<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div id="container" class="container font-size5 content-width3">
<div id="reader-header" class="header" style="display: block;"> <font
size="-2"><a id="reader-domain" class="domain"
href="https://al-shabaka.org/commentaries/talking-palestine-frame-analysis-goals-messages/">https://al-shabaka.org/commentaries/talking-palestine-frame-analysis-goals-messages/</a></font>
<h1 id="reader-title">Talking Palestine: What Frame of Analysis?
Which Goals and Messages?<br>
</h1>
<div id="reader-credits" class="credits">by Nadia Hijab, Ingrid
Jaradat Gassner on April 12, 2017</div>
</div>
<div class="content">
<div id="moz-reader-content" class="line-height4"
style="display: block;">
<div id="readability-page-1" class="page"
xml:base="https://al-shabaka.org/commentaries/talking-palestine-frame-analysis-goals-messages/">
<div class="post clear-post large-9 large-centered columns">
<h2>Overview</h2>
<p><span>To say there is no longer a consensus among the
Palestinian people on the ultimate political solution
is to state the obvious. On the one hand, those
claiming political leadership over the Palestinians
are pursuing a sovereign state alongside Israel. On
the other, the voices calling for a single democratic
state in all of the land that constituted Mandate
Palestine until 1948 are growing louder. Indeed, </span><a
href="https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/watch-time-one-state-solution-palestine"><span>Palestinian
and other analysts</span></a><span> are taking
advantage of US President Donald Trump’s </span><a
href="http://thehill.com/policy/international/319673-trump-open-to-one-state-or-two-state-solution-in-middle-east"><span>statement</span></a><span>
that he could live with either outcome to push the
boundaries of debate beyond two states. </span></p>
<p><span>That Palestinians are no longer able to agree on
what political settlement they seek is a major
problem. There are others. Perhaps the most important
is the lack of consensus on a common framework of
analysis to articulate the Palestinian condition. This
prevents the adoption of clear messages to articulate
both what has befallen the Palestinians and what we
aspire to. It also obstructs the development of
effective strategies for achieving these aspirations.
These problems are the subject of this commentary. We
begin by tackling each in turn before proposing some
ways forward.</span></p>
<h2>The Dangers of a Debate Focused on the Political
Settlement</h2>
<p><span>The reality is that there is no political
settlement in sight that would realize the rights of
the Palestinian people. Israel is working on a number
of scenarios to achieve a political settlement of the
conflict that brings it the maximum amount of
Palestinian land with the minimum number of
Palestinian people through annexation or by simply </span><a
href="https://al-shabaka.org/briefs/palestinian-authority-unsettling-status-quo-scenarios/"><span>maintaining
the status quo</span></a><span> until it can end the
conflict to its advantage. </span></p>
<p>Beyond this reality, there is a problem in the debate
itself. By focusing on the ultimate settlement and
whether it should be one state or two, the discussion
too often leapfrogs the need for a process of
decolonization as well as reparations for the damage
inflicted upon the Palestinians. Decolonization and
reparations must be part of the final settlement,
whether it is that of a Palestinian state in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) adopted at the
Palestinian National Council in 1988 as an expression of
the Palestinian right to self-determination, or that of
one state in all of the former British Mandate Palestine
in which all citizens are equal.</p>
<p><span>The leap to one state involves a particular risk
if it erases the Green Line that demarcates Israel
from the OPT – a line Israel itself is eager to erase.
As discussed in </span><a
href="https://al-shabaka.org/commentaries/not-let-go-green-line-israels-achilles-heel/"><span>previous
analysis</span></a><span>, erasing the Green Line
risks eroding important sources of power the
Palestinians have – ones that they will need to ensure
that any final settlement is grounded in
decolonization and secures reparations. These sources
of power include the international consensus on the
right to self-determination of the Palestinian people,
the applicability of international humanitarian law
(IHL) in the OPT, the related fact that the occupying
power has no right to sovereignty there, and
Palestinian membership of the state system. The fact
that Palestine is part of the state system gives it
the power to, among other things, challenge Israel
through the International Court of Justice and the
International Criminal Court – however ineffectively
these avenues have been used to date. </span></p>
<p><span>Perhaps at the end of the day a just one-state
solution will become a reality, and then there will be
no need to insist on holding on to the Green Line to
ensure that IHL is applied to the OPT. Until then,
however, Palestinians must not give up the sources of
strength and power they have today. Otherwise, we risk
losing the tools offered by IHL and legitimizing the
Israeli settlements instead of advancing our cause.</span></p>
<p><span>It is clear that the process of decolonization
and reparations cannot be the result of negotiations
with the current Israeli regime (or indeed with past
regimes). Israel has consistently blocked the
emergence of the sovereign Palestinian state envisaged
in a two-state solution, and it will certainly not
agree to carry out the political and legal
transformation required for the goal of one state.
Indeed, Israel is </span><a
href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-secret-arab-plan-oust-palestinian-leader-abbas-1419477268"><span>apparently
collaborating</span></a><span> with those Arab
states that have recently formed the Arab Quartet
(Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab
Emirates) to impose a non-sovereign state on the
Palestinian people in parts of the OPT as a final
settlement that would end all claims. </span></p>
<p><span>Decolonization and reparations, therefore, are
the matter of a struggle that seeks to change the
balance of power in favor of the Palestinian people –
with negotiations about the ultimate political
solution to follow once Israel has been forced to
accept a settlement based on decolonization,
reparations, and respect of fundamental rights. Such a
struggle must utilize all available Palestinian
sources of power, including those mentioned above. </span></p>
<p><span>Until a final settlement is possible, there are
interim goals that can guide the struggle for
decolonization and reparations. However, it will be
impossible to achieve consensus on such interim goals
– let alone the political solution – without clarity
and consensus about the appropriate framework of
analysis of the Palestinian condition.</span></p>
<h2>A Multiplicity of Frameworks Obscures Strategy and
Goals</h2>
<p><span>There are multiple frameworks of analysis
competing to be applied to the devastation of the
Palestinian homeland and people caused by the
implementation of the Zionist project since its launch
in 1897, the creation of the state of Israel in 1948
in 78% of Palestine, and the Israeli occupation of the
remaining part of Palestine in 1967. </span></p>
<p><span>In recent years, an increasing number of scholars
and analysts have called for applying a </span><a
href="http://ipk-bonn.de/downloads/SettlerColonialismAndTheEliminationOfTheNative.pdf"><span>settler
colonial framework</span></a><span> to Palestine,
drawing comparisons between the policies of
elimination of indigenous populations by settler
colonial movements in Africa, the Americas, Australia,
and elsewhere, including Palestine. Debate about </span><a
href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648823"><span>Zionist
settler colonialism</span></a><span> has given
prominence to other, associated frameworks, in
particular </span><a
href="http://www.history.com/topics/ethnic-cleansing"><span>ethnic
cleansing</span></a><span> and </span><a
href="http://www.civiccoalition-jerusalem.org/uploads/9/3/6/8/93682182/population_transfer_policy_final.pdf"><span>forcible
population transfer</span></a><span>. Arguments are
also made for an </span><a
href="http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf"><span>indigenous
peoples’ frame</span></a><span> for Palestinians as
a people that predate Israel’s settler colonial
society. This framing has the additional advantage of
being able to draw on </span><a
href="http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf"><span>UN-recognized
indigenous rights</span></a><span> of a people to
its native country, land, and natural resources. </span></p>
<p><span>Other scholars have chosen the prism of </span><a
href="https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7771"><span>racial
discrimination</span></a><span>, highlighting
Israel’s discriminatory legal system, racist policies,
and </span><a
href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD.C.ISR.CO.14-16.pdf"><span>violations
of the Anti-Racism Convention</span></a><span> on
both sides of the Green Line. This line of argument
has led to the call to see the Palestinian case
through the lens of </span><a
href="http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/sessions/south-africa"><span>apartheid</span></a><span>,
with scholars and analysts drawing on international
law and highlighting analogies with the former
apartheid regime in South Africa. There are also those
who speak of “</span><a
href="https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/israels-ongoing-sociocide-naqab"><span>sociocide</span></a><span>”
or “</span><a
href="https://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-assaults-palestinian-education-amount-genocide/14867"><span>cultural
genocide</span></a><span>,</span><span>” and those
who argue that </span><a
href="https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/"><span>genocide</span></a><span>
as defined by the Genocide Convention applies to the
case of the Palestinian people. </span></p>
<p><span>All these frameworks of analysis can certainly be
applied to the Palestinian condition. In fact, in some
contexts – particularly in academia – it is useful to
explore these and other analytical frames because this
builds understanding and knowledge about new ways to
articulate Palestinian rights. However, what
Palestinians need is a framework of analysis that does
more than create knowledge: We need one that is also
strategic. </span></p>
<h2>Choosing the Most Strategic Framework of Analysis</h2>
<p><span>A framework of analysis is strategic if it allows
Palestinians to make effective use of their available
sources of power in a struggle for decolonization and
reparations that pursues a set of clear core goals.
The question that arises at this point is: What are
the Palestinians’ core goals? To date, the “goal” has
been largely defined as a sovereign state along the
1967 borders with Israel. Yet referring to what is
actually a political settlement as a goal confuses the
issue. The Palestinian struggle has always been about
Palestinian rights in and to the land of Palestine.
The original solution adopted by the Palestine
Liberation Organization in the 1960s was that of a
secular democratic state in all of Palestine. This was
followed in 1974 by a decision on an interim solution
for a state in any part of Palestine that was freed,
and in 1988 by a decision for a state on the 1967
borders. However, the purpose of all these political
solutions was to fulfill Palestinian rights in and to
the land of Palestine.</span></p>
<span class="bctt-click-to-tweet"></span>
<p><span>Therefore, and in the absence of clarity about
the ultimate political solution, the core goals must
be the fundamental rights that are the essential
elements of the right to self-determination of the
Palestinian people and that, as such, must form part
of any future political solution. These are: Freedom
from occupation and colonization, the right of the
refugees to return to their homes and properties, and
non-discrimination and full equality of Palestinian
citizens of Israel. These three goals, as essential
elements of self-determination, were eloquently laid
out in the Palestinian civil society call for Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel until
these goals are achieved. </span></p>
<p><span>If we agree that these are the three core goals
of the Palestinian people, then we can identify the
framework of analysis that would be most strategic in
pursuing decolonization and reparations and ensuring
that they are intrinsic to the final political
settlement. The two frameworks of analysis that are
most comprehensive and have been most consistently
promoted are that of settler colonialism and of
apartheid. The settler colonial framework is
strategic in many ways: It captures the historical
experience of Palestinians as the indigenous people of
the country and asserts that our cause is a cause of
freedom and self-determination. The international
framework of decolonization and self-determination of
the 20</span><span>th</span><span> century focused on
liberation of the territory, return of the displaced,
and sovereign statehood. As such, it is also a
framework that mobilizes solidarity and support, in
particular among formerly colonized nations in Africa,
Latin America, and elsewhere, whose political backing
is urgently needed, for example, in the UN General
Assembly and for bringing a case to the International
Criminal Court (ICC). </span></p>
<p><span>The settler colonial framework also has added
value because it opens up a legal argument that can be
used by Palestinians as a source of power.
International law deals with colonialism, which
includes settler colonialism. Unlike military
occupation under IHL, which is internationally
tolerated if it is temporary and is conducted in
accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention,
colonialism is absolutely prohibited today and treated
as a serious violation of universally-binding norms of
customary international law. <a
class="simple-footnote" title="See Draft Articles on
Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts, Article 40, comment 8 and footnote
651 with reference to the 1969 Vienna Convention on
Treaties, Article 53. Also see Article 41 explaining
third-state obligations:
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf"
id="return-note-6215-1"
href="about:reader?url=https%3A%2F%2Fal-shabaka.org%2Fcommentaries%2Ftalking-palestine-frame-analysis-goals-messages%2F#note-6215-1"><sup>1</sup></a> </span>Therefore,
all states and the UN have a legal obligation to give no
recognition, aid, or assistance to the practice of
colonialism by any state, and to cooperate and adopt
measures, including sanctions, in order to bring it to
an end.</p>
<p><span>However, there are serious problems relating to
the settler colonial framework that should preclude it
from being the Palestinians’ overarching framework of
analysis. For one, the state system considers
colonialism to be an issue of the past, and the UN
treats decolonization as largely accomplished. More
importantly, international law itself also limits the
strategic value of this analytical frame. There is no
criminal responsibility because colonialism has not
been criminalized. </span></p>
<p><span>Moreover, the prohibition of colonialism and the
above legal obligations of all states and the UN are
applicable only to Israel’s settler colonial
enterprise in the OPT. Experts at an </span><a
href="https://fada.birzeit.edu/jspui/bitstream/20.500.11889/53/1/986afcc6c9.pdf"><span>international
law conference</span></a><span> held at Birzeit
University in 2013 clarified this fact: Colonialism
was not expressly prohibited by international law at
the time Israel was established. The normative shift
began only in the 1950s as result of anti-colonial
liberation movements, and colonialism became expressly
prohibited in 1960, when the UN adopted the </span><a
href="http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml"><span>Declaration
on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples</span></a><span>. Earlier settler colonial
movements, including the Zionist movement, that had by
then established themselves as nation states were thus
de facto immunized and normalized by UN-led
decolonization. The dominant legal opinion is that
colonialism is not legally applicable within the
borders of existing states. </span></p>
<p><span>Thus, for Palestinians who continue to struggle
against Israeli settler colonialism in the 21</span><span>st</span><span>
century, this anti-colonial framework is problematic:
It risks creating contradictions between the core
rights and goals we seek to achieve, and of promoting
political solutions that deny the full set of these
rights to many Palestinians. The international legal
and political consensus is that the right of
Palestinians to liberate territory and establish a
sovereign state is restricted to the OPT. The
framework cannot incorporate the right of the refugees
to return to homes and property in Israel or the right
to nondiscrimination and equality of Palestinian
citizens there. Moreover, for Palestinians and their
allies in the movement for Palestinian rights, the
anti-colonial approach has, because of its focus on
two states and the 1967 borders, proven in practice to
be divisive and to sideline the right of return of the
refugees and the right to equality of Palestinian
citizens of Israel. This is one of the lessons learned
in particular since the 1990s from peace diplomacy
based on the Oslo Accords.</span></p>
<p><span>By contrast, none of the above problems arise
with the anti-apartheid framework. It should be noted
that apartheid is not defined by similarities with the
former racist regime in South Africa. Rather, it has a
universal legal definition dating back to the </span><a
href="https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201015/volume-1015-i-14861-english.pdf"><span>Anti-Apartheid
Convention</span></a><span> of 1973 and updated in
the Rome Statute of the ICC (2002) as “Inhumane
acts…committed in the context of an institutionalized
regime of systematic oppression and domination by one
racial group over any other racial group or groups and
committed with the intention of maintaining that
regime.” Inhumane acts of apartheid include forcible
transfer of population, persecution, murder,
imprisonment, and other severe deprivation of physical
liberty and fundamental human rights.</span></p>
<span class="bctt-click-to-tweet"></span>
<p><span>We argue that the most strategic framework of
analysis that should be applied to the Palestinian
condition is the anti-apartheid framework. In the
first place, it incorporates and builds on the
analysis of settler colonialism: In the case of
Palestine, apartheid began when the Zionist settler
colonial society transformed into the state of Israel
and incorporated its ideology of Jewish superiority
and policy of ethnic cleansing into the laws and
institutions of the state. Contemporary Israeli
apartheid is thus best defined as the
institutionalized regime of racial discrimination
whereby Israel, as state and occupying power,
systematically privileges Jews and oppresses,
fragments, and dominates the entire Palestinian people
and colonizes the OPT, with the intent of maintaining
and consolidating this regime in all of pre-1948
Palestine. Population transfer and ethnic cleansing of
Palestinians, including denial of return, is an
inhumane act of oppression and a pillar of Israeli
apartheid.</span></p>
<p><span>Secondly, while it builds on the settler colonial
analysis, the apartheid framework goes further,
drawing on international law as a strategic asset. As
a severe form of racial discrimination, apartheid has
been prohibited and treated as a serious violation
under customary law at least since the end of World
War II. It is also criminalized by the Anti-Apartheid
Convention and the Rome Statute of the ICC,
constituting what is probably the second most serious
crime against humanity after genocide. </span></p>
<p><span>For these reasons, the framework is applicable at
least back to 1948 when Israeli apartheid formally
began with the establishment of the state, and to all
of former British Mandate Palestine since 1967. In the
OPT the apartheid framework applies </span><i><span>in
addition to</span></i><span> the IHL. As an
apartheid regime, Israel bears legal responsibility
for inhuman acts of apartheid against all
Palestinians, including refugees, citizens of Israel,
and those under occupation. The state of Israel is
responsible for restoring their rights through
reparations, while individual criminal responsibility
applies to those who carry out, aid, or abet the crime
of apartheid. The responsibility of all other states
and the UN is to ensure that those who are guilty are
brought to justice. Neither states nor the UN must
give recognition, aid, or assistance to Israeli
apartheid, and all have a legal obligation to
cooperate and adopt measures, including sanctions, to
bring it to an end and ensure reparations. </span></p>
<p><span>Thirdly, apartheid is a framework that mobilizes
solidarity and support among people worldwide. Due to
the legacy of the international campaign that brought
down apartheid in South Africa, many people also know
that apartheid regimes are to be boycotted and
isolated. It is also a framework that has already
become popularized as part of the Palestinian struggle
because of such events as </span><a
href="http://apartheidweek.org/"><span>Israeli
Apartheid Week</span></a><span>, which since 2005
has been held every spring in a growing number of
cities around the globe.</span></p>
<p><span>Moreover, there is increasing international
support of the apartheid analysis. Since 2006 at
least, independent legal scholars and UN human rights
experts have held Israel responsible for apartheid
against Palestinians and called for international
measures, including sanctions. The recent report by
the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia
(ESCWA), </span><i><span>Israeli Practices towards
the Palestinian People and the </span></i><a
href="https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/un-official-resigns-after-pressure-withdraw-israel-apartheid-report"><i><span>Question
of Apartheid</span></i></a><span>, remains in the
public sphere as an authoritative legal study even
though the UN secretary general has ordered the report
withdrawn, leading to the resignation of its Executive
Secretary Rima Khalaf, whose </span><a
href="http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/fearmongering-governments-resignation/"><span>powerful
resignation letter</span></a><span> is also being
widely circulated. Indeed, the coalition of
Palestinian human rights organizations in the OPT –
the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Councils
(PHROC) – sent a letter to the UN secretary general
condemning the withdrawal of the ESCWA report and
saying it will adopt the apartheid framework as laid
out in that report.</span></p>
<p><span>Finally, the 2013 international law conference at
Birzeit cited earlier clarified that apartheid does
not necessarily end with a “one-state solution” in the
entire territory that is controlled by an apartheid
system. The post-apartheid system can have a two-state
solution. This is illustrated by the example of
Namibia, whose people achieved self-determination
through independence as a result of their struggle
against the South African apartheid regime that had
controlled and colonized their country. Based on
international law, the solution to apartheid is ending
institutionalized racial discrimination in order to
allow exercise of the full set of human rights by the
oppressed group, including the right to
self-determination of oppressed peoples. It does not
proscribe a political solution.</span></p>
<p><span>Equally importantly, and as the ESCWA report
emphasized, there is no basis for the claim that
describing the actions of the state of Israel as
apartheid would be anti-Semitic. The very preface of
the report refutes this claim, noting that findings on
Israeli apartheid are based on the same body of
international law that also prohibits anti-Semitism. </span></p>
<h2>A Common Frame for Our Goals and Messages</h2>
<p><span>We have sought to set out the way in which the
challenges that face the Palestinian people are
compounded by confusion over a common framework of
analysis and an agreed set of goals. We have pointed
out how the common use of the word “goal” to describe
the ultimate political settlement muddies the water.
Whatever the ultimate political settlement, it should
enable the Palestinians to finally be free from
colonization, to enjoy equal rights, and to have
rights in and to their homeland, including the right
of return to their homes and lands and compensation
for what has been lost.</span></p>
<span class="bctt-click-to-tweet"></span>
<p><span>We believe that the multiplicity of frameworks of
analysis that have been applied – and indeed are
applicable – to the case of Palestine obscures both
our goals and our messages. There is a pressing need
for the adoption of a single framework of analysis
that is strategic, that would enable us to crystallize
our demands around our goals and to communicate these
through clear and compelling messages. We argue that
the anti-apartheid framework of analysis is the most
strategic. </span></p>
<p><span>The anti-apartheid framework will enable the
Palestinians to craft messages that clearly
communicate what has happened to the Palestinian
people as well as the goals of the Palestinian
struggle. It helps to clarify that this is a struggle
for decolonization and reparations, and not merely a
struggle for a state. The powerful message must be
that the Palestinian struggle is for freedom, justice,
and equality in the homeland, whether in a single
secular democratic state or in two sovereign states
side by side, in which all citizens enjoy all human
rights. </span></p>
<p><span>Once there is agreement on this framework,
existing strategies can be honed and new strategies
can be developed. As messages are refined, it is
important to avoid the temptation to use other
frameworks of analysis beyond the academic sphere. The
term apartheid needs to again become common parlance
as it was during the time of the South African
struggle for freedom. Moreover, an education and
awareness-raising campaign is badly needed to build
consensus around this framework of analysis as is
investment in the knowledge and skills of the
Palestinian and solidarity activists working to
advance it. </span></p>
<p>Furthermore, those working to disseminate messages
about Palestinian rights through the media should go
beyond such rhetoric as “time for one state” or “the
two-state solution is dead.” If they truly want to
advance Palestinian freedom and rights, then they should
focus on the process of decolonization and reparations
that must be realized whatever the political settlement.
Otherwise there is a risk of doing more harm than good
by leapfrogging that process and the heavy lifting that
remains to be done. This is not to say that the message
must focus only on the horrors on the ground. On the
contrary, messages should also be forward looking and
focus on a future where all can live freely and enjoy
justice and equality.</p>
<p><span>At this stage of the Palestinian struggle for
self-determination, when the ultimate political
solution cannot be defined, the concept of apartheid
provides a clear analytical framework for a struggle
for decolonization and self-determination that can
isolate and weaken the oppressive practices of the
Israeli state and – at the same time – preserve and
strengthen the fundamental Palestinian rights that are
not negotiable: The right to freedom from occupation
and colonization, the right to full equality of
Palestinian citizens of Israel, and the right of the
refugees to return to their homes and properties. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="simple-footnotes">
<p class="notes">Notes:</p>
<ol>
<li id="note-6215-1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">See </span><i><span
style="font-weight: 400;">Draft Articles on Responsibility
of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, </span></i><span
style="font-weight: 400;">Article 40, comment 8 and footnote
651 with reference to the 1969 Vienna Convention on
Treaties, Article 53. Also see Article 41 explaining
third-state obligations: </span><span style="font-weight:
400;"><a
href="http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf">http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf</a> </span></li>
</ol>
</div>
<section class="wash rhythm-2 content">
<div class="row">
<div class="excerpt large-9 large-centered columns">
<aside class="author">
<div class="inner medium-10 columns right">
<h5><a href="https://al-shabaka.org/en/author/nadiah/">Nadia
Hijab</a></h5>
<p class="p1">Nadia Hijab is Executive Director of <a
href="http://al-shabaka.org/"><span class="s1">Al-Shabaka</span></a>:
The Palestinian Policy Network, which she co-founded in
2009. She is a frequent public speaker and media
commentator and a senior fellow at the Institute for
Palestine Studies. Her first book <i>Womanpower: The
Arab Debate on Women at Work </i>was published by
Cambridge University Press, and she co-authored <i>Citizens
Apart: A Portrait of the Palestinian Citizens of
Israel</i> (I.B. Tauris).</p>
</div>
</aside>
</div>
</div>
</section>
<h5><a href="https://al-shabaka.org/en/author/IngridJaradatGassner/">Ingrid
Jaradat Gassner</a></h5>
<p>Al-Shabaka Policy Advisor Ingrid Jaradat Gassner is a founding
member of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)
Campaign and co-founder and former director of Badil Resource
Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights (Badil). She
has worked extensively in the fields of international law and
advocacy, including innovative research on Palestinian refugees,
the right to return, Israeli colonialism and apartheid and related
third-state responsibilities. She has also coordinated research
for a Palestinian civic initiative seeking to register exiled
Palestinians as voters and campaign for direct PNC elections. She
currently works as coordinator of advocacy with the Civic
Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem.</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.freedomarchives.org">www.freedomarchives.org</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>