Diss. Linköping : Univ., 2003.

No description available.

No description available.

The purpose of this study has been to examine how the Israel-Palestine conflict has been conveyed in history textbooks intended for upper secondary school during the period 1956–2017. The focus has also been on identifying which perspectives and identities are revealed in connection with the history textbooks descriptions of the conflict. This study has a historical cultural approach and has been conducted through a qualitative content analysis. The analysis has also been specified by applying research on identity transmission in history textbooks, and has used Jörn Rüsen’s narrative typology, which consists of four narrative categories. This study shows that there have been changes over time in how the Israel-Palestine conflict is mediated. Until the early 1970s history textbooks were dominated by content that primarily conveyed a great power perspective that focused on portraying the perspectives of Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union. These perspectives can be identified in all textbooks during the entire analysis period. But during the 1970s and onwards, other perspectives began to become visible in the text textbooks, for example a Jewish, Palestinian, and Arab perspective. The study has also shown that the content of the textbooks tends to convey certain perspectives more than others. For example by either focusing on portraying the perspective of Israel or the Palestinians. Furthermore, has this study discovered that in connection with the description ofthe Israel-Palestine conflict, it is possible to identify different identities. In connection with the changing perspectives in the textbooks during the 1970s the Jewish and Palestinian identity becomes more prominent and portrayed in a more multifaceted way. Other identities such as an Arab and European identity can also be made visible in some textbooks. However, not the Christian identity. Some of these identities are based in different memory cultures, where the historical suffering of different groups is highlighted as a unifying factor. This study has shown that these identities tend to be linked to national, geographical, ethnic, or religious contexts.

The focus of this thesis is on foreign-policy decision-making in circumstances of water scarcity. In particular the study focuses on how the issue of water has been treated in the interstate negotiations within the Peace Process between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Jordan. It also analyses the implementation phase. The aim of this study is to analyse why and under what conditions co-operation has taken place and how it has functioned in the water sector. As such the study moves beyond the vast quantitative material which states that transboundary water co-operation does occur by exploring why co-operation has occurred in the Jordan River Basin. Based on an overall actor-structure framework the factors deemed to be important in affecting the process and outcome are identified. The development of a shared system of norms, rules and procedures for how to manage the water resource are seen as a vital explanatory variable for the water co-operation in the Jordan River Basin. It is concluded that the water negotiations, both between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and Jordan have been intimately linked to the other issues on the negotiation table. Further-more, it is concluded that water has been sub-ordinate to other politically more salient questions in the negotiations. The thesis contributes to the body of research on water in the Jordan River Basin in three ways. First, it provides and empirical overview of the implementation process of the water elements of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan and of article 40 (which deals with water) of the Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Second, the thesis has analysed the role that scientific experts play in the water negotiations. Expert advice has been used in the negotiations and can be said to be important in that it reduces uncertainty for decision-makers as well as provide tools with which to legitimise political decisions. Third, the thesis contributes to the understanding of why the parties in the Jordan River Basin have chosen co-operative strategies rather than resorting to conflictual behaviour to handle their shared waters. Of key importance in this respect is that shared water is an interdependent resource. Thus mutual dependence on a shared resource stimulates and reinforces the need for cooperation.

No description available.

This essay focuses on analyzing the rhetoric concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in opinion pieces in the Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter in 1988. This is done using a qualitative analysis method. The theoretical basis for the essay is primarily founded on postcolonial theory and in particular on Edward Said’s claim that Israel is a new example of European colonialism. The aim is to determine how the authors of the opinion pieces, using certain rhetoric, portray Israel and the Palestinians/PLO in relation to their position of power. The justification and condemnation of violence between the parties will also be examined. The results show that the pro-Israeli authors tend to use the Jews’ history of persecution and suffering as a justification for the existence of Israel. Also, they argue that Israeli violence is a form of self-defense as a result of Arab intransigence and violence. The more pro-Palestinian authors tend to portray Israel as a violent and oppressing regime, and in some cases adhere to the view on the state as an example of European colonialism.