

At its core, conflict resolution can be differentiated from conflict transformation due to the short and medium term attempts at dealing with a conflict. Conflict resolution came into mainstream dialogue as a result of the perceived failings of conflict management, as actors demanded the need for facilitating resolution as opposed to just managing conflicts (Richmond, 2001). Austin et al highlight that this theory emphasises “overcoming the deep-rooted causes of conflict, including the structural, behavioural or altitudinal aspects of the conflict. The process focuses more on the relationships between the parties that the content of a specific outcome” (2004, p464). This emphasis on the ‘deep-rooted causes’ is one of the key features of conflict resolution, particularly as this theory emphasises the analysis, questioning, and reframing of party positions within the conflict as a method to transcend violence or coercion (Pandit, 2012). Paffenholz et al, also examine the conflict resolution

(21)

school, once again noting that this theory proposes the primary goal to be solving the root causes of the conflict (2009). With regards to the modern or second generation literature surrounding conflict resolution, the core features are: “all involved actors aim at addressing the root causes of conflict with relationship building and long-term resolution oriented approaches, and they do not represent a government or an international organization. The main suppliers are international NGOs” (Paffenholz et al, 2009, p4). However, this theory is also problematic, as with the escalation of human security issues through typical conflict resolution approaches, leading to polarisation in civil society, particularly within the dominating groups who might still focus on state security (Richmond, 2001).

Conflict prevention is often deemed to be the most straightforward of the peacebuilding theories, contrasting those reactive models, as it is characterized as conflict management efforts that act prior to violence (John, 2005). This concept is often described as ‘preventive diplomacy’ and ‘crisis prevention’, particularly due to its increasing relevance since the end of the cold war (Bercovitch et al, 2008). Lund defines conflict prevention to be a process that applies to “peaceful situations where substantial physical violence is possible, based on typical indicators of rising hostilities […] The stage or phase during the emergence of violence when prevention comes to play; and its methods of engagement, which are geared to the differing drivers of potential conflicts that preventative measures address” (Bercovitch et al, 2008, p288). However, this has been criticised by John, who calls to attention the grey area that such a theory that focuses on uncertainties creates (2005). Additionally, when referencing Stedman, John highlights that conflict prevention ignores the importance of conflict, how violence sometimes must be intensified ‘before they are resolved’ (2005, p11). Therefore, it is concluded that this theory is equally not applicable to this research, thus allowing conflict transformation to be the dominating theory within this analysis.

2.2.4 Criticism

Any critique of the conflict transformation school of thought has often been neglected given the popularity of implementing this approach in peacebuilding

(22)

initiatives. However, it is important to recognize the flaws of any theory within the research process. Therefore, one must look to an actor who remains critical despite such popularity: Thania Paffenholz. She presents five different criticisms throughout her research in Mozambia (1998) and Somalia (2003). Primarily, she notes a lack of recognition for conflict management as a method of peacebuilding, claiming it is necessary in any negotiation or long term project (2009). Secondly, she states that purely focusing on inside support is not enough within the increasingly globalized world, instead proposing an emphasis on regional or international cooperation (2009). Thirdly, she highlights that civil society will also independently set up their own conflict management and resolution initiatives, thus reemphasizing the lack of attention paid to conflict management despite its relevance (2009). Fourth, she argues that Lederach’s approach has increasingly become dated, particularly given the infrastructure and societal transformation with modern developments and globalization (2009). Finally, she challenges the generalization that middle level and grassroots based projects are at times not applicable to every situation, highlighting that the context of a given conflict is particularly important, as seen in Somalia (2009).

While these reviews are worth noting, within the case of Israel-Palestine and Northern Ireland they are not relevant. In both the first and third critique, Paffenholz argues that conflict management is absent from this theory. However, this is not the case. The Berghof Handbook defines conflict management as “activities undertaken to limit, mitigate and contain open conflict… It applies to actions on all levels and… is active from the beginning of high tension to the cessation of violent conflict and crisis situations” (Austin et al, 2004, p464). Alternatively, the same book defines conflict transformation as “A generic, comprehensive term referring to actions and processes which seek to alter the various characteristics and manifestations of conflict by addressing the root causes of a particular conflict over the long term” (Austin et al, 2004, p464). Within these very definitions, it is visible that they are not comparable as conflict management seeks immediate solutions to violence whilst conflict transformations call for a long term sustainable solution to the conflict as a whole. Additionally, Austin et al state that conflict transformation includes elements from

(23)

conflict resolution and conflict prevention, thus going further than conflict management as a framework for negotiating peace (2004).

The second critique argues that there is not enough emphasis on the wider global political sphere in peacebuilding processes’ where conflict transformation is engaged. Lederach addresses this in his conceptualization of the Conflict Triangle (1997). While it is indeed true that the emphasis of conflict transformation is social relationships, it is clear from this that the attitudes, behaviours, and structures are core elements of any given conflict (1997). When looking at his analysis of behaviours, it is clear the first element of this is the engagement with institutional bodies at both a domestic and regional level, thus diminishing the relevance of this critique.

The fourth critique of the conflict transformation theory brings the ideas of globalization and modernization into the debate. The term globalization was introduced by Theodore Levitt (1983), where he viewed globalization as the widening and deepening of global connections at a local, national, and regional level. This is often conducted through the movement of people, information, goods and services, as well as the globalization of culture, politics, and economics (Drori et al, 2006). However, given the emphasis on context and change that this theory focuses upon, this critique seems like unnecessary. Lederach regularly draws attention to context as being a primary feature of conflict transformation, highlighting that central to the theory is generating processes that “provide adaptive responses” (2009). Moreover, this is seen in the Transformational Platform, which analyses the epicentre, episodes, and platform of a conflict (2009), thus showing that this theory has the potential to be applicable in many environments as it incorporates many different lenses and layers.

The final critique that Paffenholz outlines is that grassroots initiatives are not always the best solution, as some conflicts need high-level politics and diplomacy for sustainable peace to occur. This is a fitting critique and relevant for this research, as one must recognise the limitations of civil societies capacity to evoke change. However, while this theory places the dominating emphasis on civil society, enforcing human rights and creating justice throughout society, two of the features of the

(24)

definition, it is evident that this theory is relevant at a state level as well as across society. Therefore, despite the critiques presented by Paffenholz, this research will continue to persevere conflict transformation as process to which one can further understand peacebuilding initiatives.

2.3 Civil society and conflict transformation:

At the core of the conflict transformation school of thought and the definition proposed in this thesis, civil society plays a dominating role (Lederach, 1997; Tocci, 2008; Tocci, 2013). This is reiterated by Tocci, who states that “the role of civil society is the essence” of this theory (2008, p4). The term civil society organisations (CSOs) has recently gained traction by international organisations, such as the World Bank (2005), who define CSOs as: “not-for-profit organisations which have a presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations” (cited by Austin et al, 2011, p288). According to the EU, CSOs operate across four levels: 1) grassroots or community based organisations, 2) organisatiosn that have registered legally with the appropriate legislation, 3) geographic or theme based networks, 4) umbrella organisations or platforms (Civil Society Helpdesk, 2011). Typically, civil society organisations are characterised by the EU as being independent of the state and created as a result “of grass-roots initiatives seeking to bring social changes” (ec.europa, n.d). The CSOs discussed throughout this thesis are typically grass-roots organisations or NGOs that coordinate EU-funded projects which focus on a wide variety of subjects, including human rights, prisoner rights, and women’s rights, to name but a few. The role of CSOs in terms of conflict transformation is twofold according to Tocci: “Civil society organizations (CSOs) on the one hand are pivotal in providing the necessary support for peace, ensuring that any agreement negotiated by political leaders is ultimately accepted and implemented on the ground... On the other hand, civil society can provide the necessary push for peaceful social change, especially when the top echelons within a conflict context are unwilling or unable to budge on the fundamental conflict issues… in other words, civil society is both an agent for change and a reflection of the conflict structure” (2008, p4). Consequently,

(25)

CSOs are involved in the transformation process as they are at the root of a conflict and equally, at the solution and transformation of a conflict.

2.4 Peace and conflict transformation

Throughout academic literature, there have been two dominating conceptualisations of the term ‘peace’: negative and positive (Galtung, 1969). However, as noted by Galtung, negative peace which depicts the absence of violence is not a definition, instead it is an obscurum per obscurious given the absence of violence is an integral element to any form of peace (Galtung, 1969, p167). Alternatively, Galtung highlights the concept of positive peace in which there is both an absence of physical and structural violence (1969, p183). Positive peace, as opposed to negative peace, is clearly reflected in conflict transformation given the emphasis on human rights, justice and social relationships.

2.5 Human rights and conflict transformation

The basis for the relationship between human rights and conflict transformation can be found in Lederach’s definition of peace as he specifically references a “radical respect for human rights and life” (2003, p4). According to the EU, human rights include “Human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human right” (Europa.eu, n.d). These rights are embedded in EU treaties and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Perhaps the most evident explanation for analysing this relationship is due to the link between violence and human rights abuses. The BMZ discusses this relationship, highlighting how it can go both ways (2010). In the 1994 Rwandan genocide violence led to the deaths of 800,000 people in just 100 days. Alternatively, it was due to continuing human rights abuses experienced by the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka resulted in a lasting civil war (2010). Moreover, Babbit cites Parlevliet when stating: “considering human rights and conflict transformation in conjunction deepen one’s analysis of what is involved in moving from violence to sustainable peace” (Dudouet and Schmelzle, 2010, p67). Thus, it can be concluded that not only are the two concepts clearly interlinked, but by using them together in research it can improve the analysis of transformation.

(26)

2.6 Violence and conflict transformation

Violence as a conceptualisation comes in many forms, the most notable of which include physical and structural violence. Physical violence in an ethnic conflict appears in the form of terrorism, which according to the Convention on Combating International Terrorism (1999) is defined as: “any act of violence or threat thereof notwithstanding its motives or intentions perpetrated to carry out an individual or collective criminal plan with the aim of terrorising people or threatening to harm them or imperilling their lives, honour, freedoms, security or rights or exposing the environment or any facility or public or private property to hazards or occupying or seizing them, or endangering a national resource, or international facilities, or threatening the stability, territorial integrity, political unity or sovereignty of independent States” (europarl.europa.eu, 2015). Alternatively, structural violence or ‘social injustice’, is defined by Galtung to depict a form of violence in which the social structure or institutions harm society by preventing them to meet their basic needs (1969). Galtung created a typology of violence in which to analyse this subject, as seen below:

Figure 1. A Typology of Violence (Galtun, 1969, p173)

The relationship between violence and conflict transformation is based upon the very core of this theory- to overcome violence and to transform society towards a positive peace.

The next chapter of this thesis will introduce the background context of the conflicts in Israel-Palestine and Northern Ireland. By approaching the two case studies

(27)

from such a broad and historical narrative, it is believed that a better comprehension of the conflicts will be created, thus improving the overall analysis.

(28)

Chapter 3– The Historical Context

3.1 Introduction

This chapter sets the context for the research, engaging with the academic literature to create a narrative about the EU’s involvement in civil society in both of the conflicts under investigation. Starting with the Northern Irish conflict, this research will provide a brief overview of the Irish Civil War (1920-1921), the Troubles (1968-1998) and the supposed ‘post-conflict’ years. The second section of this chapter will give a brief historical overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, beginning in 1917 with the initial steps taken by the British empire towards the creation of a Jewish state, followed by the Nakba and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, as well as the second Arab Israeli War (1967), the first Intifada (1987-1993), the renowned Oslo Accords (1993), the second intrafada (2000-2005), the 2006 Hamas election, the Gaza War (2008-2009), Operation Pillar of Defense (2012) and finally the Israel-Gaza Conflict (2014). By creating a greater understanding of both of the history of this conflicts, one can begin the process of comprehending whether these conflicts have indeed transformed.

3.2 Northern Ireland

3.2.1 The Early Years

Despite multiple other attempted rebellions over the years, British rule was a given since the New English Protestant plantations of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries and the subsequent Cromwellian Wars of 1649-1653 (McCarthy, 2016). However, as Maley and Lusk argue- it laid the foundations for Irish independence and on a broader spectrum, challenged the British Empire thus ushering “in an era of struggles for independence, as well as laying down a milestone in social and gender equality that had similarly far-reaching effects” (2016, p1). Despite the efforts of the 1,700 insurrectionists during the 1916 Eastern Rising, Irish independence would not occur until April 1923 (2016). The Irish Civil War began on the 28th_{June 1922. It is often described as being the result of three interconnected}

(29)

issues according to Brew et al: 1) the destruction of ‘British political and military domination’ by the Irish Republican Army, an offshoot of the Irish Volunteers; 2) a shift within the Unionist bloc who called for state formation in the north of Ireland; 3) and finally, the new “Irish strategies aimed at coping with the situation and ensuring an outcome that would do least injury to British interests” (1979, p44). In 1920, the Government of Ireland Bill (1920), the Anglo-Irish Treaty (1921) and the Special Powers Act (1922) were introduced to establish the Republic of Ireland as an independent state to the British Empire, but notably excluded the 6 north-eastern counties that would create Northern Ireland. Thus, beginning the struggles that would last until the GFA.

It was in the years following the civil war when the Northern Irish state was created as a subject of the British Empire (Bew et al, 1979). This led to the inter-war period, the years 1922-1968, a time which evidently saw a state on the rise. The parliament in Stormont, East Belfast, focused on the development of a Northern Irish Civil Service and social welfare state, thus beginning the institutionalisation of inequality between the two communities (1979). Discrimination against Catholics began from the start with over 60 appointments to the Civil Service being made without any “normal selection procedures being observed at all” (1979, p77). This continued across the Ministry of Home Affairs where Sir Richard Dawson Bates of the Ulster Unionist Party, refused to allow any Catholic appointees, as did the then Minister of Labour John Andrews (1979). This continued to escalate as “evidence emerged of Orange Order surveillance of Catholic civil servants and even civil servants married to Catholics” (1979, p77). Additionally, given the Catholic support for the Nationalist Party throughout this era, political representation for Catholics reached a new low as the Nationalist Party chose to pursue periods of abstentionism between 1921-1965 in order to protest the supposed ‘illegal’ partition of Ireland. Consequently, it is clear that during the inter-war era that under the Unionist government in Stormont, Northern Ireland became a ‘Protestant state’. This is most evident when Sir James Craig, the then Northern Irish Prime Minister stated: “I have always said that I am an Orangeman first and a politician and a member of this parliament afterwards… All I boast is that we have a Protestant parliament and a Protestant state” (1934).

(30)

In response to the civil rights abuses that came as a result of discrimination, the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Republican Clubs founded the renowned Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) in 1967. On the 5th_{October 1968 in}

Derry, NICRA organized a civil rights protest to take placed between Duke Street, a dominantly Protestant area, into the centre of the city. However, the Apprentice Boys of Derry, an Orange fraternal society, declared a march on the same day, resulting in a public ban order on the 3rd_{of October for all protests of this route by the Minister}

of Home Affairs William Craig. Despite this ban, NICRA members went ahead with the protest, resulting in violent skirmishes, the use of police force with batons and water cannons, and 96 injured (bbc.co.uk, n.d.). The extensive use of force and violence was captured on camera by the media and consequently brought this protest to the attention to the world (RTE Archives, n.d.). The subsequent fallout and reaction to this protest led to further demonstrations and counter demonstrations, where the “security situation slipped out of control” (bbc.co.uk, n.d.). The continuous escalation of both violence and civil rights abuses in the years that followed is what is now known today as The Troubles.

3.2.2 The Northern Irish Conflict

The Troubles (1968-1998) can be described as “a thirty-year bout of political violence, low intensity armed conflict and political deadlock”, resulting in the deaths of over 3,500 people and up to 50,000 injured out of the 1.5 million people across the North of Ireland throughout this time (Dorney, 2015). Within the conflict there were many sides, however the dominating groups include the Protestants in Northern Ireland (48%) who defined themselves largely as British and supported a continued membership of the United Kingdom (unionists). In contrast, the Catholics of Northern Ireland (45%) desired a united Ireland (nationalists). Additionally, militant unionists were often described as loyalists and militant nationalists were termed republicans (Archick, 2014). Academics such as Diez et al reference the Troubles to be a border conflict given the republican aims for a united Ireland (2008). Additionally, it is important to note that while the terminology used throughout this conflict often reflects religion, it is misinterpreted as a religious conflict as opposed to its roots as a

(31)

civil rights movement with NICRA. This is reiterated by Adrian Johnston, who stated: “it was not a religious conflict; rather, it is understood to be a complex mix of political, economic, social and cultural factors with the constitutional standing of Northern Ireland at the heart of the issue” (2017). Therefore, the Northern Ireland conflict “is not a conflict primarily about religion, but rather one where religion acts principally as the marker for two distinct ethnonational identities” (Nolan, 2012, p19).

The resolution of the conflict began in the late 1980s with two major steps forward in the peace process: the Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985) and the cease-fire (1994). Prior to this, several attempts, such as the failed Sunningdale Agreement (1973) had proven that political solutions had been rejected because “the two communities became suspicious and fearful that their own cultural identities were being undermined” (Johnston, 2017). As a result of a joint British-Irish strategy- which is often described as a ‘carrot-and-stick’ approach given the incentives to cooperate and compromise with nationalists, unionists and paramilitaries throughout the peace process (Tannam, 2012, p51). In response to the hunger strikes (1980-1981) and the infamous Sinn Fein Armalite and Ballot Box Strategy, in which they used political and action and military force “in order to force a repressive regime to relinquish its grasp on power” (Hannigan, 1985, p31), the Republic of Ireland and British governments signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985). This is often interpreted as the first true step towards the peace process (Tannam, 2012). The Anglo-Irish Agreement aimed to bring economic stability to disadvantaged areas through international funding, aiming to create community confidence and provide opportunities (Johnston, 2017). This was subsequently followed by the Joint Declaration of Peace or the Downing Street Declaration (1993), which saw a collaborative step between the Irish and British governments to continue negotiations and cooperate in order to achieve peace. The second important step towards peace was the 1994 cease fire. On the 31st_August

1994, the Provisional IRA stated that the conflict was at a ‘historic crossroads’ and from midnight onwards a ceasefire would begin (Schmidt, 1994). Gerry Adams, head of Sinn Fein, declared that “the struggle is not over… the struggle has entered a new phase” (1994).

(32)

3.2.3 The Good Friday Agreement and beyond

On the 10th April (1998) the Good Friday Agreement or the Belfast Agreement was signed and is believed to have “ended the period of political violence”, based on a platform of recognising the two communities as equals (Nolan, 2012, p19). In order to ratify the agreement a referendum on both sides of the island of Ireland occurred on the 22 May 1998. With a voter turnout of 81%, the agreement passed with a total of 71.1% in favour. The agreement is comprised of three primary strands: 1) The Democratic Institutions, 2) North/South Ministerial Council, and 3) the British-Irish Council and Intergovernmental Conference (1998). Six additional chapters were written to include: rights and equality of opportunity, decommissioning, security, policing and justice, prisoners, and validation, implementation and review (1998). One of the most important aspects to the agreement was the recognition that not all sides were homogenous, as can be seen from Article 5 of the Declaration of Support:

“We acknowledge the substantial differences between our continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations. However,

we will endeavour to strive in every practical way towards reconciliation and rapprochement within the framework of democratic and agreed arrangements. We pledge that we will, in good faith, work to ensure the success of each and every one of the

arrangements to be established under this agreement”

(1998, p2-3)

This article also highlights that this is an agreement based upon ‘good faith’ as opposed to consequences if the objectives are not met, which resulted in many delays in the implementation of the devolution of political, justice and policing powers from London to Belfast, and the decommissioning of paramilitary groups and weapons (Archick, 2017).

It can be concluded that it is due to this multitude of objectives that tensions remained in the aftermath of the GFA, particularly with parties like the DUP who outright opposed the agreement (McCann, 2017). Issues arose regarding the

(33)

decommissioning of paramilitary groups and weapons, particularly with the advancement of Sinn Fein into the executive branch of the Northern Irish government (2013). The subject of decommissioning was incredibly relevant in the years following the GFA due to the mutual distrust that all parties felt towards each other, as well as the failure of GFA to form any comprehensive provisions to impose sanctions on non-decommissioning, instead basing it upon good-will (Democratic Progress Institute, 2013). This led to the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly at several points between 1998-2004. However, it was once again due to civil society that the paramilitary groups were “under pressure to reflect the views of their constituencies” and decommission as a result (Democratic Progress Institute, 2013, p37). Consequently, in 2002 Gerry Adams announced that a future “without the IRA” was possible (Democratic Progress Institute, 2013, 37). However, it remains a contentious issue given the difficulty in ensuring that decommissioning genuinely occurred, particularly given the continued attacks since 1998.

Since the signing of the GFA, one of the most notably steps towards further peace was the St Andrews Agreement (2006), which furthered the devolution of power in the region, restoring the Northern Ireland Assembly and a new Northern Ireland Executive (Gordon, 2008). Following this, a subsequent agreement was successfully reached- known as the Hillsborough Agreement, which led to agreements over the controversial parades and further devolution of justice and policing powers (Sergie, 2014). However, in the years following this agreement it has become all the clearer that a re-evaluation of the Northern Irish conflict must occur, particularly in the global assumption that the conflict has ended. It is bluntly stated by the Armed Conflict Database that this belief is flawed as it has become clear that the conflict is not yet over, as several dissident splinter groups have begun to assert themselves with a string of car bomb and pipe bomb attacks, mostly against security forces, in addition to protests and assassinations” (Acd.iiss.org, n.d. A). Moreover, the divisions between the communities remains; this is evident with the 53 peace walls that remain as “physical barriers” separating the communities and “schools and housing estates… remain mostly single-identity communities” (Archick, 2017, p13).

(34)

3.3 Israel-Palestine

3.3.1 The Early Years

In November 1917, the then British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour wrote to the British Zionist Lord Rothschild, declaring British support for the building of a Jewish state in Palestine. This was then followed by the San Remo conference (1920) which entrusted Britain with the Mandate for Palestine, administered under the terms of the Balfour Declaration in order to begin the preparations for self-governing of the country (Shlaim, 1987). At the end of the British Mandate of Palestine (1922-1948), the UN General Assembly adopted the UN Partition Plan for Palestine (Resolution 181[II]); this was a four-part plan that recommended the withdrawal of British presence in Palestine and for the creation of two independent Jewish and Arab states (1947). While the Partition Plan was rejected by the Jewish Agency, the Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine (Morris, 2008), the State of Israel was formed on the 14th May, 1948 with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. The lead up to the formation of the state of Israel resulted in a mass evacuation of Palestinians in November 1947, in what later became known as the

Nakba, which translates to literally mean ‘disaster’ (Cook, 2010).

At midnight of the 15th_{May, the British mandate in Palestine ended, Israeli}

independence was declared, resulting in the Arab-Israeli War (1948). A conclusion to violence only occurred on the 7 January 1949 after Britain “issued a strong threat of military intervention” under the terms of the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty (Shlaim, 1987, p67). This resulted in the 1949 Armistice Agreements that resulted in the influential Green Line or the (pre-)1967 Border. In the years that followed, peace was strained at times- particularly given the massive influx of Jewish refugees after World War II which resulted in an austerity period (1949-1959). Throughout the inter-war period in Israel-Palestine, it is clear that war was never too far out of mind, particularly when tensions rose at times such as the Suez crisis, which resulted in raids and skirmishes across the Israeli and Egyptian Borders (Milton-Edwards, 2009). Additionally, “the region had become a theatre of Cold War rivalry as the Soviet Union

(35)

and the USA vied with each other for global dominance” (2009, p120). This was an essential aspect to understanding the lead up to the Six Day War, as it was exasperated by Soviet misinformation to Syrian intelligence, which intensified the tensions between Egypt and Syria, and Israel, later including Jordan in these tensions (2009).

The Six Day War, also known as the second Arab-Israeli War, took place between the 5th_{to the 10}th_{June, 1967 between Israel and the then states of the}

United Arab Republic (comprised up of Egypt, Jordan and Syria). As Milton-Edwards notes, the events of this Six Day War changed not only the dynamic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also the process of Israeli occupation and settlement, as well as the Palestinian resistance and the state-like-entity of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) (2009). The most influential outcome of this conflict was the ‘territorial gains’ that Israel had accumulated from historic Palestine, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, thus beginning its official occupation of the Palestinian territories. Since then, “Israel has controlled the entire area of historic Palestine since 1967, governing the Occupied Territories by military law and Israel inside the Green Line (but excluding Gaza) by civil law” (Spangler, 2015, p20). Consequently, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become “one of the oldest conflicts in the world, if not the oldest” (AbuZayyad, 2017).

In the lead up to the first Intafada (1987-1993), Palestinian nationalism rose as a response to failing diplomatic efforts to slow down Israeli settlement activity and the structural and physical violence that had been increasing substantially (Tessler, 2010). On the 9th_{December 1987, an ordinary winters day began in Israel with one}

difference: ‘a spirit of revolt was in the air’, boiling over when an Israeli drier killed a group of Palestinians in a road crash (Milton-Edwards, 2009, p143). The term intifada translates to mean ‘shaking off’ (Tessler, 2010, p677) and has been used to describe the grassroots rebellion that used tactics such as unarmed demonstration, an economic boycott, rock throwing against Israeli soldiers and general civil disobedience (Pollock and Luitsz, 2012). Despite the initial spontaneity of this rebellion, a leftist, revolutionary nationalist group known as the PLO, quickly took control of the situation (Mock et al, 2015, p1257). This resulted in the ‘broken bones’ policy of the then Israeli

(36)

Defence Minister Yitzhak Rabin, implementing the use of brutal force to stop the typically non-violent and unarmed rebellion (Pollock and Luitsz, 2012). In response to the rebellion, Israel “limited travel, closed educational institutions, detained suspects, demolished and seized houses, deported activists outside the borders of Israel, and used targeted killings” (Silber, 2010, p90). Between 1987-1991, more than 1000 Palestinians were killed and approximately 120,000 Palestinians were imprisoned (Btselem.org, n.d.). It was during this time that the spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin, with Abdel Aziz al-Rantassi and Mohammad Taha, founded Harakat Mouqawama Al-Islamiyya, otherwise known by its acronym Hamas (Baracskay, 2015).

In 1988, this led to the Palestinian National Council’s decision to accept the two-state solution as proposed by the UN Resolution 181 (1947) also known as the Partition Plan for Palestine. This resolution called for the partition of Palestine into independent Jewish and Arabic States and for the city of Jerusalem to become a

corpus separatum or ‘separate entity’, to be governed by an international regime

(1947). Moreover, the Palestinian National Council ‘renounced terrorism’ and began seeking further negotiations for Resolution 242 (1967) which called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces and laid down the principles for a ‘peaceful settlement’ in the Middle East, as well as Resolution 338 (1973), which called for a ceasefire and further negotiations to create “a just and durable peace in the Middle East” (1973). This was the first major step towards the 5 year ‘transitional period’ leading up to the Oslo Accords (1993).

3.3.2 The Oslo Accords and beyond

The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, more commonly referred to as the Oslo Accords, marked the closest Israel-Palestine has ever come to reaching a peace agreement. Signed by the PLO and state of Israel, this agreement outlined “a five-year process to reach an agreement between the parties on future relations and arrangements” (Bauck and Omer, 2013, p1). The aim of the declaration was to achieve a peace settlement and create reconciliation through a political process through a gradual transfer of power from Israel to Palestine (Watson, 2010). This gradual process was expected to occur through four stages: 1) the Israeli

Conflict transformation and civil society in an ethnic conflict : the European Union in Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine