DOCSLIB.ORG

The Red Thread of Israel's “Demographic Problem”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Red Thread of Israel's “Demographic Problem” See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331991703 The Red Thread of Israel's “Demographic Problem” Article in Middle East Policy · March 2019 DOI: 10.1111/mepo.12406 CITATION READS 1 63 1 author: Ian Lustick University of Pennsylvania 136 PUBLICATIONS 1,945 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: The Future of Israel: Transformation or Demise? View project All content following this page was uploaded by Ian Lustick on 08 April 2019. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. LUSTICK: THE RED THREAD OF ISRAEL’S “DEMOGRAPHIC PROBLEM” THE RED THREAD OF ISRAEL’S “DEMOGRAPHIC PROBLEM” Ian S. Lustick Dr. Lustick is at the University of Pennsylvania. n the spring and early summer of Israel”) explains much about the history of 2018, Israeli forces shot or gassed Zionism and Israel. It also explains Israel’s more than 16,000 people. The ferocity unblinking use of violence against thou- of this response to the massing of Pal- sands of men, women and children and Iestinians near the barrier surrounding the why Israel’s inability to sustain a Jewish Gaza Strip is striking but not astonishing. majority is accelerating its adoption of less It reflects a fundamental truth and springs and less deniable forms of apartheid. from a deep fear. The truth is that the es- The longest and bitterest unresolved sential aspiration of the late nineteenth conflict within Zionism is the territorial and early twentieth century architects of question. If Zionism requires a Jewish the Zionist movement was to ensure that majority, should Zionists forgo options somewhere in the world — and that place for territorial expansion in Palestine/the came to be Palestine — there would be a Land of Israel in order to protect Jewish majority of Jews. The fear is of Jews losing demographic preponderance? Or should the majority they achieved. the movement’s commitment to “liberat- For centuries, said the founders of Zi- ing” the whole land and faith in the growth onism, Jews lived as a minority everywhere of the Jewish population be strong enough and as a majority nowhere; everywhere as to seize and keep as much as possible? In guests, nowhere as hosts. This unnatural the 1930s, the World Zionist Organization condition they identified as the taproot of split over this question. In 1937, David anti-Semitism. Gentile fear and hatred of Ben-Gurion and the Labor Zionist leader- Jews would end, or at least diminish, to ship of the movement, using arguments of safe levels once Jews could point to a land demography, desperate need and realism, where they, like other “normal” peoples, was barely able to convince his associates were a majority and among whom lived to at least negotiate with the British about others as minorities and as guests. their offer to partition Palestine into Jewish Demographic predominance in Pal- and Arab states. The British withdrew the estine thus became Zionism’s categorical offer, but Ben-Gurion was astounded and imperative. The contradiction between this gratified to learn that, with partition, the objective and other Zionist goals (includ- British had imagined evacuating most of ing settling and ruling the “whole Land of the Arab population of the Jewish state. © 2019, The Author Middle East Policy © 2019, Middle East Policy Council 141 MIDDLE EAST POLICY, VOL. XXVI, NO. 1, SPRING 2019 The image of attaining so purely Jewish a reasserted itself with a vengeance after state fired Ben-Gurion’s imagination and the June War. Not only did the “Revision- helped lay the groundwork for his excite- ist” Zionist right wing — founded by ment about accepting the UN partition plan Vladimir Jabotinsky and led by Menachem 10 years later.1 Begin — find new public excitement and Demographic considerations weighed support for its traditional irredentism, so heavily in Ben-Gurion’s decision to accept also did radical fundamentalist elements a truncated and divided Jewish state, as within Jewish orthodox circles and groups outlined in the UN partition resolution of within the “activist” wing of the Social- November 1947. But as it stood, the state ist Zionist movement affiliated with the would still have as many Arabs as Jews powerful Hameuchad kibbutz movement living in it. Having judged that his forces and a variety of land-development and would prevail in the fighting that engulfed settlement-building institutions. From the country, that international intervention 1967 to 1977, Labor Party-led coalition would not occur, and that a Jewish state governments found themselves paralyzed would emerge, what became crucial was by the conflict between those who wanted to ensure that the “liberation” of additional the occupied territories (especially the territories did not threaten the imperative West Bank and Gaza Strip) more than they of Jewish demographic predominance. were concerned about the Arabs who lived Under Ben-Gurion’s direction, the Haga- there, and those who were so opposed to nah (the Zionist movement’s main under- the possibility of absorbing more non-Jews ground army) and its strike force, the Pal- into the state that they favored quickly re- mach, then acted to systematically reduce linquishing the “administered areas” — or the Arab population of the areas the state at least the most densely inhabited regions came to control. This was accomplished within them. This paralysis appeared very by expulsions and by refusing to allow quickly, resulting in the Eshkol govern- refugees to return to their homes. The ment’s famous “decision not to decide” same demographic imperative also helps to and the dominance of Defense Minister explain Ben-Gurion’s decision to overrule Moshe Dayan’s approach of tightening his commanders and refuse permission to Israel’s control of and presence on the land extend the war by conquering the West while holding the Arabs living there at Bank. Ben-Gurion wanted the territory, but arm’s length. he feared the demographic implications of To be sure, in June 1967, Israel did its large Arab population more. extend the enforcement of its laws to a In the decade prior to the June War of 71-square kilometer chunk of the West 1967, Labor Party governments, whether Bank that included East Jerusalem (al- under Ben-Gurion’s leadership or not, de- Quds). But even this act was meticulously emphasized irredentism, characterized the implemented according to the demands of West Bank as “foreign territory,” and more the demographic imperative. The expanded or less accepted a small Arab minority as boundary of what Israel announced as the a permanent feature of the State of Israel. municipality of Jerusalem twisted and But the question of balancing the rule of turned to maximize vacant land while min- more of the Land of Israel against increas- imizing the number of Arab inhabitants. ing the country’s non-Jewish population Deliberately avoiding formal “annexation” 142 LUSTICK: THE RED THREAD OF ISRAEL’S “DEMOGRAPHIC PROBLEM” or the declaration of Israeli sovereignty rael living in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza over the area (something that was also District” if Israel’s sovereignty over these avoided in the 1980 “Basic Law: Jerusa- areas were recognized. But this provision, lem, Capital of Israel”), the government contained in the hand-written version of issued a complex collection of amend- Begin’s original “autonomy plan,” was ments to existing laws and ministerial quickly removed. Even for the Cabinet of decrees. Their a government effect was to Despite substantial political and dominated extend the by territorial boundaries psychological support for such drastic maximalists, of the Israeli measures, the mass removal of Arabs awarding municipality from the country no longer appears in citizenship of Yerusha- Israeli political discourse as an explicitly to millions layim, rather of Palestin- than the advocated formula for solving the ians was too boundaries of “demographic problem.” direct and the State of dangerous a Israel. One crucial reason for this subter- contradiction of Zionism’s demographic fuge was that it made the 60,000 Arab in- imperative. habitants of al-Quds and its environs “per- Accordingly, instead of declaring manent residents” but not Israeli citizens, Israeli sovereignty over the portions of thereby softening the political consequenc- the country under Israel’s control (an act es of adding to the demographic burden of that would have implied or strongly risked the country’s non-Jewish minority.2 citizenship for millions more Arabs) the During the first decade of the occupa- Begin government used the autonomy tion, the discourse in Israel over the dis- negotiations that were part of the Camp position of the territories was most com- David peace process as camouflage to monly expressed and depicted as a struggle massively expand settlement and rapidly between “annexationists” and “anti-annex- advance processes of de facto annexation. ationists.” But when the Likud formed the This was a slow and unofficial incorpora- first non-Labor-party-led government in tion of the territories that would not entail 1977, under its enthusiastically irredentist change in the political status of their and explicitly annexationist leader, Men- Arab inhabitants. The Israeli “left,” what achem Begin, it did not annex the territo- became known as “the peace camp,” pan- ries or declare sovereignty over them. The icked, believing that a “point of no return” single most important factor explaining would soon be reached beyond which the why Begin refrained from implementing Arabs of the territories would, willy-nilly, the principle that had been his life-long become part of the State of Israel. The passion was demography. primary argument it offered to ordinary In 1977, during the ramp-up to the Israelis in support of territorial compro- Camp David summit with Anwar Sadat mise appealed to their fear of and distaste and Jimmy Carter, Begin offered an Israeli for Arabs and to the Zionist imperative of citizenship option for the population he protecting Israel’s Jewish majority, which referred to as “the Arabs of the Land of Is- would be imperiled if the West Bank and 143 MIDDLE EAST POLICY, VOL.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • When Scholarship Disturbs Narrative: Ian Lustick on Israel's Migration
    FORUM When Scholarship Disturbs Narrative Ian Lustick on Israel’s Migration Balance Comment by Sergio DellaPergola ABSTRACT: In response to Ian Lustick’s article on Israel’s migration bal- ance in the previous issue of Israel Studies Review, I question the author’s (lack of) theoretical frame, data handling, and conclusions, all set up against a robust narrative. I show that, until 2010, Israel displayed a posi- tive, if weakened, migration balance and that immigration trends contin- ued to reflect conditions among Diaspora Jewish populations more than Israel’s absorption context. Emigration rates from Israel, while admittedly difficult to measure, were objectively moderate and proportionally lower, for example, than those of Switzerland, a more developed country of similar size, or those of ethnic Germans returning to and then again leav- ing Germany. The main determinants of emigration from Israel—namely, ‘brain drain’—consistently related to socio-economic changes and not to security. I also reject Lustick’s assumptions about the ideological bias of Israel’s research community when dealing with international migration. Scholarship about Israel should not ignore global contextualization and international comparisons. KEYwords: aliyah, economy, emigration, immigration, Israel, Lustick, security, yeridah, Zionism The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth—i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking, in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question. — Marx, Theses on Feuerbach Don’t confuse us with your data: we know the situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Sept. 30 Issue Final
    UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Tuesday September 30, 2003 Volume 50 Number 6 www.upenn.edu/almanac Two Endowed Chairs in Political Science Dr. Ian S. Lustick, professor of political director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study ternational Organization, and Journal of Inter- science, has been appointed to the Bess Hey- of Ethnopolitical Conflict. national Law and Politics. The author of five man Professorship. After earning his B.A. at A specialist in areas of comparative politics, books and monographs, he received the Amer- Brandeis University, Dr. Lustick completed international politics, organization theory, and ican Political Science Associationʼs J. David both his M.A. and Ph.D. at the University of Middle Eastern politics, Dr. Lustick is respon- Greenstone Award for the Best Book in Politics California, Berkeley. sible for developing the computational model- and History in 1995 for his Unsettled States, Dr. Lustick came to ing platform known as PS-I. This software pro- Disputed Lands: Britain and Ireland, France Penn in 1991 following gram, which he created in collaboration with and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza. In 15 years on the Dart- Dr. Vladimir Dergachev, GEngʼ99, Grʼ00, al- addition to serving as a member of the Council mouth faculty. From lows social scientists to simulate political phe- on Foreign Relations, Dr. Lustick is the former 1997 to 2000, he served nomena in an effort to apply agent-based model- president of the Politics and History Section of as chair of the depart- ing to public policy problems. His current work the American Political Science Association and ment of political sci- includes research on rights of return in Zionism of the Association for Israel Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Ian S. Lustick
    MIDDLE EAST POLICY, VOL. XV, NO. 3, FALL 2008 ABANDONING THE IRON WALL: ISRAEL AND “THE MIDDLE EASTERN MUCK” Ian S. Lustick Dr. Lustick is the Bess W. Heyman Chair of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of Trapped in the War on Terror. ionists arrived in Palestine in the the question of whether Israel and Israelis 1880s, and within several de- can remain in the Middle East without cades the movement’s leadership becoming part of it. Zrealized it faced a terrible pre- At first, Zionist settlers, land buyers, dicament. To create a permanent Jewish propagandists and emissaries negotiating political presence in the Middle East, with the Great Powers sought to avoid the Zionism needed peace. But day-to-day intractable and demoralizing subject of experience and their own nationalist Arab opposition to Zionism. Publicly, ideology gave Zionist leaders no reason to movement representatives promulgated expect Muslim Middle Easterners, and false images of Arab acceptance of especially the inhabitants of Palestine, to Zionism or of Palestinian Arab opportuni- greet the building of the Jewish National ties to secure a better life thanks to the Home with anything but intransigent and creation of the Jewish National Home. violent opposition. The solution to this Privately, they recognized the unbridgeable predicament was the Iron Wall — the gulf between their image of the country’s systematic but calibrated use of force to future and the images and interests of the teach Arabs that Israel, the Jewish “state- overwhelming majority of its inhabitants.1 on-the-way,” was ineradicable, regardless With no solution of their own to the “Arab of whether it was perceived by them to be problem,” they demanded that Britain and just.
    [Show full text]
  • Matthew Berkman CV September 2019
    Matthew D. Berkman [email protected] – 128 Hollywood St., Oberlin, OH 44074 – 954.261.3354 EDUCATION PhD University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA – 2018 Department of Political Science Committee: Professors Ian Lustick, Rogers Smith, Adolph Reed, and Beth Wenger (History) Dissertation: “Coercive Consensus: Jewish Federations, Ethnic Representation, and the Roots of American Pro-Israel Politics.” Specializations: Comparative Politics, American Jewish Politics, American Political Development, Race and Ethnicity, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Social Movements MA New York University, New York, NY – 2009 Near Eastern Studies Advisor: Professor Zachary Lockman BA New York University, New York, NY – 2007 Philosophy and Religious Studies Summa Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa TEACHING EXPERIENCE Visiting Assistant Professor of Jewish Studies, Oberlin College (2019 – present) • American Jews and the Politics of Identity • Antisemitism and White Supremacy Instructor, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, Wyncote, PA (Fall 2014) • Israeli Politics and Society Since 1948 Teaching Assistant, University of Pennsylvania (Fall 2012 – Spring 2014) • International Politics of the Middle East: The Arab-Israeli Conflict (Prof. Ian Lustick) • International Human Rights (Prof. Eileen Doherty-Sil) • Political Change in the Third World (Prof. Rudra Sil) • Contemporary African Politics (Prof. Guy Grossman). OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Associate Editor, Israel Studies Review, Association for Israel Studies (2019 – present) Research Assistant, Applied Research Collective for American Jewry at NYU (2019) Producer and Host, Podcast, Mitchell Center for the Study of Democracy, U. Penn (2018 – Present) Research Associate, U.S./Middle East Project, New York, NY (Full Time, 2009 – 2011) 1 PUBLICATIONS “Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, and the American Racial Order: Revisiting the American Council for Judaism in the Age of Trump,” American Jewish History (under review).
    [Show full text]
  • Israel Needs a New Map
    LUSTICK: ISRAEL NEEDS A NEW MAP ISRAEL NEEDS A NEW MAP Ian Lustick Dr. Lustick is the Bess W. Heyman Chair Professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. The following is the edited text of his remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on February 26, 2013, sponsored by the Foundation for Middle East Peace and the Middle East Policy Council. n November 2010, I spent a long and I was therefore not surprised at this fascinating evening with a dozen vet- meeting with the Gush Emunim activists eran settlers from the ideological core in 2010 when not a single one of them of the movement previously known was capable of answering that question. Ias Gush Emunim. I was in their settlement One settler declared that — for reasons he to discuss ha-matzav (the situation) with did not explain — the question itself was these Jews, who were living the political unfair. He was actually told by his col- consequences of their ideology every day. leagues, “No, actually, we have to realize At the end of a long evening, I asked them this is a fair question,” but he insisted it a question I’ve asked almost every Israeli was unfair. What was striking was the I have met for the last 15 years: Can you glum realization that none of those pres- describe a future for the country that you ent, usually so voluble and confident on so like and that you think is possible? When I many topics, could describe a future that first began asking this question in the late in its basic outlines they themselves could 1990s, Israeli Jews in the center-left of the consider both satisfying and attainable.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's Future: the Time Factor. a Debate
    Israel’s Future The Time Factor A Debate between Efraim Inbar and Ian S. Lustick Time Is on Israel’s Side Efraim Inbar From a realpolitik perspective, the balance of power between Israel and its neighbors is the critical variable in the quest for survival in a bad neighbor- hood. If Israel’s position is improving over time and the power differential between the Jewish State and its foes is growing, then its capacity to over- come regional security challenges is assured. Moreover, under such circum- stances there is less need to make concessions to weaker parties that are in no position to exact a high price from Israel for holding on to important security and national assets such as the Golan Heights, the settlement blocs close to the “Green Line,” the Jordan Rift, and particularly Jerusalem. Time is on Israel’s side. Israel has become stronger, while its enemies— with the exception of Iran—have become weaker. An analysis of the eco- nomic and socio-political dynamics within Israel indicates that in the near future discontinuities in these trends are unlikely. First, Israel’s strong vibrant economy is a result of wise economic poli- cies—stressing market values and adapting to globalization. These policies, once a source of domestic discord, are no longer hotly debated as almost all Israelis agree that capitalism is the best way to create further wealth. A strong economy is, of course, important to the Israeli society’s ability to withstand the protracted conflict with its neighbors. Currently all economic indices indicate bright prospects despite continuous security problems.
    [Show full text]
  • By: Jade Musa
    Dependency or Domination: An application of state theories to Palestine and Israel. Undergraduate Research Thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with research distinction in Political science in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University By: Jade Musa The Ohio State University April 2021 Project Advisors: Professor Ines Vald푒́z, Department of Political Science Professor Alexander Thompson, Department of Political Science Professor Maurice Stevens, Department of Comparative Studies 1 Introduction: The “two state solution”, a plan for a “Jewish State” and “Arab State” in the United Nations General Assembly recommendation 181 (1948), has failed egregiously since its inception. For a conflict that has numerous times been described as intractable, it is a wonder why the international community and the parties to the conflict themselves would continue to advocate for a plan that has never worked to accomplish its raison d’etre. The Trump Administration took it’s shot at the “intractable” conflict of the century, a sword in the stone for contemporary United States Presidents, for he who solves “peace in the Middle East '' will clearly be the worthiest of them all. The Trump Administration is in fact the first Presidential Administration in the U.S., to endorse a non-two state solution, “discarding” the state aspirations of the Palestinian people and going so far as to recognize Israeli settlements that have long been considered illegal under international law (Crowley and Halbfinger 2020, Beaumont 2020). Although there was international condemnation for the Trump Administration’s Peace Plan, especially considering the controversial U.S. embassy move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as well as Netanyahu’s announcement for Annexation, for the most part the Trump administration recognized the “facts on the ground” that previous administrations had allowed to happen under the auspices of a “two state” paradigm.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel at 70 Challenges and Opportunities
    34th ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR ISRAEL STUDIES ISRAEL AT 70 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES June 25-27, 2018 BERKELEY INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH LAW AND ISRAEL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW BERKELEY INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH LAW AND ISRAEL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW Boalt Hall R239B Berkeley, CA 94720-7220 - 2 - 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Israel Studies ISRAEL AT SEVENTY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES JUNE 25-27, 2018 | BERKELEY INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH LAW AND ISRAEL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW, BERKELEY, CA PROGRAM COMMITTEE CLAUDE FISCHER & BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DR. BAT-ZION ERAQI KORMAN SHIRA OFFER ASSOCIATION FOR The Open University KENNETH BAMBERGER Sociology ISRAEL STUDIES of Israel Chair ELIE REKHESS & PAUL SCHAM PRESIDENT DR. RACHEL FISH RON HASSNER Arab-Israel Conflict DR. DONNA ROBINSON DIVINE Brandeis University Chair Smith College SARA HIRSCHHORN & DR. REUVEN GAFNI REBECCA GOLBERT YAACOV YADGAR VICE-PRESIDENT Kinneret College Conference Coordinator Zionism DR. YORAM PERI University of Maryland DR. RACHEL S. HARRIS SHARON ARONSON LEHAVI & AZIZA KHAZOOM & The University of Illinois YARON PELEG ESTHER MEIR-GLITZENSTEIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Film and Theater Ethnic Identities DR. MOSHE NAOR DR. NAHAUM KARLINSKY University of Haifa Ben-Gurion University ILANA SZOBEL & OFRA BACKENROTH & PHILIP HOLLANDER ALEX SINCLAIR TREASURER DR. RAMI ZEEDAN Hebrew Literature Education DR. ILAN BEN-AMI The Open University The Open University of Israel TAL DEKEL NURIT NOVIS DEUTCH, of Israel Visual Arts LEON WIENER DOW & DR. NADAV SHELEF MICHAL SHAUL University of SHULAMIT REINHARZ & Religious Studies RACHEL HARRIS BOARD MEMBERS, Wisconsin-Madison Gender Studies ITAY FISCHHENDLER & SECOND TERM DR.
    [Show full text]
  • Inquiries Into Economies of Violence in Israel/Palestine
    INQUIRIES INTO ECONOMIES OF VIOLENCE IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN POLITICAL SCIENCE DECEMBER 2016 By François-Xavier Plasse-Couture Dissertation committee 1. Michael J. Shapiro, chairperson 2. Kathy Ferguson 3. Jairus Grove 4. Samson Okoth Opondo 5. Laura Lyons Keywords: Israel, Palestine, violence, race, settler colonialism, biopolitics To Anouk, Romy, Mimi, and Laurence, generous, intelligent, unique and loving women who thought me the most and have always been with me, even in difficult times. You are my inspiration. ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for the financial support that made this research possible. Additionally, I want to thank my supervisor and true friend Michael J. Shapiro for his patience, dedication, generosity, support, numerous and precious advices, his friendship, for nurturing such a young and inspiring scholarly open mind and be such a great inspiration. I am grateful to Samson Opondo for his time and generosity, for his wise comments, suggestions, discussions and encouragements on the various projects’ steps, from the proposal to the submission. I am thankful to Jairus Grove, Kathy Ferguson, and Laura Lyons for their useful and constructive comments on the various steps that lead to completion of this dissertation. I am also indebted to Philippe Beaulieu-Brossard, Samuel Vaillancourt, Joan Deas, David Grondin, Ben Schrader, Breanne Gallagher, Katie Brennan, Sharain Naylor, Rex Troumbley, Julia Guimaraes, Akta Kaushal, Noah Viernes, Nicole Grove, John Sweeney, Simon Hogue, Tani Sebro, Jimmy Weir, Yair Geva, Shiri Hornik, Amit Friedman, Avner Peled for their friendship, support, useful comments, suggestions, and generous help at various stages of the project be it during a seminar, a conference, or around a pint.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hybrid Commission of Inquiry for Israel/Palestine
    Settling With History: A Hybrid Commission of Inquiry for Israel/Palestine Zinaida Miller* It seems likely that peace in Israel/Palestine can never mean a complete separation between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The existential proximity of the two nations, economic exigen- cies, and overriding geopolitical considerations may well keep them always entangled with each other. This will make mental and ideological reconciliation, on a level deeper than the decision making of political elites, an important requirement to assure the stability and resilience of peace in the region for the longer run. -Mordechai Bar-Oni INTRODUCTION The project of "planning for the peace" in Israel/Palestine2 has come to appear increasingly utopian in the bloody years since the Second Intifada began.3 Despite violence, repression, and the creation of a tangible wall * Candidate, JD/MALD 2007, Harvard Law School and the Fletcher School, Tufts University. My thanks to the Human Rights Journal editors for all their help. Martha Minow offered sharp commentary and generous support throughout this project. Ian Johnstone and Eyal Benvenisti offered guidance at crucialconceptualization and writing stages. Conversations with my big brother have fed, inspired, and provoked my thinking; my parents probably read this Note more times than I did and provided unfail- ingly incisive comments each time. Interviewees, both named and not named here, in Israel/Palestine, Rwanda, and South Africa, taught me how and why to listen to individual stories while still remember- ing collective material need. This Note is dedicated to Jarat Chopra, without whom I would never have embarked upon this project. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel/Palestine Diplomatic History and US Engagement
    Global Ministries—UCC & Disciples Middle East and Europe Israel/Palestine Recommended Reading Diplomatic History and US Engagement Blind Spot , by Khaled el-Gindy—This book traces US diplomatic engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the 20 th and into the 21 st century, beginning with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and ending with President Trump’s first 2 years in office. The main thesis el-Gindy asserts is that the US “blind spot” is Israeli power and Palestinian politics, i.e. that the US has done nothing to address the imbalance in power of the two parties (and has added to Israel’s) while focusing on Palestinian governance reform as a condition. This approach has led nowhere. This is a very good diplomatic historical analysis. Paradigm Lost , by Ian Lustick—According to Lustick, the conflict arose from two Israeli refusals: that of the Palestinian right of return (after 1948) and the formation of a Palestinian state (after 1967). In this historical exploration and analysis, Lustick looks at the impact of the “iron wall,” the Holocaust, and the “lobby” on the failure to bring about a two-state solution. He describes a one-state reality (not as a solution, but as a description), and suggests that Israeli annexation of parts (at least) of the West Bank would help move toward equal rights for Palestinians as citizens. This is a provocative logic, and perhaps optimistic, but should not distract from the valuable historical analysis. Shattered Hopes: Obama’s Failure to broker Israeli-Palestinian peace , by Josh Ruebner—This is a clearly written and comprehensive chronology and analysis of Obama’s first term engagement with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • People in Political Science
    People in Political Science Activities Lawrence D. Longley, professor of government at Lawrence University, has been appointed to membership Elias M. Amor Bravo, associate on the Council of the International professor of the University of Political Science Association. Velencia, Spain has been elected as a Longley will chair three sessions at member of the Council of Advisers the IPSA's 15th World Congress in of the Valencia County Hall for the Buenos Aires, July 1992. period 1991-85. Ian Lustick, University of Uday Desai, Osbin Ervin, John Pennsylvania, has been elected vice Foster, and Keith Snavely, Southern president of the Association for Illinois University at Carbondale, Israel Studies. and Charles Goodsell, Virginia Poly- technic Institute and State University, Gregory Mahler, professor and chair presented papers at the "Challenges of the department of political of Public Administration" research science, University of Mississippi, has conference in Breganz, Austria, June received a Malone Fellowship from 3-5, 1991. The conference was co- the National Council on U.S.-Arab sponsored by the Land Vorarlberg Relations to participate in a study and Southern Illinois University at tour of several nations in the Middle Carbondale. East. He has also been elected presi- dent of the Association for Israel Parris N. Glendening, University of Studies. Maryland, College Park, has been Seymour Martin Lipset elected as president of National Albert P. Melone, Roy E. Miller, Council of Elected County Execu- and Leland Stauber, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, presented tives. He has also been appointed to of the National Association of papers and participated in discussions the Board of Governors of America's Counties.
    [Show full text]