Search results

AbstractFor many years the Holy See recognized Israel de facto, but declined to open formal diplomatic relations. Historical and theological issues burdened mutual perceptions. Wishing to normalize the relationship, the Holy See and Israel concluded a Fundamental Agreement in 1993 and exchanged ambassadors. Under the terms of the accord, the parties were to negotiate further treaties on key issues of church and state. A Legal Personality Agreement was signed in 1997 but was never implemented; and another fiscal and property treaty is still being negotiated. The relationship itself, which is supposed to fulfil the promise of reconciliation between Catholics and Jews, has been ambivalent, and marked by recurrent controversy. This article surveys the issues currently under negotiation. It argues that the reasons for the reserve are structural and subjective, pointing to political, conceptual and institutional dissonances. However, the article also notes the steady progress recently made and expresses the hope that solutions can be found to contested matters.

As long as one lives within the confines of a single culture it is difficult to achieve cross-cultural awareness. Multiculturalism is often simply the tolerance of a dominant culture for minority cultures. Cross-cultural awareness is a state of mind in which one is alert to alternity, the existence of others possessing different & equally valid worldviews & ways of life. This can be acquired living within or alongside other cultures, when one's own & others' strangeness become readily apparent. Culture shock involves just such a realization. The challenge for the teacher of international relations is to convey the possibility of alternity to students in the classroom. After all, international relations are above all about the interaction between communities possessing separate identities & autonomous wills. The article discusses ways of cultivating cross-cultural awareness, comparing the difficulties of doing so in a society under siege -- Israel -- with the greater scope available in the cosmopolitan setting of an elite American university. 17 References. Adapted from the source document.

World leaders & diplomats conduct much international negotiation & conflict resolution today in English, which has become the modern global interlanguage. English speakers tend to assume that English transcends culture, perfectly capturing objective features of the external world. Comparison of the conflict resolution vocabularies of English, Arabic, & Hebrew demonstrates that the model of conflict resolution implicit in English terminology is merely one possible version. The three languages vary significantly in their built-in assumptions about the nature of conflict, objectives of conflict resolution, & anticipation of what the termination of conflict entails. Such conceptual antinomies may hinder conflict resolution by impeding communication & frustrating the synchronization of negotiating moves. Nonnative speakers tend to speak in English but think in the mother tongue. Moreover, frontal negotiation is simply the point of contact among delegations whose consultation, decision making, drafting, & political processes are conducted in the native language. Israeli-Syrian negotiations since 1991 exemplify some dissonant expectations about conflict resolution across Hebrew & Arabic. Adapted from the source document.