The Claim of Openness: Turkey’s Approach to the Peace Process

After nine decades of denial,military confrontation and securitisation of the Kurdish problem,the AKP government outspokenly addressed the Kurdish question,wanting to change the course of Turkish-Kurdish conflict by introducing the notion of Kurdish opening.Despite the claims of the founder of the Turkish Republic Kemal Ataturk of reconciliation within his country and with the world,Turkey still witnesses conflicts and tensions with all the countries of the region and domestically,with various secular and religious factions,and with the Kurds in particular.Since the establishment of Turkey as a modern state,peace and prosperity have not clearly been seen.Military coups have frequently overthrown civilian governments in the political arena.One of the very visible and complicated obstacles to peace and prosperity is the Kurdish problem.After three decades of costly war between the state and the Kurdish movement,in the AKP era for the first time,public negotiations between the two took place.The Kurdish movement became invested in this relatively peaceful environment and started to promote cultural nationalism on a large scale.Suddenly,however,the state abruptly ceased the peace process with representatives of the Kurdish movement and detained thousands of its activists.Some southeastern areas have faced destruction,and about one million civil habitants have been displaced.This article seeks to explain why the state has returned to its old policy of security and military approach,whilst in the past few years it had repeatedly claimed that it was possible to deal with the Kurdish question through peace and reconciliation.The research tries to examine the complex relationship between the Turkish state and the Kurdish movement.

Peace Process and Anti-terrorism:Dual Challenges Facing Obama Administration's Middle East Policy

The negative interaction between the prioritization of anti-terrorism and the marginalization of the peace process forms a heavy heritage of Bush Administration’s Middle East policy.Therefore,the Obama Administration now is confronted with a very serious test:how to establish and maintain compatible and balanced relations between peace and anti-terrorism.On the grand strategic level,the key point is whether America can reshape the regional strategic environment of the Middle East or not.Specifically speaking,the possibility of furthering the Middle East peace process is determined by the following items:the US can or can’t change the strategic rigidity of its Middle East policy favorable to Israel,adopt some effective measures to make Hamas integrated into the Middle East peace process,and improve its relations with Syria and convert Syria into a constructive role in the Middle East peace process and regional security.On the issue of anti-terrorism,the compatibility between anti-terrorism and peace can be achieved only if the Obama Administration could take overall adjustment on the past anti-terrorism strategy of US,guarantee that the situation of Iraq will not deteriorate,and resolve the Iranian issue in a peaceful manner,so as to avoid being bogged down into endless warfare.

The New Middle East Policy of the Obama Administration

Due to its decisive role among domestic and foreign policies of the US,the new Middle East policy of the Obama Administration has received extensive attention.So far,the new policy has not finally taken shape.Judging from Obama’s campaign speeches and the viewpoints of senior officials of the Obama administration,we may notice the following characteristics of the new policy:highlighting multilateral cooperation;emphasizing contact and dialogue;advancing simultaneously for a comprehensive resolution.These characteristics can also be seen in withdrawing troops from Iraq,deploying more troops in Afghanistan and the US efforts for,promoting the Middle East peace process and resolving the nuclear issue in Iran.The Obama Administration attaches great importance to the Middle East issue and has a strong desire to resolve it first.However,the new policy has palpable flaws and defects.The Middle East issue will be a huge test for the Obama administration.

An Analysis on the Perspective for Establishing the Persian Gulf Sub-regional Security Order

The Middle East has been a region involved with various problems for many years.Recently the Iranian nuclear issue is bringing the attention of the international society to the security situation in the Persian Gulf region.With the rising of Iran after the Iraq War,Iran is willing to cooperate with the other Persian Gulf states to establish a sub-regional security order.According to the regionalism theory,the establishment of the security region means a kind of effort to transfer a certain geographic region suffering from clashes among nations and domestic conflicts into a security community that will commit itself to the cooperation with the outside world and keeping peace inside.For this purpose,Iran is now improving its relation with Iraq,opening dialogue with GCC states,and pledging its neighbor states that its nuclear program is only for the peace purpose.With its advantageous conditions,strong will and active preparation,it is highly possible for Iran to establish a sub-regional stability and order in the Persian Gulf region in the future.

Challenges of Palestinian Security Sector Reform:Blame Israeli Occupation or Internal Political Fragmentation?

The debate on Security Sector Reform(SSR)in Palestine has emerged within the context of the peace process between Israel and Palestinians,in particular following the Oslo agreement in 1993.There are different perceptions of the significance and relevance of SSR in the Palestinian context,and these depend on ideological,political allegiances and interests of domestic,regional and international actors talking about SSR.Some blame the Israeli occupation and military activities and also the governance of the Palestinian security sector for the deterioration of internal security.Others consider that the SSR is an integral element of the process of state-building to allow the Palestinians to establish an effective authority over their territories.However,Israel and external actors like the United States and the European Union still look at Palestinian SSR as a means to confront“terror and violence”and to prevent the emergence of any dangers to Israel.Israeli occupation and internal political divisions described and analyzed in this article as major challenges for Palestinian SSR.In addition,this article argues that this reform is not an end in itself,but is a necessary and a fundamental element to achieve the Palestinian national project in terms of liberation and state-building.

Support or Hostility:the Relationship between Arab Countries and Hamas

Many Arab countries maintain some kind of relations with Hamas,offering financial,moral,or rhetorical support to it,out of consideration of protection and promotion over Arabic national interests.Their support has become important exogenous aid that Hamas could resort to.Among all the Arab countries,Jordan and Syria draw special attention from the outside world for their especially intimate relations with Hamas.However,many Arab countries do not like Hamas,or even have some hostilities to it.There are three reasons that can explain such a paradox:1)They are afraid that Hamas might stir up Islamic extremism inside their own countries;2)The extremist attitudes of Hamas have become a tremendous barrier obstructing the permanent resolution to the Israel-Arab problem;3)They are worrying about the strengthening of Iran.In the final analysis,no matter whether giving support or having hostility towards Hamas,Arab countries formulate their policies on the basis of an overall evaluation and contemplation over their own national interests.

The One-State Solution:An Alternative Approach to the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict?

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been one of the most controversial issues in the Middle East since 1948.Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization signed in 1993 the Oslo Peace Accord,which aimed at settling the dispute between Israel and Palestine.This peace accord rested on the two-state solution whereby Palestine and Israel would live side by side in peace.Since then,the two-state solution has been the paradigm for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.However,over the last decade,Israel and the Palestinian Authority have not reached any fruitful agreements through negotiation.Followed by the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada(2000–2006),the domination of Hamas in Gaza(since 2006),three major strikes on Gaza by Israeli forces(2009,2012,2014)and repeated territorial fragmentations of the West Bank,the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has persisted and perhaps,getting even worsen;this development has cast doubt on the two-state solution.Against this backdrop,the one-state solution,which has become a heated academic debate in the West,appears to present an alternative solution.Therefore,this paper aims to analyze the reasons for the emergence of the onestate paradigm as an alternative to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in recent years.What is the idea behind the one-state solution?Who are the academic proponents of this solution?What about this plan?These questions are the subject of dispute.This article will provide an evaluation of the one-state solution。

Difficulties in the Solution to the Palestine-Israel Conflict and Some Contemplation Concerning Them

History and the current situation show that the Palestine-Israel conflict faces both internal and external difficulties.The author outlines its historical development and makes some suggestions on the solution to the problem.All parties concerned should be aware of the overall situation and its immediacy.The US should play an active part in regard of the peace negotiations.Israel and Palestine should try to decide on a feasible solution and carry it out in reality.The internal solidarity of Palestine is of great significance to reaching a peace treaty.