Old (Molotov) cocktails in new bottles? “Price-tag” and settler violence in Israel and the West Bank

In the early morning of July 31, 2015, masked attackers threw firebombs into two Palestinian homes in the West Bank village of Duma, south of Nablus, killing three Palestinian civilians. Contrary to claims by Israeli and Palestinian politicians, this attack was neither an isolated anomaly nor just another incident of settler violence. Instead, it was the latest attack in an important but largely unknown phenomenon called “price-tag,” in which a loosely connected group of young Israelis called “hilltop youth” burn Palestinian mosques and destroy property in hundreds of attacks accompanied by threatening graffiti that references Israeli settlers, outposts, and anti-Arab slogans. Using an original dataset of price-tag incidents and interviews with key actors, we demonstrate that the perpetrators, targets, and strategies of price-tag are different than previous patterns of settler violence. Whereas previous settlers saw the Israeli state as legitimate and largely decided to cooperate with it, the hilltop youth have decided to confront it by using price-tag attacks to deter settlement withdrawals and chain-gang the state into a conflict with the Palestinians. This analysis of the strategic logic of price-tag reveals its potential to shift the political landscape within and between Israelis and Palestinians.     

The 1996 Split of the Islamic Movement in Israel: Between the Holy Text and Israeli-Palestinian Context

This article aims to explain the causes and meaning of the formal split of the Islamic Movement in Israel into two factions—following the decision to participate in the elections to the fourteenth Knesset (Israeli parliament) on May 29, 1996—while locating these in a larger theoretical framework. This split resulted from a delicate combination of doctrinal-ideological controversies relating to secular electoral competition and historical-political-tactical controversies that are rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian context. Specifically, the split of the Islamic Movement in Israel derived from two interpretations of the Islamic belief: a more literal or concrete interpretation and a more abstract one.     

Muted criticism in Egypt (Part 2)

Egypt, the heart of the Arab world, is the dominant player in Arab‐Israeli and inter‐Arab affairs. Close scrutiny of political and intellectual trends in Egypt tells us much about these trends throughout the Arab world. Reporting from a country such as Egypt, which has an authoritarian form of government, presents problems for journalists and researchers. There is much criticism of the government, but it is muted, often lying just below the surface. One must try to discern the underlying political reality without seeming to criticize the government. Journalists who are considered pro‐Israel are viewed with suspicion. Journalists who ask probing questions may be classified as pro‐Israel. This study examines the complex fabric of Egyptian political reality through interviews with prominent intellectuals and government leaders. The interviews focus on crucial areas of foreign policy.     

Pantheonizing the Jerusalem Haram: from Pan-Islamic to a national Palestinian pantheon

Analyzing the initiative to establish an Islamic–Arab–Palestinian pantheon in the holiest place in Jerusalem against the background of the Arab–Jewish conflict in Palestine, this article discusses the transformation of the Haram pantheon from an all-Islamic burial place to a Palestinian national one in which the Husayni family was given priority. Understanding decision-making regarding who was entitled to be buried in this special place is the main focus of the article. The eight personalities who were buried at the Haram signify different motivations according to the authority in charge of allowing the burial in the Haram, family ties and networks and the political needs of the Arabs of Palestine as well as the Hashemites.     

Bedouin-Jewish Relations in the Negev 1943–1948

On the foundation of the first Jewish settlements in the Negev, at the start of the 1940s, the Bedouins welcomed the Jewish settlers. The local personal connections and mutual acquaintance between them created a feeling of closeness. The symbiosis of daily life and mutual help in the fields of personal needs, from medicine to transport, replaced their mutual fears.

However, two factors quickly changed this attitude. The first was a severe drought, which struck the Negev in the winter of 1947, and brought with it a difficult economic situation, followed by several robberies and disputes, and damage to property. The second factor was the incessant encouragement given by the leaders of the Palestinian National Movement to the Bedouins to join the struggle against the Jewish population, especially after the UN decision in November 1947, that is, after the partition of Palestine and the inclusion of the Negev within the borders of the Jewish state.

Most of the Bedouins joined the Palestinian National Struggle. Friends of yesterday became today's enemies. The years 1947–1949 were a period of anarchy, which continued well into the 1950s. In this period the State of Israel was established. Consequently, the Jewish population in the Negev was no longer the party responsible for the relationship with the Bedouins, as the Israeli government took its place. Also contact between neighbors was reduced after the Bedouins were evacuated toward the ‘fence’ region, in the Beer-Sheva Valley. The freedom the Bedouins enjoyed before the war did not exist anymore.     

Is Unilateralism Always Bad? Negotiation Lessons from Israel's “Unilateral” Gaza Withdrawal

Using the 2005 unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as a case study, this article exposes an apparent paradox: circumstances may exist in which an outcome that serves the interests of parties to a conflict cannot be achieved through bilateral negotiation but can be achieved by unilateral action. Although the withdrawal was seen at the time as serving the interests of both the Israeli government and the Palestinians, we argue that the same result could not have been achieved through bilateral negotiations. “Behind‐the‐table” internal conflicts on each side would have made it impossible for the leaders to agree on the scope of these negotiations. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's success in implementing his Gaza withdrawal was attributable in significant measure to his ability to maintain ambiguity about his long‐run plans for the West Bank. Only by focusing attention on Gaza was he able to build the necessary coalition to implement the controversial move. The Palestinian leaders, on the other hand, could never have agreed to come to the table to negotiate about Gaza alone — they would have insisted that the scope of any negotiations address a broad range of final status issues. In this article, we identify some of the lessons that the Gaza example teaches regarding the utility and limits of unilateralism as well as the benefits and potential costs of employing ambiguity as a strategy to help accomplish a controversial move. Finally, we also explore the aftermath of the withdrawal and its many missed opportunities for improving the outcome. We suggest that, even when acting unilaterally, leaders should carefully consider the probable impact of their actions on the internal conflicts of their adversaries.     

Jordanian Palestinians—what do they think? (Part 3)

Reporting from a nondemocratic land presents unique problems for journalists and researchers. This is particularly true of a traditional monarchy, such as Jordan, where all important decisions are ultimately the prerogative of the monarch. Journalists must be careful to stay within certain bounds. If they ask the wrong question they are liable to find themselves on the next flight back to their home country. Questions concerning the legitimacy of the monarchy or the competence of the ruling monarch are considered out of bounds. One must try to discern the underlying political reality without straying into forbidden zones. As with Parts 1 and 2, this study continues to provide a view into the complex fabric of Jordanian political reality through interviews with government officials, prominent private citizens with high‐level connections, and former opposition figures. The interviews focus on crucial areas of foreign and domestic policy.     

Jewish-Palestinian Relations in Israel: From Hegemony to Equality?

This article focuses on the relationships between the Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority in Israel. Opening with a historical perspective that emphasizes the marginality of the minority, the article proceeds to describe empirically that minority's inferior and subservient condition. The third section proposes an elaborate conceptual framework for analyzing politics in deeply divided societies and then applies it to the Israeli case. The final part addresses the possibility of transforming Israel's political system from one that is ethnically hegemonic and democratically flawed into a polity that is open, inclusive, and genuinely democratic. The article identifies ways for effecting such a systemic transformation through individual-based approaches (especially liberal democracy) and group-based designs (consociationalism, multinationalism, federalism, cantonization, and autonomy).     

TV News and the language of acid rain in Canadian‐American relations

This study focuses on American television news coverage of a specific issue, acid rain, in Canadian‐American affairs. It attempts to bring into focus the interaction of the formal characteristics of the news and political orientations of the viewing audience to offer an alternative approach to the pluralistic models that dominate media and foreign policy research. Finally, the study offers several strategic propositions describing the relationship of news language to political responses for this particular case of Canadian‐American affairs.     

Widening the Protection Gap: The 'Politics of Citizenship' for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon, 1948-2008

Lebanon has been a reluctant host to Palestinian refugees since1948. A mainstay of Lebanese policies vis-à-vis the Palestinianrefugees has been preventing their permanent integration andsettlement in the country. The question of naturalizing refugeesis one of the most contentious political issues in Lebanon today.Palestinian refugees tend to live in conflict-ridden environments,often at the margins of the host society. This first of allapplies to the camp-based refugees, who languish in dilapidatedand overcrowded camps. Unable to return to Palestine and marginalizedby the host society, they are caught in a legal limbo. In orderto understand the complex legal regime that governs their refugeestatus, it is necessary to examine their rights as refugeesin international law, regionally as hosted by Arab League statesand nationally as residents of Lebanon. The rights regime iscomplex and contributes to a critical ‘protection gap’for the refugees. This article demonstrates how this protectiongap was created and widened by historically contingent, international,regional and national legal rights regimes.