A presente dissertação de mestrado tem por objetivo traçar uma história da ideia de um Estado binacional para árabes e judeus na Palestina histórica. O estudo busca, após definir as especificidades de um Estado binacional, compreender a circulação da ideia binacional no período anterior à criação do Estado de Israel, em 1948, entre judeus e árabes-palestinos progressistas, dentro do movimento sionista e em organizações de esquerda da Palestina. Em um segundo momento, busca-se entender como o período compreendido entre a criação do Estado de Israel e o processo que levou aos Acordos de Oslo, nos anos 90, ao mesmo tempo silenciou o ideal binacional e criou as bases para seu ressurgimento na virada do século. Por fim, são analisadas, frente ao contexto israelo-palestino na atualidade, as perspectivas do ressurgimento de propostas binacionais, mais nítido entre jornalistas de esquerda, algumas figuras que fizeram ou fazem marginalmente parte da política institucional, intelectuais e acadêmicos adeptos de perspectivas críticas, assim como entre ativistas e movimentos sociais por direitos humanos envolvidos na região. / This Masters thesis aims to trace a history of the idea of a bi-national state for Arabs and Jews in historical Palestine. After laying out the specificities of a binational state, it reconstructs the circulation of the binational idea in the period before the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, among progressive Jews and Palestinian Arabs, in the Zionist movement, and among left-wing organizations in Palestine. In a second step, we we analize how the period between the establishment of the State of Israel and the peace process that led to the Oslo Accords, in the 90s, was marked by silence around the binational ideal while all the same laying the foundations for its revival at the turn of the 21st century. Finally, regarding todays Israeli-Palestinian context, we analyze the prospects of revival of binational proposals, focusing on left-wing journalists, a number of more or less marginal participants in institutional politics, some critical intellectuals and academic supporters, and among activists and social movements for human rights.

This thesis focuses on the image of an Eastern Jew in Czech-Jewish and Zionist journals from 1910 to 1925 and its position in the identity of these groups. The analysis is based on fictional texts (both translations and originally Czech ones) with Eastern Jewish characters, which (considering their placement in official journals of the Czech-Jewish and Zionist institutions) presented a fictional world acceptable for the movement's ideology and co-created the image of Eastern Jew in their followers' collective memory. A description of the most frequent features of Eastern Jewish characters is supplemented by historical context and the journals' non-literary articles. Key words Eastern Jew, 1st World War, Jewish identity, assimilation, Zionism, Jewish journals, stereotypes, characters.

This dissertation poses a set of six questions about one of the Israel Lobby’s particular components, a Potential Christian Jewish coalition (PCJc) within American politics that advocates for Israeli sovereignty over “Judea and Samaria” (“the West Bank”). The study addresses: the profiles of the individuals of the PCJc; its policy positions, the issues that have divided it, and what has prevented, and continues to prevent, the coalition from being absorbed into one or more of the more formally organized components of the Israel Lobby; the resources and methods this coalition has used to attempt to influence U.S. policy on (a) the Middle East, and (b) the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular; the successes or failures of this coalition’s advocacy and why it has not organized; and what this case reveals about interest group politics and social movements in the United States. This dissertation follows the descriptive-analytic case-study tradition that comprises a detailed analysis of a specific interest group and one policy issue, which conforms to my interest in the potential Christian Jewish coalition that supports a Jewish Judea and Samaria. I have employed participant observation, interviewing, content analysis and documentary research. The findings suggest: The PCJc consists of Christian Zionists and mostly Jews of the center religious denominations. Orthodox Jewish traditions of separation from Christians inhibit like-minded Christians and Jews from organizing. The PCJc opposes an Arab state in Judea and Samaria, and is not absorbed into more formally organized interest groups that support that policy. The PCJc’s resources consist of support and funding from conservatives. Methods include use of education, debates and media. Members of the PCJc are successful because they persist in their support for a Jewish Judea and Samaria and meet through other organizations around Judeo-Christian values. The PCJc is deterred from advocacy and organization by a mobilization of bias from a subgovernment in Washington, D.C. comprising Congress, the Executive branch and lobby organizations. The study’s results raise questions about interest group politics in America and the degree to which the U.S. political system is pluralistic, suggesting that executive power constrains the agenda to “safe” positions it favors.

L’objet de notre recherche est de définir la politique du Saint-Siège face à la « Question de Palestine », durant la période qui va de la Déclaration Balfour (1917) à la création de l’État d’Israël (1948). À ce moment précis de l’Histoire où les Britanniques s’apprêtent à recevoir de la Société des Nations un mandat plaçant la Palestine sous leur tutelle, la « renaissance » d’Israël pose à l’Église catholique un double problème. Sur le plan politique, les pressions des diplomaties arabes et de la Congrégation pour l’Église orientale empêchent toute ouverture vers la création d’un État hébreu, le Vatican redoutant que les chrétiens arabes n’en paient le prix. Sur le plan théologique, le retour du peuple juif sur la Terre de la promesse pose à l’Église une question inédite. Cette restauration temporelle ne démontre-t-elle pas en effet que l’Alliance entre Dieu et le peuple d’Israël reste valide ? Et si Israël demeure le peuple élu, quelle est la raison d’être de l’Église ? Si le christianisme est par essence universel, il n’est pas pour autant dissocié de l’Histoire, et notamment de celle du peuple d’Israël « dont le Christ est issu selon la chair » (Rm 9, 3-5). Il s’agit donc de comprendre le particulier enchevêtrement du temporel et du spirituel dans cette région tourmentée du monde qu’est le Proche-Orient. / The object of this research is to define the policy of the Holy See faced with the “Palestinian Question” during the period dating from the Balfour Declaration (1917) to the creation of the State of Israel (1948). At the precise moment in history when the British received a mandate from the League of Nations placing Palestine under their tutelage, the “rebirth” of Israel posed a dual problem for the Catholic Church. On the political front, the pressures imposed by Arab diplomats and the powerful voice of the Congregation of Eastern Churches prevented any talk of creating a Jewish state, the Vatican's stance being that Christian Arabs should not pay the price for this. On the theological front, the return of the Jewish people to the Promised Land posed a new question for the Church. Did not this return prove that the relationship between God and the people of Israel was still valid ? If Israel remained the chosen people what would be the justification for the Church? If Christianity is essentially universal this does not disassociate it from its history, especially that of the people of Israel "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came " (Rm 9: 3-5) It is therefore important to understand the particular overlap of politics and religion in this troubled region of the world which is the Middle East.

Les positions diplomatiques du Quai d’Orsay et du Foreign Office dans la question de Palestine sont rarement abordées directement et sur une moyenne durée. En effet, si la mise en place de l’ordre mandataire après la Première Guerre mondiale et celle de l’établissement de l’État d’Israël après la Seconde Guerre mondiale font l’objet d’une importante production historiographique, il manquait une étude des attitudes et des intérêts des diplomaties française et britannique face à la question de Palestine de 1917 (date de la « déclaration Balfour ») jusqu’en 1948 (déclenchement de la première guerre israélo-arabe). L’analyse des archives diplomatiques permet d’établir les raisons du soutien apporté au sionisme par Paris et Londres, ainsi que leur compréhension limitée des objectifs du nationalisme juif. De fait, les puissances occidentales ont cru à tort qu’elles pouvaient façonner celui-ci pour accomplir leurs propres objectifs coloniaux au Proche-Orient. En essayant d’imposer ce projet aux populations arabes, majoritaires en Palestine, elles ont contribué à alimenter le conflit israélo-palestinien. / The diplomatic positions of the Quai d’Orsay and the Foreign Office on the Palestine question are rarely studied directly and on a long-term basis. If the establishment of the mandate system after World War I and the creation of Israel after World War II have been subjected to an intense historiographical production, a study of the attitudes and interests of the French and British diplomacies towards Palestine from 1917 (year of the Balfour declaration) to 1948 (year of the first Arab-Israeli war) was missing. The analysis of diplomatic documents allows to establish the reasons behind Paris and London’s support to Zionism, as well as their own understanding of the objectives of Jewish nationalism. Western powers had believed that they could shape Zionism and use it to achieve their colonial agendas in the Middle-East. By forcing their Zionist project on Arab populations, they contributed to fueling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

History gives Harry S. Truman rightful merit for his help in establishing Jewish homeland in 1948. Although more than 63 years have passed since the declaration of Israeli independence, the true motives that lead President Truman to recognize Israel are still being discussed and disputed. Shortly after his inauguration in April 1945, the thirty-third president found himself in a difficult position when a majority of the Jews who had survived Nazi concentration camps could not or did not want to return to their countries of origin. Instead, they declared their wish to emigrate to Palestine, where Zionists had already been trying to establish a Jewish commonwealth. However, at that time there was a widespread uncertainty whether Franklin Delano Roosevelt's successor would have the same opinion about the post-World War II settlement in Palestine or not. It is the objective of this thesis to analyze the complex set of reasons that made President Truman support political Zionism. As we know, this process ultimately culminated with a prompt recognition of a newly established Jewish state. To answer the question what was the main reason behind this decision, domestic and external factors the president had to consider will be examined. The emphasis will be placed on American military and economic interests...