エルサレムをめぐる和平プロセスとパレスチナ人の政治

―「解決困難な紛争」における交渉の政治的意味―

抄録

In the history of international conflicts, some have been perceived as “intractable.” These conflicts have some characteristics such as durability, destructivity, and resistance to political settlement. Also, many of them are identity-charged, like ethno-national conflicts over territory. The examples range from Northern Ireland to Kashmir. The Palestine Question is a typical example of this conflict, and the contestation over Jerusalem would be one of the most difficult to solve in that conflict.

In the research field of conflict resolution, many academic and practical attempts have been initiated to make the intractable conflict tractable. Most of the concern was drawn toward the ideal style of effective political negotiation, or the ways of conflict transformation leading to fruitful negotiation. These kinds of research yielded results, however these studies miss an important point. They do not consider the influence or implication of the negotiation on the contested issue itself and the political dynamics of the parties to the conflict, particularly in terms of substance there. Although research about the spoiler problem in the peace process has a similar sort of interest, these mostly pay close attention to the way to control the spoiler and the political rivalry over the negotiation itself. Most of the analyses does not extend into the internal details of some specific political issue. This point might have much importance on the Palestine Question after the Oslo Accords (1993), which started the peace process over 20 years ago but has not borne fruit. In this case, the negotiation is just a short-lived moment in the protracted conflict, so an analysis on the relationship between negotiation and the internal political dynamics is required for the future resumption of negotiation.

This article tries to fill the gap in previous research by taking the example of Jerusalem and by examining the political implication of negotiation by dividing the peace process into the Oslo period (1993–2000) and the Post-Oslo period (2000–). Concerning the Oslo period, the article deals with Palestinian strategic formation and diverse understanding about the meaning of negotiation for Jerusalem, by Jerusalem-based leaders and pivotal leaders in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), or the Palestinian Authority (PA). As regards the Post-Oslo period, the article discusses the transformation of the Jerusalem Problem, caused mainly by the failure of negotiation and the shift of the stakeholders in Palestinian politics over Jerusalem. The separation of the Oslo framework into two periods will clarify how negotiation affects Palestinian politics and how it functions in the conflict.