以色列和约旦之间的 "土地换和平 "信息:巴卡拉和加姆尔案例

Pub Date : 2024-01-18 DOI:10.1177/23477989231219310
Glen Segell
{"title":"以色列和约旦之间的 \"土地换和平 \"信息:巴卡拉和加姆尔案例","authors":"Glen Segell","doi":"10.1177/23477989231219310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Israel has reached historic agreements in its sought-after objective of recognition—each unique. There is a similarity between agreements between Israel and neighboring states. These agreements were with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994). In both these, land for peace was an element. That is a legalistic interpretation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 adopted on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Arab–Israeli War of 1967. There are two arguments on the land for peace concept. One is that there were more historical and significant reasons for peace than land. The other is that every millimeter of land is significant and not overlooked. Looking at both, this article examines the agreement with Jordan, focusing on two small farmland areas in the border areas referred to as Baqura and Ghamr in Arabic and Naharayim and Tzofar in Hebrew. The agreement was a land lease for 25 years (1994–2019). It could have been extended after that, yet Jordan called for its return, which Israel accepted. This is examined under four headings: Where did the land come from? The Israel–Jordan peace treaty; legal viewpoint; and private ownership versus state sovereignty. The take-out from such a message of land for peace examination is to bear the findings in mind for future agreements with Israel on how much land for peace, where, how, and why. The bottom line is that strong leadership and issues other than land may be more important in achieving a peace treaty, yet land for peace is a strong message.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Land for Peace Message Between Israel and Jordan: The Case of Baqura and Ghamr\",\"authors\":\"Glen Segell\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23477989231219310\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Israel has reached historic agreements in its sought-after objective of recognition—each unique. There is a similarity between agreements between Israel and neighboring states. These agreements were with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994). In both these, land for peace was an element. That is a legalistic interpretation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 adopted on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Arab–Israeli War of 1967. There are two arguments on the land for peace concept. One is that there were more historical and significant reasons for peace than land. The other is that every millimeter of land is significant and not overlooked. Looking at both, this article examines the agreement with Jordan, focusing on two small farmland areas in the border areas referred to as Baqura and Ghamr in Arabic and Naharayim and Tzofar in Hebrew. The agreement was a land lease for 25 years (1994–2019). It could have been extended after that, yet Jordan called for its return, which Israel accepted. This is examined under four headings: Where did the land come from? The Israel–Jordan peace treaty; legal viewpoint; and private ownership versus state sovereignty. The take-out from such a message of land for peace examination is to bear the findings in mind for future agreements with Israel on how much land for peace, where, how, and why. The bottom line is that strong leadership and issues other than land may be more important in achieving a peace treaty, yet land for peace is a strong message.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23477989231219310\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23477989231219310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以色列为实现其寻求承认的目标达成了历史性协议--每一项协议都是独一无二的。以色列与邻国之间的协议有相似之处。这些协议分别是与埃及(1979 年)和约旦(1994 年)达成的。在这两项协议中,土地换和平都是一个要素。这是对 1967 年阿以战争后,联合国安理会于 1967 年 11 月 22 日通过的第 242 号决议的法律解释。关于土地换和平的概念有两种说法。一种观点认为,与土地相比,和平有更多的历史原因和重要原因。另一种观点认为,每一毫米土地都意义重大,不容忽视。本文从这两个角度出发,研究了与约旦达成的协议,重点是边境地区的两个小农田,阿拉伯语称为 Baqura 和 Ghamr,希伯来语称为 Naharayim 和 Tzofar。该协议的土地租期为 25 年(1994-2019 年)。协议期满后本可延长,但约旦要求归还,以色列接受了这一要求。我们将从四个方面对此进行探讨:土地从何而来?以色列-约旦和平条约;法律观点;私人所有权与国家主权。从这种土地换和平的研究中得到的启示是,在未来与以色列就多少土地换和平、在哪里换和平、如何换和平以及为什么换和平等问题达成协议时,要牢记研究结果。底线是,强有力的领导和土地以外的问题可能对达成和平条约更为重要,但土地换和平是一个强有力的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
The Land for Peace Message Between Israel and Jordan: The Case of Baqura and Ghamr
Israel has reached historic agreements in its sought-after objective of recognition—each unique. There is a similarity between agreements between Israel and neighboring states. These agreements were with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994). In both these, land for peace was an element. That is a legalistic interpretation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 adopted on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Arab–Israeli War of 1967. There are two arguments on the land for peace concept. One is that there were more historical and significant reasons for peace than land. The other is that every millimeter of land is significant and not overlooked. Looking at both, this article examines the agreement with Jordan, focusing on two small farmland areas in the border areas referred to as Baqura and Ghamr in Arabic and Naharayim and Tzofar in Hebrew. The agreement was a land lease for 25 years (1994–2019). It could have been extended after that, yet Jordan called for its return, which Israel accepted. This is examined under four headings: Where did the land come from? The Israel–Jordan peace treaty; legal viewpoint; and private ownership versus state sovereignty. The take-out from such a message of land for peace examination is to bear the findings in mind for future agreements with Israel on how much land for peace, where, how, and why. The bottom line is that strong leadership and issues other than land may be more important in achieving a peace treaty, yet land for peace is a strong message.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信