Junior Lecturers in Public Colleges Influenced by Radical Political Activists


Editorial Note

Like virtually everywhere in the West, the Israeli higher education system is based on an academic hierarchy.  At the top are tenured faculty, followed by non-tenured junior faculty.  In general, junior academics are hired with the rank of lecturer and are given six years before they can get tenured and promoted to senior lecturer position.  This probation period enables the university to decide whether or not to offer the candidate a tenured position.  The criteria for promotion are very strict. The candidate has to prove his/her ability to teach, do research and publish in reputable peer-review journals.   As tenure track positions have become scarce in liberal arts because of a shrinking demand from students who prefer more marketable degrees in science and business, some colleges employ adjunct lecturers who work on contract.  For example, in the United States, where public universities have suffered from budget cuts, the number of contract scholars has vastly increased.  In Europe, where public tertiary education is in crisis because of decreasing state budgets, junior faculty and adjunct feel the brunt.

The Israeli Communist Party (Hadash), which has an active outreach to the faculty, has tried to work against the economic environment in which colleges and universities operate.  Members with an academic background have taken the lead.

For instance, Hadash MK Dr. Offer Cassif, a former lecturer, secured the chairmanship of the Knesset Higher Education Subcommittee. The Subcommittee shall deal with, among others, improving the employment conditions of lecturers (with an emphasis on non-tenured lecturers). 

Cassif is not alone. IAM reported in 2015 of Dr. Efraim Davidi, another political activist in the Communist Party, who is an untenured lecturer at both Tel Aviv University and Ben Gurion University. He teaches Marx, Communism, and similar topics.

In recent weeks Davidi has encouraged his non-tenured colleagues from public colleges, who have been on strike since the beginning of the academic year.  In an email to the academic community, Davidi wrote, on November 14, 2020, that, “Striking junior faculty lecturers in public colleges will demonstrate in Tel Aviv: The junior faculty lecturers from 11 public colleges, who are on strike, will demonstrate this coming Monday at noon at the Azrieli Junction in Tel Aviv. Their strike will commence tomorrow (Sunday) its fourth week. In preparation for the demonstration, the lecturers, who are unionized with Koach Laovdim, said: “The heads of the colleges’ committee, the Council for Higher Education, the Ministry of Finance – it is time to wake up because the semester is in danger!”  Not surprisingly, the academics behind the strike, as posted on Facebook, are two political activists.  

On November 8, 2020, Hadash published a call on their website concerning the strike, declaring that, “Thousands of junior lecturers are on strike to eliminate once and for all the abusive employment mechanism, the one that harms thousands of lecturers, tens of thousands of students, and the higher education system in the periphery. As reported by Koach Laovdim, which unionizes the junior faculty lecturers in public colleges in the periphery. According to the Union of Workers in the Public Colleges: “The heads of the colleges, the fate of the semester is in your hands. You can no longer stand aside when the treasury demands back a salary you have approved. You can no longer stand aside when we are the only staff in the higher education system whose income has not adjusted for six years.  You cannot stand aside when the semester’s fate is in jeopardy due to the thuggery of the treasury and your indifference! It is in your hands! You are out of touch! Wake up.”

The Koach Laovdim and its affiliation with the Communist Party has met with criticism before and was described as the back-door to radicalism. Nevertheless, even some in the mainstream media consider the system of junior faculty as abusive.  A media report stressed that “A key aspect of the junior faculty struggle is the demand to discontinue the abusive employment method in which lecturers who have no tenure at the end of each semester or year are fired and forced to take unemployment benefits until the next employment period. But it is precisely on this issue that there is agreement. The Ministry of Finance, the Council for Higher Education, and the colleges agree to move to continuous employment. Henceforth, the lecturers’ status will be defined as ‘associate lecturer’ to eliminate the terms ‘subordinate faculty’ or ‘external lecturer.’ They will also be eligible for a study fund and will participate in the colleges’ academic committees.” The report ends by stating that “Once an agreement is reached, this will undoubtedly be an important breakthrough in reducing one of the most abusive employment methods in Israel.” 

The media report also informed that the negotiations between the Ministry of Finance and the junior staff representatives are taking place already for two and a half years.

As is well known, strikes and demonstrations have been the modus operandi of the Communist Party since its inception. Industrial action is particularly unstable for academic institutions that are based on merit.  Junior faculty and tenured academics are both a reflection of the merit system, and the colleges cannot be isolated from the economic reality in which they operate.

Monday, 16 November 2020 from 12:00 UTC+02-14:00 UTC+02נפגשים בקרית הממשלה, ליד מגדלי עזריאלי (דרך מנחם בגין 125, ת”א),Public · Hosted by ‎איגוד הסגל האקדמי במכללות הציבוריות‎ and Helly Buzhish Sasson
הגיע הזמן להתעורר! ור”מ האוצר מל”ג הסמסטר בסכנה! חמישה שבועות של שביתה ב-12 מכללות עשרות אלפי סטודנטיות וסטודנטים לא לומדים הסטודנטים/יות והמרצים/ות במכללות הציבוריות לא שווים פחות! שבוע חמישי לשביתת המרצים הזמניים במכללות הציבורים (יש מי שקורא להם זוטר או מורים החוץ -אנחנו לא חושבים שיש משהו ארעי בעבודה מסורה לאורך שנים). עוד שבוע שבו במשרד האוצר מציבים בפני המרצים את הברירה בלתי אפשרית- או שתמשיכו לעבוד בתנאי ההעסקה פוגעניים (פיטורים מדי סמסטר, היעדר משמעות לוותק, פערים בתנאים מול עמיתיהם באוניברסיטאות) או שתחתמו על הסכם הכולל קנסות על עבודה. לטענת האוצר, עבודה שביצעו המרצים מעבר לסיום הסמסטר, בגלוי כמובן ובתשלום מן המכללות – מהווה חריגת שכר.  המרצים ה”זוטרים” ששכרם לא עודכן שש שנים; שמצויים בתחתית סולם ההשתכרות בהשכלה הגבוה, הם סובלים מ”חריגות שכר”. וראשי המכללות? להם זה לא נוגע. מעסיקיהם של המרצות והמרצים טוענים כי הם רק “מתווכים” בין האוצר לבין המרצים. חוסר אחריות מקומם כלפי ציבור המרצים שלהם; חוסר אחריות משווע כלפי הסטודנטים ביום שני 16.11.20 בשעה 12:00 יפגינו מרצי המכללות הציבוריות מול משרדי הממשלה בצומת עזריאלי (פינת הרחובות קפלן ובגין) בקריאה להתעוררות האוצר וראשי המכללות שתפו! והגיעו! לפרטים: מירית בראשי 0545541019 חלי בוזחיש-ששון 0546894

שביתת סגל ההוראה במכללות הציבוריות נכנסה לשבוע הרביעי
8 בנובמבר 2020

שביתת סגל ההוראה במכללות הציבוריות נכנסה הבוקר (ראשון) לשבוע הרביעי. אלפי מרצים מהסגל הזוטר שובתים כדי לחסל אחת ולתמיד את מנגנון ההעסקה הפוגעני, זה שפוגע באלפי מרצים, בעשרות אלפי סטודנטים, ובמערכת ההשכלה הגבוהה בפריפריה. כך נמסר מכוח לעובדים המאגד את מרצי הסגל הזוטר במכללות הציבוריות.

לדברי איגוד העובדים במכללות הציבוריות: “ראשי המכללות, גורל הסמסטר בידיכם. אתם לא יכולים יותר לעמוד מהצד כאשר האוצר דורש לגזול שכר שאתם אישרתם. אתם לא יכולים לעמוד מהצד כאשר אנחנו נותרנו הסגל היחיד בהשכלה הגבוהה ששכרו לא עודכן כבר שש שנים. אתם לא יכולים לעמוד מהצד כאשר גורל הסמסטר בסכנה בשל בריונות האוצר ובשל אדישותכם! זה בידיים שלכם! מנותקים, תתעוררו”.

על הסגל הזוטר והמאבקים בהשכלה הגבוהה, בגיליון השבוע של “זו הדרך” (עמ’ 1 ו-7): https://zoha.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/G43_2020.pdf

עוד על הסולידריות עם מאבק הסגל הזוטר, בגיליון 42 של “זו הדרך” (עמ’ 5): https://zoha.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/G42_2020.pdf

על המאבקים במוסדות להשכלה גבוהה, בגיליון 41 של “זו הדרך” (עמ’ 7): https://zoha.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/G41_2020.pdf

עוד על מאבק הסגל הזוטר, בגיליון “זו הדרך” 39 (עמ’ 10): https://zoha.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/G40_2020.pdf
למה לאוצר לא בוער לסיים את השביתה במכללות הציבוריות
מרצי הסגל הזוטר ב־11 מכללות שובתים מתחילת שנת הלימודים. טענות משרד האוצר כי קיבלו חריגות שכר ועליהם להחזיר את הכסף מונעות את סיום השביתה, אף שיש הסכמה על הפסקת פיטורי המרצים בסוף כל שנה. 38 אלף סטודנטים תלויים באוויר
שחר אילן 06:0504.11.20

שביתת הסגל הזוטר ב־11 מכללות ציבוריות שבהן כ־38 אלף תלמידים נמשכת כבר שבועיים וחצי. המשמעות היא שהתלמידים במכללות אלו, רובם בפריפריה, מקבלים רק כ־40% מההרצאות. השביתה מקיפה 3,000 מרצים מהסגל הזוטר. 
אתמול בבוקר הפגינו חברים בסגל הזוטר מול ביתו של שר האוצר ישראל כץ בכפר אחים ואחד מהם נעצר כשניסה לפרוץ אל הבית.
על משרד האוצר נמתחת ביקורת חריפה לפיה הוא מנהל את המשא ומתן לסיום השביתה עם נציגי הסגל הזוטר בעצלתיים. עד כה התקיימו רק ארבע ישיבות קצרות. במונחי שביתה זה נחשב לצאת ידי חובה. באוצר לעומת זאת טוענים שעמדות הסגל הזוטר מכניסות את המשא ומתן למבוי סתום.
מערכת ההשכלה הגבוהה חזרה לפעול ב־18 באוקטובר, כלומר לפני שבועיים וחצי, כשהלימודים מתבצעים כולם בלמידה מרחוק. אולם המשא ומתן בין נציגי הסגל הזוטר לבין האוצר נמשך כבר שנתיים וחצי.
היבט מרכזי במאבק הסגל הזוטר הוא הדרישה להפסקת שיטת ההעסקה הפוגענית שבמסגרתה מפוטרים מרצים שאין להם קביעות בסוף כל סמסטר או שנה ונאלצים לקחת דמי אבטלה עד תקופת ההעסקה הבאה. אבל דווקא בנושא הזה יש הסכמה. האוצר, המועצה להשכלה גבוהה והמכללות מסכימים לעבור להעסקה רצופה. מעמד המרצים יוגדר מעתה כ”מרצה עמית” כדי לבטל את המונחים “סגל זוטר” או “מרצה מן החוץ”. הם יהיו זכאים גם לקרן השתלמות וישתתפו בוועדות האקדמיות במכללות. כשיושג הסכם, זו ללא ספק תהיה פריצת דרך חשובה לצמצום אחת משיטות ההעסקה הפוגעניות ביותר בישראל.
הפריפריה נפגעת יותר
המחלוקת היא על טענות האוצר שהתגלו חריגות שכר משמעותיות במכללות רבות. האוצר רוצה להגיע להסדרת הנושא בהסכם. המשמעות היא לבטל את ההטבות החריגות, לפחות בחלקן ואף להביא להשבת כסף. המרצים וארגון כוח לעובדים המייצג אותם דורשים הסדר שיתעלם משאלת החריגות, ולהשאיר את המחלוקת האם מדובר בחריגות שכר לדיון משפטי. האוצר מוכן, אך דורש אז שהמרצים שלכאורה בחריגה לא יקבלו את תוספות השכר החדשות. המרצים מסרבים והמשא ומתן תקוע.
ראשי המכללות עם המדינה
יו”ר התאחדות הסטודנטים הארצית שלומי יחיאב מזהיר ממצב של גלישה לסמסטר אבוד במכללות השובתות. “צריך לסיים את השביתה היום”, אמר יחיאב. יו”ר אגודת הסטודנטים של מכללת ספיר יורי לוין תוקף את הפגיעה הכפולה בסטודנטים . “אנחנו בין הפטיש לסדן. סטודנטים שמצאו עבודה מוותרים עליה בשביל הרצאות שלא מתקיימות. צריך להגיע להסכם”.
בישיבה של ועדת החינוך של הכנסת בנושא השביתה שנערכה שלשום תקף יו”ר הוועדה רם שפע את הקצב האיטי של המשא ומתן ודרש לקיים שיבות מרתוניות. הוא גם ביקר בחריפות את העובדה שוועד ראשי המכללות בוחר לתמוך בעמדות המדינה במקום בסגל.

יו”ר ארגון הסגל הזוטר במכון הטכנולוגי חולון רועי צורף אמר ש”מה שהאוצר מציע זה הסכם שיפגע בחלק מהמרצים ויגרום להפחתת שכר והשבת כספים”. הוא הבהיר שהסגל הזוטר נחוש להמשיך שביתה “עד הסוף”.
איתי סבירסקי מארגון כוח לעובדים, שמיצג את הסגל הזוטר, אמר ש”הסטודנטים סובלים אבל משחקים איתנו משחקים טקטיים. צריך לדרוש מהם (מנציגי האוצר — ש”א) להקדיש זמן למשא ומתן. מספרים לנו שמרצה שמשתכר 5,000 שקל בחודש נמצא בחריגת שכר. החריגות האלו הן נורמה במכללות אז איך הן חריגה?”.
רפרנט השכלה גבוהה באגף הממונה על השכר באוצר, נתן נהוראי, אמר שהמרצים הזוטרים הם ה”גוף היחיד שמתנהל איתו משא ומתן על הסכם מסגרת במהלך משבר הקורונה”. לדבריו, יש הסכמה בנושא ההעסקה הרציפה שהיא הנושא שמטריד ביותר את המרצים.
“את הכסף צריך להחזיר”
נהוראי הוסיף כי “יש חריגות של יותר מ־10% מעלות השכר במערכת. מי שמקבל כסף שלא כדין צריך להחזירו”. לדבריו, זה יאפשר להגיע להסדרה שבה רוב המרצים יקבלו תוספות.
יו”ר ועד ראשי המכללות פרופ’ שמעון גפשטיין קרא להסכמה ולפי רוב המרצים יקבלו תוספות שכר ואילו מי שמקבלים יותר, משכורתם תוקפא.  
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Julia Chaitin <jchaitin563@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 2:27 PM
‪Subject: [Academia-IL-Bashaar] כבר עברנו את השבוע החמישי של השביתה של מרצים ללא מינוי במכללות הציבוריות‬
To: Academia Network <academia-il@listserver.huji.ac.il>

שלום לכולן ולכולםזהו. שבוע חמישי של שביתה של המרצים ללא מינוי ב – 11 מכללות ציבוריות מאחורינו.והשביתה ממשיכה
אלפי מרצים לא מלמדים וכ – 30000 סטודנטים לומדים מערכת חלקית ביותר.
כפי הנראה, האוצר, הור”מ והות”ת חושבים שאחרי שלוש שנים של מו”מ ונסיונות להשיג תעסוקה לא פוגענית, יאני – הוגנת – זה בסדר לפטר מרצים ללא מינוי אחרי כל סמסטר, למנוע מהם המשכיות בצבירת פנסיה, לא להעניק להם ותק על כל העבודה שהם עושים וכמובן לא לתת דברים כמו קרן השתלמות. ויש מרצים שמלמדים בתנאים כאלו 5 שנים ו 10 . יש כאלו שכבר הגיעו ל 20 שנים בהסדר הזה. מלמדים מלא ומפוטרים מלא בסוף כל סמסטר. 
וזה בלי לדבר על הפערים בשכר שקיימים בין הוראה במכללה והוראה באוניברסיטה. [אבל בגלל הקורונה, צוות המו”מ של ארגון המכללות ירד מזה בינתיים]חמישי שבועותולא נראה טוב לגבי השבוע השישישבת שלום לכולם!! לחיי האקדמיה המכללתית!

Julia Chaitin, PhDSchool of Social WorkSapir Collegecell: +972-54-7976090Skype name: live:.cid.f6981724877ba1c7 


———- Forwarded message ———
From: davidief <davidief@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 5:53 PM
‪Subject: [Academia-IL-Bashaar] מרצי הסגל הזוטר במכללות הציבוריות השובתים יפגינו בת”א‬
To: Academia network IL <academia-il@listserver.cc.huji.ac.il>

מרצי הסגל הזוטר במכללות הציבוריות השובתים יפגינו בת”א

מרצי הסגל הזוטר השובתים ב-11 מכללות ציבוריות יפגינו ביום שני הקרוב בשעה 12:00 בצומת עזריאלי בתל-אביב. שביתתם תכנס מחר (ראשון) לשבוע הרביעי. לקראת ההפגנה מסרו המרצים, המאוגדים בכוח לעובדים: “ועד ראשי המכללות, המועצה להשכלה גבוהה, משרד האוצר – הגיע הזמן להתעורר כי הסמסטר בסכנה!”.

הפגנה מרצי הסגל הזוטר בתל-אביב בפייסבוק:


ד”ר אפרים דוידי,

אוניברסיטת בן גוריון בנגב

אוניברסיטת תל-אביב

שביתת הסגל הזוטר במכללות נכנסה לשבוע השלישי; נמשכים העיצומים באוניברסיטאות

1 בנובמבר 2020

שביתת חברי הסגל הזוטר במכללות הציבוריות נכנסה היום (ראשון) לשבוע השלישי. השביתה החלה לפני כשבועיים, והבוקר הצטרפו אליה גם חברי הסגל הזוטר במכללת סמינר הקיבוצים. בכך עלה מספר המכללות שבהן חברי הסגל הזוטר שובתים ל–11. כמו כן, הסגל הזוטר בארבע אוניברסיטאות נוקט בצעדים ארגוניים.

המכללות בהן שובתים חברי הסגל הזוטר הן המכללה האקדמית ת”א–יפו, שנקר, המכון הטכנולוגי חולון, המכללה האקדמית כנרת, המרכז האקדמי רופין, המכללה האקדמית אשקלון, המכללה האקדמית הדסה בירושלים, עזריאלי – מכללה אקדמית להנדסה, מורי האנגלית במכללת עמק יזרעאל, מכללת ספיר, מכללת אחווה וסמינר הקיבוצים. חברי הסגל הזוטר במכללות הציבוריות אחראים על רוב שעות ההוראה בהן, כך שמתקיימים שיבושים כבדים במכללות, שמסתמכות בשבועות האחרונים על הוראת הסגל הבכיר בלבד באמצעות למידה מרחוק.

איגוד הסגל האקדמי במכללות השובתות מאוגד בכוח לעובדים “האוצר מנסה לכפות פגיעה באלפי מרצים ומוביל לביטול הסמסטר”. חברי הסגל הזוטר במכללות אלה מוחים על התמשכות המשא ומתן להסדרת עבודתם ותנאי שכרם, שמתנהל כבר יותר משנתיים וחצי. זאת, לאחר שלפני כשנתיים וחצי חתמו ארגוני הסגל הזוטר בחלק מהמכללות על הסכמי שכר, והיתר לא חתמו עליהם. חברי הסגל הזוטר במכללות דורשים להסדיר את הביטחון התעסוקתי שלהם, מאחר שכיום הם מפוטרים לאחר כל סמסטר או בסוף השנה האקדמית, וכן להסדיר את מנגנון הקידום והשכר שלהם. מאיגוד הסגל הזוטר במכללות נמסר עוד: “לצערנו, ראשי המכללות עומדים לצד משרד האוצר ולא מוכנים להמשיך את הדיונים עד שהאוצר יקבל את מבוקשו. מיום ליום מסתבר שלציניות של ראשי המערכת אין גבולות. יואילו ראשי המערכת להתבונן במראה, שם הם ימצאו את מלוא האחריות על השביתה במכללות הציבוריות”.

יצוין שביום שני שעבר הכריזו חברי הסגל הבכיר בכל האוניברסיטאות על סכסוך עבודה במחאה על תנאי עבודתם במהלך משבר הקורונה – והם רשאים לפתוח בשביתה בעוד כשבוע. סכסוך העבודה מתמקד בהפסקת המימון לקשרי מדע בתקופת הקורונה, בהוראת משרד האוצר תוך הפרה חד–צדדית של ההסכם הקיבוצי.

על הסולידריות עם הסגל הזוטרבגיליון השבוע של זו הדרך (עמ’ 5):

על המאבקים במוסדות להשכלה גבוההבגיליון 41 של זו הדרך (עמ’ 7):

עוד על מאבק הסגל הזוטרבגיליון 40 של זו הדרך” (עמ’ 10):

https://zoha.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/G40_2020.pdf1 בנובמבר 2020 ב-עובדים, חברה וכלכלה.========================================================================


שביתת הסגל הזוטר במכללות: “להחזיר כסף שכבר קיבלנו? זה שוד”
סיון חילאי פורסם: 17.11.20 , 16:50
עובדי הסגל הזוטר במכללות האקדמיות הציבוריות הפגינו מחוץ לביתו של השר אלקין בעקבות הקיפאון במו”מ עם משרד האוצר. המפגינים זעמו על הדרישה להחזיר שכר שקיבלו כחלק מדרישת המדינה: “מדובר בעשרות אלפי שקלים, אין מאיפה להחזיר את זה”. באוצר טוענים: “קיימות חריגות שכר בהיקפים רחבים”
עשרות מרצות ומרצים הפגינו הבוקר (שלישי) מול ביתו של השר להשכלה גבוהה זאב אלקין בגבעת זאב, כחלק ממחאת הסגל הזוטר במכללות האקדמיות הציבוריות, ששובתים זה השבוע החמישי ברציפות.   המשא ומתן עם משרד האוצר וראשי המכללות שהחל לפני כשלוש שנים עדיין רחוק מלהסתיים. המפגינים קראו לשר אלקין להתערב במשבר במשא ומתן בין איגוד הסגל האקדמי, משרד האוצר וראשי המכללות, שבגללו לא נפתחה שנת הלימודים האקדמית ב-11 מכללות ציבוריות.
כ-3,000 חברי הסגל הזוטר, המיוצגים על ידי ארגון כוח לעובדים, שובתים במחאה על תנאי העסקה שהם מגדירים כפוגעניים, הכוללים פיטורים מדי סמסטר ופערים משמעותיים בין שכרם לזה של עמיתיהם באוניברסיטאות. המפגינים טענו ש”הגיעו לתחתית” ואין להם כוונה להפסיק את השביתה עד אשר יימצא פתרון הולם למצבם.
מירית בראשי, מרצה במכללת ספיר במחלקה ללימודי תרבות, סיפרה על חוסר הביטחון התעסוקתי. “אני מפוטרת אחת לסמסטר, אין לי יכולת לצבור ותק או תנאים, אין לי אופק תעסוקתי ולכן אין לי ברירה אלא לעבוד בכמה עבודות – גם כמרצה, גם כעורכת לשונית וגם עורכת תזות”, סיפרה.
המרצים זועמים שמשרד האוצר דורש כי מרצה שקיבל שכר על יותר מ-13 שבועות בסמסטר יידרש להחזיר את הכסף שנים אחורה. באוצר טוענים כי בחלק מהמכללות נתגלו חריגות שכר משמעותיות, ותובעים מחלק מהמרצים להחזיר למדינה 17 אלף שקל בממוצע על כל שנת עבודה.
“במכללת ספיר משלמים על 16 שבועות כי המרצים מגיעים בתקופות מבחנים, עושים עבודות הכנה ועבודה פרטנית עם הסטודנטים שלנו”, אמרה בראשי. “לפי האיומים של משרד האוצר אני אצטרך להחזיר עשרות אלפי שקלים שאין לי מאיפה להחזיר אותם. הנחת היסוד שמרצה לא אמור להיות מתוגמל על עבודה מעבר לשעות שהוא בכיתה היא הזויה. הוראה היא הרבה מעבר לשעה וחצי שאני מלמדת. אני מלמדת את הסטודנטים שלי לעזור לחלש ולהיות אנשים טובים, ואני עושה את זה בידיעה שאני עובדת מוחלשת. זה דיסוננס מאוד גדול שקשה מאוד להתמודד איתו”.
היום התקיים הדיון ראשון בוועדת המשנה להשכלה הגבוהה בעניין המשבר במכללות הציבוריות. יו”ר הוועדה, ח”כ עופר כסיף (הרשימה המשותפת), אמר בפתח הדיון כי המשא ומתן עם משרד האוצר תקוע בשל הדרישה מהמרצים להחזיר כסף שכבר קיבלו.
“במשך שנים מפלים את המרצים הללו, ועכשיו רוצים גם לדרוש מהם את חריגות השכר. זה לעג לרש. אנחנו מדברים על שישה מיליון שקלים שמשרד האוצר לא מוכן לספוג בשביל המרצים. על זה מתווכחים? על זה מונעים מהסטודנטים ללמוד? על תנאים בסיסיים שצריכים להיות למרצים האלה?”, תהה כסיף. “הם אפילו הסכימו לרדת בשכר שלהם, ולזה לא מוצאים פתרון? רק אתמול פורסם שניתנה תוכנית סיוע לסטודנטים בסך 800 מיליון שקלים, אבל שישה מיליון לטובת המרצים לא יכולים לתת? הפגיעה במרצים זו פגיעה באקדמיה, וסיום השביתה שלהם צריך להיות אינטרס של כל המערכת”.
רועי צורף, שמרצה במכון הטכנולוגי בחולון, סיפר בהפגנה על המאבק של המרצים לתנאי העסקה הולמים שנערך יותר משלוש שנים. “זו סיטואציה מצערת כלפי המרצים והסטודנטים כאחד, אבל אנחנו נמצאים במצב שלא נותרה לנו דרך אחרת. מספיק, יש קורונה, יש אי יציבות פוליטית, כמה זמן נחכה להסכם הזה?”.
לטענתו, הדרישה של האוצר להחזיר את חריגות השכר במכללות תביא לפגיעה במרצים רבים. “אני לא מכיר מכללה אחת שמשלמת על 13 שבועות. זה יגרום לכך שהשכר של המרצים ירד ב-30%. במקום לשפר את התנאים שלנו במשא ומתן הזה – הם פוגעים בהם”. עוד אמר כי הגורמים הפוליטיים חייבים להתערב: “הפגנו מול הבית של אלקין והוא לא יצא לדבר איתנו, ראשי המוסדות גם יושבים בשקט ולא עוזרים וכמובן משרד האוצר, שהוא הגוף הכי חזק במדינה, לא עוזר. מישהו פה חייב להציל את המרצים”.
יוליה שבצ’נקו, דוקטורנטית לסוציולוגיה ואנתרופולוגיה ומרצה בעשור האחרון במכללת ספיר, סיפרה על הקושי הכלכלי שהיא חווה. “כל הזמן אני צריכה לדאוג איך א אוכל הביתה, מתי יעסיקו אותי ואיך יעסיקו אותי. יש לי בית, יש לי חשבונות שאני צריכה לשלם, ואין לי מאיפה להביא את המשכורת”.
על תנאי המשא ומתן שהציב משרד האוצר בפני המרצים אמרה שבצ’נקו כי “הם קוראים לזה החזרה של חריגות השכר, אבל אני רואה את זה כאילו האוצר החליט לגזור עלינו קנסות. להחזיר כסף שכבר קיבלנו? זה שוד! השכר הממוצע של מרצה עומד על שכר מינימום של 5,600 בחודש ומזה רוצים שנחזיר שכר, זה הגיוני? האוצר מצפה שאחזיר עשרות אלפי שקלים שאין לי. כבר חמישה חודשים שלא נכנס לי שקל בבנק מהמכללות, כי ארבעה חודשים לא קיבלנו משכורת, ואחר כך שבתנו במשך חודש. זאת החלטה קשה מאוד לשבות בתקופת הקורונה כשבני ובנות הזוג שלנו נכנסים לחל”תים במקרה הטוב ומפוטרים במקרה הרע, אבל אין ברירה”.
ד”ר שגיא מעין, גם הוא ממכללת ספיר וחבר בהנהגת איגוד הסגל האקדמי, אמר כי הדרישה להחזר כספים מצד המרצים הגיעה אחרי תהליך ארוך של משא ומתן מול משרד האוצר. “באוצר נזכרו שיש חריגות שכר אחרי שהכרזנו על סכסוך עבודה, והם החליטו שאנחנו מקבלים זימון לשימוע בנושא הזה. להגיד שהשכר הנמוך של המרצה הוא חורג? זו בושה”. לדבריו, מדובר בשעות הכרחיות שהמרצה עובד בהן ואין סיבה שלא יקבל עליהן שכר. “אלה שעות של הדרכה, של פגישות אישיות ושל סיוע בכתיבת סמינריונים. מדובר בפגיעה משמעותית בשכר המרצה. לא נוכל להסכים להסכם כזה שפוגע בכל כך הרבה מרצים”, אמר.
ממשרד האוצר נמסר: “במסגרת הסדרת מעמדם של חברי הסגל הזוטר במכללות והעברתם למעמד של חברי סגל מן המניין, עלה כי בחלק מהמוסדות קיימות חריגות שכר בהיקפים רחבים, זאת בניגוד לחוק ועל חשבון תקציבי המכללות והסטודנטים. על מנת לאפשר לכלל חברי הסגל לשפר את מעמדם ותנאי העסקתם באופן מיידי נדרשת הסדרת הנושא. אנו מצרים על כך שארגון כוח לעובדים מונע את ההסדרה ופוגע בסטודנטים דווקא בתקופה זו ומקווים כי יגיעו להבנות בהקדם”. ============================================== 


כוח לעובדים – הדלת האחורית של הרדיקלים בישראל

דוד מרחב

מדובר בארגון אשר בסופו של דבר יעביר עוד ועוד קולות למפלגה הקומוניסטית בבחירות הקרבות. למעשה, הקומוניסטים בארץ – שמפלגתם שורדת כבר 91 שנה – הם הכוח היחיד בישראל היום שמתעצם ומתגבש בהתמדה


הצטרפות סגל האוניברסיטה הפתוחה לארגון “כוח לעובדים” היא עוד אזהרה על הנעשה בשוליים הרדיקליים של החברה הישראלית▪  ▪  ▪השבוע נחלה ההסתדרות את אחת התבוסות הקשות שלה: הנהלת האוניברסיטה הפתוחה הודיעה להסתדרות כי הארגון היציג של עובדי האוניברסיטה הוא ‘כוח לעובדים’. לפי נתוני האוניברסיטה, לאנשי ‘כוח לעובדים’ יש 676 חברי סגל אקדמי, בעוד שמספר חברי הסגל אשר רשום בהסתדרות הכללית עומד על 384 עובדים בלבד. לאור הנתונים, כבר חתמה הנהלת האוניברסיטה הסכם קיבוצי בראשי תיבות עם אנשי ‘כוח לעובדים’.
החדשות הללו עלולות להיראות לקורא כעוד מאבק משמים בין אנשי איגוד מקצועי, מאבק על אינטרסים, כספים המגיעים מדמי חבר ויוקרה. אולם יש בכך הרבה יותר מזה: ‘כוח לעובדים’ הוקם על-ידי אנשי שמאל, חלקם הגדול תומכי ופעילי המפלגה הקומוניסטית הישראלית (מק”י) וסיעתה בכנסת, חד”ש (חלק תומכים בגלוי, אחרים מוסווים). הרעיון שבבסיס הקמת הארגון היה האכזבה מההסתדרות הכללית והרצון להקים איגוד מקצועי שייצג את העובדים “באמת”. בשורה התחתונה, מדובר בארגון חזית קומוניסטי לכל דבר ועניין. המטרה היא ברורה: רדיקליזציה של העובדים המאורגנים במסגרת ‘כוח העובדים’ כשלב ראשון. השלב השני הוא ברור: חיזוק שורותיה של מק”י והגדלת כוחה.
‘כוח לעובדים’ איננו אזוטריה מרקסיסטית: הוא מייצג חלק ניכר מפועלי מפעל ‘אקרשטיין’ בירוחם, הוא השיג הסכם קיבוצי לעובדי הסינמטק בירושלים, הוא הוביל את מאבק עובדי מכון ויצמן למדע ברחובות, ועוד. באופן אירוני, מדובר במה שהגדיר לנין “אולטרא-שמאלנות”. מנהיגה הראשון של ברית המועצות תבע מהקומוניסטים לפעול באיגודים המקצועיים עצמם ולא לייסד איגודים “עצמאיים”. אולם הקומוניסטים בישראל, הפועלים לפי האקסיומה הסטליניסטית שלפיה הסוציאל-דמוקרטיה היא בעצם סוציאל-פשיזם, החליטו לשבור את הכוח של השריד היחיד של הסוציאליזם הישראלי, והוא האיגוד המקצועי.
לאט אך בבטחה מתארגן חיל המצב של המפלגה הקומוניסטית בארץ. זה לא משנה אם ב’כוח לעובדים’ חברים אנשים המזוהים עם כת טרוצקיסטית מסוימת, איזו סיעה שמאלנית במפלגת העבודה או גופים אקדמיים כאלה או אחרים; בשורה התחתונה, מדובר בארגון אשר בסופו של דבר יעביר עוד ועוד קולות למפלגה הקומוניסטית בבחירות הקרבות. למעשה, הקומוניסטים בארץ – שמפלגתם שורדת כבר 91 שנה – הם הכוח היחיד בישראל היום שמתעצם ומתגבש בהתמדה. אין עוד מפלגה שיכולה להוציא לרחובות אלפי אנשים כמו שמק”י עושה באחד במאי. ואין עוד מפלגה שאוספת תומכים ומצביעים דרך ארגון חזית שלה המהווה איגוד מקצועי חדש לכל דבר ועניין.
מעוררת דאגה העובדה שהשלטונות בישראל נרדמים בשמירה כשמתחת לאפם הקומוניסטים וסוכניהם עושים ככל העולה על רוחם. על חברי, פעילי ותומכי ‘הקרן החדשה לישראל’ וארגוניה – הרוח החיה מאחורי ועדת גולדסטון – נמנים קומוניסטים גלויים ומוסווים. אם בין פעילי ‘הקרן’ ייעשה סקר בחירות, חד”ש תקבל ככל הנראה 90 אחוז מהקולות. השאר יתחלקו בין בל”ד לבין מרצ. בישראל רוחשת היום מחתרת קומוניסטית פעילה אשר ידה בכל והכול תחת ידה. עכשיו גם ההסתדרות צריכה לדאוג; היא לא תוכל לסמוך לעד על בית הדין לעבודה שיסיר את האיום הבולשביקי, כפי שעשה כאשר ניסו אנשי ‘כוח העובדים’ להפוך לארגון היציג של פועלי מפעל ‘אקרשטיין’ ונכשלו, לפחות פורמלית.
בתנאים ההולמים, הרחש הרדיקאלי יוכל להתבטא לא רק במה שקורה בארגונים חוץ-ממשלתיים אלא גם בכנסת. הקומוניסטים מבינים היום שהמסגרת ההיסטורית שהם נתונים בה היא המכשול המרכזי להרחבת השפעתם הפרלמנטארית. מפלגה חדשה עם קרביים קומוניסטיים וחזות מהפכנית רעננה וצעירה, עם מוחמד ברכה בספסל האחורי ודב חנין בראש, יכולה להגיע בבחירות הקרובות ל-7-8 מנדטים. כבר עתה לחד”ש יש 4 מנדטים בכנסת. די בזליגת כמה מנדטים משאריות מרצ ושרידי מפלגת העבודה אל הקומוניסטים על-מנת שאלה יכפילו את כוחם. הישרא-קומוניזם עוד עלול להגיע ישר לשולחן הממשלה, בסיטואציה המתאימה.
לכן, פרשת ‘כוח לעובדים’ היא עוד אזהרה על הנעשה בשוליים הרדיקליים של החברה הישראלית, שמתקרבים יותר ויותר אל ליבה של החברה. כמו כל מחלה סופנית, כשהקומוניזם המוסווה כבר יגיע לאזורים החשובים באמת, סיכויי ההחלמה יהיו פחותים בהרבה.

How Neve Gordon Identifies with Hamas


Editorial Note

Next week a Zoom lecture will be taking place with Prof. Neve Gordon, formerly of Ben Gurion University, now at Queen Mary University of London. Gordon, who published a call for the boycott of Israel on the Los Angeles Times pages in 2009, has recently published a book, together with Dr. Nicola Perugini, from the University of Edinburgh, titled Human Shields: A History of People in the Line of Fire. Hence, the book is the topic of the Webinar.

The book begins with chapters dealing with human shields in the American Civil War, Franco-German War, South Africa, World War I, Sino-Japanese War, Italo-Ethiopian War, Nazis, Geneva Conventions, Vietnamese War, Environmental Human Shields.  

Chapter 11, titled “Resistance,” discusses human shields in Palestine.  It tells the story of Tom Hurdnall, who traveled to the “occupied Palestinian territories” amid the second Palestinian Intifada in 2000, “against Israel’s military occupation.” Hurdnall joined the International Solidarity Movement to provide “assistance to the besieged Palestinian population through nonviolent protests and direct action such as voluntary shielding.” From the West Bank he traveled to Rafah in the Gaza Strip, trying to stop the demolition of houses along with other activists. In January 2004, “when a group of Palestinians came under heavy fire, Hurdnall noticed that three children were trapped in an area under attack. He picked up one little boy and brought him to safety. When he went back to shield the remaining two, he was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper.”

According to Gordon and Perugini, “Hurdnall was not the only human shield who was killed by the Israeli military.” A few months earlier, Rachel Corrie, a young American activist who had also joined the International Solidarity Movement, was run over in Rafah by an armored military bulldozer while shielding a Palestinian home demolition. Corrie had gone to demolition sites for weeks, “standing between the bulldozer and the Palestinian houses while wearing a fluorescent orange jacket and using a megaphone to call the bulldozer operator to stop his work. On March 16, 2003, she was crushed to death. The driver later insisted that he had not seen her.”

Chapter 15 discusses hospitals and the use of medical facilities as shields in Sri Lanka, Italians in Ethiopia, Libya, World War l, Britain, World War ll, America, and Vietnam. 

Then, “the 2014 Gaza War,” when “Israeli strikes destroyed or damaged seventeen hospitals, fifty-six primary healthcare facilities, and forty-five ambulances. To defend these attacks, Israel accused Hamas of using hospitals to store weapons and hide armed militants.”

Gordon and Perugini continue, “In an effort to legitimize its bombing of Palestinian medical facilities following the 2014 war on Gaza, Israel invoked both exceptions in a legal report. It accused ‘Hamas and other terrorist organizations’ of exploiting ‘hospitals and ambulances to conduct military operations, despite the special protection afforded these units and transports under customary international law.” According to Gordon and Perugini, Israel “claimed that hospitals were used both as ‘command and control centers, gunfire and missile launching sites, and covers for combat tunnels’ and also as proximate shields for Hamas militants who fired ‘multiple rockets and mortars within 25 meters of hospitals and health clinics.’ Sometimes Israel would call the hospital in advance, warning the staff that it was about to bomb their facility. This allowed the Israeli government to claim that it had provided due warning and reasonable time to evacuate the buildings before it launched a strike, and therefore had not violated international humanitarian law articles requiring belligerents to warn medical units before bombing them.”

In aprevious article on this issue in 2015, when Gordon and Perugini analyzed the wars between Hamas and Israel, they rejected Western war analysis concurring that while “Palestinian human shields are civilians, even though Israel has killed them, Israel is not responsible for their deaths.” For Gordon and Perugini, Hamas is blamed unfairly. It is wrong to accuse Hamas as if it “shoulders a double responsibility: for attacking Israeli civilians and for the deaths of Palestinian civilians it uses as shields.” For Gordon and Perugini, this “enables as well as justifies a higher degree of violence and ‘collateral’ damage during warfare… that shields the strong from potential accusations of having committed war crimes.” In other words, it is Israel, not Hamas, as the belligerent that attacks civilians.

Gordon is known for supporting the Palestinian agenda who views Israel as an apartheid state which wantonly kills Palestinians.  However, charging Israel in the human shield context is particularly egregious.   It is well known that Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad follow the tactics of “radical embedding” among civilian populations to shield their military assets and fighters.  For instance, Hezbollah stores weapons, ammunition, and command centers in many of the houses in the Shiite villages, as well as in public spaces like schools, mosques, and health clinics.  Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have followed the same tactics, with weapons being stored in public as well as private spaces.   It is well documented that the jihadist central command is located in the basement of the al Shifa Hospital in Gaza. These are not “Israeli accusations.” After the 2006 Second Lebanon war, the United Nations Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs chastised Hezbollah for hiding among civilians and causing women and children’s death, something that Gordon and Perugini fail to acknowledge. According to Gordon and Perugini, “accusations that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups had used human shields served as one of Israel’s key arguments for deflecting accusations of having committed war crimes.”

It is regrettable that Gordon, a full-time propagandist for Palestinian causes, has used his position first at BGU and now at Queen Mary University of London, to spread anti-Israel messages disguised as academic research. 


Refugees as Human Shields: In Conversation with Neve Gordon

23 Nov Time:17:30 to 18:30 Speaker: Prof Neve Gordon (Professor of International Law and Human Rights, Queen Mary University of London)

From Hungary to the US-Mexico border all the way back to the Czech Republic, women-and-children seeking asylum have been cast as ‘human shields’. In this webinar, Neve Gordon will be talking with Anne Irfan about the history of human shielding, whilst highlighting the gendered and racial dimension of ‘refugee shielding.’ Why, Gordon will ask, has the figure of the human shield become so prominent in contemporary war zones throughout the Middle East? Why are asylum-seeking refugees suddenly cast as shields? And what does this figure tell us about the broader global history of political violence?

Neve Gordon teaches in the School of Law at Queen Mary University of London. Focusing on international humanitarian law, human rights, the ethics of violence, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gordon first book, Israel’s Occupation (2008), provided a structural history of Israel’s mechanisms of control in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while his second book, The Human Right to Dominate (2015, with Nicola Perugini) examines how human rights, which are generally conceived as tools for advancing emancipation, can also be used to enhance subjugation and dispossession. In Human Shields: A History of People in the Line of Fire (2020 also with Perugini), Gordon follows the marginal and controversial figure of the human shield over a period of 150 years in order to interrogate the laws of war and how the ethics of humane violence is produced. Gordon has also edited two volumes, one on torture (with Ruchama Marton) and the other on marginalized perspectives on human rights. Over the years he has published scores of academic articles and book chapters and is currently working on a project that examines how new warfare technologies challenge the underlying framework of the laws of war. Gordon has been a member at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, and a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, Brown University, the University of Michigan, and SOAS, and is currently a board member of the International State Crime Initiative.Oxford Department of International DevelopmentQueen Elizabeth House3 Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TBtel: +44 (0)1865 (2)81800




11. Resistance


Voluntary shields faced a completely different destiny in another area in the Middle East. One member of the Human Shield Action group, Tom Hurdnall, left Iraq at the end of the war but instead of returning home to Britain, he traveled to the occupied Palestinian territories. It was the midst of the second Palestinian uprising against Israel’s military occupation, which erupted in September 2000, and Hurdnall joined the International Solidarity Movement, created by Palestinians, Israelis, and foreigners to provide assistance to the besieged Palestinian population through nonviolent protests and direct action such as voluntary shielding. After a brief period in the West Bank, he travelled to Rafah, a city on the southern tip of the Gaza Strip, where he and other activists tried to stop the demolition of houses.

In an interview, Hurdnall described how the Israelis “continually fired one- to two-second bursts from what I could see was a Bradley fighting vehicle. . . . It was strange that as we approached and the guns were firing, it sent shivers down my spine, but nothing more than that. We walked down the middle of the street, wearing bright orange, and one of us shouted through a loudspeaker, ‘We are international volunteers. Don’t shoot!’ That was followed by another volley of fire, though I can’t be sure where from.”

In January 2004, when a group of Palestinians came under heavy fire, Hurdnall noticed that three children were trapped in an area under attack. He picked up one little boy and brought him to safety. When he went back to shield the remaining two, he was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper.

Hurdnall was not the only human shield who was killed by the Israeli military. A few months earlier, Rachel Corrie, a twenty-three-year-old American activist who had also joined the International Solidarity Movement, was run over in Rafah by an armored military bulldozer while shielding a Palestinian home from demolition. For several weeks, Corrie had gone to the demolition site, standing between the bulldozer and the Palestinian houses while wearing an orange fluorescent jacket and using a megaphone to call to the bulldozer operator to stop his work (figure 17). On March 16, 2003, she was crushed to death. The driver later insisted that he had not seen her.

Like the activists of the Human Shields Action group, Corrie felt that participating in protests at home was not enough. In order to express her solidarity with the Palestinians resisting Israeli colonialism she also travelled to Rafah. She characterized her activity in the Gaza Strip as a form of “patriotic dissent.” “I am asking people who care about me—or just have some passing interest in me—to use my presence in occupied Palestine as a reason to actively search for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and of course particularly about the role of the United States in perpetuating it,” she wrote in her diary just a few days before being killed. Corrie was well aware of her “white-skin privilege” and noted that she was using it to protect nonwhite civilians and civilian infrastructures. But unlike the shields in Iraq, white privilege did not render her immune from lethal violence.

The proceedings of the civil suit initiated by Corrie’s family reveal the peculiar way in which the Israeli lawyers defending the military framed the presence of foreign human shields who had travelled to support the Palestinian struggle for liberation. In a sense, the defense lawyers became prosecutors and transformed the civil suit into a trial against Corrie and the shielding practices adopted by the International Solidarity Movement. In the defense they wrote:

It was proven beyond reasonable doubt, that the ISM, among whose ranks was the deceased and the plaintiff’s witnesses, is an anti-Israeli organization that carries out violent illegal acts, including barricading themselves in terrorist homes to prevent their demolition, harboring terrorists and terror activists, taking part in confrontations with IDF [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers, and even standing as human shields for “wanted people” or houses of Palestinians. The organization’s activists, under the organization’s umbrella, are aware of the many risks that exist in the places they are active, but they are willing to endanger their lives for the agenda they wish to advance.

The lawyers claimed that Corrie and other International Solidarity Movement activists were protecting legitimate military targets rather than civilians. In another passage, the lawyers depicted Corrie as “suicidal,” since she and her fellow activists directly confronted “war machinery” and “went to firing zones where life-threatening live ammunition is fired.” Within the Israeli context—particularly during the second Palestinian uprising, known as the Second Intifada, when suicide bombers killed civilians in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and other Israeli cities—the lawyers’ decision to characterize Corrie as a person who was carrying out a suicidal act was not coincidental. She, the lawyers intimated, was not really different from those who explode themselves in public buses and restaurants. The fact that Corrie was committed to nonviolent protection as a form of resistance rather than attack was beside the point. The rhetoric of the war on terror could transform any civilian into a terrorist, even a privileged one who had decided to embrace an active form of internationalist citizenship in solidarity with oppressed civilians.

In 2012, the Haifa district court accepted the Israeli military’s interpretation of Corrie’s actions and dismissed the civil lawsuit brought by Corrie’s family. Her death, the judges ruled, was an “accident.” Three years later, after the family filed an appeal, Israel’s High Court of Justice upheld the Haifa verdict and reiterated the claim that the state is not responsible to compensate civilians injured or killed in a combat zone.31 In this way the court effectively shielded the state and its executive arm from any charges filed by either international or local activists who shield Palestinian civilians. Unlike US courts, Israel’s courts consider nonviolent direct action aimed at protecting civilians from a military occupation as part of combat.

16. Proximity

Israeli citizens in Tel Aviv are not classified as shields when Hamas launches rockets towards the Israel Defense Forces military command headquarters located in the city center. By sharp contrast, Palestinian civilians are cast as human shields when Israel bombs Hamas command centers and military infrastructures in Gaza. In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields. This kind of comparison reveals how the irregular continues to pose a threat to the international legal order.
Notwithstanding the common assumption that decolonization has led to the creation of a universal humanity in which all people are acknowledged as humans who are entitled to equal rights, proximate shielding reveals that assumptions about who is considered an equal human being retains traces of the colonial past. In the cases of the 2016 operation to recapture Mosul and Israel’s wars in Gaza—in which the human shield argument was mobilized against entire populations—the figures of the colonized subject and of the civilian transformed into a proximate human shield coincide.33 Whereas it would be difficult to imagine entire populations being transformed into proximate shields in Western cities—unless perhaps they are racialized minorities—from Mosul to Gaza, we see how the colonial subject is still very much alive.

17. Info-War

IN JULY 2014, AROUND THE SAME TIME that ISIS first captured Mosul from the hands of the Iraqi army, Israel launched its third war on the Gaza Strip in six years, dubbing the campaign Operation Protective Edge.1 Not unlike the previous campaigns, Protective Edge produced extensive damage to this densely populated swath of Palestinian land. Ten days before Israel withdrew its ground forces, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution accusing Israel of collective punishment and urging all parties to respect the law. “The deliberate targeting of civilians and other protected persons and the perpetration of systematic, flagrant and widespread violations of applicable international humanitarian law and international human rights law in situations of armed conflict constitute grave breaches and a threat to international peace and security,” the resolution declared.2

Correspondingly, accusations that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups had used human shields served as one of Israel’s key arguments for deflecting accusations of having committed war crimes. During an appearance at the United Nations General Assembly not long after Protective Edge, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exhibited a picture of children playing in the vicinity of a rocket launcher (figure 22). “Hamas,” he averred, “deliberately placed its rockets where Palestinian children live and play.”3 Explaining that Israel was facing an enemy who constantly weaponizes vulnerable human bodies, Netanyahu concluded his address by claiming that the United Nations Human Rights Council was a “Terrorist Rights Council” that grants legitimacy to the mobilization and deployment of human shields.4

17. Info-War

A few months later, Israel released a report providing legal defense of the 2014 Gaza invasion.5 The report analyzes a variety of materials as it accuses the different Palestinian resistance groups of having drawn “the fighting into the urban terrain,” where they “unlawfully intertwined their military operations with the civilian environment.”6 Adopting language strikingly similar to the arguments used by the Italian government during the 1935–36 war in Ethiopia and by the American administration during the Vietnam War, the document blames Palestinians for using tactics that violate the customary prohibition against perfidy under international humanitarian law. The report concludes that Hamas deployed defenseless Palestinian civilians as human shields and resorted to other unlawful practices—such as the use of combatants disguised as civilians—with the hope of obfuscating the distinction between civilians and combatants and “deliberately distort[ing] assessments of the legality of Israel’s Defense Forces (IDF) activity in the Gaza Strip.”7

The narrative and key arguments for the governmental report were developed by the IDF on its social media sites during the fight itself. In fact, while it was attacking the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military waged another kind of war, this one on social media with the aim of defending the military campaign by legitimizing the killing of Palestinian civilians. It produced a series of sophisticated YouTube videos and infographics in which the legal figure of the human shield was mobilized to justify lethal force and disseminated them widely through its Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook accounts.8

By introducing human shielding to these social media platforms, the IDF helped popularize the figure of the human shield while transforming the cyberworld into a site of semiotic warfare.9 The goal was to shape the visual perception of the battlespace by portraying the Palestinians as morally inferior and Israel as the humane actor.10 Indeed, one should understand the dissemination of images of human shielding on social media as part of an info-war: a media campaign whose role is to provide ethical legitimacy to the deployment of lethal violence against civilians.


According to data gathered by the United Nations, at least 2,251 Palestinians were killed during Operation Protective Edge. Of the verified cases, 1,462 were believed to be civilians. Many of these fatalities involved multiple family members, with at least 142 Palestinian families having three or more relatives killed in the same incident, for a total of 739 deaths. In addition, approximately 18,000 housing units were either destroyed or severely damaged, leaving approximately 108,000 people homeless. On the Israeli side, 73 people were killed during the war: 67 combatants and 6 civilians.11 The discrepancy with respect to the number and proportion of civilian deaths—65 percent of all those killed by Israel were civilians compared to the 8 percent of civilians killed by Palestinians—created a legal problem, since according to these figures it appears that in its assault on Gaza, Israel did indeed commit egregious war crimes.

It is precisely in this context that one needs to understand Israel’s extensive use of social media during and after the 2014 Gaza War to defend the level of violence it wielded against Palestinians. One of the first images the IDF circulated sets the stage for the Gaza War by portraying Israel’s assault as an attempt to defend the very essence of liberalism. It shows rockets with bloody smoke heading towards the Statue of Liberty, one of liberal democracy’s icons, and asks the Western public, “What would you do?” (figure 23). In this way, Israel both positioned itself as a liberal democracy and drew an analogy between the Gaza War and America’s post-9/11 concerns about terrorist attacks against the United States. The war on Gaza was, according to the infographic, part of the war on terror.

Most of the infographics produced during Protective Edge were, however, dedicated to human shielding. One of the themes of Israel’s claims about the Palestinians’ use of human shields is the depiction of the asymmetric context in which the Gaza War took place as if it were symmetric. “Some bomb shelters shelter people. Some shelter bombs” (figure 24) is just one of numerous infographics where the radically disproportionate power differential and spatial disparity between a besieged population confined to an enclave (Palestinians) and its besiegers (Israelis) are depicted as if the two were equal. The assumption of equality not only elides the reality on the ground but is necessary for Israel to be able to justify—through the human shielding argument—its destruction of Gaza.

17. Info-War

In this and several other infographics Israel accuses the Palestinians of illegally using civilian spaces for shielding purposes. By depicting Palestinians as hiding rockets in their homes, the IDF intimates that a single function (hiding weapons) overrides existing functions (home, shelter, intimacy, etc.) so that the meaning usually associated with homes, including their attribute as a space of protection, is compromised. Legally speaking, this is the “dual-use” doctrine, whereby an object serves both civilian and military purposes.

While dual use is not explicitly part of international humanitarian law,12 Marco Sassòli from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights stresses that “an attack on a dual-use object is in any event unlawful if the effect on the civilian aspect is intended,” but he adds that “respect of that particular rule is impossible to assess in the heat of the battle.”13 Therefore, in instances where a house that shelters civilians is simultaneously used as an arms depot or a militant hideout, which is illegal, belligerents can legitimately attack it and claim that its military function was a threat, and consequently the attack was necessary.14 Accordingly, legal experts have noted that the dual-use doctrine ultimately enables “extraordinarily permissive” use of lethal force, allowing belligerents to sway the proportionality between civilian immunity and military necessity in their favor.15

In such circumstances, a house can no longer be a refuge, even when the majority of the people in the targeted area are, in fact, refugees, as in Gaza.16 The space’s resignification from a space of life to a space of death is crucial, since it allows the IDF to transform the meaning ascribed to the people within this space and to the violence that it deploys. Put differently, Israel’s “moral cartography,” to borrow political geographer Derek Gregory’s phrase describing how morally acceptable violence relates to space, is acutely apparent here: the way a place is defined can facilitate the killing of civilians without it being a crime.17 The inevitable overlapping of civilian and military functions in urban warfare creates new challenges for international law and the articulation of the ethics of violence. In its info-war, Israel tried to turn that challenge into a legal argument in its favor and portrayed Palestinian homes as well as the people inhabiting them as part of Hamas’s military defense system.18

In the same infographic, Israel also accuses Palestinians of perfidy, which in customary international law is defined as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law.”19 The charge is that Palestinians are deceptive, using civilian spaces for military purposes, thereby legitimating attacks on those homes.

It is, nonetheless, highly unlikely that Palestinians were shielding weapons in all eighteen thousand homes that, according to the United Nations, were either destroyed or severely damaged during the war. Hence, one of the objectives of categorizing civilian homes as shields is to help conceal the fact that Israel’s “pinpoint strikes” and “surgical capabilities” were often not precise and could neither predict nor guarantee discrimination between civilian sites and military targets. Another objective was to help Israel justify the high percentage of civilian deaths and the destruction of civilian spaces in Gaza.


This mobilization of dual use and perfidy in the Israeli info-war on Gaza is not an isolated case but reflects a major discussion in international humanitarian law on the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians. In addition to changing the traditional meaning of civilian spaces and criticizing Palestinians for not distinguishing between combatants and civilians, the Israeli infographics also accuse Hamas of transforming civilians into weapons, as shown in the IDF ad “Human Shields Are Hamas’ Strategy” (figure 25). This infographic includes a photograph of Palestinians standing on top of a building, and underneath is a drawing of a home with warheads in it and people standing on the roof. The caption reads: “Hamas uses civilians to protect its weapons & its terrorists,” while the image presents Hamas as transforming the civilian population into threshold beings—half human, half weapon.

17. Info-War

The infographic portrays human shields as simultaneously both protected persons and nonprotected persons—a condition of in-betweenness that anthropologist Victor Turner defines as liminality.20 For Turner the liminal figure occupies a temporal in-betweenness while transitioning from one social or political category to another; however, the human shield does not pass from the status of civilian to combatant but remains trapped in its liminal status. Precisely because the human shield is neither combatant nor noncombatant, he or she loses the traditional protections offered to civilians. Hence, Israel’s mobilization of the figure of the human shield on social media is manipulative, since it avows the civilian status of these civilians while using the legal figure of the shield to justify why so many Palestinian civilians were killed.


The IDF’s info-war suggests that the struggle over the interpretation of violence can be as important as the violence itself. States and militaries invest considerable resources in framing acts of war for public consumption in order to demonstrate that violence was deployed in accordance with the law; in the wake of the new millennium, many of these resources focus on social media. States and militaries know that the morality of the event is determined in the public arena often through the circulation of images and that most people access images through their cell phones, tablets, and computers.

The info-war ultimately aims to frame the enemy as the guilty actor,21 as in a video clip released by the IDF during the 2012 Operation Pillar of Cloud that depicts an incident when the Israeli military “tapped” on the roof of a Palestinian apartment building. Tapping is used by the IDF to alert civilian populations that it has marked a building as a target and intends to destroy it within minutes. In the clip, one sees an aerial image of an apartment building in Gaza. The moment the roof is “tapped” by a small bomb—a warning technology that does not kill—civilians are shown running outside the building. Suddenly some civilians change course and run back inside, climbing onto the roof. By so doing they blur the threshold between civilian and combatant and position themselves as human shields. The clip’s message is straightforward: while the IDF wants to observe the principle of distinction by allowing time for civilians to leave a designated military target, Palestinians violate that distinction by refusing to leave the building.

The clip underscores that the principle of distinction is not merely a descriptive force differentiating among numerous actors who are already in the field; it also has a capacity to produce different legal figures.22 It is the tapping that turns these Palestinians into figures who occupy the threshold between civilian and combatant, while it is the law that gives them the status of human shields; the naming—“they are human shields”—confers on these civilians a new legal and political reality.23 The irony of this clip is that while the tapping is meant to ensure the distinction between civilian and combatant, it is at least partially responsible for producing a legal figure that represents the blurring of that distinction.

In fact, the clip can also lend itself to a very different interpretation than the one intended by the Israeli military. After all, when the camera first focuses on the apartment building, there are no human shields inside. Only when the apartment building is designated as a target through the act of tapping do the civilians who remain within the building, climbing up to its roof, become human shields. The tapping dictates a course of action, and those who refuse to follow its fiat—namely, flee the building—become human shields and thus abdicate their status as civilians. Distinction, as the tapping example reveals, can at times be a force used to undermine distinction itself.

In the clip, which was disseminated widely by the Israeli military as a visual weapon, the pilot decides to abort the attack—a decision that assumes a humanitarian motive precisely because the Palestinians who were spared have been framed as human shields rather than civilians. According to this legal-military frame, the Palestinians intentionally blurred the distinction between combatants and civilians, while the Israeli military reveals its ethical superiority by upholding the distinction. Even though human shields are legally killable, the pilot decided to show mercy, reiterating yet again the ethical incommensurability between Israel and the colonized Palestinians.  22. Protest

Many progressive organizers around the world are acutely familiar with this paradox. The Palestinian popular committees that for over a decade organized weekly protests in West Bank villages such as Bil’in and Nabi Saleh invited both international and Israeli activists to join them, recognizing that the presence of white Westerners might lower the levels of violence exerted by the Israeli military forces confronting them. The non-Palestinians were asked to join the protests and, if need be, serve as shields, on the condition that they follow their hosts’ instructions. Frequently, whole villages would take part in the protests, with Israeli and foreign activists serving as human shields.


Unlike the Native Americans in Standing Rock and Palestinians in the West Bank, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip cannot invite foreign citizens to join their weekly demonstrations because Israel keeps the Strip under a state of siege that restricts the entry of non-Gazans into the area. Moreover, in Gaza, no one has enough privilege to serve as a shield. Even so, the figure of the human shield is often invoked by the Israeli military to frame demonstrators taking part in civil protests.

In March 2018, thousands of Palestinian civilians began marching every Friday towards the militarized fence surrounding the Gaza Strip. They called the protests the Great March of Return, alluding to their right to return to the lands from which their families were expelled in 1948; simultaneously, they were protesting their incarceration in the world’s largest open-air prison.29 Week in and week out, they marched towards the fence in the hope that people around the world would heed their call and exhibit solidarity.

As thousands strode towards the fence in what became a weekly ritual, Israeli snipers ended up killing hundreds and wounding thousands of unarmed protestors. On numerous occasions, not long after the week’s protest, the military spokesperson unit disseminated images and videos depicting young children intermingling with the demonstrators through its Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube accounts. Similar to the info-war waged during its 2014 war on Gaza, this time the Israeli military also blamed the Palestinians for deploying human shields, even though the accusation came in a context of civil protest. The goal was to stir moral indignation against Palestinians while also providing a legal defense for the snipers lined up at the border.

One short video clip plays a lullaby interspersed with the sound of gunfire and rhetorically asks, “Where are the children of Gaza today?” After showing children amid the protestors, it then displays the word “HERE” in large letters across the screen (figure 36). Such montages are used as proof that Palestinians are using children as human shields.30 Morally, the charge intimates that the Palestinians are savages, that they have no problem sending their young sons and daughters to the front lines. As with the infographics that were disseminated during the Gaza War, the subtext is that civilized people protect their children whereas Palestinians sacrifice them.

22. Protest

This is precisely the message Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, conveyed in a letter he sent to the Security Council. “Hamas is committing grave violations of international law” during the weekly protests, he declared, adding that “their terrorists continue to hide behind innocent children to ensure their own survival.”31 By portraying the protestors as Hamas terrorists hiding behind shields, Danon, in effect, categorizes any Palestinian from Gaza who participates in civil protests as a terrorist who is consequently killable.

The fact that Israel has employed the same accusation of human shielding in order to justify its indiscriminate killing of civilians both in situations of war, such as the 2014 aggression, and in civil protests, such as the Great March of Return, suggests that in Israel’s eyes, the notion of civilianhood for Palestinians has disappeared.32


The framing of the Palestinian civilians taking part in the protests as human shields intimates that all of the protestors are legitimate targets; therefore, the Israeli military cannot be accused of perpetrating crimes against civilians for the simple reason that there are no civilians among the protestors in Gaza.33 This is the argument Israel has constructed to justify the deployment of lethal violence against Gaza’s civilian population. Like in many colonies of old, in which colonial armies disregarded the distinction between combatants and noncombatants, Israel refuses to differentiate between the military and civil spheres in the Gaza Strip.

However, in this case the way Israel invokes the figure of the human shield also exposes an inherent relationship between civilianhood and citizenship. For the stateless Palestinians trapped in Gaza, the right to enjoy the protections offered to civilians by international law is intertwined with the right to liberate themselves from colonial occupation and achieve the status of citizens within a state of their own. In Gaza, the protections offered by international law and the right to self-determination and citizenship are simultaneously denied.

Arguably, in many ways the situation in Palestine may also very well be predicting our future. Israel’s treatment of Gaza’s civilian population is undoubtedly extreme, but the logic driving Israel’s security forces is not that different from the logic informing security forces in other areas of the world that cast their own citizenry, especially marginalized groups, as security threats, as the protests from Standing Rock to Kashmir and back to Ferguson reveal. The threat of using lethal violence against demonstrators is dangerous not only because of the harm it inflicts, but also because it frames civil protestors as enemies who can be confronted with military force.34 It is precisely in this sense that Gaza becomes a terrifying prophecy, exposing how the denial of civilian protections in war zones is informing attacks on citizens participating in protests from the Americas to Europe and the Middle East and all the way to Asia and Australia. The almost complete erosion of the civilian in Gaza is an omen, a sign of the increasing precarity of citizenship and the protections that it promises.



Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini, Human Shields: A History of People in the Line of Fire (New Texts Out Now)

By : Nicola Perugini and Neve Gordon

Oct 6, 2020  

Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini, Human Shields: A History of People in the Line of Fire (University of California Press, 2020).

Jadaliyya (J): What made you write this book?

Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini (NG & NP): While working on our previous book, The Human Right to Dominate, we repeatedly encountered Israel’s accusation that Palestinians use human shields as a warfare strategy in the Gaza Strip. Israel’s argument was straightforward: Since Palestinian armed groups deploy civilians as human shields, placing them in front of legitimate military targets, Israel is not responsible for civilian casualties. We also realized that this line of reasoning was common in other theaters of political violence, from the military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq, to the wars in Yemen and Syria. The fact that hundreds of thousands of civilians across the globe were suddenly being cast as human shields seemed odd and prompted us to ask a series of questions: Why has the figure of the human shield become so prominent in contemporary war zones throughout the Middle East? What does this figure tell us about the broader global history of political violence? And why are some people used as human shields while others are not? 

We quickly understood that the human shield is a peculiar figure that is simultaneously both a human and a weapon, and as such it destabilizes fundamental legal and ethical categories and assumptions. Indeed, as we began reading about the history of human shielding, from the American Civil War until today, we were intrigued by how a relatively marginal and controversial figure produces a series of moral and legal quandaries and how these quandaries provide insight into who is considered fully human, how the laws of war operate, and how the ethics of violence have developed over time. We thought that grappling with these issues would be fascinating, and so we decided to write a second book.

J: We noticed that the book adopts an uncommon style and format. Can you say a few words about how you wrote it?

NG & NP: Shortly after we began working on the book, we made the decision to abandon the standard format of academic writing, with ten-thousand-word chapters that are often written for an expert audience. We were convinced that an analysis of human shielding sheds light on a number of urgent issues, and we thus wanted to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. We then adopted a number of general guidelines. We would begin each chapter with a vignette of human shielding, refrain from using jargon, and limit the length of each chapter to about 3,500 words. Our goal was that the chapters would read almost like magazine articles. Overall, the book has twenty-two chapters, covering over 150 years of wars, environmental struggles, political protests, and even computer games. 

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures does the book address?

NG & NP: Human shielding is essentially a politics of vulnerability, where human frailty is weaponized and then used to achieve a range of political, military, and legal goals. Yet, deterrence is successful only when the attacking party values the shield’s humanity and feels morally compelled to stop the attack in order not to harm the person who is serving as a shield. Therefore, the story of human shields is also the story of those who have been included as well as those who have been excluded from the fold of humanity, revealing that humanity is politically variable rather than a universal and neutral category. We noticed, for instance, that “women-and-children” could not serve as shields during the American Civil War but have over time become the primary protagonists in shielding accusations, especially since the Vietnam War. In a similar vein, non-white people also could not serve as human shields in colonial wars, but are currently cast as shields in numerous Middle East conflicts. A different kind of puzzle emerged when we began examining eco-shielding. We found, for example, that environmental activists who use their bodies to protect whales or stop nuclear testing have been more effective than human shields in war zones. 

In order to make sense of these and other historical changes, while also trying to understand their significance, we naturally read the work of our colleagues working on colonialism and post-colonialism as well as those who have contributed to critical race, legal, and war studies. But we were also interested in other literatures. For the chapter on shielding during the Italian attempt to colonize Ethiopia in the mid-1930s, we read, for example, the memoir of Benito Mussolini’s son, Vittorio, who served as a pilot during the war. His memoir helped us better understand how the Italian fascists rationalized and justified the bombing of civilian sites in Ethiopia. Reading pamphlets and sermons written in the 1920s and 1930s by Maude Royden, the first female preacher in the United Kingdom and a leading pacifist activist, helped us trace the emergence of voluntary shielding as a strategy to prevent war. Along similar lines, we read Mao Tse-tung and the Vietnamese General Giap, alongside military policymakers in the United States, to understand why and how the latter framed people’s wars waged by the Viet Cong as a form of terrorist use of human shields. We read the diaries of members from the 2003 Iraq Human Shield Action group and Rachel Corrie in order to understand how they conceived the deployment of their privilege in the midst of war. It was an exhausting but extremely fascinating process.

J: How does this book connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

NG & NP: Without The Human Right to Dominate it is difficult to imagine Human Shields. In our first book, we showed and analyzed how the discourse of human rights, which is commonly perceived as emancipatory, is frequently used to enhance domination. Focusing on Israel’s settler colonial project, we outlined how acts of domination and dispossession are often framed by Israel and its international allies as protecting the human rights of Jews who had been subjected to egregious abuse in Europe. In Human Shields we engage with another paradox, this time related to what we refer to as the ethics of humane violence. We interrogate how international law, specifically the laws of war that aim to protect civilians during armed conflict and military occupation, are being used to justify the deployment of violence against civilian populations and how this violence gets cast as humane. 

Israel-Palestine remained important for Human Shields, and the 2014 Gaza war was a revelatory moment for both of us. But in this book, we zoom out and dramatically expand our purview both historically and geographically. As mentioned, we begin the book with the American Civil War and we end it in Gaza, 2020. This is a 150-year history. We examine several other conflict zones in the Middle East and beyond, chronicling the role human shields have come to play in numerous conflicts. We were also interested in the way activists have adopted human shielding as a form of resistance and were intrigued by the ways they differ from human rights practitioners, not least because they willingly use their own body to protect the lives of others. 

As the research advanced, we increasingly felt that the figure of the human shield allowed us to grapple with a broader set of questions than the ones we examined in The Human Right to DominateHuman Shields is in this sense more ambitious methodologically, theoretically, historically, and geographically. 

J: Who do you hope will read this book, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

NG & NP: Niels Hooper, our editor at the University of California Press, thinks everybody should read this book! Given the different lines of investigation and the stories that emerge, people interested in political violence and resistance, ethics, the laws of war, military studies and, more generally, in global histories will, we hope, find the book interesting. We also believe that policy-oriented think-tanks, military officers, and everyone working for international humanitarian and human rights organizations will find it useful. Since we tried to “de-academicize” the book, we really hope it reaches as broad an audience as possible. 

As to impact, we are a bit suspicious of the term not least due to the way it is currently used in certain academic circles. We obviously hope that we have written a rigorous and compelling history. And good history is always also a history of the present. It is, however, important to keep in mind that even though human shields are the book’s main protagonists, the production of humane violence is its plot. So, broadly speaking, if people interested in the different ways violence has been produced as humane in numerous historical events, as well as in a variety of contemporary sites—from the “war on terror” and Black Lives Matter protests to computer games—find this book useful, then we will be extremely pleased! 

J: What other projects are you working on now? 

NG & NP: We are both taking our time to think carefully about future projects.

Excerpt from the book (from Chapter 11, pp. 109-113)


Antimilitary Activism in Iraq and Palestine 

[…] Following the First Gulf War, the United Nations Security Council imposed a series of harsh economic sanctions on Iraq with the aim of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The measures remained in place for over a decade, and, in spite of numerous claims that the sanctions did not affect key humanitarian supplies, a leading medical journal characterized them as a “weapon of mass destruction” that caused the death of about 1.5 million people. In 2002, the United States finally admitted that the sanctions had not undermined Saddam Hussein’s regime and decided to launch a new military campaign. The attack was justified as part of the war on terror by highlighting Iraq’s presumed links with the 9/11 terrorist attacks alongside the accusation that the regime was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

Concerned about the terrible humanitarian and political repercussions such a war would likely have for the entire region, citizens across the globe organized popular protests in an attempt to prevent the imminent invasion of a country already devastated by years of economic sanctions. Moreover, as it became clear that the United States intended to attack without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council, international solidarity activists concluded that any attempt to resist the war on terror necessitated direct action rather than traditional forms of democratic mobilization.

At the end of 2002, US military veteran Kenneth O’Keefe implored various activist groups to join forces in an effort to stop the war through pacifist intervention “from below.” Scores of people heeded his call and formed the Human Shield Action group. They bought three double-decker buses in London and drove across Europe and through Turkey and Syria all the way to Baghdad. Meanwhile, groups ready to join the movement and serve as voluntary human shields in Iraq began mushrooming in Australia, India, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, New Zealand, Korea, and Japan. At its peak, the movement numbered five hundred activists.

Among those who reached Iraq was the former director of Greenpeace Turkey, who in her memoir recounts that the volunteers came from different walks of life and included Buddhists, Islamists, Christian socialists, anarchists, social democrats, monarchists, and conscientious objectors. Their commitment to human life united them, as well as their willingness to act in solidarity with those who were being put in danger’s way. Ultimately, they believed that risking their lives was the best way to prevent the Western aerial bombing campaign and predictable civilian deaths. Thus, resistance through human shielding became the glue uniting activists from radically different political, ideological, and spiritual backgrounds.

Humanitarian shielding action

Determined to reach the battlefield, the Human Shield Action group coordinated their entry into Iraq with Saddam Hussein’s government—they had no other option if they wanted to enter the country—while simultaneously trying to preserve their political autonomy. Although they did not want to be manipulated by the Iraqi regime, they followed this route because they believed that their action could actually have a tangible impact on the impending war.

On the eve of the US attack, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) released a report entitled Putting Noncombatants at Risk: Saddam’s Use of “Human Shields,” which denounced Saddam Hussein’s use of involuntary shields—Iraqi and foreign civilians, as well as prisoners of war—to protect strategic installations during the 1990–1991 First Gulf War. The CIA then went on to analyze the current crisis, claiming that “Baghdad is encouraging international peace groups to send members to Iraq to serve as voluntary human shields, and the Iraqi military continues its longstanding policy of placing military assets near civilian facilities and in densely populated areas.” Two months later, General Richard B. Meyers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that all forms of shielding of military targets are illegal, even when civilians “volunteer for this purpose.” Legally speaking, there was, in his eyes, no difference between involuntary and voluntary shields.

Things on the ground were, however, more complicated than the CIA and General Meyers claimed. The shields repeatedly stressed their independence from Saddam Hussein’s regime both in their press releases and in official exchanges with the Iraqi government. Donna Mulhearn—an Australian human shield in charge of media relations—explained the group’s position in a journal entry from Baghdad: “The human shields value life, all life. We opposed the Iraqi regime and its crimes before it was trendy to do so. . . . To say that opponents to war are automatically Hussein supporters is just childish and implicates millions of people around the world who have expressed their opposition.” 

In a letter to President George W. Bush, the activists further reiterated their autonomy from the Iraqi government and underscored that the locations they had selected for shielding were not military targets. “You,” they wrote the president, “should be aware that each of these human shields has voluntarily installed him or herself on these sites in an effort to deter the aerial bombing of vital infrastructure without which normal civilian life cannot exist.”

Since their action was prompted by a nonviolent ethic of care by civilians for civilians, their aim was not to protect Iraqi military installations; they situated themselves, instead, at power plants, water treatment stations, and food silos that sustained millions of civilians, as well as in oil refineries located close to civilian areas, hospitals, and communication centers. Their intervention represented a specific form of nongovernmental solidarity that could be characterized as a humanitarian shielding action—a form of human shielding driven by a sense of humanity and compassion for vulnerable civilians trapped in a war zone. 

This type of direct action differs, however, from classical forms of humanitarian aid. Both humanitarian aid and humanitarian shielding actions are responses to real or potential humanitarian crises affecting civilian populations, yet humanitarian aid organizations like Oxfam or CARE rely on sophisticated bureaucratic mechanisms that aim to alleviate suffering while, at least ostensibly, excluding politics and political activists. By contrast, humanitarian shielding is political through and through and sets out to prevent the horrors of war rather than mitigate its devastating effects. If humanitarian organizations aspire to ease and relieve the suffering caused by war, humanitarian shields attempt to avert or stop it altogether.

Just as important, guaranteeing the staff’s protection within the conflict zone is a key imperative that informs the way humanitarian aid organizations operate, while, for humanitarian shields, risk is the essential means for averting a humanitarian catastrophe. They understand that resisting violence and shielding innocent lives might entail taking the ultimate risk, the risk of dying.

Active civilians

Contrary to their hopes, the Human Shield Action group did not manage to stop the war. Nonetheless, they did demonstrate that civilians willing to risk their lives in an effort to protect other civilians trapped in a war zone can, in fact, create a peaceful obstacle against the use of lethal violence. Significantly, none of the sites they occupied were hit by aerial strikes, except for a telecommunication building that was bombed the day after the human shields had abandoned it. Those in the United States who supported the invasion argued that this clearly demonstrated the surgical and proportionate nature of the military’s use of force and that the troops had never intended to target civilian sites. From another perspective, this observation suggests that the shielding had actually worked. Precisely because human shielding altered the military and legal calculations in the battlefield, it served as a successful form of deterrence and resistance.

Irrespective of the reasons why the civilian sites were not bombed, the voluntary human shields in Iraq did present a legal challenge to the attacking forces. This became obvious when the US government decided to charge citizens who had served as human shields after they returned home. The activists were sued for up to $1 million on the grounds that their travel to Iraq was “unauthorized” and that their shielding actions comprised an “exportation of services” that violated the sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein’s regime. They were also accused of “shielding a Government of Iraq (GOI) infrastructure from possible U.S. military action.” 

The courts, however, were unable to convict the citizens because the locations they stayed in were not legitimate military targets. While military and legal experts have continued to frame voluntary human shielding as a form of direct participation in hostilities—which means that civilians who serve as shields lose the protections bestowed upon them by international law—civilian sites tend to be illegitimate targets. Therefore, it is difficult legally to characterize people protecting them as human shields and thus as participants in hostilities. 

Simultaneously, the voluntary shields challenged the laws of armed conflict because the legal articles dealing with human shielding are restricted to situations where civilians or prisoners of war are forced to become shields and do not, as one report stated, “cover an event where individuals acted knowingly and on their own initiative.” This, as we have seen, is due to the way international law construes civilians as passive actors. Thus, when civilians become active in a nonviolent and protective way, they challenge existing legal assumptions. Precisely because voluntary human shields in the case of Iraq were active civilians protecting civilian sites, the question of how to treat them remained unresolved. Accordingly, such shielding activities elude the law…


  Human Shields: The Weapon of the Strong  

by Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini

October 22, 2015In a series of interventions, Adil Ahmad Haque and Charlie Dunlap have debated the Defense Department Law of War Manual’s position on human shields (herehere, and here). Claiming that the manual does not draw a distinction between voluntary and involuntary human shields, Haque maintains that it ignores the principle of proportionality, thus permitting the killing of defenseless civilians who are used as involuntary shields. Dunlap, however, insists that the manual includes all the necessary precautions for protecting civilians used as shields by enemy combatants, and argues that the adoption of Haque’s approach would actually encourage the enemy to increase the deployment of involuntary human shields. The two scholars clearly disagree on a number of legal issues, and yet they both treat human shielding as an ahistorical phenomenon and therefore fail to address a much more fundamental question: Why does the Law of War Manual suddenly include clauses dealing with human shields? Why in 2015 and not before?

At first glance, this might seem like an irrelevant question. However, if one considers that human shields were neither mentioned in the 1956 Department of the Army Field Manual, which preceded the new manual, nor in much more recent manuals published by the DOD (such as the 2009 US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, where human shields are extremely relevant), it becomes clear that the introduction of human shields clauses in the new manual has great legal and political significance.

This is not to say that DOD has never mentioned the use of human shields in its manuals. In the 2005 Law of War Handbook, one clause is dedicated to human shields, but it is significantly different from the clauses in the new manual. It reads: “Civilians may not be used as ‘human shields’ in an attempt to immunize an otherwise lawful military objective. However, violation of this rule by a party to the conflict does not relieve the opponent of the obligation to do everything feasible to implement the concept of distinction.” But, other than that, DOD has not weighed in on the use of human shields until its latest manual.

This becomes even more striking once one takes into account that human shielding is not a new phenomenon and, at least theoretically, could have appeared in all the previous manuals. Already by 1867, immediately after the Civil War, Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman explained the advantage of using human shields on the battlefield. He wrote:

[I]f torpedoes [land mines] are found in the possession of an enemy to our rear, you may cause them to be put on the ground, and tested by wagon loads of prisoners, or if need be, by citizens implicated in their use. In like manner, if a [land mine] is suspected on any part of the road, order the point to be tested by a car-load of prisoners, or citizens implicated, drawn by a long rope. Of course an enemy cannot complain of his own traps.

During World War II, the Allies bombed Nazi trains carrying ammunition even though they were aware that civilian prisoners were being used to shield the trains from aerial attacks. Indeed, immediately following the war, at the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, German armed forces were accused of human shielding. In Vietnam, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians spurred international legal debates (on the eve of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions) about the status of civilian populations in wartime and their use as shields. And, in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein’s and Slobodan Milosevic’s use of human shields garnered considerable media attention.

Given this long history, the question of why human shields suddenly appeared in the 2015 Law of War Manual urgently needs to be addressed. Our counterintuitive hypothesis is that human shields are not only being deployed as a weapon of the weak against high tech states (the underlying assumption of both Haque and Dunlap), but that the legal phrase “human shield” has also been mobilized by strong states to legitimize the increasing deaths of civilians on the battlefield. This has become especially true following the so-called “War on Terror” and new US military occupations.

To better understand our claim, it is crucial to acknowledge the exponential increase in civilian casualties in warfare, which is due both to the development of modern weaponry and to the fact that, following decolonization, non-whites have acquired the previously denied status of civilians; therefore, their deaths have also begun to be counted. The increasing civilian death toll has, in turn, led to the emergence of firmer protections through various international conventions, all of which categorize wanton civilian deaths as a war crime. Despite these legal innovations, the arenas of war continue to expand, while more and more civilians are being killed, including by liberal western armies. And it is precisely in this postcolonial legal and political setting that the US and other western governments want to preserve a position of moral superiority.

This, we suggest, is the reason why the category of human shield has acquired such an important role. The manual states:

5.5.4 [I]n some cases, a party to a conflict may attempt to use the presence or movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to shield military objectives from seizure or attack. When enemy persons engage in such behavior, commanders should continue to seek to discriminate in conducting attacks and to take feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to the civilian population and civilian objects. However, the ability to discriminate and to reduce the risk of harm to the civilian population likely will be diminished by such enemy conduct. In addition, such conduct by the adversary does not increase the legal obligations of the attacking party to discriminate in conducting attacks against the enemy.

Insofar as human shielding limits the ability to discriminate, it legitimizes the increase of harm to civilians. Therefore, even if the manual would have explicitly stated that the killing of civilians framed as human shields should be subjected to the principle of proportionality (Haque’s suggestion), the main problem would not have been resolved because when a person on a battlefield is defined as a human shield — a vulnerable civilian body that willingly or even unwillingly becomes a technology of warfare whose function is to render a military target immune — he or she irreversibly loses some of the protections traditionally assigned to civilians by international humanitarian law (IHL). Once IHL draws a distinction between civilians and human shields (whether voluntary or not), this distinction can easily be marshaled to relax the test of excessive injury to civilians — meaning that the principle of proportionality works differently when civilians are framed as shields.

Several liberal commenters and even prominent humanitarian institutions believe that a distinction between civilians and human shields is important. Legal scholar Yoram Dinstein writes that the “appraisal of whether civilian casualties are excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated must make allowances for the fact that—if an attempt is made to shield military objectives with civilians—civilian casualties will be higher than usual.” Even the International Committee of the Red Cross claims, in a manual entitled Fight it Right, that the “attacking commander is required to do his best to protect [human shields] but he is entitled to take the defending commander’s actions into account when considering the rule of proportionality.” Killing human shields is, in other words, not the same as killing civilians.

A slightly different line of argument, whose consequences also underscore the implication of framing civilians as human shields, has been voiced by several just war theorists from Michael Walzer to Asa Kasher. Analyzing Israel’s recent wars in Gaza, Walzer and Kasher concur that Palestinian human shields are indeed civilians, but they maintain that even though Israel killed them, the country is not responsible for their deaths. Hamas, these just war theorists aver, shoulders a double responsibility: for attacking Israeli civilians and for the deaths of Palestinian civilians it uses as shields.

In this context, it is not surprising that the new Law of War Manual introduced human shielding clauses. The manual provides the US military with a new tool, allowing it to construe enemy civilians as human shields. Irrespective of the question of proportionality and its case-by-case interpretation, the manual enables as well as justifies a higher degree of violence and “collateral” damage during warfare. From this point of view, the introduction of the human shield clauses should be understood as the introduction of a legal technology that shields the strong from potential accusations of having committed war crimes.

Israeli Academics Petition Supreme Court to Expose Mossad Activities


Editorial Note

Over the last two decades, IAM has often reported on scholar-activists whose main interest seems to be promoting the Palestinian agenda.

One recent example is a group of “peace activists,” who, along with the Meretz Party members, petitioned Israel’s Supreme Court to expose a past Mossad operation.  Haaretz, the Communist Party, and a group of BDS activists published the petition, written by attorney Eitay Mack, who represents the group.  The petition accused “the Mossad’s [of] continued support of the Lebanese Christian Phalanges during the years preceding the Sabra and Shatila massacre.”

The petitioners include Dr. Yishai Menuhin, Dr. Maya Rosenfeld, Dr. Julia Zeitin, Prof. Ruth Hacohen, Dr. Ruhama Merton, Prof. Gideon Freudenthal, Dr. Shani Pace, Prof. Nurit Peled Elhanan, Prof. Ben-Zion Munitz, Dr. Yonatan Nissim Gaz, Prof. Yigal Brunner, Dr. Zivia Shapira, Dr. Snait Gissis, Dr. Gilad Lieberman, Dr. Eliot Cohen, Dr. Batina Birmans, Dr. Hannah Safran, Prof. Veronica Cohen, among other activists.

The issue is related to the Lebanese Civil War.  Conveniently, the petitioners ignore the other side of the argument. The topic has been researched by Dr. Jonathan Fine, from the International Institute of Counter-Terrorism at the IDC Herzliya, who wrote that the PLO was relatively new to the Lebanese scene following their expulsion from Jordan when in 1970, a conflict broke out between the Jordanian Armed Forces led by King Hussein and the PLO led by Yasser Arafat, culminating in the Black September armed conflict. Jordan expelled the PLO and some 100,000 Palestinian guerrillas assisted by Syria have entered Lebanon and joined the 240,000 already there, causing havoc and anarchy. The Palestinians took over the refugee camps and an entire section of Beirut where Arafat had set up his headquarters. “The Palestinians set up roadblocks, took over entire residential areas by expelling their owners, collected protection taxes, confiscated private cars, and gave shelter to outlaws.” By April 1975 a new cycle of deadly violence erupted, where many Palestinian-led massacres against Lebanon’s Christian villages and towns took place. The PLO, more than the Syrians, Druze, and Christians, “contributed to the destruction of Lebanon’s fragile infrastructure from within.” 

Therefore, the petition raises an interesting question. The petitioners have no chance of forcing the Mossad to reveal information about its operations.  So why go to the Supreme Court?  The answer can be found in the perverted version of the human rights’ burgeoning field, which seeks to besmirch and delegitimize Israel in the international community.   The trend was pioneered during the infamous Durban Conference of 2001, which used the human rights cudgel to denounce Israel as an apartheid state and demand BDS imposition.   Things have gotten worse since.   Prominent human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Oxfam had increased the volume of accusations against Israel.  So much so that the Trump administration has pointed to declare these organizations as anti-Semitic, as defined by IHRA, a highly respected and increasingly accepted international definition of what consists of anti-Semitic speech and action.  

Indeed, the Emile Zola Chair for Human Rights at the Colman College of Management praises Attorney Eitay Mack. The declaration stated:  “Adv. Eitay Mack is a pioneer in the field of human rights, a man who made a brave choice to act alone in a field that is hidden from the public consciousness, as well as away from the spotlight of glory that is often promised to human rights fighters.” Mack, who graduated from TAU with a law degree in 2008, specializes in Palestinian human rights. “He has been working as a self-employed lawyer and struggles in the breach of the rights of Palestinians.”  Not only that Mack specializes in the rights of Palestinians, he also focuses on Israel’s arms trade. There is enough evidence to show that the US, Russia, France, China, Germany, Spain, South Korea, UK, and Italy are larger arms traders. Mack targets Israel alone. Mack and his academic and activist peers have also petitioned the Supreme Court to expose Israel’s battle against BDS.

The one-sided condemnation of Israel by the human rights community is highly hypocritical given that key Palestinian groups like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and their Lebanese collaborator, Hezbollah, along with their patron Iran, have committed violations of the Geneva Conventions on war conduct.   To begin with, Hamas, PIJ, and Hezbollah adopted a policy of radical embedding among the civilian population, something that the Conventions consider illegal.   As a rule, they locate their command centers and weapons in schools, hospitals, mosques, and private residences, turning civilians into human shields.  All three groups have engaged in shelling Israeli civilians along the northern border and the Gaza Strip.  On the other hand, Israel is limited by the Geneva Convention, which demands “proportionality,” a code word for hurting the least of noncombat populations.   As the new book, “Proportionality in International Humanitarian Law: Principle, Rule, and Practice,” discovers, humanitarian law unintentionally penalizes state actors like Israel while giving non-state players like terror groups, essentially, a free pass. 

As a lawyer, Mack and his academic cheerleaders must be aware of the egregious violations of international humanitarian law committed by the Palestinians and their Iranian-Hezbollah patrons.  Petitioning the Supreme Court is a diversion tactic that seeks to delegitimize Israel instead of dealing with the real problems of the Palestinian leadership, which has refused to accept the Abraham Accord and the new realities of the Middle East.  


עתרו לבג”צ: דורשים לחשוף תמיכת המוסד במליציות הנוצריות במלחמת האזרחים בלבנון

פורסם לפני 2 שבועות

קבוצה גדולה של פעילי שלום, באמצעות עו”ד איתי מק, הגישו השבוע עתירה לבג”צ בדרישה לחשוף את מסמכים בדבר התמיכה שהעניק המוסד למיליציות הנוצרים במהלך מלחמת האזרחים בלבנון. עו”ד מק מסר “העתירה הוגשה מאחר שעל אף שחלפו כ-40 שנים מאז שהמוסד היה אחראי על התמיכה של מדינת ישראל במיליציות נוצריות רצחניות שביצעו זוועות במלחמת האזרחים בלבנון, בין השנים 1982-1975. המוסד עדיין סבור שזכותו להמשיך להסתיר מהציבור את המידע בנוגע כך ‘מטעמים ביטחוניים'”.

אנשי מיליציות נוצריות לאחר קבלת אספקה מישראל (צילום ארכיוןהומניטה)

בשל אינטרסים שונים של מדינת ישראל, המוסד תמך במליציות הנוצריות בלבנון בזמן מלחמת האזרחים, באמצעות מתן הדרכה, אימונים, נשק וכסף. זאת אף שידע היטב כי הן מבצעות זוועות כלפי חברי מליציות אחרות, וכן נגד פעילים שמאל ופלסטינים, אזרחים ואזרחיות שהשתייכו לקבוצות פוליטיות, דתיות, לאומיות ואתניות יריבות.

“אמנם הטבח במחנות הפליטים הפלסטינים סברה ושתילה, שהתחולל בספטמבר 1982, עורר זעקה במדינת ישראל ובעולם אשר הובילה להקמת ועדת החקירה לחקירת האירועים במחנות הפליטים בביירות (“ועדת כהן”), אך היה זה רק אירוע אחד בשרשרת של אירועי טבח, הוצאות להורג, חטיפות, היעלמויות, חיתוך איברים והתעללות בגופות ע”י המליציות הנוצריות”, הדגיש עו”ד מק.

העותרים סבורים כי הפרשה העלומה צריכה לצאת לאור כדי שיהיה אפשר לעשות מעט צדק עם קורבנות המליציות הנוצריות ומלחמת האזרחים בלבנון באמצעות חשיפת האמת, וכן כדי לאפשר דיון והפקת לקחים ציבוריים שעשויים למנוע את המשך התמיכה מצד המוסד ומדינת ישראל בכוחות ביטחון ומיליציות ברחבי העולם המבצעים זוועות. בעתירה נטען כי סירוב המוסד לחשוף לציבור את המסמכים שאותרו על ידיו לוקה בחוסר סבירות קיצוני; המוסד לא שקל את השיקולים הרלוונטיים ובכלל זה את האינטרס הציבורי העצום והזכות למידע; וכן המוסד מפר את חובותיו לפי הוראות תקנות הארכיונים (עיון בחומר ארכיוני המופקד בגנזך), תש”ע-2010, כללי המשפט המינהלי והפסיקה.

בין העותרים: ניצה אמינוב, חנה בר”ג, ד”ר ישי מנוחין, יעל אגמון, נורה בנדרסקי, ד”ר מאיה רוזנפלד, אור בן דוד, יונתן גר, ד”ר ג’וליה צייטין, עופרה עופר אורן, פרופ’ רות הכהן פינצ’ובר, איה גבריאל, רעיה רותם, ד”ר רוחמה מרטון, מוסי רז, אמנון לוטנברג, מיקי פישר, פרופ’ גדעון פרוידנטל, עומר ארוילי, יאיר בונצל, מארי בונצל, עדי בונצל, אריאל נייזנה, ד”ר שני פייס, נעמי שור, נורה גרינברג, סא”ל (מיל’) תולי עמית פלינט, נפתלי אורנר, פרופ’ נורית פלד אלחנן, רחל חיות, פרופ’ בן ציון מוניץ, עירית הלביא, אבישי הלביא, קלאודיו קוגון, ד”ר יונתן ניסים גז, שירה יהב, רוני סגולי, עדית ברסלאור, נוני טל, פרופ’ יגאל ברונר, ורדה חלד, ד”ר צביה שפירא, שירלי נדב, תאיה גוברין–סגל, ירדן שפר, ד”ר סנאית גיסיס, מיאקו גליקו, דפנה בנאי, סיגל קוק אביבי, יהודית אלקנה, גיא בוטביה, שושנה לונדון ספיר, תמר כהן, צילי גולדנברג, ד”ר גלעד ליברמן, איתמר פיגנבאום, גליה ברנד, דליה קרשטיין, גיא הירשפלד, ד”ר אליוט כהן, נעמי קירשנר, אלי אמינוב, דניאלה יואל, ד”ר בטינה בירמנס, זהבה גרינפלד, עפר ניימן, יואב הס, נפתלי ספיר, ד”ר חנה ספרן, חיה אופק, ורד ביתן, שאול צ’ריקובר, חיים שוורצנברג, פרופ’ ורוניקה כהן, גדי  שניצר, סמדר יערון, אמיר ביתן, עודד אפרתי, ג’סיקה נפומנשי ושרון גמזו.

קישור לעתירה:

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:03936e49-dfab-4871-aab0-743205622886#pageNum=122 באוקטובר 2020 ב-דמוקרטיה.



המוסד הוביל את הקשר עם הפלנגות
פלסטינים: וועדת כהן הטילה אחריות עקיפה על הטבח בסברה ושתילה צילום: Bill Foley / APאיתי מק
פורסם ב-27.10.20
للمقالة بالعربية: الموساد والمليشيات اللبنانية قصة حب طويلة
בחודש מאי ציינה התקשורת הישראלית  20 שנה לנסיגת צה”ל מלבנון. שתי תמות הובילו את השיח התקשורתי, פילוג החברה הישראלית וסיפורי מורשת קרב בסגנון שיעורים לטירונים בצה”ל.
לא מעט ישראלים ועיתונאים ישראלים אוהבים למצוא הקבלות בין המעורבות הישראלית בלבנון למעורבות האמריקאית בוייטנאם. אך ההשוואה הזו נעשית בדרך כלל באופן שטחי וממוקדת בחיילים שנהרגו ונפצעו, בבעיות התנהלותו של הדרג המדיני והפוליטי ובמלחמה שההפסד בה היה ידוע מראש. בדרך כלל לא נעשית השוואה בין מעורבות כוחות הביטחון הישראלים והאמריקאים בזוועות שבוצעו כלפי האוכלוסיות המקומיות. 
המקרה היחיד בו גם התקשורת הישראלית וגם הישראלים עוד מוכנים קצת לשמוע על מעורבות מדינתם וכוחות הביטחון בזוועות בלבנון, הוא הטבח במחנות הפליטים הפלסטינים סברה ושתילה. אמנם הטבח שהתחולל שם בספטמבר- 1982, עורר זעקה במדינת ישראל ובעולם, והוביל לאחר מכן להקמת ועדה לחקירת האירועים במחנות הפליטים בביירות (“ועדת כהן”), אך היה זה רק אירוע אחד בשרשרת של אירועי טבח, הוצאות להורג, חטיפות, היעלמויות, חיתוך איברים והתעללות בגופות ע”י המיליציות הנוצריות. 
אחד ממקרי הטבח הגדולים התרחש בתל אל-זעתר, כשש שנים לפני הטבח בסברה ושתילה. כך תיארה ועדת כהן את האירוע: “באוגוסט 1976 נכבש על ידי הכוחות הנוצריים מחנה הפליטים תל אל-זעתר בביירות, שבו התבצרו מחבלים פלסטינים, ואז נטבחו אלפי פליטים פלסטינים. כל מעשה טבח גרר אחריו מעשי נקם בעל אופי דומה. מספר הקורבנות של מלחמת האזרחים נאמד בקרוב למאה אלף הרוגים, ביניהם מספר רב של אזרחים ובהם גם נשים וילדים”. ראש אמ”ן לשעבר, יהושע שגיא, העיד בפני ועדת כהן ואמר: “הם רצחו כל הזמן. אנשים כמו סמיר ג’עג’ע, אלי חבייקה וקוברה (רוברט חאתם, מפקד יחידת שומרי הראש) ידעו לרצוח פלסטינים ואחרים בלי שמישהו יגיד להם לעשות זאת”. ועדת כהן קבעה כי היה ידוע על מקרים בהם המיליציות הנוצריות רצחו אזרחים פלסטינים ודרוזים: “היו ידיעות על מעשי רצח נשים וילדים בכפרים דרוזים שבוצעו ע”י הפלנגות וכן על פעולות חיסול נגד הפלסטינים שבוצעו על ידי יחידת המודיעין של אלי חבייקה”.
בחקירת הטבח במחנות סברה ושתילה עיקר הזרקור הופנה לצה”ל, אך מי שהיה אחראי מתחילת מלחמת האזרחים (בשנת 1975) על הקשר עם המיליציות הנוצריות, היה דווקא המוסד. כך נקבע בדו”ח ועדת כהן: “על הקשר עם הפלנגות היה מופקד המוסד למודיעין ולתפקידים מיוחדים, ונציגיו של המוסד בתקופות השונות קיימו קשר הדוק למדי בדרכים שונות עם מנהיגות הפלנגות”. 
מתוך רצון לקדם אינטרסים ישראליים שונים, המוסד תמך במליציות הנוצריות בלבנון בזמן מלחמת האזרחים, באמצעות מתן הדרכה, אימונים, נשק, ציוד אלקטרוני למעקב וכסף. זאת אף שידע היטב כי הן מבצעות זוועות כלפי חברי מליציות אחרות, וכן נגד פעילים פוליטיים, אזרחים ואזרחיות שהשתייכו לקבוצות פוליטיות, דתיות, לאומיות ואתניות יריבות. האלוף (מיל’) עמוס גלעד, אמר בראיון שפורסם בעיתון הארץ, ביום 6.5.2020 לגבי המליציות הנוצריות: “היו להם אנשים כמו סמיר ג’עג’ע, שהיו לו עיניים בוהקות בטירוף והוא באמת עסק ברצח… בשיר ג’ומייל היה מוקף באנשים כמו אלי חובייקה, האיש הנורא הזה שהיה מְרַצח ופושע… חובייקה היה אדם אכזר שעשה מעשי זוועה”. גלעד אמר שניסה ללא הצלחה להתריע על הסכנה הטמונה בקשר עם המליציות הנוצריות: “ניסיתי להתריע, אבל נתקלתי בחומה בצורה. המוסד הוביל את הקשר עם הפלנגות, וכל ביקורת נגדו נדחתה על הסף ונמחצה”.
אכן במהלך מלחמת האזרחים בוצעו זוועות גם בנוצרים אך כפי שנכתב בדו”ח ועדת כהן :”כל מעשה טבח גרר אחריו מעשי נקם בעל אופי דומה”, ולכן לא היה בכך די כדי להצדיק את תמיכת המוסד במליציות הנוצריות ובמעגל הדמים. 
ועדת כהן הטילה “אחריות עקיפה” לטבח בסברה ושתילה על בכירים ישראלים שונים, אבל היא התייחסה רק להחלטה שנגעה במתן היתר כניסה לפלנגות לאותם מחנות, ללא פיקוח מספק ולאי עצירת הטבח מהרגע שהחל בלבד. ה”אחריות העקיפה” שלא נדונה בוועדה, הייתה אמורה להתמקד בתמיכה המתמשכת של המוסד במיליציות הנוצריות במהלך השנים שקדמו לטבח בסברה ושתילה. הרצחנות של חברי המיליציות הנוצריות, לא שכנעה את המוסד להפסיק את תמיכתו בהן. כך העיד בפני ועדת כהן ראש המוסד דאז, נחום אדמוני: “המוסד ניסה כמיטב יכולתו, במשך כל התקופה להציג את הנושא ולגשת אליו מתוך היבט אובייקטיבי ככל שיכול, אבל מכיוון שהוא היה מופקד על הקשרים, אני מקבל, כהנחה, שנוצרו גם יחסים סובייקטיביים ולא רק אובייקטיביים. אני מוכרח לקבל את זה, במגעים, מדברים עם אנשים, נוצרים מגעים”.
הזחיחת והקהות המוסרית שעולה מדבריו של ראש המוסד בנוגע למעורבות הישראלית בלבנון ולתמיכתו של המוסד במיליציות הנוצריות, באה לידי ביטוי, גם בחוות דעת שנמצאה בתיקי משרד החוץ ופורסמה באתר ארכיון המדינה ב- 15.6.1982.

פלסטינים: המוסד תמך והדריך את המיליציותת הלבנוניותצילום: עוזי קרן
באותה חוות דעת  – שהכין אשר גורן ממחלקת המחקר במשרד החוץ, ושלח ללשכת שר החוץ, למנכ”ל ולסמנכ”ל משרד החוץ – והגיעה תשעה ימים לאחר תחילת הפלישה של צה”ל ללבנון וכשלושה חודשים לפני הטבח בסברה ושתילה נבדק הרווח וההפסד בעניין:” נוסחת חיסול אש”ף” שכללה גם “הריגת בני אדם בסיטונות”. בפתח חוות הדעת גורן הבהיר שהוא לא מתייחס בה להיבטים מוסריים, אלא הסברתיים-מדיניים גרידא. בשיקולי “התועלת” צוינה ההנחה שהריגה בסיטונות תשמש הרתעה כלפי הטרור הפלסטיני ותקדם את מדיניות ישראל בגדה המערבית וברצועת עזה ותבטל את התחשבות הפלסטינים באש”ף. בשיקולי “ההפסד” צוינו חיזוק מעמדו של אש”ף בעולם, פגיעה במעמד ישראל בדעת הקהל העולמית הנאורה וחיזוק הטענה כי מעשה ישראל בלבנון מאזנים את זוועות השואה. 
עצם הכנת חוות דעת בעניין היבטים הסברתיים של ביצוע פשעי מלחמה, מעידה על טירוף מערכות ואובדן מוסרי של הגורמים הביטחוניים והמדיניים שניהלו את המעורבות הישראלית בלבנון. בחלוף כארבעים שנים, הפרשה העלומה של מעורבות המוסד בלבנון צריכה לצאת לאור לא רק כדי לעשות מעט צדק עם קורבנות המליציות הנוצריות ומלחמת האזרחים באמצעות חשיפת האמת. אלא גם כדי לאפשר דיון והפקת לקחים ציבוריים שעשויים למנוע את המשך התמיכה מצד המוסד ומדינת ישראל בכוחות ביטחון ומיליציות ברחבי העולם המבצעים זוועות.
כך למשל, בדו”ח מועצת הביטחון של האו”ם מינואר-2016, צוין כי בעסקה שתווכה ע”י ראש השב”כ הדרום סודני, תוך עקיפת המנגנונים הפורמליים בדרום סודן לרכישת נשק. נרכשו בקיץ-2013 מישראל רובי גליל אייס ונמסרו למיליציה של הממשלה הקרויה Mathiang Anyoor שהתאמנה בחווה הפרטית של הנשיא הדרום סודני. הרובים שימשו את המיליציה לטבח שהחל ב-15.12.2013 בבני שבט הנואר בבירה ג’ובה ובסביבתה. טבח שסמל את פרוץ מלחמת האזרחים בדרום סודן.
בג”ץ ידון השנה במקביל הן בעתירה הדורשת לפתוח בחקירה פלילית נגד הישראלים האחראים למכירת הרובים ששימשו לטבח בדרום סודן, והן בעתירה שדורשת לחשוף את מסמכי התמיכה של המוסד במליציות נוצריות שביצעו זוועות במלחמת האזרחים בלבנון. 
הכותב הוא עו”ד ופעיל זכויות אדם בנושא הסחר בנשק של מדינת ישראל




The Israeli Supreme Court has rejected an appeal and a petition by Israeli citizens regarding a refusal by the Israeli Ministry of Justice to disclose details about the identity of the international law firms it employs in the struggle against BDS

Image result for BDS

October 2019

The Israeli Supreme Court has rejected an appeal and a petition by Israeli citizens regarding a refusal by the Israeli Ministry of Justice to disclose details about the identity of the international law firms it employs in the struggle against the BDS movement and BDS activists in Europe and the essence of the services provided by these firms. 

בית המשפט העליון דחה ערעור (עע”מ 6863/18) בעניין סירוב משרד המשפטים לחשוף את הפרטים על זהות משרדי עורכי הדין הבין-לאומיים ומהות השירות שהם נותנים לו, במאבק נגד פעילי ותנועת ה-BDS באירופה: עברית להלן 

The Israeli Supreme Court has rejected an appeal and a petition by Israeli citizens regarding a refusal by the Israeli Ministry of Justice to disclose details about the identity of the international law firms it employs in the struggle against the BDS movement and BDS activists in Europe and the essence of the services provided by these firms. 

Along with human rights activists Rachel Giora, Sahar Vardi, Ofer Neiman and Kobi Snitz, a freedom of information request was filed in November 2017, asking for the disclosure of information about the identity of the international law firms the Israeli Ministry of Justice employs in the struggle against the BDS movement and BDS activists in Europe and the essence of the services provided by these firms. 

In response to the freedom of information request, the Ministry of Justice revealed that at the same time it, under Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, was leading a campaign for Knesset legislation to impose increased transparency regarding foreign funding of human rights organizations in Israel – They themselves were secretly funding foreign elemetns, international law firms, to fight against BDS activism by citizens and NGOs in Europe. The secret project was co-led by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Strategic Affairs. The Ministry of Justice has disclosed partial redacted documents, and refused to fully disclose additional relevant documents, in order to prevent the disclosure of the identity of the law firms and the essence of their service, for which they are paid millions of NIS. The ministry claimed that the disclosure would damage Israel’s foreign relations, disrupt internal proceedings at the ministry, and disrupt its functions.   

The petition and the appeal argue that the Ministry of Justice is obliged to exercise transparency towards the Israeli public, which has the right to know to whom the State is paying millions of NIS and what service is provided in exchange. The Israeli public cannot effectively scrutinize the ministry and the project it co-leads against BDS in Europe, as long as the ministry refuses to disclose the information. It was also argued that there is an anti-democratic “slippery slope” here, and that the military approach to the campaign resembles what former Director of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, Sima Vaknin- Gil, a retired Lt. General, compared to “Military issues like Hezbollah or terror funds or Syria or any other state on which I have led a campaign”. Vaknin-Gil also testified that she was using Air Force logic in her work, including intelligence work, advocacy and offensive actions. According to the ministry’s publications, it labels the BDS organizations as a “red network”. The decision to define civilians and civil NGOs in Europe as an “enemy” or a “red network”, invoked bad memories from the past, including Israel’s support of dictatorships throughout the world in the attempt to persecute and eliminate the “reds” or whoever was suspected of supporting them, from Pinochet’s Chile to Mobutu’s Congo, the South African apartheid regime and the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines.  

The Israeli Supreme Court has rejected the appeal, stating that the disclosure of said information may harm the State’s foreign relations, and ruled that there is no merit to the petitioners’ claim regarding lies, contradictions and disorder in the State’s claims. The petitioners argued that:

A. The Ministry of Strategic Affairs deliberately attempted to mislead the petitioners and the public, when it replied, in response to a freedom of information request, that it was not involved in contracting foreign parties, although according to documents disclosed by the Ministry of Justice, the foreign law firm project “is led by the Ministry for Strategic Affairs with the legal assistance of the Ministry of Justice.” Furthermore, the former director of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs was personally involved in the vetting of foreign law firms contracted by the Ministry of Justice. 

B. Embarrassing failures occurred in the redaction of the documents submitted by the Ministry of Justice. Words and sentences which were seemingly censored for foreign relations interests on some pages were not censored on other pages.  

C. The Ministry of Justice decided at first to conceal parts of the procedure as to “Contracting law firms and legal experts abroad”, for fear of damage to the State’s foreign relations, but following the submission of the petition, the ministry changed its decision, as it turned out that the “secret” information had already been made public by a public government decision.

D. The Ministry of Justice submitted secret expert opinions to the Tel Aviv District Court, which were intended to support the claim as to fear of damage to foreign relations, but following the court’s recommendation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs disclosed significant parts thereof, when it turned out that these too had already been made available to the public.  

E. Although the Ministry of Justice claimed that by its legal office, one may depend on it and there is no need for public scrutiny of its actions in this matter, it turned out that one of the law firms selected by the Ministry of Justice for the project was replaced due to a suspected conflict of interest. 

  The crux of the matter and the petition was the demand to receive information regarding the essence of the service provided by foreign law firms. According to the documents provided by the Ministry of Justice, and due to negligent redaction, it became apparent that these law firms were required to provide legal representation (for plaintiffs and defendants), prepare legal expert opinions and provide legal counseling. This begs the question as to what else can or should these law firms do? The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly argued that if the redacted words and sentences were disclosed, the State’s foreign relations and the possibility of continuing the secret project would be damaged. However, at the hearing of the petition, Judge Yitzhak Amit stated that he was not very impressed by the censored information. The ruling in the appeal states that most of the censored parts deal with the fees paid and the identity of the foreign attorneys.    

Unlike Judge Eli Abrabanel’s ruling in the Tel Aviv District Court, that there is no public interest in the disclosure of the information, Supreme Court Judge Yitzhak Amit stated in his ruling that “One cannot deny that the State’s conduct regarding the struggle against the boycott phenomenon is of public interest”, but ruled that a partial disclosure of the documents has adequately struck a balance between the public interest and the difficulties inherent to the disclosure of information. 

Court costs were issued against the petitioners, in the sum of 4,000 NIS, but the one to incur the greatest damage is the Ministry of Justice, which will continue to be administered without public scrutiny. The disorder, contradictions and lies which have been apparent throughout the legal proceedings exemplify the danger in the ministry’s decision to play war games and set up a “secret task force”, which conducts itself in an amateurish manner. 

 According to the State Comptroller’s 2015 report, he found it hard to understand what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry for Strategic Affairs are really doing regarding the campaign against de-legitimization. If a commission of Inquiry is ever established, it too will probably fail to understand what has been done by various government ministries over the years, using hundreds of millions of Shekels paid by the public. 

For further details, contact Attorney Eitay Mack

בית המשפט העליון דחה ערעור (עע”מ 6863/18) בעניין סירוב משרד המשפטים לחשוף את הפרטים על זהות משרדי עורכי הדין הבין-לאומיים ומהות השירות שהם נותנים לו, במאבק נגד פעילי ותנועת ה-BDS באירופה:

 יחד עם פעילות ופעילי זכויות האדם סהר ורדי, עופר ניימן, רחל גיורא וקובי סניץ, הוגשה בחודש נובמבר 2017, עתירת חופש מידע לחשוף את הפרטים על זהות משרדי עורכי הדין הבין-לאומיים ומהות השירות שהם נותנים למשרד המשפטים הישראלי, במאבק נגד פעילי ותנועת ה-BDS באירופה.

במענה לבקשת המידע שהוגשה אליו, משרד המשפטים חשף כי במקביל למאבק שהובילו המשרד ושרת המשפטים לשעבר, כאבירי השקיפות, לחקיקה בכנסת שתטיל שקיפות מוגברת על המימון הזר שמקבלים ארגוני זכויות האדם בישראל – הם בעצמם מימנו ומממנים באופן חשאי גורמי חוץ, שהם משרדי עורכי דין בין-לאומיים, כדי להיאבק בפעילי ובפעילות  BDS של אזרחים וארגונים אזרחיים לא ממשלתיים באירופה, במסגרת פרויקט סודי, בליווי משרד המשפטים ובניהול המשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים;משרד המשפטים חשף מסמכים חלקיים ומצונזרים, וסירב למסור במלואם מסמכים רלוונטייםנוספים, כדי למנוע את חשיפת זהות משרדי עורכי הדין ומהות השירות שהםנותנים בתמורה למיליוני שקלים. משרד המשפטים נימק את סירובו בכךשהחשיפה תפגע ביחסי החוץ של מדינת ישראל, תפגע בדיונים הפנימיים במשרד,  ותגרום לשיבוש בתפקודו.

בעתירה ובערעור נטען, בין היתר: משרד המשפטים מחויב בשקיפות כלפי הציבור הישראלי, שזכאי לדעת למי המדינה משלמת מיליוני שקלים ומה השירות שניתן בתמורה. הציבור הישראלי אינו יכול לפקח באופן אפקטיבי על משרד המשפטים והפרויקט שהוא מלווה בעניין באירופה, כל עוד שמשרד המשפטים מסרב לחשוף מי הם גורמי החוץ איתם נעשתה ההתקשרות ומה מהות השירות; בנוסף על הפגיעה בעיקרון השקיפות, נטען כי קיימת סכנה של “מדרון חלקלק” אנטי-דמוקרטי בהסתרה, בגישה הצבאית, ובבלבול ההגדרות אצל משרד המשפטים והמשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים המוביל את הפרויקט. כך למשל, מנכ”לית המשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים והסברה לשעבר, תא”ל (מיל’) סימה ואקנין-גיל, הציגה בכנסת את מאבקה באזרחים בחו”ל המבקרים את מדינת ישראל, כמערכה צבאית, והשוותה את עבודתה במשרד האזרחי לפעילותה בתפקידיה בצבא “על סוגית צבאיות כמו חיזבאללה או כספי טרור או סוריה או כל מדינה אחרת שניהלתי מערכה”; כמו-כן, ואקנין-גיל העידה שהיא משתמשת בעבודתה בלוגיקה של חיל האוויר, הכוללת איסוף מודיעין, הסברה והתקפה. לפי הפרסום של המשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים, המשרד מגדיר את רשת ארגוני ה-BDS “רשת אדומה”. הבחירה להגדיר אזרחים וארגונים אזרחיים לא ממשלתיים באירופה כ”אויב” וכרשת “אדומה”, מעלה זיכרונות רעים מהעבר. כידוע, מדינת ישראל נתנה סיוע צבאי במשך עשרות שנים לדיקטטורות ברחבי העולם כדי לרדוף ולחסל את ה”אדומים” או מי שנחשד בתמיכה בהם – מצ’ילה של פינושה, קונגו של מובוטו, משטר האפרטהייד בדרום אפריקה ועד הפיליפינים של מרקוס.

בית המשפט העליון דחה את הערעור, בנימוק כי חשיפת המידע המבוקש עלולה לפגוע ביחסי החוץ של המדינה (סעיף 9(א)(1) לחוק חופש המידע), והחליט שאין משמעות לטענות המערערים בעניין השקרים, הסתירות והבלגן בטענות המדינה. בין היתר:

א.     המשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים פעל במכוון כדי להטעות או לשקר למערערים/ות ולציבור, כאשר השיב במענה לבקשת חופש מידע, כי אין לו מעורבות בהתקשרויות עם גורמים זרים. זאת אף שלפי המסמכים שחשף משרד המשפטים, פרויקט עורכי הדין הזרים “מובל על ידי המשרד לעניינים אסטרטגיים בליווי משפטי של משרד המשפטים”, וכן מנכ”לית המשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים לשעבר הייתה מעורבת אישית באישור משרדי עורכי הדין איתם התקשר משרד המשפטים.

ב.     היו תקלות מביכות בצנזור של המסמכים – במסמכים שנמסרו ממשרד המשפטים, אותם המילים והמשפטים בעמודים שצונזרו לכאורה מטעמי יחסי חוץ, לא היו מצונזרים בעמודים אחרים.

ג.      משרד המשפטים תחילה החליט להסתיר חלק מנוהל “התקשרות עם משרדי עורכי דין ומומחים משפטיים בחו”ל”, מטעמים של חשש לפגיעה ביחסי החוץ. אך לאחר שהוגשה העתירה המשרד חזר בו בגלל שהתברר שהמידע ה”סודי” כבר פורסם לציבור בהחלטת ממשלה פומבית.

ד.     משרד המשפטים הגיש חוות דעת סודיות בבית המשפט המחוזי, שנועדו לתמוך בטענת החשש לפגיעה ביחסי החוץ. אך בהמלצת בית המשפט, משרד החוץ חשף חלקים משמעותיים מהן לאחר שהתברר כי גם אלה כבר היו גלויים לעותרים/ות ולציבור.

ה.     על אף שמשרד המשפטים טען כי מעצם טיבו המשפטי, ניתן לסמוך עליו ואין צורך בפיקוח ציבורי על פעילותו בנושא, התברר כי אחד ממשרדי עורכי הדין שנבחר לפרויקט על ידי משרד המשפטים, הוחלף בשל חשד לניגוד עניינים.

לב העתירה והערעור היה בדרישה לקבל מידע לגבי מהות השירות שנותנים משרדי עורכי הדין הזרים – במסמכים שמסר משרד המשפטים, בשל הצנזור הרשלני, היה חשוף כי משרדי עורכי הדין נדרשו לתת ייצוג משפטי (תביעה והגנה), להכין חוות דעת משפטיות ולתת ייעוץ משפטי. לכן, התבקשה השאלה מה עוד עורכי הדין יכולים או אמורים לעשות? משרד המשפטים חזר וטען כי אם ייחשפו המילים והמשפטים שהושחרו במסמכים לגבי מהות השירות, ייפגעו יחסי החוץ והאפשרות להמשיך בפרויקט הסודי. למרות זאת, בדיון בערעור, השופט יצחק עמית אמר כי הוא לא נפל מהכיסא מהמידע שהושחר. בפסק הדין בערעור נכתב, כי מרבית המקומות שהושחרו במסמכים עוסקים בתעריף  שמשולם ובזהות עורכי הדין. 

לכן, מתבקשת גם השאלה, האם ייתכן שבעצם לא קיים במסמכים מידע נוסף שמשרד המשפטים טען שיש חובה להסתיר? ממילא המידע על התעריף שמשולם למשרדי עורכי הדין הזרים חשוף בחלק מהמסמכים בשל הצנזור הרשלני. מדוע אפוא לא נאמר מלכתחילה למערערים/ות שלא קיים מידע נוסף על מהות השירות בחלקים שהושחרו במסמכים, כדי לייתר את העתירה והערעור? האם משרד המשפטים ניסה ליצור עמימות יש מאין בנוגע לפרויקט “סודי”, שבעצם אין בו משהו סודי או מעניין?

בניגוד לקביעת השופט אלי אברבנאל בבית המשפט המחוזי, כי אין עניין ציבורי בחשיפת המידע, השופט יצחק עמית כתב בפסק דינו ש”אין לכחד כי התנהלות המדינה בכל הנוגע להתמודדות עם תופעת החרם מעוררת עניין ציבורי”, אך קבע כי החשיפה החלקית של המסמכים איזנה באופן ראוי בין האינטרס הציבורי לבין הקשיים הטומנים בחשיפת המידע.

השופטת יעל וילנר הצטרפה לפסק דינו של השופט יצחק עמית. במהלך הדיון בערעור לא רצו השופטים לשמוע את טענות המדינה במעמד צד אחד, וכל שופט/ת קיבל/ה חוברת עם חוות דעת סודיות אשר כללה את המידע שהושחר. השופטים יצחק עמית ועופר גרוסקופף קראו במשך כ-15 דקות את החוברת שקיבלו, ואילו השופטת וילנר לא נצפתה כשהיא מעיינת בחוברת שקיבלה.

אמנם נפסקו נגד המערערים/ות הוצאות בסך 4,000 ₪, אך המפסיד העיקרי הוא משרד המשפטים, שימשיך להתנהל ללא פיקוח ציבורי בנושא. הבלגן, הסתירות והשקרים שעלו בהליכים המשפטיים, ממחישים את הסכנה בכך שמשרד המשפטים מחליט לשחק בחסמב”ה, ולהקים “כוח משימה” מיוחד ו”סודי”, שיש בו הרבה חובבנות.

לפי דו”ח מבקר המדינה לשנת 2015, הוא התקשה להבין מה באמת משרד החוץ והמשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים עושים בנושא המאבק בדה-לגיטימציה. אם תוקם ועדת חקירה בעתיד, סביר להניח שגם היא לא תצליח להבין מה נעשה במשך כל השנים על ידי משרדי הממשלה השונים, במאות מיליוני שקלים מכספי ציבור, מלבד לספק משרות, תקנים של מנהלים וחוזי עתק לגורמים חיצוניים.

תודה לכל מי שסייעו בגיוס האגרות, העירבון וההוצאות. בלעדיכם/ן, לא היה ניתן לנהל את המאבק המשפטי בנושא.

קישור לפסק הדין בערעור:


קישור לפרוטוקול הדיון בערעור:


קישור לערעור:


קישור לסיכומי המערערים:


קישור לסיכומי המדינה בערעור:


קישור לסיכומי תשובה של המערערים:


קישור לפסק הדין בבית המשפט המחוזי:

https://www.nevo.co.il/psika_html/minhali/MM-17-11-68862-466.htm           — 

איתי מק, עו”ד
  Israeli activists file freedom of information request regarding ‘blacklist’ of BDS supporters  


I and other Israeli human rights activists, Sahar Vardi, Ofer Neiman, Rachel Giora and Kobi Snitz, filed a freedom of information request regarding the Israeli government’s recently revealed “blacklist” of BDS activist. The request for the list of names and the way in which this list was compiled was submitted to the Ministry of Interior and the Population and Immigration Authority.

The BDS blacklist was made public yesterday when Haaretz reported that Israel sent a foreign airline the names of seven international activists, of whom five were then denied boarding a plane at a Washington, DC airport. In response, Israel’s Ministry of Interior stated, “These are high profile activists who have promoted boycotts against Israel.”

According to an Israeli law passed in March banning the entry of foreign BDS activists is indeed legal by Israeli rules, but there are grave questions raised by the process in which the decisions on who to ban was made. As well, it is alarming that Israel gave a blacklist to a foreign airline, in this case, Lufthansa, who then prohibited the boarding of U.S. passengers in a U.S. airport. Meaning, the Israeli law to ban BDS activists was actually imposed in the U.S., not in Israel.

There is a risk of a slippery slope in Israel maintaining blacklists of international activists who were acting within the rights of free speech accorded to them in the state of their citizenship. The risk also applies to the sharing of lists with foreign entities and companies without any transparency offered to those individuals and the organizations who were put on the list.

Years before Israel approved the ban of foreign BDS activists, it passed a similar piece of legislation in 2011 aimed at Israeli citizens. In the Law for Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott, the definition of what is a “boycott” is extremely vague. One fears that the black lists will be expanded and abused for political purposes by Israeli politicians and other Israeli elements that are interested in eliminating resistance to the Israeli occupation both in Israel and abroad.

While those involved in the recent case are U.S. citizens, there is a question as to whether Israel has also delivered a blacklist of names to non-democratic states that persecute human rights and opposition activists, thereby putting those potential people who could be on a list in harm’s way. Furthermore, there the question of reciprocity, i.e. mutual sharing of information and handling of activists whose names between countries. One recalls similar policies by the military juntas in Latin America and dictatorships in Africa which received security aid from Israel. One could also note the case of U.S. citizen Charles Horman, who was kidnapped, tortured and murdered immediately after Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973, apparently based on information as to his being a radical left activist, transferred to the junta by U.S. intelligence agents.

Therefore, we have asked in our FOIA request to receive the criteria and procedures that determined which person or organization was added to the blacklist; any protocols or decisions as to how a person or organization was added to the blacklist; any background information gathered on a person or an organization in advance of a decision to add them to the blacklist; details of persons and organizations on the blacklist; messages, appeals and correspondence with foreign entities (airlines, states, foreign security forces, etc.) regarding the blacklist, and persons and organizations on it.

See the FOIA request here [Hebrew].



Israelis seek to uncover government’s secret war against BDS

Ali Abunimah 30 September 2016

A group of Israeli citizens is seeking information on their government’s covert activities against the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.

Meanwhile, the Israeli embassy in London has warned in a leaked cable that some of Israel’s tactics against the BDS movement may violate UK law.

Attorney Eitay Mack and human rights activists Sahar Vardi, Ofer Neiman, Rachel Giora and Kobi Snitz have filed requests under Israel’s freedom of information law, to both the foreign ministry and the strategic affairs ministry.

They are asking the government to reveal its financial support to foreign organizations, individuals, journalists or bloggers assisting Israel in its battle against what it calls “delegitimization.”

The strategic affairs ministry, led by Likud minister Gilad Erdan, has taken the lead, gearing up to fight the nonviolent BDS movement as if it were a military challenge.

Armed with a $45 million budget for this year, the ministry is engaging in what a veteran Israeli analyst is calling “black ops.”

This may include defamation campaigns, harassment and threats to the lives of activists as well as infringing on and violating their privacy, according to the analyst.

“We want most of the [strategic affairs] ministry’s work to be classified,” its director general Sima Vaknin-Gil recently told the transparency committee of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset.

Earlier this month, Erdan’s ministry and the Association of University Heads of Israel were linked to a “secret” effort to push for the cancellation of a course on Palestine at the University of California, Berkeley.

The course was suspended, but later reinstated after an outcry from students, faculty and defenders of academic freedom.

“The sweeping secrecy exercised by both ministries is inappropriate, especially in view of the Israeli government’s position regarding human rights organizations supported financially by foreign countries,” the Israeli citizens said in a press release.

Earlier this year Israel adopted a so-called transparency law forcing human rights groups to reveal foreign government funding. Critics say the law is meant to brand human rights groups as illegitimate and chill criticism of Israel’s record.

Under the freedom of information law, the Israeli ministries have 120 days to respond. If they reject the requests, the citizens seeking the information can file an appeal in court.

Using Jewish groups

The information request comes as a cable, leaked to the newspaper Haaretz, has cast more light on the covert efforts against BDS.

The cable from the Israeli embassy in London to the Israeli foreign ministry complains about the activities of Erdan’s strategic affairs ministry.

It accuses the ministry of “operating” British Jewish organizations behind the embassy’s back in a way that could put them in violation of UK law.

The context is a turf war between the two ministries over who should get more money and authority to lead the fight against BDS.

The foreign ministry has so far been on the losing end of that bureaucratic battle.

As Haaretz reports, the cable reveals that the embassy met with Erdan’s officials during his visit to London two weeks ago “to coordinate activities against the local boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.”

The embassy officials emphasized that while they would coordinate with Erdan’s operation, only the foreign ministry would work directly with people or organizations overseas.

Haaretz says Erdan’s officials agreed “not to pose as the embassy.”

“Behind our backs”

But just days later, according to Haaretz, Asher Friedman, a senior strategic affairs ministry official, “asked a senior official in Britain’s Jewish community to use his connections to thwart an anti-Israel campaign by the Palestinians.”

“Attempts to act behind our back have happened before and will again, but ‘operating’ Jewish organizations directly from Jerusalem, with no coordination and no consultation, is liable to be dangerous,” the embassy cable said.

“Operating like this could encounter opposition from the organizations themselves, given their legal status; Britain isn’t the US,” the cable added.

It also warned that such behavior “could be considered political activity, or even activity on behalf of a foreign government on British soil,” Haaretz states.

The leak would seem to confirm that the Israeli government increasingly views Jewish organizations and communities abroad as mere extensions of its state propaganda apparatus.

This is unlikely to do much to tamp down criticism of Israel’s human rights abuses against Palestinians, but it does pose a danger to Jews who do not wish to be identified with a foreign government that is increasingly seen as a pariah.

Notably, as Haaretz reports, it was the British Jewish official himself who “immediately voiced his objections to the embassy, both orally and in writing, as well as to the heads of other British Jewish organizations.”

HUJ Maya Rosenfeld: an anti-Israel Academic-Activist


Editorial Note

IAM often reports on Israeli political activists who are masquerading as academics. 

One such radical political activist is Hebrew University lecturer Dr. Maya Rosenfeld.  Palestine Media Watch (PMW), which follows Arab media, emailed her a report discussing the PA leaders’ double standards.   While the PA rejects any normalization with Israel, Saeb Erekat, the PA’s chief negotiator who fell ill with Covid-19, has chosen to be treated in an Israeli hospital.

In response, Rosenfeld wrote to the PMW, telling them: “You do not deserve to be counted as human beings, as part of mankind. If there existed a place like hell, I would have wished you to burn in hell.”

Rosenfeld’s reaction is not surprising since she is essentially a political activist with a scant publishing record, whose syllabi are propaganda mouthpieces for the Palestinians.

She teaches a course which reviews “the prolonged Israeli occupation over the West Bank and Gaza as a system of military, economic and political control. It examines the cumulative impact of the occupation regime on socio-economic conditions in the West Bank and Gaza in general, and on specific sectors and segments of Palestinian society in particular, over the course of more than four decades.”  The students learn “To describe the central systemic components of the Israel’s military occupation over the West Bank and Gaza Strip” and “To assess the long term impact of Israel’s military occupation on Palestinian economy, society and politics. Students also learn about “The acquisition of education under Israeli occupation: assessing the impact of military intervention, surveillance and control.”

IAM received a complaint by one student, saying, “I am a student at the Hebrew University and this year I am studying in the course ‘Palestinian National Movement’ under lecturer Maya Rosenfeld. The lecturer teaches us in a clearly tendentious one-sided way. I would be happy if you could refer me to information that would allow me to hear the other side, in order to ask the lecturer questions enabling students to hear the other side. Thanks in advance.”

This has been going on for years. Clearly, already in 1981, when Rosenfeld was a student at the Hebrew University, she became an activist in the left-wing student group “Campus”.  As reported by Ha-olam Ha-zeh, when clashes erupted between Arab and Jewish students, Rosenfeld supported the Arab students. It is well-known that many of today’s radical academics were political-activist students.  In particular, Ha-Olam ha-Zeh was notorious, as described by Jacob Shavit, TAU Professor of History, in 1987, “From 1957 on, Ha-Olam ha-Zeh became the main forum for the Palestinian concept – that is, the concept which recognized the right of the Palestinian people to establish a sovereign state – and a defender of the PLO.” Rosenfeld was the perfect match to push for the Ha-Olam ha-Zeh agenda.    Worth noting that during the Palestinian Uprising in 1988, the Progressive List for Peace published a memorandum paper promoting the Palestinian agenda.

Similarly, in her recent Haaretz article, Rosenfeld describes the United States and Brazil presidents as “enemies of the human race.”

Clearly, Rosenfeld subscribes to the notion that Israel can do no right while the Palestinians can do no wrong.  

In her article, “What is Israel afraid of?” in 2018, Rosenfeld argued that civil protest is what worries Israel most, not Palestinian violence. She wrote, “There are few scenarios that frighten Israel more than the continuation of the mass civil protest in Gaza, its spread to the West Bank and its turn into a comprehensive popular uprising against the occupation. Once civil unrest gains momentum and sets its own territory and agenda, it will draw into it hundreds of thousands from all walks of life, members of both sexes and all ages, and can no longer be stopped, neither by firing squads, nor by tank shells, nor by aerial bombardment. Nor through the permanent U.S. veto in the UN Security Council.” 

Rosenfeld is a typical political activist identifying with the Palestinian struggle. She does not acknowledge Palestinian violence against Israel and only sees the Palestinian “popular struggle.” For example, her 2017 article, “What is the Israeli government afraid of?” discusses Palestinian prisoners’ hunger strike, which “At the political level, it strives to initiate a comprehensive (unarmed) popular struggle against the Israeli occupation and to promote internal Palestinian national reconciliation.”

In her 2016 article “Regime in the Darkness,” she discussed the Palestinian prisoner Bilal Kaid who served 14.5 years in Israeli prison. Rosenfeld did not acknowledge that Kaid, a member of the PFLP military branch arrested in 2002, was sentenced for two counts, for attempted murder, as he took part in two shooting attacks. As the judge noted in his July 2016 verdict: “Kaid never stopped his activities in the organization, but rather served as leader of the PFLP prisoners in Megiddo Prison, acting to promote the organization’s objectives in prison… His actions are deeply militaristic, and were it not for the respondent’s arrest, he would be free to complete these acts [of terror].” 

The rector of the Hebrew University had rightly denounced Rosenfeld for cursing the PMW.   However, he could have taken the opportunity to look at why the University has been employing a person with a scant academic record who uses her position to serve as one of the most ardent pro-Palestinian activists.   Her students receive a one-sided education, and the taxpayer is subsidizing an outspoken critic of the state. 


  • Hebrew University Rector “strongly denounces” message as “completely unacceptable”

A lecturer who teaches at Hebrew University responded to a recent PMW report with the following curse sent by email:

“You do not deserve to be counted as human beings, as part of mankind. If there existed a place like hell, I would have wished you to burn in hell.”

The curse was sent to Palestinian Media Watch by Dr. Maya Rosenfeld from her Hebrew University email address.

Rosenfeld cursed PMW in response to PMW’s exposure of the PA’s hypocritical behavior,  which causes significant suffering to the Palestinian population by prohibiting them normalization with Israel. Yet the PA permits its top official Saeb Erekat to receive medical treatment by Israeli doctors in an Israeli hospital, while the same has been denied ordinary Palestinians because it is “normalization.”

While everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, no one should be spewing out evil hate speech and curses at people they disagree with.

It is unclear whether Rosenfeld’s curse was meant only for PMW’s senior analyst Nan Jacques Zilberdik who wrote the report, or whether Rosenfeld wishes for the entire PMW staff to “burn in hell,” (- of course only if hell existed, as Rosenfeld pointed out.)

While Rosenfeld’s curse directed at PMW is horrifying, it is all the more disturbing if this behavior is reflective of Rosenfeld’s treatment of students who express opinions different from hers in the classroom. If so, this is a tragic environment for the Hebrew University.

PMW notified the university of Rosenfeld’s curse of PMW and received the following response from Prof. Barak Median, Rector of the Hebrew University:

Dear Mr. Marcus and Mrs. Zilberdik,

Thanks for bringing this matter to our attention.

We strongly denounce the message sent by Dr. Rosenfeld to Mrs. Zilberdik. It is completely unacceptable to use such a language.

Needless to say, the message does not represent in any way the Hebrew University, and it stands in contradiction to our policy and what we stand for.

Dr. Rosenfeld is an adjunct teacher at the Hebrew University, and she used the HUJI email address as a private person. We are inquiring into this matter and we will respond according to the results of our inquiry.

Best, Barak Medina, Rector

PMW also contacted Rosenfeld, asking for her response. At the time of writing PMW has not received any response from Rosenfeld.


Lecturer at Hebrew University curses PMW: “You do not deserve to be counted as human beings, as part of mankind. If there existed a place like hell, I would have wished you to burn in hell.”

PMW  | אוק 28, 2020



PA’s “Animal Farm”: No to normalization for regular Palestinians; Yes to normalization for PA leaders who need treatment in Israeli hospitals

Nan Jacques Zilberdik  | Oct 21, 2020

  • Even visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque is presented as unacceptable “normalization”

The PA has been just as adamant about not allowing any normalization with Israel as the animals in Orwell’s Animal Farm were about the need for animals to stick together against humans who were “the only real enemy.” But as happened in Orwell’s classic when the pigs decided they were superior and granted themselves rights that they refused the other “equal” animals, so too PA leaders are happy to have normal relations with Israel when it comes to themselves, while refusing and even condemning ordinary Palestinians for having any normalization with Israelis at all. Indeed, in the PA – as on Orwell’s farm – “some are more equal than others.”

Despite the PA’s cessation of all cooperation with Israel and nullification of all agreements, and its refusal to accept over 3 billion shekels that Israel has collected in tax money on its behalf – thereby bringing immense suffering to millions of Palestinians – the PA’s chief negotiator Saeb Erekat is able to enjoy “normal” relations with Israel, choosing an Israeli hospital for his current treatment for the coronavirus disease.

In response to visitors from the UAE and Bahrain to the Al-Aqsa Mosque who arrived via Israel rather than through the PA as a result of the recent peace agreements, PA Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh complained that it was “very unfortunate” that the Arab delegations had entered “through the Israeli gate.”

Hypocritically, Shtayyeh said this the day after the PA had let Erekat enter through the Israeli hospital gate! That wasn’t apparently “unfortunate” at all:

PA Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh: “One enters the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque through the gate of its owners, and not through the gate of the occupation. It is very unfortunate that a number of Arab delegations are entering through the Israeli gate, at a time when the entry by worshippers to the mosque is prevented.”

[Facebook page of PA Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh, Oct. 19, 2020]

Similarly, Spokesman Osama Al-Qawasmi of Abbas’ Fatah Movement complained that the Arab delegations had not entered “through the true gate, which is Palestine,” and stated that entering “through the gate of Tel Aviv contradicts reason and is unnatural.”

However, for the PA it apparently seems both reasonable and natural that Erekat should get treatment in an Israeli hospital. That isn’t considered “an attack on the Palestinian people”:

“Fatah Movement Revolutionary Council member and [official] Fatah Spokesperson Osama Al-Qawasmi said: ‘We have invited and still invite the Arabs and Muslims to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque through the true gate, which is Palestine… Al-Qawasmi added that visiting the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem through the gate of Tel Aviv contradicts reason and is unnatural. He added that this constitutes direct support for Israel and its false narrative; normalization with the entity that stole Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem, and Palestine; and an attack on our Palestinian people.”

[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 20, 2020]

Palestinian Media Watch has documented this PA double standard in the past when top PA/Fatah official Jibril Rajoub enjoyed the PA’s Animal Farm and received medical treatment in Israel at a time when the PA had announced it had ended all medical treatment for Palestinians in Israel and was refusing even transit permits for Palestinian children from Gaza being treated for cancer in Israeli hospitals.

Fatah also posted this cartoon mocking the visitors from the UAE and Bahrain to the Al-Aqsa Mosque who entered through Israel:

Persian Gulf Arabs on their way to the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem having arrived via Israel, symbolized by a massive army boot with a Star of David on it, which has “Welcome” written on it in English.

Posted text: “A visit by a delegation from the [Persian] Gulf to the Al-Aqsa Mosque under the protection of the occupation soldiers.
Text on cartoon: “A visit by a delegation from the [Persian] Gulf to the Al-Aqsa Mosque”

[Official Fatah Facebook page, Oct. 19, 2020]

The following are longer excerpts of the statements above:

Headline: “Al-Qawasmi: We heartily welcome worshippers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque [who enter] through the gate of Palestine, not of Tel Aviv”
“Fatah Movement Revolutionary Council member and [official] Fatah Spokesperson Osama Al-Qawasmi said: ‘We have invited and still invite the Arabs and Muslims to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque through the true gate, which is Palestine, because this constitutes support for our cause, Jerusalem’s Arab identity, and its status in the eyes of all the Muslims.’
In a statement yesterday [Oct. 19, 2020], Al-Qawasmi added that visiting the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem through the gate of Tel Aviv contradicts reason and is unnatural. He added that this constitutes direct support for Israel and its false narrative; normalization with the entity that stole Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem, and Palestine; and an attack on our Palestinian people.”

[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 20, 2020]

Video posted on the Facebook page of PA Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh; the video shows Shtayyeh’s speech at a PA government meeting on the morning of Oct. 19, 2020

PA Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh: “The Kingdom of Bahrain’s signing an agreement yesterday [Oct. 18, 2020] to establish full diplomatic relations with the occupation state gives a free prize to this occupation (see note below –Ed.). It whets [the occupation’s] appetite to gnaw away and annex additional territories and establish additional colonies, and it is increasing the challenges that the Palestinian people is dealing with in order to be redeemed, to be liberated, and to establish its independent Palestinian state. It is unfortunate that some of the [Arab] brothers are no longer aiding us against the occupation, which is harming our people, our land, and our religion…
One enters the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque through the gate of its owners, and not through the gate of the occupation. It is very unfortunate that a number of Arab delegations are entering through the Israeli gate, at a time when the entry by worshippers to the mosque is prevented.”

[Facebook page of PA Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh, Oct. 19, 2020]


Editorial: Weak-kneed at Hebrew University

In the spirit of the times, it’s enough to send a letter of protest or write a Facebook post to make events discussing the occupation disappear

Haaretz Editorial, 15 May 2017

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem claims it canceled an upcoming conference entitled “Fifty Years of Israeli Occupation and Palestinian Opposition: Where the Prisoners’ Movement is Headed,” because of logistical problems. But it is not unwarranted to suspect that the university, in the spirit of the times, bowed to right-wing pressure.

Members of a student association called “Israelis” at the university, identified with the Habayit Hayehudi party, proved what is already known: It is enough to send a letter of protest or write a post on Facebook to make events discussing the occupation disappear.

The conference, which was scheduled before the Palestinian prisoners began their hunger strike, was to have been an academic event with findings presented from a study by Dr. Maya Rosenfeld, a research fellow at the university’s Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace. Rosenfeld is studying the Palestinian prisoners’ movement and its impact on politics in the territories. Other scheduled speakers were Ashraf al-Ajrami, a former Palestinian Authority prisoner affairs minister; Radi Jarai of Al Quds University, a member of the board of the Abu Jihad Museum for Prisoner Movement Affairs; and Dr. Fahed Abu Alhaj, also of Al Quds U.

“Between Independence Day and Jerusalem Day, when we celebrate independence and the liberation of Jerusalem and parts of the homeland, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Truman Institute for Peace are organizing a conference with supporters of terrorism under the heading ‘50 years of occupation.’ … So leave aside the fact the ‘occupation’ is a mistaken term according to international law and a word with very clear political connotations. The very holding of the conference legitimizes support for terror under the whitewashed term ‘prisoners,’” stated the Facebook post made by the “Israelis.”

Hebrew University has now proven that it adopts the anti-democratic position of the government, which is working to place opposition to the occupation, and even discussion of it, beyond the pale.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. The University of Haifa prohibited the distribution of a flier by the Hadash party’s student group because it referred to “ethnic cleansing that villages and cities underwent in ’48”; about a year ago, Ben-Gurion University’s president, Prof. Rivka Carmi, overturned a decision by the Department for Middle East Studies to grant the Berelson Prize for Jewish-Arab Understanding to the soldiers’ anti-occupation group Breaking the Silence, because “the organization is not in the national consensus and the award of the prize could be understood as political bias.”

Even if Hebrew University manages to overcome the “logistical problems” and set a new date for the conference, the cancellation is a warning sign. Intellectual courage and devotion to free thought and spirit must guide the conduct of the universities. The price they will pay by surrendering to threats, direct or indirect, will be much greater. “Extortion payment” is not worth the irreversible damage that this does to an institution’s good name. 


Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and
the Diaspora: History Society Politics – 56575
Last update 03-09-2017
HU Credits: 2
Degree/Cycle: 1st degree (Bachelor)
Responsible Department: political science
Academic year: 0
Semester: 1st Semester
Teaching Languages: Hebrew
Campus: Mt. Scopus
Course/Module Coordinator: Maya Rosenfeld
Coordinator Email: maya.rosenfeld@mail.huji.ac.il
Coordinator Office Hours: Wednesdays 13:00-14:00
Teaching Staff:
Dr. Maya Rosenfeld
page 1 / 12

Course/Module description:
This course traces the social and political history of the Palestinians since the 1948
war. The impact of four key factors is examined in detail: 1) Palestinian
displacement, refugee existence and UN intervention on behalf of Palestine
refugees 2) regime policies of the Arab “host” countries vis a vis the Palestinian
refugees 3) Israel’s prolonged military occupation over the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip, and 4) the emergence and development of the Palestinian national
Accordingly, the course is roughly divided into four parts: starting with the
commencement of the Palestinian refugee problem in the aftermath of the 1948
War, the first part analyzes the seventy year old intervention of the international
community, in particular that of the United Nations Works and Relief Agency for
Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), on behalf of Palestine refugees and underscores the
major consequences of this intervention for four generations of refugees. The
second part discusses the considerably divergent legal, social, economic and
political statuses of Palestinian refugees in three Arab “host” countries, Lebanon,
Jordan and Kuwait (up till the expulsion of Palestinians from this country in1991),
each of which represents a different regime type. It then underscores the impact of
variant regime policies on the social structure and social history of Palestinian
refugee communities.
The third part of the course reviews the prolonged Israeli occupation over the West
Bank and Gaza as a system of military, economic and political control. It examines
the cumulative impact of the occupation regime on socio-economic conditions in the
West Bank and Gaza in general, and on specific sectors and segments of Palestinian
society in particular, over the course of more than four decades. The fourth part
traces the stages of development of the Palestinian national movement in the
Diaspora and Palestine since 1948, with a focus on the post 1967 emergence of the
PLO and with special emphasis on the occupied territories-based branch of the
national movement, the first Intifada, and its long-term consequences. The
concluding discussion will provide a concise overview of the major trends of
development within the Palestinian national movement since the Oslo Accords and
establishment of the PNA in 1994, including a brief examination of the second
Intifada, the rise of Hamas and the major divide that currently dominates
Palestinian political life.
Course/Module aims:
The aim is to expose the students to central issues in the social and political
history of the Palestinians since the 1948 war and to provide them with systematic
knowledge and deep understanding of these topics.
page 2 / 12

Learning outcomes – On successful completion of this module, students should be
able to:
a) To elaborate on the major factors that affected the social history of the
Palestinians since the 1948 war.
b)To review the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem and to analyze the
development of international intervention on behalf of Palestine refugees
c)To provide an overview on the situation of Palestinian refugees in the Arab “host
d)To point at central stages in the development of the Palestinian national
movement since 1948 and discuss the main features of each stage.
e)To describe the central systemic components of the Israel’s military occupation
over the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
d)To assess the long term impact of Israel’s military occupation on Palestinian
economy, society and politics
Attendance requirements(%):
Attendance is required.
Teaching arrangement and method of instruction: Lectures
Course/Module Content:
Introduction (most of the first meeting): Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip,
Israel, and the Diaspora since 1948: Basic historical, demographic, social and
political data.
Refugeeness, dispersal, life in exile: major aspects (approximately four meetings,
including the first meeting):
a. Palestinians and Jews under the British Mandate
b. The UNSCOP Report and the UN Partition Plan
c. The 1948 War: the immediate implications for the Palestinians.
d. The international community, the UN, UNRWA and the Palestinian refugees from
a perspective of six decades.
e. The acquisition of education and the transformation of the social profile of second
and third generations of Palestinian refugees.
f. Palestinian “human resources” in the Middle Eastern economy: migration of the
professionally educated to the Gulf.
g. The legal-political-social status of Palestinian refugees in three Arab “host”
countries: citizens in Jordan, foreigners in Lebanon, migrant laborers in Kuwait.
f. Trends in the politicization of Palestinian communities up to the 1967 War:
page 3 / 12

Between Arab and Palestinian nationalism.
Palestinian Society in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under Israel’s Military
Occupation (between three and four meetings)
a. The 67 War, Arab defeat and the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
buy Israel: some direct implications for the Palestinians.
b. The Israeli occupation as a system of military, political and economic control: a
review of the mechanisms.
c. The Israeli land grab and settlement policy and the transformation of the West
Bank topography.
d. The political economy of military occupation: selective opening of the Israeli labor
market to Palestinian laborers and de- development in the Palestinian territories.
e. Palestinian day laborers in the Israeli labor market: a four decade perspective.
f. Theories of under-development and dependency: are they applicative to the case
of the occupied Palestinian territories?
g. The acquisition of education under Israeli occupation: assessing the impact of
military intervention, surveillance and control.
h. Higher education under occupation and the development of the Palestinian
universities as national institutions.
i. Obstacles to social mobility of the highly educated under occupation.
The development of the Palestinian national movement in the Diaspora and in the
occupied territories from the 1967 War to the Oslo Accords (approximately three
a. From the banner of Arab unity to particular Palestinian nationalism: the rise of
Palestinian guerilla organizations in the wake of the Arab defeat in the 1967 War.
b. The institutional development of the Palestinian national movement: the
reorganization of the PLO (1968-9) and its ascendance to the stance of unifying
organization representative of Palestinian national aspirations.
c. The consolidation of the infrastructure of the Palestinian National movement in
Lebanon (1969-1982) and its aftermath.
d. The shift in the PLO’s political strategy and the implications: the acceptance of
the “Ten Points Program” by the Palestinian National Council (PNC) in June 1974 and
the embracement of the “Two State Solution” by the PNC in November 1988 as
major milestones.
e. From clandestine cells to popular committees: the course of development of the
Palestinian national movement in the occupied territories between 1967 and 1987.
f. The first Intifada: a popular, unarmed Palestinian uprising against the Israeli
military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
g. The international community and the first Intifada: the convening of the Madrid
Conference in the shadow of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Gulf
From Oslo to the Second Intifada and beyond (brief overview, between one and two
page 4 / 12

a)The signing of the Declaration of Principles (DoP), “Oslo I” and “Oslo II”, the
establishment of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and the persistence of
Israeli military control over the Palestinian territory.
b) Major institutional and political developments under the PNA.
c) The second Intifada and beyond: the failure of the Camp David Summit (July
2000); Israeli policy since October 2000; assessing the patterns of intervention by
the international community since October 2000 and their consequences. d) The
Hamas Fatah Divide and recent attempts at reconciliation
Required Reading:
Please note that most of the items in the bibliography are not specified as required
Abed, George ed. (1988) The Palestinian Economy: Studies in Development Under
Prolonged Occupation (London: Routledge).
Aronson Geoffrey (1996) Settlements and the Israel-Palestinian Negotiations: An
Overview (Washington, DC: Institute of Palestine Studies).
Aruri Naseer, and Samih Farsoun (1980) “Palestinian Communities and Arab Host
Countries,” in The Sociology of the Palestinians, ed. Elia Zureik and Khalil Nakhleh
(London: Croom-Helm): 112-146.
Aruri, Naseer ed. (2001) Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return (London: Pluto
Baumgarten, Helga (2005) “The Three Faces/Phases of Palestinian Nationalism,
1948-2005,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 25-48
Benvenisti, Meron (1984) The West Bank Data Project: A Survey of Israel Policies
(Washington and London: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research).
Benvenisti, Meron (1987) West Bank Data Project 1987 Report: demographic,
economic, legal, social and political developments in the West Bank (Jerusalem: the
Jerusalem Post).
Brand, Laurie (1988) Palestinians in the Arab World (New York: Columbia University
Brynen, Rex (1991) Sanctuary and Survival: The PLO in Lebanon (Boulder & San
Francisco: Westview Press).
page 5 / 12


Palestinian social and political history since 1948 –
Last update 14-09-2019
HU Credits: 4
Degree/Cycle: 1st degree (Bachelor)
Responsible Department: Islamic & Middle East Stud.
Academic year: 0
Semester: Yearly
Teaching Languages: Hebrew
Campus: Mt. Scopus
Course/Module Coordinator: Dr. Maya Rosenfeld
Coordinator Email: maya.rosenfeld@mail.huji.ac.il
Coordinator Office Hours:
Teaching Staff:
Dr. Maya Rosenfeld
page 1 / 6

Course/Module description:
The course explores the social and political history of the Palestinians starting from
the late years of the British mandate in Palestine and the 1948 war and ending in
the second decade of the twenty first century. The impacts of five key
developments and factors on this history are examined in detail: 1) Palestinian
displacement, refugee existence and UN intervention on behalf of Palestine
refugees 2) Regime policies of the Arab “host” countries vis a vis the Palestinian
refugees 3) The prolonged Israeli military occupation over the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip, and 4) The emergence and development of the (post 1948) Palestinian
national movement 5) The Oslo plan, its failure and the thwarting of the
independent Palestinian state.
Course/Module aims:
to be added later
Learning outcomes – On successful completion of this module, students should be
able to:
to be added later
Attendance requirements(%):
Teaching arrangement and method of instruction:
Course/Module Content:
to be added later
Required Reading:
Aruri, Naseer ed. (2001) Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return (London: Pluto
Baker, Abir and Anat Matar eds. (2011) Threat: Palestinian Political Prisoners in
Israel (London: Pluto Press)
Baumgarten, Helga (2005) “The Three Faces/Phases of Palestinian Nationalism,
1948-2005,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 25-48
page 2 / 6
Brynen, Rex (1991) Sanctuary and Survival: The PLO in Lebanon (Boulder & San
Francisco: Westview Press).
Cobban, Helena (1984) The PLO: People, Power and Politics (London: Cambridge
University Press).
Dakak, I. (1983) “Back to Square One,” In Scholch Alexander, ed. Palestinians over
the Green Line (London: Ithaca Press)
Freedman, Robert O. ed. (1991) The Intifada (Miami: Florida International University
Frisch, Hillel (1990) “From Armed Struggle Over State Boarders to Political
Mobilization and Intifada within It.” Plural Societies, Vol. 19, No. 2 and 3.
Al-Hout Shafiq (2011) My Life in the PLO: the Inside Story of the Palestinian Struggle
(London and New York: Pluto Press).
Giacaman George and Dag Jorund Lonning, eds. (1998) After Oslo: New Realities,
Old Problems. (London: Pluto Press).
Gordon, Neve (2008) Israel’s Occupation (Berkeley CA: University of California
Gresh, Alain (1985) The PLO: The Struggle Within (London: Zed Books).
Groth, Allon (1995) The PLO’s Road to Peace: Processes of Decision-Making
(London: Royal United Institute for Defense Studies).
Hammami, Rema and Salim Tamari (2000) “Anatomy of Another Rebellion,” Middle
East Report 217.
Hammami, Rema and Jamil Hilal (2001) “An Uprising at a Crossroads,” Middle East
Report 219.
Hasso, Frances (2005) Resistance, Repression, and Gender Politics in Occupied
Palestine and Jordan (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press).
Hilal, Jamil (1993) “PLO Institutions: the Challenge Ahead,” Journal of Palestine
Studies 23, 1.
Hilal, Jamil (2006) Hamas’s Rise as Charted in the Polls 1994-2005,” Journal of
Palestine Studies 35, 3: 6-19.
Hilal, Jamil (2010) “The Polarization of the Palestinian Political Field,” Journal of
page 3 / 6
Palestine Studies Vol. 39, No. 3 (Spring 2010), pp. 24–39.
Hiltermann, Joost (1991) Behind the Intifada (New Jersey: Princeton University
Hunter, Robert F (1991) The Palestinian Uprising (Berkeley: University of California
Kazziha, Walid (1975) Revolutionary Transformation in the Arab World (London:
Croom Helm).
Khalidi, Rashid (2006) The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for
Statehood (New York: Beacon Press).
Khalidi, Rashid (1997) Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National
Consciousness (New York: Columbia University Press).
Khalidi, Rashid (1986) Under Siege: PLO Decision-making in the 1982 War (New
York: Columbia University Press).
Khatib, Ghassan (2010) Palestinian Politics and the Middle East Peace Process
(London and New York: Routledge).
Kimmerling, Baruch, and Joel Migdal (2003) The Palestinian People: A History
(Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press).
Klein, Menachem (2007) “Hamas in Power,” Middle East Journal 61, 3: 442-59.
Lockman, Z.and J. Beinin eds. (1989) Intifada (A MERIP Book) Toronto: Between the
Muslih, Muhammad (1990) “Towards Coexistence: An Analysis of the Resolutions of
the Palestine National Council” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 19, No. 4.
Muslih, Muhammad (1988) The Origins of Palestinian Nationalism (New York:
Columbia University Press).
Owen, Roger (1985) “Migrant Workers in the Gulf,” The Minority Right Group,
Report no. 18 (London: MRG).
Pearlman, Wendy (2011) Violence, Nonviolence and the Palestinian National
Movement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Peteet, Julie (2005) Landscape of Hope and Despair (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press).
Peteet, Julie (1991) Gender in Crisis: Women and the Palestinian Resistance (New
York: Columbia University Press).
page 4 / 6
Quandt, William (1971) Palestinian Nationalism: Its Political and Military Dimensions
(Santa Monica: Rand Corporation).
Quandt, William (ed.) (1988) The Middle East Ten Years after Camp David
(Washington D. C.: The Brookings Institution).
Robinson, Glenn (1997) Building a Palestinian State (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press).
Rosenfeld, Maya (2004) Confronting the Occupation: Work, Education and Political
Activism of Palestinian Families in a Refugee Camp. (Stanford: Stanford University
Roy, Sara (2011) Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza: Engaging the Islamist Social
Sector (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Rubenberg, Cheryl (2001) Palestinian Women: Patriarchy and Resistance in the
West Bank (Boulder, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers).
Rubenberg, Cheryl (1983) The Palestine Liberation Organization (Belmont,
Massachusetts: Institute of Arab Studies).
Sayigh, Rosemary (1979) Palestinians: from Peasants to Revolutionaries (London:
Zed Press).
Sayigh, Yezid (1997) Armed Struggle and the Search for State (Washington, D.C.:
Institute for Palestine Studies, and Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Tamari, Salim (1988) “What the Uprising Means,” Middle East Report, May-June
Tamari, Salim (1991) “The Palestinian Movement in Transition: Historical Reversals
and the Uprising,” Journal of Palestine Studies 20, 2.
Tamari, Salim (1990) “The Uprising’s Dilemma,” Middle East Report, May-August
Tamari, Salim (1996) Palestinian Refugee Negotiations: From Madrid to Oslo II.
(Washington DC: The Institute of Palestine Studies).
Tamari, Salim (1995) “Fading Flags: The Crises of Palestinian Legitimacy,” Middle
East Report 194/195.
Taraki, Lisa (1990) “The Development of Political Consciousness Among Palestinians
page 5 / 6
in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, 1967-87,” in Nassar and Heacock editors, Intifada:
Palestine at the Crossroads (New York: Birzeit University & Praeger Publishers).
Usher, Graham (1995) Palestine in Crisis, (London: Pluto Press).
Additional Reading Material:
Course/Module evaluation:
End of year written/oral examination 0 %
Presentation 20 %
Participation in Tutorials 5 %
Project work 75 %
Assignments 0 %
Reports 0 %
Research project 0 %
Quizzes 0 %
Other 0 %
Additional information:
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
page 6 / 6


סילבוסהתנועה הלאומית הפלסטינית מ 1948- עד ימינו: שלבים ותמורות -56049תאריך עדכון אחרון 01-09-2020נקודות זכות באוניברסיטה העברית: 2תואר:בוגרהיחידה האקדמית שאחראית על הקורס:מדע המדינהסמסטר:סמסטר א’שפת ההוראה:עבריתקמפוס:הר הצופיםמורה אחראי על הקורס (רכז):מאיה רוזנפלדדוא”ל של המורה האחראי על הקורס: maya.rosenfeld@mail.huji.ac.ilשעות קבלה של רכז הקורס:יום שלישי -13:30 14:15מורי הקורס:ד”ר מאיה רוזנפלד1 / 10
תאור כללי של הקורס:הקורס מתחקה אחרי התפתחות התנועה הלאומית הפלסטינית מאז מלחמת 1948 ועד לתקופההנוכחית תוך שימת דגש מרכזי ביסודות החברתיים המזינים את הפעולה הפוליטית- הלאומית ומניעיםאותה, מזה, ובמערכות יחסי הכוח המגבילות אותה, מזה. הדיון בסוגיות שייבחנו במסגרת הקורסמתבסס על ספרות מחקרית ענפה ממספר דיסציפלינות אקדמיות ובהן היסטוריה, סוציולוגיה,אנתרופולוגיה ומדע המדינה.לקורס שלושה חלקים החופפים שלוש תקופות משנה עיקריות בתולדות התנועה. הראשון נושא אתהכותרת: ” בסימן ריבוי זרמים: מגמות בלאומיות הפלסטינית בין שתי מלחמות, מה”נכבה” (ב 1948- )ועד ל”נכסה” הכישלון הערבי במלחמת 1967 ). הפרק מוקדש לניתוח השפעות השבר והטלטלהשידעו הפלסטינים בעקבות מלחמת 1948 והקמת מדינת ישראל על מוביליזציה פוליטית-לאומיתבקרבם. הפליטות, הפיזור במספר מדינות ערביות “מארחות”, שינויים באורחות החיים, התפשטותההשכלה, הכפפה לדיכוי פוליטי מחד, וחשיפה לאידיאולוגיות פוליטיות וחברתיות רדיקליות, מאידך,ידונו כגורמי רקע המסייעים להסביר את נהייתם המוגברת של פלסטינים אחר התנועות, המפלגותוהמסגרות המהפכניות שפעלו באותה התקופה בעולם הערבי. דוגמא מובהקת למגמה זו היא מקומםהבולט של פלסטינים בשורותיה ובהנהגתה של “תנועת הלאומיים הערביים”, אשר נשאה את דגלהלאומיות הכלל ערבית והמאבק במשטרים הערביים הריאקציוניים. רק מעטים נמשכו באותם ימיםללאומיות הפלסטינית המובחנת (פרטיקולארית), אותה הובילה תנועת פתח.כותרת החלק השני של הקורס הינה: “בסימן המאבק להגדרה עצמית תחת ההגמוניה הפוליטית שלאש”פ: מעליית ארגוני הגרילה הפלסטיניים העצמאיים (אחרי מלחמת 67 ) ועד להתקוממות עממיתלאומית נגד שלטון הכיבוש הישראלי (האינתיפאדה הראשונה 1987-92 )”. חלק זה מתמקד בהפיכתהשל התנועה הלאומית לתנועת המונים (התרחבות הבסיס החברתי והתשתית המוסדית של התנועה),בהתבססות מעמדו של אש”פ (הארגון לשחרור פלסטין) בקהילות הפזורה הפלסטינית, העולם הערביובזירה הבינלאומית כארגון הגג המייצג של העניין הפלסטיני, ובמרכיבים השונים והמשתנים של המאבקהפלסטיני להגדרה עצמית בגלות ובשטחים הכבושים. תמורות אלה נבחנות על רקע התבוסה הערביתבמלחמת 67 ושקיעת הלאומיות הפן-ערבית, הכיבוש הישראלי המתמשך בגדה המערבית וברצועת עזהוהשפעתו על התנאים הכלכליים והמבנה החברתי בשטחים אלה, עליונותה הצבאית המוחלטת שלישראל וסירובה להכיר באש”פ, יחסי התנועה הלאומית ואש”פ עם המשטרים הערביים, ומעורבותהמעצמות (ארה”ב וברה”מ) בסכסוך הישראלי-פלסטיני.חלקו השלישי של הקורס נושא את הכותרת: “בסימן הקמת רשות לאומית פלסטינית בעלת סמכויותמוגבלות, התחדשות העימות האלים מול ישראל, והפיצול הפוליטי הפנים פלסטיני: מהסכמי אוסלו ועדכינון שלטון חמאס ברצועת עזה”. פרק זה מבקש לספק הצצה אל בעיות עכשוויות הניצבות בפניהתנועה הלאומית הפלסטינית בשני העשורים האחרונים, ובפרט, אי מימושו של חזון המדינה העצמאיתבגדה המערבית ורצועת עזה, והעמקת הקיטוב והיריבות בין כוחות פוליטיים מנוגדים. בעיות אלהשזורות זו בזו: חתימת הנהגת אש”פ וממשלת ישראל על “הסכם אוסלו” (“הצהרת העקרונות”,ספטמבר 1993 ) לוותה בהתנגדות מצד הכוחות האסלאמיים (בהובלת חמאס) והבליטה את העדרושל קונצנזוס פנים פלסטיני סביב המהלך. חוסר ההסכמה התפתח לכדי יריבות קשה בין הרשותהפלסטינית לבין האופוזיציה האסלאמית לנוכח ההישגים המעטים שהניב “מתווה אוסלו” לפלסטיניםבשנים 1994-2000 . היריבות החריפה לכדי משבר (ששיאו בפיצול לשתי “רשויות”) על רקע קטיעתהתהליך המדיני מאז אוקטובר 2000 וסיכול הקמתה של מדינה פלסטינית עצמאית בגדה המערביתורצועת עזה. מטבע הדברים, רוב הסוגיות שתעלינה במסגרת פרק זה מתייחסות לתהליכים שטרםנחתמו או הוכרעו ולפיכך הן בחזקת שאלות פתוחות שהמחקר האקדמי בעניינן נמצא בהתהוות.2 / 10


עיתון העולם הזה  גליון 2313 מתאריך 30 בדצמבר 1981 עמ’ 73

Haolam Hazeh continued story.jpg

Exposing anti-Semitic Hypocritical BDS Academic-Activist: Lana Tatour


Editorial Note

IAM reported recently on Professor Homi K. Bhabha from Harvard University, who canceled participating in the annual conference of the Israeli Sociological Association.   By his own admission, Bhabha changed his mind because Israel reached a peace agreement with the UAE and Bahrain, which the Palestinians and their cheer-leading academic community decried as a “stab in the back.”   

Before Bhabha changed his mind, some radical Palestinian and pro-Palestinian academic-activists pilloried him for daring to accept the invitation.  A rising star among the BDS activists is Dr. Lana Tatour, a former research fellow at the Franz Rosenzweig Minerva Research Center for German-Jewish Literature and Cultural History at the Hebrew University during 2016-17. Tatour’s research has been financially supported by British Friends of Hebrew University and the Anglo-Israel Association, among others. Tatour wrote her Ph.D. at the University of Warwick (UK), and her thesis was titled “Domination and Resistance in Liberal Settler Colonialism: Palestinians in Israel between the Homeland and the Transnational,” supervised by Nicola Pratt, a BDS advocate.  Tatour currently teaches at the University of New South Wales in Australia.  

Tatour mocked Homi K. Bhabha. On September 14, 2020, she wrote that “Homi K. Bhabha will deliver the keynote address in the annual conference of the Israeli Sociological Society. I can’t say I’m surprised. He will pull the usual arsenal. I don’t believe in boycotts. Maybe he will try to do something in a Palestinian University for the sake of “balance” or say he wants to support Israeli critical scholars. Shameless.” Tatour later added, “He is not the person you would imagine to be clueless. I would imagine he gave it some thought before saying yes.” 

Given that Tatour had handsomely benefited from Israeli academic support, her hypocrisy is astounding. 

In her Ph.D. dissertation, Tatour thanked the generous support of the British Friends of Hebrew University and the Anglo-Israel Association, among others. “I would also like to thank the Franz Rosenzweig Minerva Research Center at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which hosted me as a Visiting Fellow and provided me with the space to rethink the making of Palestinian citizenship in Israel, and also to begin my next project. I would especially like to thank Professor Yfaat Weiss for her mentoring, support and friendship.” 

Tatour’s dissertation, which focused on Palestinian Bedouin activists and Palestinian queer activists, followed the standard Israel bashing rhetoric.  For example, she stated that the everyday lives of Israeli Arabs “continue to be shaped by the violence of Israeli settler colonialism.”  Furthermore, that “Palestinian existence in Israel, it is further argued, is still governed and shaped in relation to the continued working of the Zionist/Israeli settler colonial project as a structure of dispossession, elimination and erasure… Zionist colonization is premised on the logic of elimination and the removal of the native population.”

At the same time, Tatour is quite shy about the treatment of LGBTQs in Palestinian society.  This should not come as a surprise since Western activists have been defensive about homosexuality in Muslim society.  Michel Foucault, arguably one of the architects of the neo-Marxist, critical scholarship, also known as postmodernism, was typical of this attitude.  He was greatly taken by the fundamentalist revolution in Iran, which he heralded as the “new political spirituality” and a portent of the deep transformation of the Middle East and Europe.   As a gay man, he was probably horrified by the fact that the Khomeini regime executed gays, but, despite a number of visits to Tehran, he never mentioned this brutality. 

Tatour is equally devious as her report on an event held on 6 July 2013, in London indicated.  One of the participants was Haneen Maikey, a Palestinian lesbian who talked about “sexual politics, pinkwashing, the occupation and the violence of settler colonialism.” And yet, Tatour recalled, “at the Q&A that followed, most of the questions were concerned with Maikey’s own experience of being a lesbian in Palestinian society. Maikey was asked how her parents reacted to her being lesbian, whether they accepted her, how the village reacted, and so on. The questioners wanted the exotic and juicy details. Refusing this oriental gaze, Maikey skilfully shifted the focus back to the sexual politics of settler colonialism and to challenging the Islamophobic discourse that produces Palestinian society as pathologically homophobic.”    Ironically, Israel has been tolerant of LGBTQs who can form civil partnerships, adopt children, and serve in the military.  The Jewish state has sheltered numerous Palestinians who escaped harsh persecution.

Tatour’s thesis could be considered as anti-Semitic. According to the widely accepted IRHA definition of anti-Semitism, “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

Tatour accused Israel as being a racist entity. She wrote that “Israel as a racial regime that is grounded in Zionism’s adoption and internalization of a European conception of race, which positions whites as racially superior to non-whites, and Jews as racially superior to Arabs.” She argued that “It was only outside of Europe that European Jews could finally establish themselves as a superior European white race.”

Tatour stated that, “Israel today is a primary investor in, and a benefactor and reproducer of, orientalism and Islamophobia.  Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims are dehumanized, demonized and depicted in racist culturalist terms.” 

Tatour quoted Nahla Abdo who described the “racist policies and practices embedded in the Zionist ideology on which Israel has been – and continues to be – founded.”  She found “The Israeli third sector is a microcosm of the Israeli state. It is exclusionary, discriminatory and racist.” She accused “Racist concerns with the high Bedouin birth rate have led the state to declare war on polygamy.”  And charged Israel with “A racist country cannot celebrate diversity.”     

It is bad enough that the University of Warwick accepted Tatour’s thesis and that the University of New South Wales offered her a position.   It is even worse that Yfaat Weiss and the Franz Rosenzweig Minerva Research Center at the Hebrew University hosted her as a visiting fellow.


Lana Tatour

14 September at 13:52

Homi K. Bhabha will deliver the keynote address in the annual conference of the Israeli Sociological Society. I can’t say I’m surprised. He will pull the usual arsenal. I don’t believe in boycotts. Maybe he will try to do something in a Palestinian University for the sake of “balance” or say he wants to support Israeli critical scholars. Shameless.Lana TatourHa Deel I agree. He is not the person you would imagine to be clueless. I would imagine he gave it some thought before saying yes.


Franz Rosenzweig Minerva Research Center
Dr. Lana Tatour
Research Fellow 2016-17
Lana Tatour wrote her PhD in Politics and International Studies at the University of Warwick (UK). Her thesis ‘Domination and Resistance in Liberal Settler Colonialism: Palestinians in Israel between the Homeland and the Transnational’, theorises the racialised, ethnicised, gendered and sexed dimensions of subordination and resistance of native/indigenous populations as shaped through the intersection of the liberal settler state, as both inclusionary and exclusionary, and the liberal politics of human rights, as a vehicle of both empowerment and domination. She has taught at the University of Westminster, University of Warwick and University of New South Wales.
Lana has extensive research experience at leading universities including the London School of Economics, University College London, University of Warwick and Tel Aviv University. Her research has been generously supported by the Department of Politics and International Studies at University of Warwick; the Palestinian-American Research Centre; British Society for Middle Eastern Studies; Council for British Research in the Levant; Mada Al Carmel: Arab Centre for Applied Social Research; AVI Fellowships for PhD Studies; British Friends of Hebrew University; and the Anglo-Israel Association.

Research Project

In the period between November 2016 and January 2017, Lana will be a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Franz Rosenzweig Minerva Research Center. Building on original archival research, her project will explore the naturalisation of the Palestinian minority in Israel, focusing primarily on the making of the 1952 Citizenship Law.

The Franz Rosenzweig Minerva Research Center 
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Email: rosenzweig@mail.huji.ac.il   Tel: +972-2-5881909   


A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick
Permanent WRAP URL:
Copyright and reuse:
This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright.
Please scroll down to view the document itself.
Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page.
For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Domination and Resistance in Liberal Settler Colonialism: Palestinians in Israel between the Homeland and the Transnational
A thesis submitted to the University of Warwick for the degree of Ph.D.
Lana Tatour
October 2016
Department of Politics and International Studies
University of Warwick
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments   5
Declaration              7
Abstract                   8
List of Abbreviations  9
Glossary                  10
Note on Language   12
Introduction              13
Chapter 1: Conceptualising Domination, Resistance and Decolonisation in Settler Colonialism     40
Part I
Chapter 2: Palestinian Resistance and the Paradoxes of Liberal Settler Colonialism        75
Part II – The Burden of Culture in the Palestinian Bedouin Struggle for Land      114
Chapter 3: Culturalisation as Dispossession       119
Chapter 4: Culturalisation as Emancipation      140
Part III – The Politics of Refusal in the Palestinian Queer Movement     179
Chapter 5: Settler Homonationalism, Domination and Sexuality in Israel/Palestine     183
Chapter 6: Refusal as Emancipation      207
Conclusion          234
Bibliography           250
As a PhD student, you get tons of advice. But no-one warns you not to leave the acknowledgements to be written last, when you are too exhausted to think about important junctures and to remember all the people who have supported you in different and meaningful ways throughout this journey. For those whose names I have forgotten to mention, I offer my sincere apologies.
I want to begin by thanking all the amazing activists in Palestine who have generously contributed to this research by sharing their activism, their personal stories and their wisdom with me. Their contributions and their trust are not taken for granted and I am deeply grateful. I can only hope that I have succeeded in conveying their voices as accurately and authentically as possible. I also hope that this thesis will be an opportunity to further open the conversation about the resistance of Palestinians in Israel – not only academically, but also in ways that can benefit activism on the ground.
After years of working in NGOs in Palestine, this journey has been more than merely a PhD project. It has been entangled with so many meaningful changes in my life. Not least, this PhD has signified a new relationship with Palestine. As a friend once commented, the first casualty of pursuing an academic career is your activism. In many respects, this was the case for me. But this PhD also marked the ambivalent process of immigration, first to London and now to Australia (where for the first time, I am a settler). Palestine will forever be a home, but what home means is changing in both pleasant and painful ways. These transformations were inseparable from this project.
I am especially thankful to my fantastic supervisors, Dr Nicola Pratt and Professor Jan Aart Scholte. I was fortunate to have such a committed, supportive and accessible supervisory team. Their belief in my abilities has been invaluable in completing this project. I want to thank Dr Pratt for all the inspiring conversations discussing Palestine, gender, sexuality, settler colonialism, domination and resistance. I also want to thank Professor Scholte for remaining on the advisory team after he left the University of Warwick, seeing this project through with me. His commitment and approach prove that the struggle against neoliberal academia demands that, as academics, we do not subscribe to its commodifying logics.
This PhD would not have been possible without the generous support of the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Warwick; British Friends of Hebrew University; the Palestinian-American Research Center; the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies; the Council for British Research in the Levant; Mada Al Carmel: Arab Centre for Applied Social Research; AVI Fellowships for PhD Studies; and the Anglo-Israel Association.
I would also like to thank the Franz Rosenzweig Minerva Research Center at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which hosted me as a Visiting Fellow and provided me with the space to rethink the making of Palestinian citizenship in Israel, and also to begin my next project. I would especially like to thank Professor Yfaat Weiss for her mentoring, support and friendship. I am also grateful to the Australian Human Rights Centre at the University of New South Wales, at which I am a Visiting Fellow, where I have been welcomed with great generosity. In particular, I am grateful to Professor Andrea Durbach.
I want to thank my dear friends for their support and love, and for being such wonderful companions: Zahiye Kundos, Natalie Levy, Adi Maoz, Shira Havkin, Alexander Bodin-Saphir, Rozeen Bisharat, Muhammad Jabali, Kristen Rundle and Ghada Jabbour. I am grateful as well to Victoria Pereya, my dear friend and my comrade at the University of Warwick. I am so happy that this PhD has brought us together. Haneen Naamnih has been a wonderful friend and an intellectual soul mate. Our conversations and her brilliance were moments of light.
My two amazing sisters, Duna and Adan, deserve my deepest thanks for all their love, support and, not least importantly, good humour. Despite the fact that we were living in different places around the globe – Duna in the United States, Adan in Palestine and me in London and then Australia – they visited, hosted and spoiled me and my family. I would also like to thank my wonderful parents, Amal and Misbah, for all their love and support. Living in a political home and being raised during the 1980s, when they were activists and students, was a memorable experience that has shaped much of who I am today.
Finally, I would like to thank the two greatest loves of my life, my partner, Noam, and my son, Neal. How can I even begin to describe how grateful I am for their love, support and sacrifice? My only hope is that Neal will grow up to live in a better world, with less misery, suffering, violence, war and racism.
This thesis is entirely my own work. The thesis, and no portion of its, has not been submitted for a degree at another university.
This thesis explores native resistance to settler colonialism through its focus on the ’48 Palestinians (also known as the Palestinian citizens of Israel). It innovatively brings together postcolonial theory and settler colonial studies to explore the racialised, ethnicised, gendered and sexualised dimensions of settler colonial violence, how these shape native modalities of resistance and subordination, and the ways in which the transnational is imbricated within these processes. The thesis undertakes two case studies – on the Palestinian Bedouin struggle for land rights and on the Palestinian queer movement – drawing upon archival research, other primary texts and ethnographic exploration. The case studies are interrogated in relation to the liberal-nationalist framework that dominates ’48 Palestinian discourse and resistance.
The thesis radically critiques the frameworks of ethnocracy, ethnonationalism and minority studies that have been most prevalent in earlier research on ’48 Palestinians. Instead, this study builds on an understanding of resistance as diagnostic of power (Abu-Lughod 1990). It argues that the resistance of Palestinians in Israel is diagnostic of the structure of Israel as a liberal settler state, and unfolds in relation to the liminal positionality of ’48 Palestinians between (semi)liberal citizenship and colonial subjecthood. It further argues that the subjectivities and modalities of resistance of ’48 Palestinians are shaped through the racialising logics of settler colonialism, and the intersectionalities of these logics with ethnicity, gender and sexuality.
Through the focus in the two case studies on indigeneity (and the fetishisation of the indigenous subject as premodern) and LGBT rights (and the folding of queer subjects into modernity), the thesis further suggests that the resistance of ’48 Palestinians is also shaped in complex and ambivalent ways by their ongoing encounters with the liberal frameworks of multiculturalism and human rights. The case studies illuminate that while these frameworks can serve as vehicles for empowerment, they can also reproduce the racialising logics of settler colonialism and further its entrenchment. This means that ’48 Palestinians constantly (re)negotiate their identities, their struggles and their political agendas within multiple circuits of power.
The ambivalence of the encounter with the liberal settler state, as inclusionary and exclusionary, and human rights, as empowering and oppressive, produces native resistance to settler colonialism to be shaped and reshaped by competing political projects and hybrid modalities of resistance that include practices of self-essentialising, Bhabian notions of resistance as subversion, and a Fanonian politics of rejection as both pedagogy and a political imperative. The thesis concludes that the mobilisation of a more radical vision of decolonisation requires transcendence of both liberal settler colonialism and the liberal politics of human rights.
List of Abbreviations
ACLU    American Civil Liberties Union
ACRI     Association of Civil Rights in Israel
BDS     The Boycott Divestments and Sanctions movement
CESCR      The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
DFPE     Democratic Front for Peace and Equality
GSS     General Security Service
HRA    Arab Association for Human Rights
HRC     Human Rights Committee
ILA     Israel Land Authority
ILO     International Labour Organisation
JNF     The Jewish National Fund
LGBT     Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
MK   Member of Knesset
NCALC     The High National Committee for the Heads of Arab Local Councils
NCDL       National Committee for the Defence of Arab Lands
NCF     Negev Coexistence Forum
NDA     The National Democratic Assembly
NGOs   Non-Governmental Organisations
OPT    Occupied Palestinian Territories
PACBI     Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
PLO     Palestine Liberation Organisation
PLP     The Progressive List for Peace
PNGOs     Palestinian Non-Governmental Organisations in Israel
PQBDS     Palestinian queers for Boycott Divestment and Sanctions
PQueer    Palestinian queer
RCUV     The Regional Council of the Unrecognised Villages
UNCERD    The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
UNDRIO     The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
UK      United Kingdom
UN     United Nations
US     United States
’48 Palestine – a term used mostly (but not exclusively) by Palestinians to refer to what is now Israel.
’48 Palestinians – a term used to refer to the Palestinians in Israel.
’67 Palestinians – a term used to refer to Palestinians in the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). East Jerusalem Palestinians are often referred to as Makads (Jerusalemite Palestinians).
Ashkenazi Jews – Jews of European origin.
Dunam – an Ottoman unit for the measurement of land, commonly used in Israel/Palestine. One dunam equals 1,000 square metres, or about one-quarter of an acre.
First Intifada – a Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories which broke out in 1987 and ended with the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993.
Green Line (also known as the ’67 borders) – a demarcation line based on the 1948 Armistice Agreements. It is the internationally recognised demarcation line that defines the de facto borders of what constitutes ‘proper’ Israel.
Hasbara (literally, ‘explanation’ in Hebrew) – a form of propaganda, public diplomacy and public relations that aims to positively explain Israel and its actions, policies and missions. It targets international audiences (decision makers, opinion makers and the general public), particularly in the West. Hasbara is carried out by the State of Israel, lobby groups and non-governmental organisations.
Knesset – the Israeli Parliament.
Mizrahi Jews – Jews of Arab origin, also known as Oriental Jews.
Nakba (Catastrophe) – the term that Palestinians use to describe the events of the 1948 War that resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the loss of their homeland.
Sabra – a native Israeli, a Jew rooted in the land of Palestine – like the indigenous sabra cactus.
Second intifada (also known as the Al-Aqsa intifada) – a Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories which broke out in 2000, following the visit of Ariel Sharon, then the head of the opposition to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. It followed the first intifada (1987–93).
Separation wall (also known as the separation barrier, security barrier and apartheid wall) – initiated by Israel in 2000, the wall was designed to separate Israel and the West Bank. While in principle it should be based on the 1967 Green Line, 85% of the wall is in West Bank territory. The International Court of Justice has found the wall to be a violation of international law.
Sumud (steadfastness) – a Palestinian term that describes Palestinian resistance to Zionist/Israel settler colonialism. It refers to the survival of Palestinians on their land under conditions of oppression, dispossession, occupation and erasure.
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (also known as the ’47 Partition Plan) – a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1947 for the partition of Palestine into two states. The resolution was based on the recommendation of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine.
Note on Language
In this thesis, the names of places are referred to mostly by their English translations. However, in response to the politics of naming that is embedded in the Zionist Judaisation and Hebrewisation of the space, I use the term ‘the Naqab’ (also known as the Negev). The insistence on using Arabic names is a political choice in response to the efforts of the Zionist settler project to erase the history and belonging of the Bedouin with regard to the land. It is also a mark of respect to the Palestinian Bedouin indigenous population and their inspiring resistance.
I use the terms ‘’48 Palestinians’ and ‘Palestinians in Israel’ interchangeably to refer to the people who are often known in the political discourse and in the academic literature as the ‘Palestinian citizens of Israel’. This choice reflects the approach in this thesis to Palestinian citizenship. My research is committed to problematising the very concept of Palestinian citizenship. By using the terms ‘’48 Palestinians’ and ‘Palestinians in Israel’, I seek to challenge the normalisation, naturalisation and neutralisation of the term ‘citizen’ to describe the Palestinians in Israel.
Throughout the thesis, I make use of the terms ‘natives’ and ‘indigenous’ interchangeably to describe the Palestinians in Israel and other native/indigenous populations who are subjected to settler colonialism. Neither of the terms is ideal, neither is neutral. Both are inventions and productions of imperialism, colonialism and settler colonialism. In Part III of the thesis, which focuses on the Palestinian Bedouin struggle for land, however, the terms ‘indigeneity’ and ‘indigenous peoples’ are used to connote the international discourse, human rights framework and regime of indigenous rights.
All of the quotes from my fieldwork interviews that appear in this research have been translated by myself from Arabic to English. In doing so, I have paid particular attention to capturing the nuances of the cultural and political connotations and language choices of my interviewees.
This thesis seeks to theorise native resistance to settler colonialism, through critically rethinking the resistance of ’48 Palestinians (also known as the Palestinians in Israel) to the Zionist/Israeli settler project. It explores the racialised, ethnicised, gendered and sexualised dimensions of settler colonial violence, considers how these shape colonial subjectivities and modalities of resistance, and identifies the ways in which the transnational is imbricated within these processes.
Building on an understanding of resistance as diagnostic of power (Abu-Lughod 1990), I argue that the resistance of Palestinians in Israel is diagnostic of the structure of Israel as a liberal settler state that is simultaneously inclusionary and exclusionary, and unfolds in relation to the liminal positionality of ’48 Palestinians in the Israeli liberal settler state as both citizens and colonial subjects. ’48 Palestinian modalities of resistance are further indicative of the ambivalent encounter of Palestinians in Israel with liberal frameworks of human rights as simultaneously empowering and oppressive. The subjugation, subjectivities and modalities of resistance of ’48 Palestinians, I suggest, are shaped in complex ways by the racialising logics of liberal settler colonialism, which cannot be understood outside of the intersectionality of race with gender, sexuality and class, and the ways in which these racialising logics can be reproduced in the deployment of liberal discourses of human rights.
Palestinians in Israel have responded to their ambivalent encounters with the liberalism of the Israeli settler state and the liberal discourses of human rights by simultaneously adopting, adapting, appropriating, subverting and refusing particular modalities of liberal resistance. This ambivalence results in modalities of ’48 Palestinian resistance to settler colonialism that are shaped and reshaped by competing political projects: accommodative, transformative and anti-colonial, and hybrid modalities of resistance that include practices of self-essentialising, Bhabian notions of resistance as subversion, and a Fanonian politics of rejection as both pedagogy and a political imperative. The experience of Palestinians in Israel demonstrates that the mobilisation of a more radical
vision of decolonisation requires the transcendence of both liberal settler colonialism and the liberal politics of human rights.
The exploration of Palestinian resistance to Israeli settler colonialism is advanced through two case studies of ’48 Palestinian activism: the Palestinian Bedouin struggle for land rights and the Palestinian queer (PQueer) movement. Special attention is paid to the transnational discourses and frameworks of indigeneity and gay rights. The two movements offer compelling case studies for investigating the racialised, ethnicised, gendered and sexualised dimensions of colonial domination and the complex modes of intersectional resistance to it, and for examining the engagement of ’48 Palestinians with liberal human rights discourses.
The two case studies also enable to illuminate the ways in which the trans/international is imbricated in the shaping of colonial subjectivities and modalities of resistance. Each of the case studies, as this thesis shows, reflects the workings of particular racialising logics, shaped along the intersectionalities of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality, and illuminates the ways in which these racialising logics figure at the intersection between the local and the transnational. The focus on indigeneity, as based on the negation of modernity and the fetishisation of the traditional, and on LGBT rights, as based on the folding of queer subjects into modernity, enables us to unpack how both frameworks influence the production of particular colonial subjectivities, modalities of resistance (accommodative, subversive and rejectionist) and political projects of emancipation. The Palestinian Bedouin movement for land rights illuminates an ambivalent deployment of and engagement with liberal versions of the indigenous rights discourse and the international indigenous rights framework, and shows how the culturalisation of the Naqab Bedouin by the settler state is replicated in their mobilisation of indigenous rights. As opposed, while beginning its journey by attempting to rework liberal LGBT programs and discourses to the local context, the PQueer movement evolved into a movement that employs a rejectionist modality of resistance, refusing the liberal grammar of LGBT rights and agendas. The PQueer movement thus enable to illuminate the (im)possibilities of transcending the ambivalence of the liberal settler state and liberal human rights discourses.
The case studies in this thesis are juxtaposed against the prevalent framework that dominates ’48 Palestinian political discourse and resistance in Israel, which I construe as liberal nationalism. Through this juxtaposition, I problematise the liberal ethno-national bias and the normative approach towards human rights and multiculturalism that dominates existing critical literature, and unravel the complex and ambivalent ways in which different groups of ’48 Palestinians respond to and engage with the settler state and the politics of transnational civil society and human rights regimes. The case studies illuminate that the strategies of resistance employed by ’48 Palestinians are shaped not only by their encounter with the liberal settler state, but also by their rich and multifaceted encounters with the hegemony of liberalism, identity politics and human rights, which can be emancipatory but also deeply limiting.
Although this thesis focuses specifically on Palestinian resistance to the Israeli settler state, it also bears relevance to other settler colonial contexts. Through this thesis, I endeavour to open up new spaces for engaging with the politics of resistance to settler colonialism. In this thesis, I build on the important distinction between settler colonialism and franchise colonialism. Though the two may overlap, each is guided by its own logics, its own discursive and material structures of domination, and its own regimes of racialisation. While franchise colonialism depends on the exploitation of native bodies and labour, settler colonialism is a land-centred project that depends on the elimination of native peoples in order for the settler polity to be established. Settler colonialism, as Patrick Wolfe describes, is a structure of elimination, not a once-off event (Wolfe 2006a, 338). It ‘has both negative and positive dimensions’ in that it strives for the dissolution of native societies, but at the same time elimination becomes its organising principle (Wolfe 2006a, 338).
The distinctive nature of settler colonialism has not been sufficiently acknowledged in postcolonial theory. As Wolfe suggests, ‘for all the homage paid to difference, postcolonial theory in particular has largely failed to accommodate such basic structural distinctions’ (Wolfe 1997, 418; see also Veracini 2010). The neglect of settler colonialism has also meant that theorisation of the colonial condition, colonial subjectivities, resistance and decolonisation has been largely confined to franchise colonialism and hybrid colonial contexts that can be conceptualised as colonialism with
settlers (such as Algeria and Libya, and to some extent also South Africa), which Lorenzo Veracini has identified as failed settler colonialism (Veracini 2013).
At the same time, the field of settler colonial studies remains confined, by and large, to a structural and historical analysis of settler colonialism. The question of resistance and decolonisation in settler colonial contexts has been marginalised also within settler colonial studies. As Veracini has noted:
There is yet no language of decolonisation pertaining to settler colonial contexts: when the focus is on decolonisation, settler colonialism remains off the radar; when settler colonialism as a specific colonial form is acknowledged, it is its decolonisation that is excised from the interpretative picture. (Veracini 2007)
The ambivalent and multiple ways in which indigenous peoples figure in – and engage with – settler colonialism as both citizens and colonial subjects has been largely overlooked. Addressing this gap, this thesis brings together postcolonial theory and settler colonial studies as a framework for theorising the racialised, ethnicised, gendered and sexualised dimensions of colonial domination and native resistance in the particular context of settler colonialism. I draw upon the rich postcolonial theorisation on colonial domination, colonial subjectivities, native resistance, and a problematisation of race, ethnicity, class, gender and sexuality, and on an understanding of settler colonialism as a distinctive transnational phenomenon. I also draw on the work of anticolonial writers such as Frantz Fanon and Albert Memmi; postcolonial scholars and theorists such as Edward Said, Homi K. Bhabha, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Mahmoud Mamdani and Partha Chatterjee; and settler colonial theorists, primarily Patrick Wolfe. I further draw on the work of transnational postcolonial feminist and queer scholars, as well as race theorists; studies on the politics of indigeneity, indigenous struggles and subaltern use of transnational human rights regimes; and critical studies on Palestine.
Finally, it is important to note that intersectionality, in this research, is understood in two ways. First, building on postcolonial and feminist and queer scholarship on the intersections inherent to subjugation and subjectification, intersectionality describes the complex and inseparable intersections of race, ethnicity, class, gender and sexuality. Second, intersectionality can also be understood as the convergence between structures and discourses of power – as they figure both locally and globally – and the position of
the colonised subject in relation to them. The two are interconnected and interrelated and they inform my analytical concern with colonial domination and resistance and the agency of the colonised.
1. Domination and Resistance in the Liberal Settler State
This thesis frames the relationship between Israel and its Palestinian subjects as a colonial relationship of settlers and natives, rather than relying on the prevailing framework of minority and majority relations. In doing so, the thesis moves beyond the current prevailing frameworks that privilege ethnicity, ethno-nationalism, multiculturalism and minority rights that dominate the literature on Palestinians in Israel (see Haklai 2011; Jamal 2002; Peled 2005b; Peleg and Waxman 2011; Rouhana and Ghanem 1998; Smooha 2002; Yiftachel 2006). I argue instead that we need to foreground settler colonialism and race as the key constitutive elements.
The thesis builds on Shira Robinson’s important recent intervention. Robinson argues that the status and citizenship of Palestinians in Israel should be understood in light of the rise of Israel as a liberal settler state and the paradoxes of Israel’s liberal and colonial aspirations (Robinson 2013). The liberal settler state traps Palestinians in Israel, like other indigenous peoples, in a bifurcated regime in which natives are granted political rights but denied civil rights (Mamdani 2015). As Mahmood Mamdani argues, ‘like American Indians in reservations, Palestinian Israelis may have the right to vote or even to be elected to office, but they live under a state of exception that denies them constitutionally defensible civil rights’ (Mamdani 2015, 16). This interplay between granting and denying rights renders ’48 Palestinians neither full citizens nor full colonial subjects. As a result, ’48 Palestinian subjectivities are constituted, in Bhabian terms, in the liminal space between the liberal ideal of citizenship and the reality of colonisation and dispossession (Bhabha 1994).
Extending on Robinson’s work, I argue that the political discourses, visions and resistance of ’48 Palestinians should be understood in light of Israel being a liberal settler state. It is the convergence and complicity of liberalism with Zionist settler colonialism that best explains the subjugation, subjectivities and modalities of resistance of ’48
Palestinians. The liberal settler state produces an illusion of inclusion that works to entrap native struggles within its own institutions and the liberal grammar of rights (Corntassel 2012, 92). In the case of Palestinians in Israel, Rhoda Kanaaneh and Isis Nusair pointedly argue:
Israel offers its Palestinian citizens participation, but often at the token level, as it defines itself as a state of and for the Jews. They experience it as a contradiction, simultaneously exclusionary but with a promise of inclusion, a democracy and a colonial power, offering both possibilities and their foreclosures. They maneuver and strategize in different ways around the restrictions the state imposes on them. (Kanaaneh and Nusair 2010, 1)
The interplay between the reality of exclusion and the promise of inclusion makes Palestinian resistance ambiguous, ambivalent and contradictory. The paradoxes that are at the heart of liberal settler colonialism – and resistance to it – have imbued Palestinian politics and mobilisation with competing political visions and projects. This thesis, as is elaborated in Chapter 1, differentiates between three types of political projects: first, reformative projects (those seeking liberal forms of equality in the settler state without undermining its legitimacy); second, transformative projects (those seeking more fundamental transformation of the underlying political and material power structures by subverting the liberal ethos of the settler state); and third, antagonist anticolonial projects of decolonisation (the wholesale rejection of the settler state based on values of native sovereignty, freedom and self-determination). These three modes of mobilisation compete with, intersect, overlap, displace and complement one another simultaneously.
However, this thesis departs from Robinson’s view that the liberal and colonial dimensions of the Israeli state are oxymoronic, a view that is also reproduced in the wider critical literature on Israel (see Ghanem 2002, 2009; Ghanem, Rouhana and Yiftachel 1998; Jamal 2002; Rouhana 2006; Yiftachel 2006). I argue that this view builds on a normative conceptualisation of liberalism as neutral ideal, against which the colonial aspirations of the settler state are measured. This thesis instead builds on the work of Edward Said, Joseph Massad and Nadia Abu El-Haj to demonstrate that Israel’s liberalism and settler colonialism are in fact convergent and interrelated. Indeed, their work demonstrates that there is a long legacy of Zionist affinity with European orientalism and liberal racism. As Said argues, ‘there was a willing identification between Western liberal discourse and Zionism … for the Arab Palestinian the concrete meaning
of this hegemonic relationship was disastrous’ (Said 1979a, 37). This affinity is deeply connected to a broader racialised, gendered and sexualised orientalist epistemology that sees Jews as racially and culturally superior to Arabs (Kanaaneh 2002; Nasasra et al 2015; Puar 2011a; Said 1979a). The case studies in this thesis contribute to illuminating the ways in which the affinity between Zionism and liberalism is produced, reproduced and sustained, and how this affinity can be disrupted (or, alternatively, reinforced) through the mobilisation of intersectional resistance.
Israel’s formation and normative power is built, and continues to build, on the close identification between Zionism and Western liberalism (see Freeman-Maloy 2011; Massad 1993, 2016; Said 1978b, 1979a, 1979b, 1985). Zionism has relied on European racialised liberalism to seek support for its project to create a Jewish state in Palestine. Indeed, it is European racism that renders the destruction of Palestinian lives a legitimate price (Massad 2003, 2005; Said 1979a). Israel’s establishment and ongoing performance as a liberal, modern and enlightened state has been fundamental to its endeavour to normalise its settler authority and claim to sovereignty (Robinson 2013). Challenges to Israel’s liberal image are threats to the ability of the state to entrench its settlement projects, from both sides of the Green Line1. Therefore, since its inception, Israel has expended great efforts in promoting and maintaining its liberal image internationally and reinforcing its alliance and identification with the West.
What is often missed in the literature on the Palestinians in Israel is the role of ’48 Palestinians in this projection of Israel as a liberal state. As I discuss in Part I, since its founding Israel has appropriated Palestinians in its hasbara (propaganda)2 and foreign policy as a trope to signify its commitment to democracy. The extension of citizenship and other political rights to Palestinians was inextricably tied to efforts to legitimise the Jewish state (Bäuml 2006; Cohen 2010; Robinson 2013). Palestinians in Israel have
1 The Green Line a demarcation line based on the 1948 Armistice Agreements. It is the internationally recognised demarcation line that defines the de facto borders of what constitutes ‘proper’ Israel.
2 Hasbara is a form of propaganda, public diplomacy and public relations that aims to positively explain Israel and its actions, policies and missions. It targets international audiences (decision makers, opinion makers and the general public), particularly in the West. Hasbara is carried out by the State of Israel, lobby groups and non-governmental organisations.
become an even more significant tool following the crises of legitimacy as a result of growing international attention to the prolonged and violent occupation of the 1967 Palestinian territories. For liberals who are simultaneously supportive yet critical of Israel, ’48 Palestinians have come to represent the boundary between legitimate (’48 borders) and illegitimate (’67 borders) statehood.
I argue that this tactical appropriation of ’48 Palestinians by the Israeli state is deeply racialised, gendered and sexualised. Critically, it feeds upon orientalist imaginaries and invokes women’s rights and gay rights as markers of Israel’s modernity and civility. Palestinians in Israel are understood in contradictory and ambivalent terms: they are semi-civilised by virtue of their proximity to the modern and democratic Western–Israeli civilisation, but they are also a racially inferior population to be controlled. This latter view has been intensified by the paradigm of the ‘clash of civilisations’ that dominates the post-9/11 securitised world, as well as Israel’s investment in the production of Arabophobia and Islamophobia (Abu El-Haj 2005).
Israel’s identification with Western liberalism has proven, however, to be a double-edged sword (Robinson 2013). As part of their resistance, Palestinians in Israel have cleverly challenged the state’s assertions to be a liberal democracy and have sought to undermine its legitimacy among Western allies. Importantly, the ’48 Palestinian national movement has taken the lead in subverting the Western gaze by drawing attention to Israel’s illiberal and anti-democratic laws, policies and practices. These efforts of resistance and subversion employ – but are also confined within – a vocabulary of liberalism and multiculturalism. More recent movements have also sought to challenge the tactical appropriation of Palestinians by the state. These movements are part of the global advance of Palestinian solidarity and the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, as well as being informed by a wider agenda of decolonisation.
Significant challenges to Israel’s liberal and democratic claims in recent years have been forged by grassroots mobilisations and what I characterise as intersectional subaltern resistance. This resistance is especially exemplified by the Palestinian Bedouin struggle for land rights and the Palestinian queer movement, which I examine as the central case studies for this thesis. Bedouin activists have challenged Israel’s claims that it is
modernising the Naqab Bedouin, and Palestinian queers have contested the state’s very invocation of gay rights as an exemplar of its democracy and as an auxiliary justification for colonial violence. However, as I demonstrate, the significance of these movements also lies is their transformative potential to transcend the restraining structural logics of Israeli citizenship and statehood as an organising discourse and platform for action.
2. The Liberal Politics of Human Rights and Its Discontents
In order to understand contemporary ’48 Palestinian mobilisation, we need to move beyond the dominant tendency to study Palestinian resistance in Israel as a localised phenomenon – that is, an issue that can be confined within the borders, logics and institutions of the Jewish state. This tendency misses the key ways in which Palestinian subjectivities and resistance practices have also developed through contact with the transnational, which has fomented both resistance and the continuation of colonial violence.
The struggle of Palestinians in Israel has been, by and large, confined by the liberal logic of citizenship. This is so even when activists have sought to expand the meaning of citizenship through advancing multicultural models of citizenship and governance. Divorced from the larger Palestinian national movement and consequently from its anticolonial revolutionary sentiments, ’48 Palestinians have sought alternative frameworks to articulate their struggle and their demands. Most paradigmatically, they have capitalised on the rise of identity politics, multiculturalism, and minority and indigenous rights as a way to make their grievances legible within (neo)liberal and state-centric politics.
Being able to communicate grievances in the universal vocabulary of human rights is essential to contemporary subaltern resistance (Hafner-Burton 2008; Keck and Sikkink 1998; Tarrow 2005). The deployment of a human rights vocabulary by the marginalised is often understood in terms of strategic essentialism. But it cannot be simply explained as a mere instrument employed strategically by activists in order to leverage political power. In other words, practices of strategic essentialism are not without implications. The utilisation of human rights produces powerful epistemological discourses that
constitute, circulate and reshape native identities and their political struggles. These discourses have been borne out and represent a particular liberal politics that is simultaneously progressive but conservative, and enabling but constraining. As Laleh Khalili points out, ‘transnational discourses are forged in particular places which are then borrowed, nurtured, translated, and transformed across borders’ (Khalili 2007, 11). The transnational discourses of multiculturalism and minority rights were appropriated by activists to form a ’48 Palestinian national movement, which is a subversive endeavour in itself. But doing so also foreclosed the possibility of more emancipatory visions outside of liberal logics.
This liberal bias has also left the violence of liberal human rights and multiculturalism – as well as their epistemological and ontological intrusions in reconfiguring native struggles and identities – unexamined in the literature on Palestinians in Israel. Rahul Rao argues that the political thinking and behaviour of actors is ‘underpinned by more complex spatial imaginaries of threat’ that originate from both the domestic and the transnational realms (Rao 2010, 8). The case studies of Bedouin and PQueer mobilisation demonstrate that these spatial imaginaries of threat derive not only from the liberal settler state, but also from the liberal politics of transnational civil society and international human rights regimes. The subjectivities, identities and resistance practices of ’48 Palestinians evolve and transform in light of their encounters with liberalism as the organising principle of the settler state and human rights regimes. As the case studies show, the racialising logics of settler colonialism can be reproduced in disturbing ways in the mobilisation of, and encounter with, the liberal politics of human rights. These convergences demand that ’48 Palestinians negotiate their identities and struggles in multiple circuits of power.
This thesis demonstrates that the emancipatory promise of universalised human rights is conditional, forcing marginalised peoples to assert their identities and frame their demands in ways that can also be oppressive. ’48 Palestinian resistors respond to the violence of the state and to the violence of liberal multiculturalism and human rights and the politics it produces in varying ways. Some practices of resistance are inspired by Fanonian universalist sensibilities and by a radical pedagogy of anticolonial struggle that is articulated in ‘a complete calling in question of the colonial situation’ (Fanon 1963,
37). Such resistances are characterised by a Fanonian politics of negation and rejection, the urgent and wholesale refusal of liberal and colonial gestures of inclusion. Total rejection functions both as pedagogy and as an ethical imperative of resistance. It is foundational to the project of decolonising both the self and society. Other resistance strategies are instead marked by hybridised practices of accommodation and rejection. This can encompass strategic essentialism, self-exoticising and self-orientalising, and the tactical performance of a ‘drama of suffering’ (Khalili 2007, 33) as political assets. These strategies seek to trouble settler sovereignty and challenge Western notions of modernity, thereby politicising, subverting and reworking the indigenous and LGBT frameworks.
3. Who Are the Palestinians in Israel?
In The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon reminds us of a common-sense truth that is often forgotten. As he writes, ‘it is the settler who has brought the native into existence and who perpetuates his existence’ (Fanon 1963, 36).
In 1947, between 850,000 and 900,000 Palestinians lived in Palestine. By the end of the 1948 War, Palestine had been ethnically cleansed of its Arab-Palestinian inhabitants (see Masalha 1992; Pappe 2006). Approximately 725,000 Palestinians were expelled and became refugees. More than 500 villages were destroyed (Kanaaneh 2002). The Nakba (catastrophe)3 has been a major rupture in the lives of Palestinians in Israel. The encounter with the Israeli state during the first decades was particularly painful, marked by an isolation from the Arab world and the Palestinian people, and an intensified process of dispossession and the Judaisation and de-Arabisation of the space (Falah 1989a, 2003; Yiftachel 1999).
Palestinian life was drastically transformed. From a majority population owning most of the land, Palestinians became a landless minority in their own homeland. They became citizens of a state constitutionally defined as a Jewish state and as a state of the Jewish people (not its citizens), as anchored in Israel’s Basic Law4 and the Declaration of
3 Nakba is the term that Palestinians use to describe the events of the 1948 War that resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the loss of their homeland.
4 Article 1 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom (1992) states: ‘The purpose of this Basic Law
Independence.5 In Israel, nationalism (le’um) and citizenship (izrahut) are not congruent. It is race – not citizenship – that defines access to rights.
Today, there are an estimated 1,746,000 Palestinians in Israel, comprising 20.7% of the population (Aderet 2015). Palestinians are the most impoverished, marginalised and persecuted population in the state. The inequity is enshrined in state laws. The human rights Non-Governmental Organisation (NGOs) Adalah documents more than 50 laws that discriminate against Arabs ‘in all areas of life, including their rights to political participation, access to land, education, state budget resources, and criminal procedures’.6 According to a 2014 report by the Central Bureau of Statistics, the poverty rate among Arabs in Israel is 52.6%, compared with a national average of 22% (Gravé-Lazi 2015). Over two-thirds of Arab children live below the poverty line (Sikkuy 2014), and Arab towns and cities are among the poorest in Israel (Adalah 2011). The public investment per student in Arab schools is less than one-third of that in Jewish schools (Adalah 2011), and the average income of Palestinians is 30% less than that of Jews (IDI 2010).
Subjected to a different land regime, Palestinians now own just 3–3.5% of the land of Israel, compared with 48% in 1948. Moreover, they are deprived of access to 93% of the land, due to its legal classification as state and Jewish land that is administrated respectively by the Israel Land Authority and the Jewish National Fund (Adalah 2011).
Disparities between the Arab and Jewish populations are rooted in a rejection of the basic idea that Jews and Arabs are equal and therefore should be treated equally. As Fanon pointedly argues, ‘in the colonies the economic substructure is also a super-structure’ (Fanon 1963, 40). As such, discrimination is intrinsic to the state’s racial ideology, which sees Jews as superior to Arabs.
is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.’ For the full text, see http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/israellaws/fulltext/basiclawhumandignity.htm, accessed 20 July 2016.
5 Israel’s Declaration of Independence states: ‘We … hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.’ For the full text, see http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.aspx, accessed 19 July 2016.
6 See Adalah’s website at https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7771, accessed 11 October 2016.
Nearly seven decades after it was founded, Israel, Wolfe argues, remains at the frontier stage of settlement (Wolfe 2016a). The state is yet to make peace with the existence of Palestinians in Israel (and in the occupied Palestinian territories). The ’48 Palestinians continue to be viewed as foreign to the land, a demographic threat and a fifth column. ’48 Palestinians are treated as a problem to be solved – a population to be controlled, tamed and surveilled (Cohen 2010; Lustick 1980; Sa’adi 2013; Zureik 2011, 2015).
Palestinian lives are thus shaped by the violence of settler colonialism, manifested in Israel’s continued project of settlement and Judaisation and its pursuit of Jewish settler privilege. The Nakba therefore is not only an event, but also a structure that continues to shape Palestinian life in Israel and also in the West Bank, in the Gaza Strip and in exile (Wolfe 2006a; Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2015a).
4. The Lacuna in the Study of Palestinians in Israel
Scholarship on Palestinians in Israel tends to focus on the larger structures that shape subjugation, leaving Palestinian mobilisation, resistance and agency under-theorised (see Abdo 2011; Bäuml 2007; Haklai 2011; Kassem 2011; Lustick 1980; Pappe 2011; Peleg and Waxman 2011; Rouhana 1997). Research on Palestinian politics and mobilisation has been limited to the study of parliamentary activity and political behaviour (see Ghanem 1997, 2001; Louer 2007; Neuberger 1993; Smooha 1992; Suleiman 2002) and has been focused on the rise of ’48 Palestinian nationalism to explain transformations in Palestinian identity and mobilisation (see Haklai 2011; Jamal 2011; Louer 2007).
Only a handful of studies have focused on ’48 Palestinian civil society. These have been confined to the study of Palestinian NGOs in Israel (PNGOs) and litigation as a form of resistance (on PNGOs, see Haklai 2004; Jamal 2008a; Payes 2003, 2005; on women’s PNGOs, see Marteu 2009; on Bedouin women’s NGOs, see Marteu 2015; Sarab Abu-Rabia-Queder 2007; on litigation, see Amara 2015; Jabareen 2010; Sallon 2009). A small number of studies have offered a critical ethnographic reading of the resistance and mobilisation of ordinary people (on Bedouin mobilisation, see Nasasra 2015b; Abu-Rabia Safa 2008; on Palestinian women, see Kassem 2010; Meari 2010; on Palestinian hip-hop
in Israel, see Eqeiq 2010; Maira and Shihade 2012). Even fewer have considered how ordinary people experience the liberal grammar of human rights (Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2012; Shalhoub-Kevorkian et al 2014).
Furthermore, surprisingly enough, even though the everyday lives of ’48 Palestinians continue to be shaped by the violence of Israeli settler colonialism, studies on Palestinians in Israel have been dominated by ethnic-centred paradigms, neglecting settler colonialism, postcolonial theory, and race, ethnicity, class, gender and sexuality in the analysis of subjugation and resistance (Ghanem, Rouhana and Yiftachel 1998; Haklai 2011; Jamal 2002, 2011; Peled 1992, 2005; Peleg and Waxman 2011; Rouhana 1997, 1998, 2006; Rouhana and Ghanem 1998; Sa’di 2000; Shafir and Peled 1998; Smooha 1990, 1997, 2002; Yiftachel 1992, 1998, 1999, 2006). The work of Elia Zureik has been exceptional in its insistence on the conceptualisation of Israel as a settler colonial project (Zureik 1979, 1981, 1993a).
This research contributes to the study of Palestinians in Israel by introducing settler colonialism and postcolonialism as a framework for analysing ’48 Palestinian subjectivity, subjugation and resistance as shaped through the intersections of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality, and the interplay between the local and the transnational. As such, the research builds on a larger body of literature that theorises Zionism and the Israeli state as settler colonial projects (see Abdo and Yuval-Davis 1995; Collins 2011; Rodison 1973; Said 1979a, 1979b; Shafir 1989; Veracini 2006, 2013; Wolfe 2007; Zuriek 1979, 2015).
It is also part of a small but significant wave of emerging scholarship on the Palestinians in Israel that acknowledges settler colonialism and internal colonialism as a framework of analysis (see Abu Saad 2008a; Kanaaneh 2002; Kanaaneh and Nusair 2010; Nasasra et al 2015; Robinson 2013; Rouhana 2015; Rouhana and Sabagh-Khoury 2015; Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2012; Shihade 2011, 2012; Yiftachel 2012). This body of work, however, has been, by and large, focused on domination and subjugation, rather than resistance.
4.1 Challenging Ethnic-Centred Paradigms in the Study of Palestinians in Israel
The question of how to conceptualise the Israeli regime has been central to the study of Palestinians in Israel and to the theorisation of ’48 Palestinian subjugation, exclusion, citizenship, legal status, political mobilisation, and relations with the state.
The status of ’48 Palestinians as inferior citizens in the Jewish state has undermined claims of mainstream scholarship that conceptualised Israel as a liberal democracy (see, for example, Gavison 1999; Sheffer 1996). Other scholars have argued that Israel does not neatly fit ‘any known type of democracy, such as liberal, republican, multicultural or consociational’, seeking instead alternative paradigms for conceptualising the Israeli regime (Peled 2016, 1). A significant example is Sammy Smooha’s model of ethnic democracy (Smooha 1990, 1997, 2002). According to Smooha, ethnic democracy is ‘located somewhere in the democratic section of the democracy–non-democracy continuum’ (Smooha 1997, 234). It is characterised by the extension of individual political and civil rights, while institutionalising the rule of an ethnic majority. Ethnic democratic states, Smooha suggests, are ‘identified with a “core ethnic nation”, not with its citizens’ (Smooha 1997, 199).
Smooha’s model has been contested by critical scholars who argue that institutionalised ethnic privilege precludes a consideration of Israel as a democracy. They instead argue for the conceptualisation of Israel as an ethnic state (Sa’adi 2000; Ghanem, Rouhana and Yiftachel 1998; Jamal 2002; Rouhana 2006; Rouhana and Sultany 2003) and an ethnocracy (Yiftachel 1998, 1999, 2006). Ethnocratic regimes, Oren Yiftachel argues, are:
… neither totalitarian nor democratic. Such regimes are states which maintain a relatively open government, yet facilitate a non-democratic seizure of the country and polity by one ethnic group … Ethnocracies, despite exhibiting several democratic features, lack a democratic structure. As such, they tend to breach key democratic tenets, such as equal citizenship, the existence of a territorial political community (the demos), universal suffrage, and protection against the tyranny of the majority. (Yiftachel 1999, 365)
Despite the major differences between the theorisations of Israel as an ethnic democracy and as an ethnocracy and ethnic state, both approaches focus on the question of ethnic privilege and are premised on the primacy of ethnicity and ethno-nationalism as theoretical frameworks for understanding the relationship between ’48 Palestinians and the State of Israel. While Smooha sees Israel as a hybrid structure of democracy and non-democracy, arguing that ethnic privilege and democratic principles can co-exist, even if not comfortably, Yiftachel’s argument suggests a reading of Israel’s regime as a liminal configuration that is ‘neither a democracy nor a non-democracy’.
The theorisation of Israel as an ethnic state and as an ethnocracy has been invaluable in unpacking the contradictions and paradoxes that spring from the definition of Israel as a ‘Jewish and democratic’ state. However, the focus on ethnocracy has also been premised, by and large, on the neglect of settler colonialism as the most significant factor that shapes the structural, political, legal, economic and cultural subjugation of ’48 Palestinians (Abdo 2011). This neglect, argues Nira Yuval-Davis, has led scholars to overlook ‘some epistemological and ontological aspects of the Israeli Palestinian conflict’ (Yuval-Davis in Abdo 2011, 17). The favouring of ethnic-centred paradigms by scholars, Nahla Abdo further argues, is not the result of their theoretical validity, but rather because they ‘provide softer, less politically charged concepts to describe what are basically racist policies and practices embedded in the Zionist ideology on which Israel has been – and continues to be – founded’ (Abdo 2011, 17; for more on the rejection of the colonial paradigm in Israeli studies, see Ram 1993; Peled forthcoming).
The ethnic and multicultural bias has further suggested a dangerous slippage from ethnicity to culture, risking the invocation of ethnicity as a euphemism for cultural difference. Amal Jamal, for example, suggests that ‘Israeli democracy has clear ethno-cultural characteristics’ (Jamal 2002, 417), and that ‘the institutionalization of collective rights and liberalisation of Israeli citizenship are necessary steps that have to be taken if one seeks to reduce the rising tensions of the multicultural conflict in Israel’ (Jamal 2002, 431). Israel is thus conceptualised as a divided society and as a multi-ethnic state. Relations between Jews and Arabs are presented in terms of ethnic, national and cultural difference, framed as a relationship of minority–majority, rather than one premised on colonisation and racial hierarchies. The main concern therefore becomes how to manage
ethnic differences and schisms (Peled 1992, 32), not how to decolonise a racial settler colonial regime.
The loyalty of critical scholars to liberal multiculturalism as a theoretical prism and the urge to prove that Israel is not a liberal democracy have led them to miss the convergence between liberalism and settler colonialism as constitutive to contemporary forms of native subjugation and native governance. As this thesis shows, this convergence has been a central characteristic of the Israeli settler regime, shaping also the political behaviour and activism of Palestinians in Israel.
The failure to consider the liberal aspects of Israeli settler colonialism (and settler colonialism per se), I suggest, is rooted in the development of a critical Palestinian scholarship that is predicated on an antagonistic, albeit ‘dialogical’ and reactive, relationship with Israeli scholarship. As Blecher pointedly observes, ‘the strength of recent studies about Palestinians (seeing them as part of Israel) turns out to also be a weakness (seeing them as part of Israel)’ (Blecher 2005, 733). As a result, the imaginative, emancipatory and decolonising potential of this body of scholarship has been undermined. In this respect, critical scholarship has correlated the question of Palestinians in Israel with the Israeli question, rather than situating it as part of a larger concern with imperialism and settler colonialism.
Addressing these shortfalls, this research moves beyond the tendency to view the liberal and colonial characteristics of the state in polarising terms. As Nadia Abu El-Haj convincingly argues:
We don’t have to choose between analysing the Israeli state as a typical (if extreme version of the) ‘liberal state’ … or as just another, Middle Eastern ‘mukhabarat’ (security/police) state …, or any other kind of regime. It has both liberal and distinctly illiberal dimensions: it is a colonial state and, for its Jewish citizens, a liberal democracy; it is governed by the rule of law and it operates with a sustained suspension of that law, under the rubric of military rule and the guise of security requirements. The Israeli state is that complex multifaceted matrix of forms and tactics of rule. (Abu El-Haj 2010, 40, fn 34)
By conceptualising Israel as a liberal settler state, this research suggests that the convergence between liberalism (as a structure of opportunity, as well as one of violence
and racism) and settler colonialism has produced particular configurations of contemporary settler regimes and settler governance of native populations. In this thesis, liberalism is not treated as a normative framework or an ideal structure of governance, against which the non-democratic features of the settler state are measured. Instead, it is seen as an analytic for understanding the modern formation of the settler state, as well as native engagement with and resistance to it.
4.2 The Neglect of Race
The focus on ethnicity and the neglect of settler colonialism have obscured race as constitutive to the Zionist settler colonial project and the working of the Israeli polity. Race is thus an absent category in the study of Palestinians in Israel, including in the recent work on ’48 Palestinians that acknowledges Israeli-Zionist settler colonialism. As a result, the racialisation of difference, social stratification and citizenship is overlooked. These instead are understood and analysed in terms of ethnic difference, as opposed to being imbricated in a Zionist racial ideology that has its roots in a European conception of race.
This thesis suggests that Israel is a liberal settler colonial state, rooted in racial ideologies that position Jews as racially – not ethnically – superior to Arabs. This claim demands a clarification of the difference between ethnicity and race. However, this differentiation is not always easy to make. Referring to her own work, Abdo points out that ‘while I consider the distinction between “ethnic” and “racial” vital in catheterizing Zionism and the Israel settler-colonial state, I also find myself in some instances falling into the trap of using the concepts interchangeably’ (Abdo 2011, 20). The use of the two terms interchangeably is not arbitrary, but rather speaks to the ways that ethnicity is often invoked as a euphemism for race, dressed in discourses of cultural diversity that are rooted in the ideology of multiculturalism. As Pamela Perry shows in her work, ethnicity has come to function as an instrument for whiteness to construct otherness through cultural difference (Perry 2001). Nonetheless, in their groundbreaking work on settler colonialism as shaped through the intersections of race, ethnicity, gender and class, Daiva Stasiulis and Nira Yuval-Davis suggest that:
Ethnic discourse involves the construction of exclusionary and inclusionary boundaries which draws upon the myths of common origin and/or destiny, providing
individuals with a mode of interpreting the world based on shared cultural resources and/or collective positioning vis-à-vis other groups. Racial discourse involves modes of exclusion, inferiorization, subordination and exploitation. It constructs signifiers of collectivity boundaries as immutable and hereditary. (Stasiulis and Yuval-Davis 1995, 20)7
However, the use of ethnicity – rather than race – by critical scholars who study Palestinians in Israel does not suggest an implicit use of ethnicity as a euphemism for race. Rather, ethnicity is used as a descriptive concept to differentiate between Arabs and Jews and between the different groups that make up Israeli society. Israel, it is argued, is a regime that provides Jews as an ethnic group – not a race – with privilege. This approach does not acknowledge, as scholars have demonstrated, Israel as a racial regime that is grounded in Zionism’s adoption and internalisation of a European conception of race, which positions whites as racially superior to non-whites, and Jews as racially superior to Arabs (Massad 2003, 2005; Said 1979a; Wolfe 2016b).
This research also builds on Mamdani’s useful distinction on the use in colonial rule of race as biological and ethnicity as cultural (Mamdani 2001, 652). Race, he argues, has been an important category of difference that justified colonial rule through establishing a formal distinction between settlers and natives. Zionism, as discussed in the next chapter, is no different. Robinson notes ‘the near impossibility of Arab religious conversion to Judaism, which has made birth (that is, blood) the sole path to membership in the settler community’ (Robinson 2013, 9).
The distinction between race and ethnicity is important to our understanding of the settler racial regime and the exercise of indirect colonial rule. As Mamdani argues, ‘the colonial state has divided the population into two: races and ethnicities’ (Mamdani 2001, 654). Similarly, the Israeli regime is premised on the division of the population into two races – Jews and Arabs – and this difference is codified in state laws. As Robinson argues, ‘the juridical concept of nationality in Israel both complemented and reinforced a preexisting racial logic’ (Robinson 2013, 9). As with other colonial rules, ethnicity has been used by Israel to fragment the native population as part of its divide-and-rule policies. The
7 Nonetheless, in their book, they use race and ethnicity together to connote how settler colonialism works to produce difference (for example, ‘racial/ethnic divisions’) (Stasiulis and Yuval-Davis 1995).
Bedouin were produced as a separate ethnic group, Druze were designated a separate nationality, and Christians were ethnicised as a distinct group based on their religion and, recently, were also acknowledged as their own nationality.
To conclude, though the concepts of race and ethnicity can overlap, the analytical distinction between the two is neither rhetorical nor a matter of semantics. It speaks to the understanding of the Israeli settler colonial state and its racial regimes of governance.
5. The Politics of Indigenous Research and Knowledge Production
Indigenous research is a humble and humbling activity. (Smith 1999, 5)
This thesis is committed to the decolonisation of research and research methodologies and is embedded in frameworks and discourses that privilege indigenous presence (Smith 1999, 9). For the colonised, knowledge is never neutral or objective. As Linda T. Smith argues, ‘from the vantage point of the colonized … the term “research” is inextricably linked to European imperialism and colonialism’ (Smith 1999, 1). The economy of knowledge, Said argues, is constitutive to the production and operation of colonial domination. In the case of Zionism, knowledge production plays an important role in reconfiguring the history and geography of the space and in enhancing the process of settler indigenisation (Abu El-Haj 2001; Nasasra et al 2015; Shamir 1996). Research on Palestinians has been saturated in orientalist and essentialist imaginaries, building on a long legacy of epistemological and ontological distinctions made between the Occident and the Orient as its ‘other’ (Haidar and Zureik 1987; Sa’adi 1997; Said 1978a, 2; Zureik 1993a, 1993b).
Research methodologies have also been immersed in colonial domination and in the racialisation and ‘othering’ of indigenous people. Positivist-informed research has claimed objectivity and neutrality, treating indigenous people as objects of research. Historically, ethnographic anthropology was also deeply implicated in reproducing the epistemological assumptions that justified colonial domination (Smith 1999). With the rise of critical scholarship and indigenous scholarship, scholars called for approaches that
are not oppressive to both indigenous communities and researchers (Denzin, Lincoln and Smith 2008; Foley 2003; Marker 2003; Smith 1999).
A project of decolonising research and research methodologies emerged as a counter-hegemonic project of reclaiming knowledge, authority and self-representation. Indigenous standpoint theories – inspired by feminist standpoint theories – called for research to be centred on indigenous knowledge, philosophy, voice and experiences (Foley 2003). Research was articulated instead in ethical, normative and emancipatory terms. It was seen as community-driven and owned, and as a vehicle to advance social change, community resistance and wellbeing (Marker 2003).
A key issue for indigenous scholars is the assumption common to most research methodologies that the researcher is exogenous to the community that is being studied (Smith 1999). Different approaches may disagree on how to deal with the position of exteriority, but rarely on its existence. The limitations of most research methodologies in the indigenous context has often forced indigenous scholars to assert their experiences in inadequate and alienating terms. As result, indigenous scholars sought alternative frameworks to address ‘the long-term relationships which are established and extend beyond a research relationship to one involving families, communities, organisations and networks’ (Smith 1999, 15).
The politics of knowledge production often works to undermine indigenous research on the grounds of bias. This reproach is reserved for native scholars, while the neutrality and validity of white researchers is rarely questioned (see Zureik 1993a in the context of research on the Palestinians in Israel). Indigenous scholars find themselves burdened with the requirement of establishing their scholarly integrity and authoritative voice, as the attacks on Palestinian scholars demonstrate.8 When it comes to research on Israel/Palestinians, Palestinian scholars – and other critical scholars – still find
8 See, for example, the case of the Palestinian scholar Steven Salaita, who lost his professorship at the University of Illinois (Salaita 2015), and the case of the Palestinian scholar Nadia Abu El-Haj, who faced campaigns demanding that she be denied professorship at Columbia University (Arenson 2007). Furthermore, the attempt to silence critical scholars is also exemplified in the (at times successful) attempts to cancel conferences and talks perceived as anti-Israeli (Reisz 2015), and in the attacks on critical scholars (not necessarily Palestinians): see the recent case of Jasbir Puar (Puar 2016).
themselves struggling for ‘permission to narrate’ (Said 1984; see also Butler 2006; Salaita 2015). This should be understood as part of the larger struggle of Palestinians for visibility, voice and self-representation (Said in Dabashi 2006, 2).
5.1 Ethnographic Research Methodologies
This thesis employs qualitative ethnographic research methodologies based on interviews, participant observations, and interpretive and textual analysis.
While ethnography historically has been complicit in colonial domination, it has become a critical methodology that values and learns from local experiences and knowledge. Ethnography is about ‘learning from people’ (Spradley 2016, 3, emphasis in original). It can be conceptualised as a ‘methodology informed by a theory of social life as practice’ (O’Reilly 2012, 1). Social life is understood as the interaction between structure and agency (O’Reilly 2012, 6), which in this research is manifested in the focus on the interrelationship of settler colonialism and colonial domination and native resistance.
Ethnography as a reflexive and interpretative framework that draws on the experiences of ordinary people and communities has been most relevant to this research focus. It has enabled me to engage analytically with the ways in which ’48 Palestinian activists talk about their relations to the state, being citizens, and their engagement with Israeli institutions, as well as how they narrate their activism, locally and transnationally. Ethnographic attention to social references, word choices and body language was important in unpacking the hidden scripts of resistance (Scott 1990) and placing the narratives of the colonised at the heart of this research.
My experience of engaging with my community as an indigenous researcher has been shaped by my position as both an insider and an outsider. My identity and my work as an activist and as an NGO professional, my familiarity with the activist scene, and my close friendships with activists have rendered me at many levels as an insider, a member of the community. At the same time, the fact that I have lived outside of Israel/Palestine for the past 10 years has simultaneously made me an outsider.
My positionality has also been shaped in relation to Palestinian Bedouin activists and Palestinian queer activists. When it comes to the Palestinian Bedouin struggle, my own identity as a Palestinian and the charged history of the relationship of Palestinians in Israel with the Palestinian Bedouin community (in which the Bedouin were treated by Palestinians as oriental ‘others’) made my interviewees cautious in expressing their honest critiques of the Palestinian political leadership and PNGOs. My engagement with Palestinian queers was far less problematic because my personal friendships with queer activists and my politics made me a trustworthy interlocutor.
On a different note, as the next section demonstrates, despite my commitment to decolonising research methodologies, I was unable to avoid their polarising and technical vocabulary. Phrases such as ‘field research’ (it is a home, not a field of research), ‘data collection’, ‘interviews’, ‘participant observation’ and ‘ethnographic engagement with communities’ have forced a particular distancing and alienation that did not authentically capture my experience as an ‘outsider within’ (Hill-Collins 1986). When translated from theory to practice, the task of decolonising research methodologies has proven to be difficult.
5.1.1 Ethnographic Interviews
The ethnographic methodologies of this research have included interviews and participant observations of activists and protest activities. Between 2012 and 2015, during multiple trips to Israel/Palestine – each lasting between one and three months – I held over 40 interviews with prominent activists, NGO professionals, and a small number of indigenous and Israeli academics.
The interviews – or conversations, as I prefer to call them – took place in NGO offices, in cafés and bars, in private houses, and amid the rubble of villages that had just been demolished by the state. Interviews with activists followed an ethnographic approach, centred on people’s experiences and narratives (Spradley 2016). Narrative-based interviews have allowed me to engage with the ways in which activists, as social actors, construct their ‘social worlds’ (Miller and Glassner 1997, 100; see also Gill 2000). Some interviews, particularly with NGO professionals, were semi-structured, which allowed a degree of flexibility while following a set format (Gaskell 2000).
Given that I speak Arabic, Hebrew and English, I was able to converse with my interviewees in their own languages. Most interviews were conducted in Arabic and a small number in Hebrew or English, where interviewees were Israelis or foreigners. Most of the interviews have been recorded. Careful attention has been given to translating quotes to English. I have tried to capture the authenticity of phrasing, word choices, cultural references and language. Analysis of interviews took an interpretative, discursive and content-based approach.
Researchers are often advised to conduct interviews in a time-effective manner. If we take seriously the indigenous standpoint theory – which sees research as a formulation of collective knowledge that is owned by the community and is grounded in a normative quest for decolonisation and political change – then interviews must do more than enhance the researcher’s learning process. They must become a space in which activists can tell their stories, share their dilemmas, and reflect on their activism and experiences. Many of the activists interviewed for this research used our meetings as an opportunity to take some distance from day-to-day activism and to reflect. Conversations were reciprocal, stimulating and reflexive. Activists (and friends) shared their knowledge and insights with great generosity, and for that I am grateful. In analysing these interviews, I faced the heavy responsibility of acknowledging their voices and their wisdom.
5.1.2 Participant Observations
I have also engaged in participant observation of activist and protest activities. During the time I spent in Israel/Palestine, I attended a seminar of Palestinian activists that was held in Tal Al-Sabe’, a Bedouin township in the Naqab, and joined protests against the dispossession of the Bedouin from their lands that took place in the Naqab and in the Palestinian city of Jaffa. In addition, I joined numerous protest activities in solidarity with Palestinian political prisoners and the Palestinian refugees of Al-Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria. I also attended public talks by Palestinian queers in London. Observing – and participating in – the new wave of Palestinian protest in Israel allowed me to reflect analytically on deeper transformations in ’48 Palestinian identities and resistance.
My research also draws on unofficial conversations over beer with friends and activists. These informal engagements have been invaluable in developing my understanding of contemporary Palestinian politics in Israel, and in formulating my ideas and arguments. Joining the protests, and frequenting the three bars in which activists in Jaffa sit almost every night, I was fortunate to meet a new generation of activists who, in time, also became my friends. Spending time with highly politicised old and new friends, listening to activist gossip, and engaging in debates over questions such as what resistance should look like, what the next stage of protests should be, and when to escalate protest and in what ways, have been a learning experience.
5.1.3 Textual and Visual Sources
The research draws on extensive textual sources and analysis. These sources include NGO materials such as reports, press releases and statements; news items, op-eds, interviews, feature stories and blogs; social media (including Facebook); speeches by politicians and world leaders; and Israeli and pro-Israeli hasbara materials. I have drawn on films and audio sources of talks given by queer activists to foreign audiences. I have also made use of visual images, some of which have been incorporated into different chapters of this thesis. These sources have been central to the research task of analysing colonial discourses and representations as shaped by the intersections of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality.
5.1.4 Archival Research
This research also makes use of original archival research, most specifically surveying the discussions held by the Israeli Cabinet between 1948 and 1952. These materials are utilised in Part I of the thesis, in order to discuss the making of the 1952 Citizenship Law and to analyse the ways in which Palestinians in Israel have been invoked in the production of Israel as a liberal state.
6. Outline of Chapters
Chapter 1, ‘Conceptualising Domination, Resistance and Decolonisation in Settler Colonialism’, brings together postcolonial theory and settler colonial studies as a framework for theorising colonial domination and violence, resistance and decolonisation. This chapter reviews the relevant literature and draws on the work of anticolonial writers such as Frantz Fanon and Albert Memmi; postcolonial scholars and theorists such as Edward Said, Homi K. Bhabha, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Mahmoud Mamdani and Partha Chatterjee; and settler colonial theorists, especially Patrick Wolfe. The combination of these different-yet-connected corpora of literature, this chapter demonstrates, opens a creative space for a rigorous and nuanced discussion of the ways in which colonial domination and the colonial encounter, as figured in multiple circuits (local, national and global), shape both colonial subjectivities and native resistance in the specific context of settler colonialism.
The thesis is then divided into three parts focusing specifically on Palestinian resistance. Part I provides a historical analysis of ’48 Palestinian subjugation and resistance in Israel. Parts II and III of the thesis focus, respectively, on the Palestinian Bedouin struggle for land rights and the Palestinian queer movement, illuminating the racial, ethnic, gendered and sexualised dimensions that shape colonial violence and intersectional subaltern resistance.
Parts II and III consists of two chapters, the first focusing on theorising colonial domination and the second on theorising resistance to settler colonialism. The division into two chapters facilitates the reading of resistance as being inextricably related to domination. As Scott reminds us, ‘relations of domination are, at the same time, relations of resistance’ (Scott 1990, 45). The focus on domination is by no means an attempt to suggest that the colonised is passive in the face of repression. Rather, it is intended to keep the theorisation of resistance political, avoiding tendencies to romanticise and celebrate agency and resistance as disassociated from power. The treatment of domination and resistance as interconnected allows analytical engagement with resistance as diagnostic of power (Abu-Lughod 1990, 42).
Part I consists of Chapter 2, ‘Palestinian Resistance and the Paradoxes of Liberal Settler Colonialism’, which is divided broadly into two sections. The first section explores the nature of the colonial violence to which Palestinians in Israel are subjected. Based on original archival materials, this section builds on Shira Robinson’s argument that Palestinian citizenship in Israel should be understood in light of the liberal character of the Israeli settler state and the ambivalent incorporation of ’48 Palestinians as citizens. It further shows how Israel, from its founding in 1948 through to this day, has been appropriating Palestinians in Israel in order to legitimise its existence by producing itself as a modern and liberal nation state. The second section of the chapter provides an analysis of the historical development of Palestinian national resistance and struggle in Israel, focusing on both formal (parliamentary) and informal (extra-parliamentary, NGO and grassroots activism) politics and mobilisation. The ’48 national movement and its political discourses and agendas, the chapter argues, have developed to be imbued in liberal and multicultural frameworks, centring the Palestinian struggle on demands for equality, meaningful citizenship and recognition. The chapter concludes by suggesting that the hegemony of Palestinian liberal nationalism is increasingly being challenged by a new wave of Palestinian protests and the rise of new movements that reject the liberal scripts of citizenship and recognition.
Part II of the thesis, ‘The Burden of Culture in the Palestinian-Bedouin Struggle for Land’, focuses on the Palestinian Bedouin struggle for land rights and on the place of culture and culturalisation in shaping settler colonial domination and resistance. Chapter 3, ‘Culturalisation as Dispossession’, explores the racial, ethnic and gendered dimensions of colonial violence to which the Bedouin are subjected. It argues that culturalisation has been invoked as the central mechanism to justify the colonisation of Bedouin land. Culturalisation, it is suggested, is not only an exercise of symbolic, discursive and epistemic violence, it is also embroiled in the pursuit of land as a central commodity. Chapter 4, ‘Culturalisation as Emancipation, focuses on Palestinian Bedouin resistance to settler colonialism and on the mobilisation of indigeneity as a central framework and discourse in the contemporary Bedouin struggle. This chapter argues that recognition of the Bedouin as indigenous has built on a culturalised conception of indigeneity that depends on the fetishisation of the indigenous as a premodern subject. Liberal multiculturalism, it is suggested, has transformed cultural difference from a colonial
reproach into a moral rationale for minority/indigenous claims and an asset that can be leveraged for political gain. The focus on cultural distinctiveness has subjected the Palestinian Bedouin to repressive demands of authenticity, forcing them to negotiate their struggle and identities in the face of multiple sites and practices of culturalisation. The chapter concludes by exploring the ways in which Bedouin activists respond to and challenge their racialisation, culturalisation and ethnicisation.
Part III of the thesis, ‘The Politics of Refusal in the Palestinian Queer Movement’, illuminates the gendered and sexualised dimensions (and the ways in which they are racialised) of colonial domination and resistance to settler colonialism. Chapter 5, ‘Settler Homonationalism: Domination and Sexuality in Israel/Palestine’, focuses on the entanglement of homonationalism and homocolonialism with orientalism, imperialism and settler colonialism to theorise the working of sexual politics in the context of Israel/Palestine, as it figures at the local and transnational levels. It examines the ambivalent place that the PQueers occupy in the metanarrative of Western sexual modernity and Western scripts of sexual liberation. Chapter 6, ‘Refusal as Emancipation’, explores the ways in which Palestinian queer protest sensibilities and modalities of resistance have developed in relation to the liberal violence of homonationalism and the Western LGBT rights agenda. It argues that the Palestinian queer encounter with the liberal and colonial violence of the settler state and the liberal and imperial violence of homonationalism, homocolonialism and pinkwashing have transformed the movement from one embedded in a Western conception of sexual identities to one grounded in anti-imperial and anticolonial cosmopolitan sensibilities marked by Fanonian politics of rejection and the emancipation of the self.
This thesis concludes by arguing that ’48 Palestinian subjectivities and resistance are shaped, evolve and transform in relation to Israel as a liberal settler state and as a racial state. The implications of this argument are extended to the study of Palestinians in Israel and to native resistance to settler colonialism more generally. The concluding remarks elaborate and emphasise, through an integrative discussion of the case studies, how the particular racialising logics of settler colonialism – as informed by configurations of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality – shape both colonial domination and native resistance to it. Finally, the concluding remarks expound on the evidence that subaltern modalities of
resistance are shaped by the diverse ways in which different ’48 Palestinian groups are incorporated into settler colonialism, as well as by their encounter with the liberal politics of human rights and the way in which this encounter can reinscribe race and entrench settler colonialism.
Chapter 1
Conceptualising Domination, Resistance and Decolonisation in Settler Colonialism
This chapter presents the main analytical framework and concepts that will be employed in this thesis for the analysis of domination, resistance and decolonisation in the context of settler colonialism. It brings together postcolonial theory and settler colonial studies as a framework to examine the racialised, ethnicised, gendered and sexualised dimensions of settler colonial violence, to explore how these shape colonial subjectivities and modalities of resistance, and to identify the ways in which the transnational is imbricated within these processes. The chapter deals with questions such as these: How can we conceptualise the settler colonial condition? In what ways is settler colonialism different from franchise colonialism? How can we conceptualise the different modalities of resistance to settler colonialism? And what political projects are produced in the encounter with liberal settler colonialism and the liberal politics of human rights?
This chapter – and, more broadly, this thesis – builds on an understanding of domination and resistance as interrelated. As James Scott reminds us, ‘relations of domination are, at the same time, relations of resistance. Once established, domination does not persist of its own momentum’ (Scott 1990, 45). Therefore, section 1 of this chapter focuses on the gap in the theoretical literature, section 2 focuses on the settler colonial condition and colonial domination, and section 3 focuses on resistance and decolonisation.
The first section establishes the existing gap in the theoretical literature, namely the under-theorisation of resistance and decolonisation in both postcolonial theory and settler colonial studies. Postcolonial studies have, by and large, neglected settler colonialism as a phenomenon that is distinct from franchise colonialism in that it guises particular racialising logics and rationales. Bringing together postcolonial and settler colonial
studies as a framework for analysis, I suggest, opens a productive analytical space to acknowledge the specificities of the settler colonial condition as a continued structure of colonisation, while at the same time building on postcolonial rich theorisation of domination, resistance and decolonisation.
The second section focuses on the nature of settler colonialism. Building on settler colonial studies, and primarily on Patrick Wolfe’s theorisation of settler colonialism as premised in the logic of elimination, this section elaborates on the specific logics, rationales and racialisation regimes that shape settler colonialism as a distinct category of colonialism. It then proceeds to discuss the settler polity’s extension of citizenship to natives. It argues that this has led the settler colonial condition to be characterised by particular forms of ambivalence, producing the natives as a hybrid configuration of citizens and colonial subjects.
Section 2 concludes in a discussion of settler colonialism in Palestine and the ways in which the logics of elimination and race have figured in the particular context of Zionism. It further argues that the occupation of the ’67 territories should not be understood as a deviation from the settler colonial project, but rather as its continuation. Therefore, an analysis of Israeli/Zionist settler colonialism should account for the multiple regimes of sovereignty, citizenship and population control that Israel applies on its Palestinian subjects from both sides of the Green Line. I suggest that in its patterns of colonisation, Israel most resembles Anglo settler colonialism. However, in its prospects, scenarios and possibilities of decolonisation, Israel most resembles the South African model of decolonisation, including the challenges it faces in the deracialisation of the regime post-apartheid.
The third and final section focuses on resistance and decolonisation in the context of settler colonialism. Native resistance to settler colonialism, it is suggested, is informed both by the nature of the settler state as a liberal settler state and by the liberal politics of human rights. The liberal settler colonial condition informs different modalities of resistance. Some are accommodative and some are subversive, while others are more confrontational. More specifically, this section looks at Homi K. Bhabha’s
conceptualisation of resistance as a subversion of colonial authority and considers a Fanonian theorisation of resistance as negation and recovery of the self.
Section 3 then moves to problematise the normative view of human rights as an emancipatory project. Building on critical scholarship, it shows how human rights can also be complicit with colonial domination and imperial projects. This section argues that human rights also work to reconfigure political projects along liberal lines, containing native struggles by defining the claims that natives can make and the limits of these claims.
The chapter concludes by arguing that the native encounter with the liberalism of the settler state (and the ambivalence it produces through its illusion of inclusion) and the dominance of human rights narratives have produced a native resistance to setter colonialism that is marked by competing political projects – reformative, transformative and anticolonial. These projects, it is argued, are emblematic of a larger problem that indigenous people face: that is, the difficulty of uniting behind a clear political project and a single vision of decolonisation. These debates and contestations are at the heart of native politics of resistance.
1. Postcolonial Theory and Settler Colonial Studies: A Theoretical Framework
Postcolonial studies can be characterised as being ‘based in the “historical fact” of European colonialism’, its legacies and its continuations (Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin [2000] 2007, 2). However, as Toni Morrison points out, ‘certain absences are so stressed, so ornate, so planned, they call attention to themselves’ (Morrison 1989, 136). The neglect of settler colonialism in postcolonial studies is such an absence.
The work of early anticolonial theorists – such as Aimé Césaire, Albert Memmi, Frantz Fanon and W. E. B. Du Bois – captured their own experiences under conditions of franchise colonialism and racial subjugation. The near absence of settler colonialism in later postcolonial writing, especially after the official outset of postcolonial studies in the
1980s, is particularly disturbing given that the field’s most prominent theorists wrote from the very successful first settler colony, the United States.9
In his famous book The Colonizer and the Colonized, Memmi makes a brief passing statement on Native Americans in the Unites States:
It has not been so long since Europe abandoned the idea of a possible total extermination of a colonized group. It has been said, half-seriously, with respect to Algeria: ‘There are only nine Algerians for each Frenchman. All that would be necessary would be to give each Frenchman a gun and nine bullets.’ The American example is also evoked; and it is undeniable that the famous national epic of the Far West greatly resembles systematic massacre. In any case, there is no longer much of an Indian problem in the United States. (Extermination saves colonization so little that it actually contradicts the colonial process.) Colonization is, above all, economic and political exploitation. If the colonized is eliminated, the colony becomes a country like any other, and who then will be exploited? Along with the colonized, colonization would disappear, and so would the colonizer. (Memmi [1965] 2003, 193)
Memmi’s statement is symptomatic of a larger problematic that pertains to postcolonial studies – that is, the homogenisation of different typologies of colonialism and the failure to distinguish between franchise and settler colonialism as two distinct phenomena guided by different logics and different discursive and material structures of domination (Veracini 2011a; Wolfe 1997). As Patrick Wolfe notes, ‘for all the homage paid to difference, postcolonial theory in particular has largely failed to accommodate such basic structural distinctions’ (Wolfe 1997, 418).
As scholars have demonstrated, settler colonialism and franchise colonialism are not the same. While they may overlap, they are divergent. Both are rooted in the development and universalisation of capitalism and Western modernity (see Lloyd and Wolfe 2016). However, natives figure differently in each of the projects, producing essentially distinct phenomena that are guided by disparate rationales, racialising logics, political ends and projects of decolonisation. Likewise, according to Lorenzo Veracini, ‘colonisers and settler colonisers want essentially different things’ (Veracini 2011a, 1).
9 The work of Edward Said on Palestine is an exception (Said 1979a), as is the recent work of Mamdani on settler colonialism (Mamdani 2015).
Wolfe’s theorisation of settler colonialism has been a particularly important intervention, providing the conceptual tools to differentiate between the two projects. While in franchise colonialism ‘native labor is at a premium’ (Wolfe 1997, 419), settler colonialism, Wolfe argues, is a land-centred project that relies on the removal of the native population in order to make land available for settlement. Unlike franchise colonialism, settler colonialism aspires to minimise its dependency on native labour (though this does not mean that settlers will not exploit native labour before they make natives vanish) (Veracini 2010; Wolfe 2006a).10
In other words, settler colonialism relies on the dispensability of the native, while franchise colonialism depends on the native body for its subsistence. Memmi’s view of extermination and genocide as irrational deviations of the colonial process builds on the assumption that the main motive behind colonisation is native labour (Memmi [1965] 2003, 8). However, he misses the point that the desired commodity in settler colonialism is land, not native labour. Furthermore, writing in the second half of the 2th century, Memmi fails to see that the eliminatory logic of settler colonialism has not been made irrelevant. Rather, it has transformed from a genocidal logic to other mechanisms of elimination, such as ethnic cleansing, assimilation and cultural genocide. As Wolfe argues, settler colonialism is ‘inherently eliminatory but not invariably genocidal’ (Wolfe 2006a, 378).
The discursive turn in settler colonial studies during the 1980s (Jefferess 2008, 25) can serve as a partial explanation as to why settler colonialism is absent from postcolonial studies. The popularity in colonial discourse theory, scholars have argued, resulted in the neglect of the materiality of colonial domination, along with the economic structures that shape it (for Marxist critiques of postcolonial analysis, see Aijaz 1992; Dirlik 1994, 1999, 2002; Eagleton 1998; McClintock 1995; Parry 2004).
10 For example, in the attempt to reduce dependency on native labour, the United States imported black slaves from Africa, Australia imported white convicts from Great Britain, and Israel imported cheap Mizrahi labour (though Mizrahi Jews were brought to Israel primarily to increase the size of the Jewish population in Palestine, their labour was an added bonus).
As Fanon suggests, race and colonial configurations of economy are entangled. According to Fanon:
… in the colonies the economic substructure is also a superstructure. The cause is the consequence; you are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich. This is why Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched every time we have to deal with the colonial problem. (Fanon 1963, 40)
Integrating race and political economy into the analysis, Wolfe’s work has captured that while both franchise and settler colonialism are rooted in capitalism, their racialising material logics fundamentally differ and are rooted in disparate political ends and colonising endeavours.
The focus on the ‘post’ in postcolonial is an additional factor that explains the field’s neglect of settler colonialism. Postcolonial scholars emphasise that ‘post’ should not be read literally as ‘after’ colonialism, but rather as ‘anti’ colonialism (Rao 2013, 271; see also Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin [2000] 2007). Critics, however, suggest that postcolonial studies have celebrated ‘the end of colonialism, as if the only task left in the present is to abolish its ideological and cultural legacy’ (Dirlik 1994, 343). The term itself, Anne McClintock has argued, produces a binary distinction between the ‘colonial’ and the ‘postcolonial’ along the axis of time (McClintock 1992, 85; see also Shohat 1992). This bias, she contends, risks overlooking the other formations of colonialism and the continuities of imperialism as manifested in contemporary American ‘imperialism-without-colonies’ (McClintock 1995, 13). In her words:
… the term postcolonialism is, in many cases, prematurely celebratory. Ireland may, at a pinch, be postcolonial but for the inhabitants of British-occupied Northern Ireland, not to mention the Palestinian inhabitants of the Israeli Occupied Territories and the West Bank, there may be nothing ‘post’ about colonialism at all. Is South Africa postcolonial? East Timor? Australia? Hawaii? Puerto Rico? By what fiat of historical amnesia can the United States of America, in particular, qualify as postcolonial … ? (McClintock 1995, 12)
The neglect of settler colonialism has meant that postcolonial rich theorisation of the colonial condition, native resistance and decolonisation has been confined to the specific phenomena of franchise colonialism and colonialism with settlers (such as in Algeria). As Veracini notes, ‘colonial studies and postcolonial literatures have developed interpretive categories that are not specifically suited for an appraisal of settler colonial
circumstances’ (Veracini 2010, 2). This lacuna has prompted the emergence of settler colonial studies as a new field. This development has been important in the theorising of settler colonialism. However, resistance and decolonisation remain significantly under-theorised in settler colonial studies (Veracini 2007).
Joining together postcolonial theory and settler colonial studies as a theoretical framework opens a creative space to engage with the questions of resistance and decolonisation in the particular context of settler colonialism. It allows acknowledging the specificities of the settler colonial condition as a continued structure of colonisation, while building on postcolonial rich analysis of resistance and decolonisation.
I draw predominantly on Fanon’s and Memmi’s theorisations of resistance as an antagonistic project of liberation. I further draw on Edward Said’s work on colonial discourses and representations as central to colonial domination, acknowledging their materiality (Said 1978a; see also Fanon 1963, 1967). Lastly, I build on Bhabha’s notions of hybridity, ambivalence, liminality and in-betweenness (Bhabha [1991] 1994). Drawing on both anticolonial and postcolonial theory is designed to capitalise on the theoretical usefulness of Bhabian analysis in the context of liberal settler colonialism, while remaining committed to the radical anticolonial origins of postcolonial theory and to a political analysis of resistance as a diagnostic of power (Abu-Lughod 1990).
2. The Settler Colonial Condition: The Dynamics of Land, Race and Elimination
Settler colonialism is a transnational phenomenon with a global reach (Veracini 2010, 180). Rooted in the European history of imperialism, colonialism and capitalism, it is a project ‘foundational to modernity’ (Wolfe 2006a, 394). Significant parts of today’s world – including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and Israel – are settler colonial formations.
Settler colonialism, Wolfe argues, is a land-centred project guided by the logic of elimination (Wolfe 2006a). Veracini suggests that settler colonialism involves ‘processes
where an exogenous collective replaces an indigenous one’ (Veracini 2013, 28). It is a project ‘concerned with the making and unmaking of places’ (Veracini 2010, 179). In settler colonialism, the settler’s presence on the land establishes itself as a permanent and irreversible condition: ‘Settler colonialism destroys to replace’ (Wolfe 2006a, 388). Settlers eliminate, dispossess, destroy and uproot in order to make a space for a new settler sovereign polity to emerge. They replace native political order with settler political order. Settlers establish their presence not alongside the native, but instead of the native. In the words of Wolfe:
Settler colonialism has both negative and positive dimensions. Negatively, it strives for the dissolution of native societies. Positively, it erects a new colonial society on the expropriated land base – as I put it, settler colonizers come to stay: invasion is a structure not an event. In its positive aspect, elimination is an organizing principal of settler-colonial society rather than a one-off (and superseded) occurrence. (Wolfe 2006a, 388)
Racialised as ‘surplus populations’ (Lloyd and Wolfe 2016), natives were made to disappear and their land was made empty for settlement and modernisation. In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were racialised as dying inhabitants and the myth of the empty land was translated into the doctrine of terra nullius (Barta 1987). In Palestine, the Arab natives were racialised as a transferrable population (Masalha 1992) and the myth of the empty land was translated into the ethos of making the desert bloom.
Foundational to the project of replacement is settler indigenisation, a process of naturalising and normalising settler colonialism (Morgensen 2012a, 9). This process has been facilitated in international law by the recognition of settler claims to sovereignty under the doctrine of discovery and the rendering of indigenous peoples and their sovereignties as juridically invisible (Evans 2009).
Settler indigenisation also ‘invokes any process that makes settlers and their polity appear to be proper to the land’ (Morgensen 2012a, 9; see also Veracini 2010). It is about ‘settler acquisition of entitlement as indigenous, and a corresponding indigenous loss of entitlement as such’ (Veracini 2015, 61, emphasis in original). The process of indigenising settlers is not free of ambivalence and contradictions. Bhabha has suggested that ‘“otherness” … is at once an object of desire and derision’ (Bhabha [1991] 1994, 96). Scholars have shown that settler indigenisation has often been premised on this
dialectic. On the one hand, indigenous cultures were destined for erasure, considered inferior and mocked. On the other hand, they were desired and appropriated in order to authenticate settlers as natural and proper to the land (in the context of the United States, see Deloria 1998; in the context of Israel/Palestine, see Guez 2015; Mendel and Ranta 2016; on the difference in settler indigenisation between Israel and Australia, see Wolfe 2006a, 389).
Furthermore, as Veracini argues ‘settler colonialism operates autonomously in the context of developing colonial discourses and practices’ (Veracini 2010, 1). Settler discourses are embedded in the eliminatory logic of settler colonialism, working to portray the land as empty and to render indigenous populations invisible, dispensable and replaceable. Race have been central to the elimination of the natives. Through race, Europeans codified, internally and globally, which populations were to be enslaved, eliminated, and entitled to or denied rights and freedoms. As Du Bois remarked, race has been ‘made the basis of denying to over half the world the right of sharing to utmost ability the opportunities and privileges of modern civilization’ (Du Bois 1998, 906). To make the native population redundant, their racialisation took the form of negating native humanity (Fanon 1967). As Arendt points out in the context of the Holocaust, ‘a condition of complete rightlessness was created before the right to live was challenged’ (Arendt [1951] 1986, 296).
While Anglophone settler colonialism emerged as a genocidal project, during the 20th century, and once the indigenous population had been reduced to a ‘manageable size’, Anglophone settler states incorporated the natives into the settler state and pursued assimilation as a method of elimination (Hopgood 2000). Zionism, as opposed, is ‘distinguished by its reluctance to assimilate’ (Wolfe 2007, 330; see also Wolfe 2016b).
Assimilation took the devastating form of removing indigenous children from their homes. Policies of assimilating indigenous children into whiteness were aimed at expediting the erasure of indigenous peoples and cultures within a few generations. In Canada, more than 150,000 children were placed in residential schools between 1887 and 1996 (TRCC 2015). In Australia, a rhetoric of child protection facilitated the removal of 100,000 Aboriginal children between the late 19th century and the 1960s, creating what came to be known as the Stolen Generations (AHRC 1997; Funston, Herring and
ACMAG 2016). These policies persist today. Statistics show that the rate of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care in Australia ‘is higher than the rate of removal during the Stolen Generations’, and Aboriginal children are 24 times more likely than non-Aboriginal children to be incarcerated (Funston, Herring and ACMAG 2016, 51, emphasis in original).
In Israel, the targeting of Palestinian children, though not for the purposes of assimilation, is evident in their high rate of incarceration – 10 times more than that of Jewish children (Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2015b). Similar to Anglophone settler contexts, the removal of Palestinian children from their homes and communities is designed to create a generational gap and is joined by a rhetoric of rehabilitation. In his work on Palestinian child prisoners, Hedi Viterbo argues that Israel’s recent policies of separating Palestinian child political prisoners and Palestinian adult political prisoners, along with new policies of ‘rehabilitating’ Palestinian children, is part of a wider policy of divide and rule. These new reforms are a ‘structure of driving a generational wedge between Palestinians and potentially weakening their political ties, solidarity, and resistance’ (Viterbo 2016a, 1; see also Viterbo 2016b for a comparative perspective on generational segregation in North America, Australia and Israel/Palestine).
Settler colonialism, nationalism and state-building processes are also deeply gendered and sexualised (Morgensen 2011; Stasiulis and Yuval-Davis 1995; Wolfe 1994; see also the discussion in Part III of this thesis). Settler women were perceived as ‘frontier women’ and as the breeders of the nation (Stasiulis and Yuval-Davis 1995, 16; see also Kanaaneh 2002 in the context of Israel/Palestine). Native gender and sexual orders were subjected to erasure, with settlers imposing patriarchal orders (Morgensen 2012a). In addition, policies of assimilation took the form of statistical genocide, with the settler state wielding the authority to determine who could be classified and counted as indigenous. Statistical genocide was deeply gendered. In the United States, Canada and Australia, indigenous women who had non-indigenous partners and whose children were therefore ‘mixed-race’ were denied recognition as indigenous under settler law (Wolfe 2001; Simpson 2007).
2.1 Settler Colonial Citizenship
Bhambra rightly points out that citizenship is neither natural nor neutral in the settler-colonial context (Bhambra 2015). It is often forgotten that native people did not choose to become citizens. They were forced into accepting settler citizenship after becoming minorities in their homelands following a loss of their communities and sovereignties. While we are accustomed to thinking of citizenship as a modern mechanism of inclusion, we often ‘fail to understand its beginnings as an institution fundamentally based on exclusion’ (Bhambra 2015, 5; see also Robinson 2013). The development of modern citizenship is closely tied to the historical formation of the settler state as one based on dispossession. Citizenship in settler colonialism is embedded in deeply racialised structures that encode the natives as invisible (Bhambra 2015). Such encoding is exemplified in the absence of natives from both the Australian and US constitutions (Chesterman and Galligan 1997; Mamdani 2015).
Extending citizenship to natives has become a viable option only after practices of physical genocide and ethnic cleansing have reduced native peoples to a small minority considered safe to settler sovereignty. In the United States, Native Americans were confirmed as citizens in 1924. In Australia, it was not until 1962 that the Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) was amended to ensure the unconditioned right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to vote in federal elections (Chappell, Chesterman and Hill 2009, ch 5). In both countries, the extension of citizenship and suffrage rights was closely tied to, and conditioned on, the assimilation of natives into whiteness and Western modernity – and, in the US case, into a protestant capitalist Americanism (Hopgood 2000). Emerging as a settler state only in the mid-20th century, Israel has been the only settler state to extend suffrage rights and citizenship to natives since its founding, and while at the height of its colonisation mission (Robinson 2013).
In his recent work on settler colonialism, Mahmood Mamdani suggests that native citizenship is premised on the bifurcation of political and civil rights. Native Americans in the United States, he argues, possess political rights – meaning the rights to vote and be elected – but not civil rights. Similar logic also applies to the Palestinians in Israel. As Mamdani states, ‘like American Indians in reservations, Palestinian Israelis may have the right to vote or even to be elected to office, but they live under a state of exception that
denies them constitutionally defensible civil rights’ (Mamdani 2015, 16). He further argues that citizenship laws in both Israel and the United States have rendered the natives naturalised citizens, but not citizens by birthright – a status reserved for the settlers (the making of Palestinian citizenship will be discussed in detail in Part I of this thesis).
With the folding of natives into citizens, the settler colonial condition – especially in the second half of the 20th century – became more ambivalent. While citizenship functions as a structure of exclusion, it is also characterised by a promise of inclusion. As long as native populations have faith in the possibility of citizenship, their containment is assured. This situation is pursued through confining the native struggle to the liberal logic of citizenship and, since the 1990s, to multicultural versions of citizenship. These work to naturalise natives as an internal issue of the settler state.
The ambivalence of the liberal settler condition blurs the classic dichotomies between occupier–occupied and oppressor–oppressed, binaries that are more prevailing in contexts of colonial occupation. Recognising the coloniality of the settler state demands moving beyond the view of citizenship as an opportunity structure (Jamal 2007a). It requires unpacking how the very institution of settler citizenship has been constituted as a mechanism for the control and governance of the remaining native population. Therefore, and as the discussion of the Palestinian queer movement in Part III of this thesis demonstrates, sustaining the dichotomy of settler versus native becomes an important political project that enables to transcend the liberal logic of citizenship and the illusion of inclusion that it produces.
2.2 Settler Colonialism in Palestine
Like other settler colonial projects, Zionism is based on the ‘systematic disavowal of indigenous presences’ (Veracini 2011b, 4). Arab Palestine was to be replaced with Jewish Israel. The project of building a Jewish state in Palestine, as Edward Said explains, is premised and conditioned on the destruction of Palestinian existence in Palestine (Said et al 1988). As Theodor Herzl, founding leader of Zionism, stated: ‘If I wish to substitute a new building for an old one, I must demolish before I construct’ (quoted in Wolfe 2006a, 388).
To establish a Jewish state, Zionism had to ensure Jewish demographic supremacy. Therefore, from its beginnings through to this day, Zionism has been concerned with transforming the population of Palestine by increasing Jewish immigration and reducing the number of Arabs. The statistics speak for themselves. Between 1922 and 1946, the Jewish population in Palestine was increasing at an average rate of 9% annually (Said 1979a, 17–18). By 1947, the ratio of Jews to Arabs was one to two. In the aftermath of the ethnic cleansing in 1948, only about 15% of the Arab population in Palestine would remain in what had become the State of Israel. This figure, it is argued, resembles the initial recommendation by the transfer committee that was appointed by David Ben-Gurion in 1948 (Kanaaneh 2002, 10).
The concern with demography was coupled with the pursuit of land. To that end, the Jewish National Fund was established in 1901 with a mandate to purchase land in Palestine for the exclusive use of the Jewish people. Zionist efforts to increase the Jewish population in Palestine were tremendously successful. However, at the end of 1947, Zionist ownership of land in Palestine was only 6.59% (Said 1979a, 98). This would dramatically change with the establishment of the State of Israel. Through law (most significantly, the enactment of the Absentees’ Property Law in 1950), the state took over property belonging to Palestinian refugees and to the internally displaced Palestinian population. In its first decades, the state also expropriated the majority of land owned by the Arab population that remained in Israel. And, it continues to do so from both sides of the Green Line. Today, Palestinians in Israel have ownership of only 3–3.5% of the land (Adalah 2011).
Among settler colonial formations, Zionism is unique in being a transnational project of settlement that is designed to host and represent a particular group of people across territorial lines. Zionism sought the concentration of World Jewry, constructed as a diaspora population, in a Jewish state in Palestine. Though ideas of forming a Jewish state in South America and Africa were raised, these were quickly abandoned (Said 1979a). Palestine had special appeal because of Jewish history in the region.
Zionism constructed itself as a national–religious–racial colonial project. It framed settlement in theological terms of Jewish return to Zion and Jewish reclamation of ancestral lands (Wolfe 2016b). Zionism sought the transformation of the Jewish people from a religious group to a national one. At the same time, Zionist leaders were committed to the European conception (and myth) of secularity. From its inception, Zionism was tasked with managing the irreconcilable contradiction between nationalism based on religion and the pursuit of a national project rooted in Western modern secularism (Friedman 1989).
Settler indigenisation in Palestine took a different course from that in other settler contexts. Asserting that Jews were the only people indigenous to Palestine, Zionism constructed Arabs as latecomers and invaders. To this day, Israel refuses to recognise the indigeneity of Palestinians (as further discussed in Part II of this thesis). As a result, the Arab history in Palestine had to be erased. Palestine was then subjected to intensive processes of Judaisation and Hebrewisation. In the words of Moshe Dayan, the prominent Israeli military and political leader:
Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You don’t even know the names of these Arab villages, and I don’t blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahalal arose in the place of Mahlul, Gvat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Haneifa, and Kfar-Yehoshua in the place of Tel-Shaman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population. (Quoted in Massad 2005, 7)
The emergence of the Zionist project and its subsequent success should be understood in light of both European anti-Semitism and orientalism. Zionism was a response to the Jewish experience of oppression, discrimination and violence in Europe. As scholars have pointed out, the European Jews were Europe’s internal racialised oriental others (Seikaly and Ajl 2014). They were seen as foreign to Christian Europe and as a problem that needed to be solved (the same narrative dominates Israel’s discourse on the Palestinians in Israel). Influenced by the Dreyfus trial, Herzl reached the conviction that there was no future for Jews in Europe. Christian Europe, he believed, would never consider Jews to be authentic to that continent. Jews in Europe were destined to be second-class citizens and a persecuted minority. What was needed, he claimed, was the formation of a national home for the Jewish European people. The Zionist solution to the Jewish question, Joseph
Massad observes, reproduced the anti-Semitic quest for ‘the removal of Jews from gentile societies’ (Massad 2010, 445; see also Wolfe 2016b). This removal of Jews, however, was not the removal of Europeanness. Unlike Anglophone settler colonialism – in which the settlers aspired to denounce and erase their European origins in the making of a new settler polity and nationalism – Zionism perceived itself as European.
Zionism internalised the European conception of race and reinforced the view of Jews as a race and a ‘volk’ (Massad 2005, 6; see also Abu El-Haj 2012; Wolfe 2016b). It was only outside of Europe that European Jews could finally establish themselves as a superior European white race that was equal to Christian civilisation. The original intention of Zionism was to establish a Jewish white–Ashkenazi–European state in Palestine11. Oriental/Mizrahi/Arab Jews12 were brought to Israel only reluctantly. The genocide of European Jews in the Holocaust had left Zionism with no choice but to rely on what Zionist leadership viewed as racially inferior and backward Jews in its pursuit of Jewish demographic dominance (Massad 1996; Shohat 1988). Mizrahi Jews were at once racialised as inferior Arabs and superior Jews. Their Arabness had to be erased. The aspiration to sustain white supremacy in Israel is still in play. During the 1990s, Israel encouraged a large immigration of Russians to Israel (today constituting over one million people), even though their Judaism was in question. Yet Israel continues to create obstacles to the immigration of a handful of Falash Mura Ethiopian Jews and works to restrict Ethiopian birth rates (Nesher 2012). Arguably, Israel’s policies towards African refugees and asylum seekers are driven by a similar racial aspiration (Yacobi 2011).
In its pursuit of Palestine as a national home, Zionism built on the European model of the racial nation state. It also drew from the European model of imperial territorial expansion. In fact, Zionism presented itself unashamedly as a ‘Jewish movement for colonial settlement in the Orient’ (Said 1979a, 69). A Jewish homeland, Zionist leaders emphasised, would be an extension of European imperialism. It would be a white, Western, enlightened, advanced, modern and civil enclave in a backward region. These arguments registered well with imperial Britain. In the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Britain
11 Ashkenazi Jews refers to Jews of European origin.
12 Mizrahi Jews are Jews of Arab origin, also known as Oriental Jews.
officially committed to building a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This achievement was facilitated by – and entrenched in – European orientalism.
The success of Zionism in recruiting European support for its settler colonial project must be understood in light of European orientalism (Said 1979a). Orientalism has three interconnected meanings. First, it is an academic discipline that includes ‘anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the Orient’ (Said 1978a, 2). Second, it is ‘a style of thought based upon ontological and epistemological distinction made between “the Orient” and (most of the time) “the Occident”’ (Said 1978a, 2). Third, since the late 18th century, it has been a ‘corporate institution for dealing with the Orient – dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient’ (Said 1989a, 3). Conceptualising orientalism as a discourse is important in our understanding of the ways in which ‘European culture was able to manage – and even produce – the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively’ (Said 1978a, 3).
Zionism built on an orientalist view of Arabs and Muslims. It constructed Arabs not only as a movable population, but also one that was backward, uncivil, and unworthy and incapable of self-governance. This conception was intrinsic to the Zionist claim over Palestine. It was, in turn, used to construct Jewish European settlers as a superior European race that was entitled to sovereignty. Racial superiority was leveraged to justify the invisibility of Palestinians. Palestinian lives, history and belonging to the land could be erased in favour of a Jewish revival in Palestine. And the fate of Palestinians could be determined without their participation. Commenting on the Balfour Declaration, Said notes:
… the declaration was made (a) by a European power, (b) about a non-European territory, (c) in a flat disregard of both the presence and the wishes of the native majority resident in that territory, and (d) it took the form of a promise about this same territory to another foreign group, so that this foreign group might, quite literally, make this territory a national home for the Jewish people. (Said 1979a, 15–16)
If Zionism in its early days capitalised on an oriental view of Arabs and Islam, Israel today is a primary investor in, and a benefactor and reproducer of, orientalism and
Islamophobia. Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims are dehumanised, demonised and depicted in racist culturalist terms. Samuel P. Huntington’s influential theory of the clash of civilisations – especially after 9/11 – has enhanced the production of Israel/Palestine as the collision of the civilised Israelis and the savage Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. This view is embedded in a larger project of culturalising political identities and conflicts (Mamdani 2004). As Mamdani argues, ‘it is no longer the market (capitalism), nor the state (democracy), but culture (modernity) that is said to be the dividing line between those in favour of a peaceful, civic existence and those inclined to terror’ (Mamdani 2004, 18).
As Wolfe argues, Israel is a settler project at the frontier stage (Wolfe 2016a). The Nakba is a structure, as well as an event. Since 1967, Israel has exerted control over the whole of historic Palestine. It operates multiple sovereignty and citizenship regimes in its governance of Palestinians. Israel within the Green line is a liberal settler polity that extends citizenship to its Palestinian subjects. Israel’s control of the ’67 territories is one marked by occupation, while East Jerusalem occupies the liminal space between Israel’s normalised sovereignty and its position as an occupying force.
Relying on the paradigm of occupation alone to conceptualise Israel’s policies in the ’67 territories is, however, problematic. Occupation assumes temporality. There is nothing temporal in Israel’s occupation and colonisation of the West Bank (see Ben-Naftali, Gross and Michaeli 2007 on the problem of temporality in the context of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank). The occupation should not be seen as a deviation from Israel’s settler project. Israel’s policies in the ’48 and ’67 territories may vary in their methodologies of domination and settler encroachment (though they also overlap), but not in the eliminatory and colonial aspirations that guide them.
Veracini argues that the ’67 territories are a failed project of settler colonialism – one that reverts to classic forms of colonialism (Veracini 2013). However, evidence indicates that the West Bank and Gaza have come to more closely resemble reservations than the South African Bantustans. Furthermore, an analysis of Israel’s colonial project reveals that while the colonisation of the West Bank appears at the moment to be a failed settler project, Israel’s policies continue to be guided by the expropriation of as much territory
as possible, making Jewish settlement irreversible. These policies are currently manifested in ethnic cleansing of particular settler frontiers such as East Jerusalem, the Naqab, the South Hebron Hills, and the Jordan Valley and other parts of Area C.13 Israel is continuingly declaring Palestinian land in Area C as ‘state land’ (UNOCHA 2016). Recent plans advanced by Israeli ministers to annex Area C, which constitutes about half of the West Bank, demonstrate that establishing facts on the ground is still central to Israel’s policies (Booth 2016). As stated by the United Nations Secretary General, ‘the creation of new facts on the ground through demolitions and settlement building raises questions about whether Israel’s ultimate goal is, in fact, to drive Palestinians out of certain parts of the West Bank, thereby undermining any prospect of transition to a viable Palestinian state’ (quoted in UNOCHA 2016). The project of naturalising settlement from both sides of the Green Line is not without success, as evidenced by the international community’s recognition of creeping settlement ‘blocs’ (such as Givat Zeev and Ariel).
What are the prospects of decolonising Palestine? The death of the two-state solution and Israel’s ongoing colonisation policies make the political solution of one democratic state more relevant than ever before. Palestinians constitute a substantial minority within the Green Line, numbering about 1.74 million people (Aderet 2015). An additional 4.79 million Palestinians reside in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (UN),14 and over 7 million are refugees. There are 6.57 million Jews and 6.51 million Palestinians in historical Palestine. In some respects, the prospects of decolonisation in Israel resemble South Africa more than Anglophone settler colonialism, where indigenous people constitute a small minority.
At the same time, in terms of the nature of its colonisation, Israel is more like the settler colonialism of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Zionist colonisation is premised on the logic of elimination and the removal of the native population, rather than on the exploitation of labour (as in South Africa). The Palestinians
13 According to the 1993 Oslo Accord, the West Bank territory has been divided into Areas A, B and C. Area A is supposed to be controlled by the Palestinian Authority, Area B by the Israeli military and the Palestinian Authority, and Area C by the Israeli military.
14 See http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=State%20of%20Palestine, accessed 22 September 2016.
are dispensable. They have lost significant parts of their homeland. This loss is irreversible. The question is how much more of their homeland they are destined to loose.
3. Resistance and Decolonisation in the Context of Settler Colonialism
As discussed above, settler colonialism is a project of replacement, predicated on the erasure – rather than exploitation – of native populations. This requires us to rethink the postcolonial theorisation of resistance and decolonisation for the particular context of settler colonialism. As Veracini argues:
There is yet no language of decolonisation pertaining to settler colonial contexts: when the focus is on decolonisation, settler colonialism remains off the radar; when settler colonialism as a specific colonial form is acknowledged, it is its decolonisation that is excised from the interpretative picture. (Veracini 2007)
In settler colonial contexts, both natives and settlers are there to stay. The decolonisation model that Fanon and Memmi discuss, of driving the settler out, is not a feasible scenario – neither practically nor morally. This demands that we rethink how we can conceptualise native freedom, sovereignty, self-determination and decolonisation.
To understand the contemporary resistance of indigenous peoples, we must understand what is being resisted. And what is being resisted is liberal settler colonialism. In contemporary liberal settler colonial formations, especially since the second half of the 20th century, indigenous peoples have been subjected to projects of assimilation and, since the 1990s, to multicultural rhetoric and forms of governance. Israel, as has been mentioned, is a relatively recent settler colonial project and is still at the frontier stage (Wolfe 2016a). The extension of citizenship to native subjects has produced an ambivalent structure of governance. Natives are at once citizens and colonial subjects. Or, perhaps more accurately, natives are not quite citizens and not quite colonial subjects.
Liberal settler colonialism thus poses a particular challenge to the theorisation of the colonial condition as total and dichotomous. Bhabha’s work has challenged the binaries of coloniser–colonised, settlers–natives, self–other, white–black and master–servant that have dominated postcolonial theory, primarily the work of Fanon and Said (Bhabha
[1991] 1994). Mbembe further argues that ‘these oppositions are not helpful; rather, they cloud our understanding of postcolonial relations’ (Mbembe 2001, 103). Bhabha’s theorisation of the representation of otherness as ambivalent is particularly relevant to liberal settler colonial contexts. Representations, he argues, are not coherent, total and consistent. While they work to establish regimes of truth, they fail to do so because of their inherent contradictions. In his words, ‘the colonial stereotype is a complex, ambivalent, contradictory mode of representation, as anxious as it is assertive, and demands not only that we extend our critical and political objectives but that we change the object of analysis itself’ (Bhabha 1983, 22).
The ambivalence of liberal settler colonialism is manifested in practices of inclusion and exclusion: extending symbolic recognition to natives while denying them material recognition, ensuring political rights while limiting civil rights, and employing discourses of reconciliation and national healing while continuing practices of dispossession and erasure. The folding of the native into the settler polity is never complete; it is partial and fragmented. Colonial power not only facilitates domination, it also ‘forms subjects’ (Butler 1997, 18). The encounter with the liberalism of the settler state produces the subjectivities of the native as hybrid in Bhabian terms, and as disjointed and split in Fanonian terms (Bhabha [1991] 1994; Fanon 1967). This hybridity is inevitable. While natives often feel alienated from settler society and are antagonistic towards the settler state, their engagement with the state is also normalised by their daily encounter with it as citizens (even if inferior citizens). They often work with (mostly for) settlers who are either their colleagues or their bosses, and they commute on public transport alongside settlers. They engage with the settlers’ educational system, health providers, police, social services, courts, ministries and so on.
At the same time, the subjectivities of indigenous people have also been shaped through their experience of settler colonialism as one of fragmented temporalities. As Mbembe argues, ‘there is a close relationship between subjectivity and temporality – that, in some way, one can envisage subjectivity itself as temporality’ (Mbembe 2001, 15). Settler colonialism is a structure of domination shaped through the axis of time. The past is characterised by native presence and ruptured by settler invasion, while the present is marked by continued experiences of trauma and loss, and the irreversibility of settler
colonialism. To envision subjectivity as temporality takes on a literal meaning in settler colonialism. The entanglement of past, present and future becomes expressed in native anxiety. This anxiety is marked by the uncertainty of the future and by fears of dispossession, displacement and erasure.
Fanon and Memmi contend that the totality of colonialism produces decolonisation as a rejectionist and oppositional project of revolt, while for Bhabha its ambivalence produces resistance as subversion. The ambivalence and hybridity of settler colonialism, this thesis suggests, have produced diverse modalities of resistance. Some resistances are accommodative, some are subversive, some are rejectionist and some are hybrid, encompassing more than one modality. As the next chapters show, demarcating these modalities is not as straightforward as it appears. Sometimes they are in competition with one another, and sometimes they complement each other. Moreover, these modalities, this chapter further suggests, need to be examined in light of the political projects – reformative, transformative and anticolonial – that shape native politics, contestations and resistance.
3.1 Resistance as Subversion
The idea of resistance as subversion is rooted in colonial discourse theory. Put simply, it is the subversion of the colonial discourse and the ‘disruption or modification of colonial modes of knowledge and authority’ (Jefferess 2008, 20). Bhabha argues that agency is never in an exterior position to power. The ambivalent nature of the colonial discourse and its failure to be a total form of representation, suggests Bhabha, produce instabilities that open a space for resistance to challenge, subvert and disrupt colonial authority (Bhabha [1991] 1994).
Arguably, the seeming contradiction between the liberal and colonial aspirations of the settler state creates opportunities for native resistance. It is not uncommon to see native peoples challenging the settler state, shaming it, and highlighting its hypocrisy by emphasising the gap between the liberal rhetoric of equality, citizenship, inclusion and rights and the state’s policies of discrimination, dispossession and exclusion. As the next chapter shows, the Palestinians in Israel are no exception. They often tap into the liberal discourse to challenge Israel’s image as a liberal state and to expose its racial foundations.
Looking at resistance as subversion also allows us to identify ‘low profile forms of resistance’ (Scott 1990, 19) and to see that ‘the most severe conditions of powerlessness and dependency would be diagnostic’ (Scott 1990, x). The subaltern contestation of power takes the form of what Scott conceptualises as hidden transcripts of resistance, representing ‘a critique of power spoken behind the back of the dominant’ (Scott 1990, xii). Here, Bhabha’s theorisation of resistance as mimicry and mockery has particular relevance (Bhabha [1991] 1994). As will be discussed in Part II of this thesis, which focuses on the Bedouin struggle for land, mockery functions as a powerful hidden transcript of resistance. It allows the natives to subvert the colonial gaze and to challenge their culturalisation, especially when their agency is not intelligible to white audiences.
Mimicry, argues Bhabha, is ‘almost the same, but not quite’ (Bhabha [1991] 1994, 122). It is a product of ambivalence and hybridity. Native practices of mimicry create a ‘“blurred copy” of the colonizer that can be quite threatening’ (Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin [2000] 2007, 125). Resemblance has the power to destabilise the colonial production of binaries based on racial difference. Mimicry is subversive when it creates its own slippage, transmuting from resemblance to menace (Bhabha [1991] 1994, 122). It becomes particularly incendiary when it is transformed into mockery.
While Bhabha sees mimicry – and hybridity – as disruptive, for Fanon mimicry is both a political obscenity and a pathological outcome of the colonial encounter. Fanon, however, welcomes mockery as a healthy expression of resistance that is politically significant and mentally liberating. Both Bhabha and Fanon share an understanding of mockery as an important practice of subjecting Europe to the gaze of the native and revealing the hypocrisies of liberal values and the European mission of civilising the native. However, as opposed to Bhabha’s conceptualisation, mockery in Fanon’s work is a deeply political rejectionist–oppositional practice. In his words:
In the colonial context the settler only ends his work of breaking in the native when the latter admits loudly and intelligibly the supremacy of the white man’s values. In the period of decolonization, the colonized masses mock at these very values, insult them, and vomit them up. (Fanon 1963, 43)
In his fetishisation of hybridity and mimicry as disruptive, Bhabha discounts mimicry as a colonial pathology that often reflects the desire to change one’s skin (Fanon 1963; Memmi [1965] 2003). Moreover, Loomba argues that ‘the split, ambivalent, hybrid colonial subject projected in his work is in fact curiously universal and homogenous’ (Loomba 1998, 178). The homogenisation of the colonial subject and the colonial condition also led to Bhabha’s failure, as Ella Shohat argues, to ‘discriminate between the diverse modalities of hybridity, for example, forced assimilation, internalized self-rejection, political co-optation, social conformism, cultural mimicry, and creative transcendence’ (Shohat 1992, 110).
This has particular relevance in settler colonialism, where notions of hybridity and mimicry cannot be separated from the eliminatory logics of settler colonialism, and from policies of assimilation and cultural genocide. The ability of the native to ‘pass as white’ in settler colonialism often takes an eliminatory rather than disruptive form. As Sarah Maddison shows in her work on Aboriginal peoples in Australia, for many indigenous people light skin is a burden (Maddison 2009), not a force that is disruptive to the racial regime of settler colonialism. Light skin renders them not ‘black’ or ‘authentic’ enough, compromising their recognition as indigenous (Maddison 2009). It is also important to consider that in settler colonialism, as will be further discussed in Part II, mimicry functions as a two-way stream. The settler also mimics and appropriates native culture as part of settler indigenisation processes.
Bhabha has been critical of Said’s totalising view of power, arguing that the relationship between discourse and politics is neither deterministic nor fixed (Bhabha [1991] 1994). In Said’s Orientalism, Bhabha argues, ‘colonial power and discourse is possessed entirely by the coloniser’ (Bhabha [1991] 1994, 122). This view, he suggests, leaves little room for recognising the agency and resistance of the colonised and fails to capture those subtle moments that work to trouble, negotiate and subvert colonial power.
However, Bhabha’s work understates the authority of colonial power and fails to consider how ‘power adapts to the subversions its ambivalence allows’ (Jefferess 2008, 35). Paradoxically, while his work insists on the agency of the colonised, this agency is limited to the ambivalence and subversion of the colonial discourse. Furthermore, Bhabha
underestimates the extent to which colonial discourses are effective in advancing colonial domination and reconfiguring colonial subjectivities. As Said suggests, ‘representations have purposes, they are effective much of the time, and they accomplish one or many tasks’ (Said 1978a, 273). Bhabha overlooks Said’s methodology of examining colonial discourses in light of their ‘discursive consistency’ (Said 1978a, 273). He instead overemphasises the potentialities of their ambivalence. He seems to be ‘more concerned with finding resistors and explaining resistance than with examining power’ (Abu-Lughod 1990, 41).
Critics have questioned the relevance of the notion of ambivalence, given that it failed to affect the durability of colonial domination (Parry 2004). Bhabha’s work, argues Massad, ‘appears committed to depoliticising deeply political questions’ (Massad 2004, 15). Benita Parry contends that Bhabha’s rejection of the colonial relationship as ‘antagonistic’ in favour of ‘agonistic’ premises ‘colonialism as a competition of peers rather than a hostile struggle between the subjugated and the oppressor’ (Parry 2004, 63). In Bhabha’s work, resistance is reduced to individual practices of resistance that do not require intentionality. It is disassociated from a conscious collective project of decolonisation. Bhabha is not interested in the actual possibilities of resistance leading to structural transformations (Jefferess 2008). His reading empties resistance of its political meanings and takes postcolonial theory away from its early revolutionary and radical origins.
Massad suggests that Bhabha ‘fails to understand that many among the colonized refuse his recipe of “mimicry”, no matter how “ambivalent”, as a liberationist strategy’ (Massad 2004, 17). In this respect, it could be argued, Bhabha’s theory is inadequate in capturing resistance that is driven by the politics of negation rather than negotiation, and resistance that is antagonistic rather than agonistic. Having said that, subversion can be potentially radical if it is grounded in or leading a radical project. As the case study of the Palestinian queer movement in Part III shows, subversion can be used in order to instigate a radical and antagonistic Fanonian project of decolonisation. In this respect, resistance as subversion can take multiple forms. It can be marked by accommodative politics, it can be manifested in everyday defiance, or it can be articulated in a collective project of anti-colonial resistance that is deeply political.
Ambivalence and hybridity as standalone theoretical insights are not novel. What make them interesting is their political articulations. As this thesis shows, ambivalence and hybridity are analytically important in terms of the political role they play and the political ends – and projects – they advance. Therefore, following Saidian methodology that insists on discursive consistency can inform an analysis of ambivalence that is political. Reading ambivalence and hybridity into the convergence between liberalism and settler colonialism – as they also manifest in the intersections of race, ethnicity, class, gender and sexuality – allows us to unpack the ways in which the colonial project positions itself as morally superior, authoritative and sustainable. It can also help to identify those subtle moments, as Bhabha rightly notes, in which the colonial discourse is subjected to its own contradictions.
3.2 Resistance as Negation and Restructuring of the Self
While Bhabha reads the colonial condition as one marked by ambivalence, for Fanon ‘the colonial world is a world cut in two’ (Fanon 1963, 38). The violence of colonialism is total and inescapable. Therefore, for Fanon, ambivalence and hybridity can only be pathological outcomes of colonisation.
Decolonisation, argues Fanon, ‘is the meeting of two forces, opposed to each other by their very nature’ (Fanon 1963, 36). It can be defeated only by the refusal of the colonised to accept the condition of colonial domination. Mimicry and hybridity are antithetical to a project of liberation (Fanon 1963; Memmi [1965] 2003). Similarly, Memmi contends that ‘as long as he [the colonized] tolerates colonization, the only possible alternatives for the colonized are assimilation or petrifaction’ (Memmi [1965] 2003, 146). Resistance should therefore be conceptualised as an antagonistic project of decolonisation. Accommodative politics has no place. In Memmi’s words, ‘revolt is the only way out of the colonial situation, and the colonized realizes it sooner or later. His condition is absolute and cries for an absolute solution; a break and not a compromise’ (Memmi [1965] 2003, 171).
Decolonisation is understood in Fanon’s work to be a process. The event of driving the settlers out is fundamental to this process. However, for decolonisation to be emancipatory, the colonised must refuse to mimic the European model. For Fanon, this refusal is essential in order to overcome the pitfalls of nationalism and to decolonise the self, the native society and the postcolonial state. In his concluding remarks in The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon writes:
So, comrades, let us not pay tribute to Europe by creating states, institutions, and societies which draw their inspiration from her.
Humanity is waiting for something from us other than such an imitation, which would be almost an obscene caricature.
If we want to turn Africa into a new Europe, and America into a new Europe, then let us leave the destiny of our countries to Europeans. They will know how to do it better than the most gifted among us.
But if we want humanity to advance a step further, if we want to bring it up to a different level than that which Europe has shown it, then we must invent and we must make discoveries.
If we wish to live up to our peoples’ expectations, we must seek the response elsewhere than in Europe.
Moreover, if we wish to reply to the expectations of the people of Europe, it is no good sending them back a reflection, even an ideal reflection, of their society and their thought with which from time to time they feel immeasurably sickened.
For Europe, for ourselves, and for humanity, comrades, we must turn over a new leaf, we must work out new concepts, and try to set afoot a new man. (Fanon 1963, 315–16)
This revolutionary stance articulates decolonisation as a double project: a project of negating, refusing and displacing Europe, and a project of building an alternative (Fanon 1963). A politics of rejection functions as a pedagogy and as an ethical imperative of resistance that is foundational to a simultaneous project of decolonisation and recovery, of both the self and the nation (Fanon 1963). Decolonisation, Fanon states, is ‘nothing short of the liberation of the man of color from himself’ (Fanon 1967, 8). As the discussion of the case studies shows, rejecting colonial discourses and representations is intrinsic to resisting the very materiality of dispossession, challenging epistemic violence, and decolonising the self. Rejection also functions as an emancipatory process through which the colonised are able to assert their humanity and their subjecthood.
Rejection is not a standalone strategy; it is joined by a project of recovery of the self, a process of healing from the physical, epistemic and mental violence of colonialism. Memmi elucidates this point:
… the colonized’s liberation must be carried out through a recovery of self and of autonomous dignity. Attempts at imitating the colonizer required self-denial; the colonizer’s rejection is the indispensable prelude to self-discovery. That accusing and annihilating image must be shaken off; oppression must be attacked boldly since it is impossible to go around it. After having been rejected for so long by the colonizer, the day has come when it is the colonized who must refuse the colonizer. (Memmi [1965] 2003, 172)
As the work of Partha Chatterjee shows, the project of rejection and of offering humanity something ‘other than such an imitation’ is not a simple task. Colonialism, Chatterjee argues, has taken our political imagination: ‘even our imaginations must forever be colonised’ (Chatterjee 1993, 5). In his lecture ‘Our Modernity’, Chatterjee further argues that colonialism has also precluded us from developing our own modernities. In his words:
Because of the way in which the history of our modernity has been intertwined with the history of colonialism, we have never quite been able to believe that there exists a universal domain of free discourse, unfettered by differences of race or nationalism. (Chatterjee 1997, 14)
Though our modernities are bound to be marked by the experience of colonisation, Chatterjee asserts that we must insist on a world marked by multiplicities of modernities, meaning that there ‘might be modernities that are not ours’ (Chatterjee 1997, 3). He stresses that Third World agency must mobilise the courage to reject ‘modernities established by others’, so that we can ‘fashion the forms of our modernity’ (Chatterjee 1997, 20). Dipesh Chakrabarty argues for a project of provincialising Europe. For him, this project is doomed to be impossible as long as ‘the themes of citizenship and the nation state dominate our narratives of historical transition’ (Chakrabarty 1992, 23).
This bears particular significance to indigenous pedagogies of resistance and visions of decolonisation, especially since ‘citizenship is key to this process of rationalizing dispossession’ (Simpson 2014, 25). When it comes to native resistance, Jeff Corntassel argues, liberalism produces an ‘illusion of exclusion’ that works to contain and appropriate indigenous struggles by binding them to ‘state-centric terms’ in order to
‘divert attention away from deep decolonizing movements and push us towards a state agenda of co-optation and assimilation’ (Corntassel 2012, 91). This illusion should be read as part of the politics of distraction, a ‘colonizing process of being kept busy by the colonizer, of always being on the “back-foot”, “responding”, “engaging”, “accounting”, “following” and “explaining”. These are typical strategies often used over indigenous people’ (Smith 2003). Responding to these liberal attempts of cooptation, indigenous resurgence must have ‘the courage and imagination to envision life beyond the state’ (Corntassel 2012, 89).
In her book Mohawk Interruptus, Audra Simpson invites us to think of refusal as an alternative modality of resistance. She argues that ‘there is a political alternative to “recognition”, the much sought-after and presumed “good” of multicultural politics. This alternative is “refusal”’ (Simpson 2014, 11). The politics of refusal formulates resistance as a practice that transcends the ambivalence of liberal settler colonialism and the containing effect of multiculturalism. It favours an anti-colonial project that refuses the normalisation and naturalisation of settler colonialism, a task complicated by the folding of natives into settler citizenship. This refusal can be articulated in acts of everyday resistance that reject assimilation, defy settler authority, and assert native sovereignty (for example, by native people staying on their own land). It can also be advanced by declarative acts such as repudiating the settler state’s passport, resisting being called American or Canadian (or Israeli), declining social services, abstaining from paying taxes (Simpson 2014), or seceding from the settler state and declaring native sovereignty (Brewster 2015).
The politics of refusal acknowledges the political imperative of understanding the settler colonial condition in terms of domination and submission, along with recognition of native agency. It insists on the articulation of the colonial relationship in binary terms of settlers–natives, coloniser–colonised and oppressor–oppressed. As Memmi states:
… the colonized reacts by rejecting all the colonizers en bloc … In the eyes of the colonized, all Europeans in the colonies are de facto colonizers, and whether they want to be or not, they are colonizers in some ways. By their privileged economic position, by belonging to the political system of oppression, or by participating in an effectively negative complex toward the colonized, they are colonizers. (Memmi [1965] 2003, 174)
The act of marking the settlers as ‘settlers’ is a particularly important rejectionist and subversive act in settler colonial contexts, in which the presence of settlers is naturalised as part of the settler indigenisation process.
Rejection, this thesis suggests, is an important methodology in carving out a space for dealing with the hybridity that has come to colonise the native life and imagination. In this respect, the insistence on the political imperative of rejection as foundational to a liberation project does not reflect a nativist proposition, nor does it suggest that the legacies of colonialism can be erased as if they never existed. Instead, the rejectionist (and, in particular, Fanonian) position should be read as a guiding compass, a pedagogy and a normative goal of decolonisation.
3.3 The Liberal Politics of Human Rights
Contemporary native resistance has been shaped not only in relation to the liberal settler state, but also in relation to the liberal politics of human rights. Human rights have come to occupy the most significant – and hegemonic – emancipatory framework in today’s world. The human rights discourse and human rights law have become central to the mobilisation of the marginalised in the advancement of their struggles (Keck and Sikkink 1998). For oppressed minorities and indigenous peoples who are subjected to the violence of the sovereign nation state, human rights have provided an alternative normative framework for making claims, allowing them to bypass (to a limited extent) the restraining force of domestic law. The strategy of naming and shaming is mobilised to ‘enforce international human rights norms and laws’ (Hafner-Burton 2008, 659).
In the contemporary world order, human rights have become a triumphant ideal of Western modernity (Douzinas 2000). They have emerged as a powerful global narrative, closely tied to discourses of citizenship, the nation state and modernity. The consolidation of the international regime of human rights has also meant the universalisation of modern Western epistemological and ontological categories of rights and identities. In this respect, it is valuable to consider, as Costas Douzinas suggests, the historical processes and politics that make human rights ‘both creations and creators of modernity’ (Douzinas 2000, 19). As this thesis shows, this is particularly relevant with regard to the ways that
human rights have been complicit with – and producers of – the women and queer questions, as well as the culturalisation of indigenous peoples as premodern.
The genesis of the idea of rights can be correlated with the development of the European liberal tradition. But it should also be read in light of its exclusions and its entanglements with the history of empire and (settler) colonialism. The development of the modern human rights regime was marked by the paradoxes resulting from the contradictions – and divergences – between colonialism, liberalism and rights. Studying the wars of independence in Kenya and Algeria, Fabian Klose identifies two important parallel processes in the development of the modern human rights regime in the post-World War II period. He points to the leading role that Britain and France played in developing the human rights framework in the United Nations and Europe. This occurred while the two countries were violating the human rights of native peoples in their colonies. Both Britain and France, Klose argues, sought to create a ‘divided world’, pushing forward the idea of human rights while working ‘at all costs to prevent the spread of universal human rights to their overseas possessions’ (Klose 2009, 5). This creation of a ‘divided’ world continues to shape the involvement of Western countries in the evolution of the human rights regime. Despite their rhetorical commitment to human rights, Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand were the only four counties to vote against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 (Merlan 2009).
Burke suggests that it is misleading to read the development of the international human rights regime as exclusively dominated by the West. Human rights – as both an ideal and a regime – change, expand and evolve through contestations that involve states, international and supranational institutions, academia and civil society organisations. In his work, Burke argues that Arab, African and Asian involvement was as significant as that of the West in formulating the human rights agenda. Similarly, indigenous people played an important role in developing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Merlan 2009; Peterson 2010). In this respect, the political agenda of decolonisation still figures in the making of the modern international human rights regime (Burke 2010; Merlan 2009). However, the contestations over what human rights mean and what they could mean, what kinds of rights they articulate, and what protections they
guarantee are still shaped by political compromises that are made under structural power imbalances.
Reading human rights merely as complicit with colonialism and imperialism can fail to capture the historical junctures at which human rights arguably functioned as a radical emancipatory discourse. For Malcolm X, the idea of human rights served to articulate his refusal of a liberation project centred on liberal demands for equality and inclusion in the racial state. In his words:
Civil rights means you’re asking Uncle Sam to treat you right. Human rights are something you were born with. Human rights are your God-given rights. Human rights are the rights that are recognized by all nations of this earth. And any time any one violates your human rights, you can take them to the world court. (Malcolm X and Breitman 1965a, 35)
Struggles for the universalisation of rights – such as the women’s suffrage movement, the anti-slavery movement, the anti-apartheid movement and decolonisation struggles – were first and foremost about expanding the category of humanity. As the work of Hanna Arendt shows, being recognised as human is a precondition to the right to have rights. In a study on the transnational anti-apartheid movement, Audie Klotz argues that ‘anti-apartheid activists had to establish the global principle of racial equality before South Africa could be pressured, through shaming and more coercive sanctions measures, into abolishing white minority rule’ (Klotz 2002, 52).
While human rights are not new, Samuel Moyn argues that it was only in the 1970s that they ‘came to define people’s hopes for the future as the foundation of an international movement and a utopia of international law’ (Moyn 2010, 7). With the end of formal colonialism and the revolutionary project of decolonisation, along with the impasses of the Cold War, human rights emerged as the new utopia, a new emancipatory project with which people, especially Westerners, can identify. Human rights have essentially emerged as a conservative project, constituted as a liberal project for organising world order and international relations around international law (Charvet and Kaczynska-Nay 2008). This arguably delimits human rights as an emancipatory project.
The failures of human rights to ensure protection brought to the fore the growing alienation of ordinary people from human rights. With the transnationalisation of civil society, human rights have become an industry and a bureaucracy. What was once a potentially emancipatory discourse has become a technocratic industry that is associated with global capital and imperial/foreign interests. In her work on human rights in Palestine, Lori Allen argues that the failure of human rights to ensure protection has led to what she identifies as the growing cynicism of ordinary people towards the system (rather than the ideal) of human rights (Allen 2013). In Palestine, she argues, human rights have come to be associated with oppressive local political forces, bourgeois and corrupt local elites, global imperialism and capital, and discourses of state-building that contain the Palestinian struggle for liberation, dignity and sovereignty.
Scholars have argued that human rights have also been complicit with domination. Lila Abu-Lughod shows how human rights groups have contributed to the production of Muslim women as victims of Islam and as subjects in need of rescue. She argues that in the case of the War in Afghanistan, ‘women’s rights served as a respectable reason to support military intervention’ (Abu-Lughod 2013, 54). In their recent intervention, Nicola Perugini and Neve Gordon suggest that international human rights can be mobilised by the powerful to justify domination and wars. Looking at Palestine, they show how human rights have become a framework that is used by settler organisations to rationalise encroachment and violence.
The contemporary paradoxes in which human rights are the vocabulary of both the oppressor and the oppressed demonstrate the ways in which human rights are losing their ethical and moral currency among the subordinated. Human rights are currently a space of contestation between those who appropriate human rights to legitimise domination, and those who insist on human rights as a political imperative with a utopian objective. The contemporary crises of human rights have led Douzinas to posit that we may be at the end of the age of human rights. He argues that ‘the end of human rights comes when they lose their utopian end’ (Douzinas 2000, 380).
Human rights remain significant to the marginalised. Despite alienation and cynicism, they are still invoked through the tactic of strategic essentialism. However, the question
remains whether the subaltern use of human rights leads to radicalising, reworking, negotiating and transforming the different meanings of human rights (in the coming chapters, I engage with the multiple ways in which human rights are being utilised, re-interpreted, re-signified and rejected within Palestinian resistance). Emerging movements such as Black Lives Matter, along with new movements in Palestine and among indigenous peoples, refuse the liberal and apolitical grammar of rights. They refrain from framing their struggle in human rights terms. Instead, they return to radical and revolutionary emancipatory projects of decolonisation and deracialisation. Whether these movements will initiate new projects that can displace the hegemony of human rights and become the new utopia is still an open question.
3.4 Decolonising Settler Colonialism
The ambivalence of liberal settler colonialism and the agendas of human rights inform and produce multiple political projects. As the next chapters of this thesis demonstrate, these projects evolve, transform, compete, coexist and displace one another all at the same time.
The projects can be broadly characterised as reformative, transformative and anticolonial. Reformative projects are based on liberal demands for civic equality. They accept the polity as is, but seek to reform it as inclusionary and equal. Transformative projects demand the structural transformation of the settler polity in ways that can accommodate the special status of the natives. These demands can include recognition, cultural autonomy, distributive justice, power-sharing and so on. Transformative projects are usually premised on the subversion of the liberal discourse of the settler state and often rely on a multicultural rhetoric of rights claims. Anticolonial projects are radical projects of decolonisation. These projects seek to dismantle the settler regime, insisting instead on native sovereignties. They can be characterised by a Fanonian understanding of decolonisation as ‘a complete calling in question of the colonial situation’ (Fanon 1963, 37).
These different political projects inform contestations within oppressed communities over the nature of the struggle and its political ends. The recent debate on constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia exemplifies
some of the core dilemmas faced by indigenous resistance. Should indigenous people pursue recognition and inclusion? If so, what kind of recognition should be pursued? And what would recognition mean to historical indigenous demands for sovereignty? Similarly, leaders of the civil rights movement in the United States were divided along ideological lines. Representing the moderate and liberal agenda was Martin Luther King, who sought equality in and through the US political and legal system. He utilised – and subverted – the discourse of perfecting the American dream to make demands for de-racialisation. In contrast, Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party refused the liberal foundations of King’s approach, arguing that the racial underpinnings of the United States makes equality contingent on a white gesture (Bloom and Martin 2013; Tyner 2013). Instead, they advanced an agenda that called for the pursuit of bodily sovereignty and the forming of transnational anti-imperial and anti-racial alliances and solidarities (Bloom and Martin 2013; Tyner 2013).
After two decades marked by the hegemony of a multicultural transformative agenda, recent years have seen a growing indigenous critique of multiculturalism, questioning its emancipatory potential. The failure of multiculturalism to transform the colonial relationship has led scholars and activists to question paradigms of inclusion, recognition, reconciliation, transitional justice and the emancipatory promise of civil and human rights (Alfred 2005; see also Coulthard 2014; Povinelli 2002; Wolfe 1992). Liberal multiculturalism is increasingly acknowledged as ‘an ideology and practice of governance’ of indigenous people (Povinelli 2002, 5; see also Simpson 2014, 20) and the ‘latest stage in the colonial project’ (Short 2008). Instead, recent indigenous scholarship has argued for the resurgence of alternative indigenous emancipatory projects that re-centre sovereignty and self-determination (Alfred and Corntassel 2005; Simpson 2014).
‘Rootedness’ remains a key to the resistance of indigenous people (Nasasra 2012). ‘To get in the way of settler colonization, all the native has to do is stay at home’ (Wolfe 2006a, 388). The survival of indigenous people means that the settler project is never ultimately triumphant (Veracini 2011b, 4).
This chapter has presented the theoretical framework and concepts that will guide the analysis in the next chapters. It has suggested that in order to understand resistance, we need to understand what is being resisted: liberal settler colonialism. The liberal characteristics of liberal settler colonialism, along with the liberal politics of human rights and multiculturalism, are significant factors in shaping native modalities of resistance and political visions of decolonisation – reformative, transformative and anticolonial. In their resistance, native peoples employ a variety of strategies. Some are accommodative, some are subversive, and others are antagonistic and rejectionist.
The next chapters in this thesis focus on the resistance of ’48 Palestinians to Israeli settler colonialism. They explore the racialised, ethnicised, gendered and sexualised dimensions of settler colonial violence, consider how these shape colonial subjectivities and modalities of resistance, and identify the ways in which the transnational is imbricated within these processes. The case studies unravel the complex and ambivalent ways in which different groups of ’48 Palestinians respond to and engage with the liberalism that animates the settler state and the politics of human rights. They shed light on how native people deploy, appropriate, subvert, rework and reject liberal frameworks in the process of intersectional resistance.
The next chapter, Chapter 2, provides a historical overview and an analysis of Palestinian subjugation and resistance in Israel. It focuses on the racialisation of Palestinian citizenship and examines how the nature of Israel as a liberal settler state has informed and shaped ’48 Palestinian resistance and political visions.
Chapter 2
Palestinian Resistance and the Paradoxes of Liberal Settler Colonialism
This chapter sets the foundation for the two case studies – the Palestinian Bedouin struggle for land rights and the Palestinian queer movement – that will be discussed in Parts II and III, respectively. It explores the development of ’48 Palestinian subjectivity and citizenship, and analyses the development of Palestinian politics and resistance in
Israel. The chapter also engages with the dominant scholarship, and the narratives it has produced, on Palestinian politics and activism.
The chapter moves beyond the prevailing scholarly conceptualisation of Palestinian citizenship in ethnic terms and the framing of Israel as an ethnic democracy (Smooha 1990, 1997, 2002; for more on ethnic democracy, see Peled 1992, 2005b; Shafir and Peled 1998), as a an ethnic state (Ghanem, Rouhana and Yiftachel 1998; Jamal 2002; Rouhana 1997, 1998, 2006; Rouhana and Ghanem 1998; Rouhana 1998; Sa’di 2000; Yiftachel 1992) and as an ethnocracy (Yiftachel 1998, 1999, 2006). It further moves beyond the traditional analysis that conceptualises the trajectory of Palestinian struggle as a development from liberal to national politics (see Haklai 2011; Jamal 2011; Rekhess 2007) and from a politics of quiescence and accommodation to a politics of contention and challenge (Jamal 2007a; Rekhess 2007; Rouhana 1989) and a politics of radicalisation (Frisch 1997; Rekhess 2003).15
As such, this chapter offers an alternative reading of the dynamics that have shaped – and continue to shape – the Palestinian struggle in Israel. The chapter suggests that race and settler colonialism have been constitutive to the making of the citizenship regime in Israel and the shaping of ’48 Palestinian politics and resistance. Both the subjugation and the resistance of ’48 Palestinians, it is suggested, should be understood in light of the paradoxes that result from the emergence of Israel as a liberal settler state (Robinson 2013) and the affinity between Israel and Western liberalism (Freeman-Maloy 2011; Massad 1993, 2016; Said 1978b, 1979a, 1979b, 1985), as well as the ways in which Palestinians in Israel figure within these paradoxes.
Based on original archival research and secondary resources, the first two sections of the chapter focus on the nature of the settler colonial domination and violence to which Palestinians in Israel are subjected. The first section argues that Palestinian citizenship is best understood as a liminal construct between semi-liberal citizenship and colonial
15 For a detailed discussion on whether Palestinians in Israel have been radicalised, see Peleg and Waxman (2012 ch 3), Jamal (2007a) and Smooha (1989).
subjecthood, producing the ’48 Palestinian as a dislocated subject. Palestinian existence in Israel, it is further argued, is still governed and shaped in relation to the continued working of the Zionist/Israeli settler colonial project as a structure of dispossession, elimination and erasure.
The second section examines the ways in which ’48 Palestinians figure in the Israeli narrative. It argues that ’48 Palestinians, from the very early days of the Jewish state, have been an important asset in the invention of Israel as a liberal and civilising force. At the same time, Israel’s discriminatory policies towards the Palestinians in Israel have also come to pose a significant challenge to its image as a liberal democracy and to the powerful alliance between Zionism and Western liberalism.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this chapter look at the development of the Palestinian struggle in Israel. Section 3 provides a broad overview, focusing on both parliamentary activity and popular mobilisation. It shows the ways in which state suppression of Palestinian national movements has resulted in the struggle being imbued in a particular liberal discourse that is based on demands for civil equality, citizenship and inclusion.
Sections 4 and 5 focus on the emergence and consolidation of the ’48 Palestinian national movement and Non-Governmental Organisations in Israel (NGOs) in the 1990s and early 2000s. This emergence, it is argued, has corresponded with the global revival in civil society and with the rise of the international minority rights regime and liberal multiculturalism. Consequently, the ’48 Palestinian national movement in Israel has developed as a liberal national movement, and ’48 Palestinian civil society has developed as a liberal construct. The Palestinian struggle in Israel has come to fetishise liberal multiculturalism. Demands for recognition as a national minority and demands for cultural autonomy have therefore become central discourses in the struggle of ’48 Palestinians.
Section 6 concludes the chapter by suggesting that the hegemony of ’48 Palestinian liberal nationalism is being challenged by the rise of new movements, led by a new generation of activists. These movements reject the liberal logics of recognition and
citizenship, advancing instead a radical project of decolonisation that demands the dismantling of the racial settler state.
1. The Production of the Palestinian Citizen-Subject
There needs to be a citizenship law, but not for Jews. When a Jew comes to settle – he is automatically a citizen, because he is guaranteed the right to be a citizen upfront/in advance. The differentiation that I make here is not concerned with the laws, but rather with the rights towards this land. Others [non-Jews] have the right to be here only by gesture (B’Chesed), but not the Jew. He is entitled (Bi’zkhut). That is my basic presumption. (David Ben Gurion, Cabinet Meeting, 9 January 1950, my translation from Hebrew)
This statement by David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of the State of Israel, was made during a debate in the Cabinet on the citizenship law. Ben Gurion strongly opposed the idea of a citizenship law, believing that it limited the ability of the new state to further reduce the number of Arabs within its territory. He was also ideologically opposed to the idea that Arabs and Jews would be naturalised and governed under the same citizenship law. Jews, Ben Gurion suggested, do not need a citizenship law, since ‘a Jew who came to Eretz Israel [the land of Israel] is anyway a citizen’ (Cabinet Meeting, 9 January 1950, my translation from Hebrew), adding that ‘every Jew that is settled in Eretz Israel is historically a citizen’ (Cabinet Meeting, 21 April 1949, my translation from Hebrew).16
To solve this conundrum, a compromise was reached. Two different laws were legislated to govern Jewish and Arab citizenship. The 1950 Law of Return17 regulates Jewish citizenship, while Palestinian citizenship is anchored in the 1952 Citizenship Law.18 The Law of Return constructs Jewish immigration as the fulfilment of the right of Jews to ‘return’ to their ancestral land, a right denied to Palestinian refugees. In contrast, the Citizenship Law requires Palestinian natives to be naturalised. Thus, according to these
16 An additional reason for Ben Gurion’s opposition to the naturalisation of Jews was the fear that asking Jewish immigrants to naturalise would lead to a backlash, as it required them to make a conscious and active decision to accept Israeli citizenship. As he stated, ‘we do not want to raise the question, whether you decline or do not decline [Israeli] citizenship, among the Jews’. He therefore suggested treating all Jews as citizens (see Cabinet Meeting Protocols, 21 April 1949, my translation from Hebrew).
17 The Law of Return 5710 (1950), accessed 18 August 2016, http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/return.htm.
18 Nationality Law 5712 (1952), accessed 18 August 2016, http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/israellaws/fulltext/nationalitylaw.htm.
laws, Jewish citizenship is a historical and natural right, while Palestinian citizenship is an ahistorical right that is granted through the goodwill of the state. The Law of Return and the Citizenship Law are among the most significant symbolic and material embodiments of Zionist-settler indigenisation, simultaneously indigenising Jewish settlers while de-indigenising Palestinians. Race is thus constitutive to the making and operation of the citizenship regime in Israel.19
Citizenship for Palestinians did not emerge as an inclusionary system. Rather, it was conceived and constructed, Shira Robinson argues, as a structure of exclusion (Robinson 2013). While the extension of citizenship to Palestinians could be read as a divergence from Israel’s colonial practices and a testament to the liberal conviction of the new leadership, the protocols of the Israeli Cabinet tell a different story. The Citizenship Law was not intended to include native Palestinians as fully entitled citizens. As Israeli Cabinet protocols reveal, its primary goal was to restrict, as much as possible, the number of Palestinians who would be entitled to citizenship under Israeli law (Cabinet Meetings, 21 April 1949; 7 June 1950; 15 February 1951; 26 June 1951).
The Citizenship Law was deemed necessary in Israel’s ‘war on infiltrators’, amid fears of large waves of Palestinian returnees that could threaten the Jewish demographic superiority achieved in the aftermath of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 (Robinson 2013; for more on the war on infiltrators, see Cohen 2006). This was accomplished by legislating a set of cumulative conditions that Palestinians must meet in order to qualify as citizens (Kretzmer 1990, 37). These conditions were made as restrictive as possible, making it difficult for Palestinians to meet them. The Citizenship Law continues to be guided by the desire to minimise Palestinian presence. Recent amendments (upheld by Israel’s Supreme Court) prevent family unification of Palestinian citizens of Israel with Palestinians from the Occupied Territories and Arab citizens of ‘enemy’ states (Zarchin 2012). Such amendments, as shown in the case study on the queer movement, are deeply racialised and gendered, governing the most intimate aspects of Palestinian family life.
19 Racialised citizenship regimes shape not only Palestinian citizenship, but also stratified regimes of citizenship and rights for Jews, along racial/ethnic lines (see Abdo 2011; Ben Porat and Turner 2011; Peled 2008; Peled and Shafir 1996; Mizrachi and Herzog 2012; Raijman 2010; Shafir and Peled 2002).
Furthermore, the naturalisation of Palestinians was not as straightforward as it is often portrayed. In fact, in Israel’s first census in November 1948, one-third of the Palestinians under Israel’s control were not counted. Moreover, when the Citizenship Law came into force in 1952, only 63,000 of an estimated 160,000 Palestinians in Israel were entitled to citizenship (Bäuml 2006, 394; Blecher 2005, 735; Robinson 2013, 100). Between 1952 and 1955, only 309 Palestinians were granted citizenship out of 3,810 applications (Haklai 2011, 57).20 In addition, the Naqab-Bedouin were still facing expulsion beyond Israel’s (contested) borders until the United Nations intervened in 1959. They were naturalised only in the late 1950s (Jiryis 1976).
The gradual naturalisation of Palestinians, which was carried out up until the 1980s, was not coincidental. In fact, Ben Gurion maintained that Israel should not rush to regulate citizenship of the remaining Arabs as long as the question of borders remained open (Cabinet Meeting, 21 April 1949). He objected to extending citizenship to Arabs beyond those who were counted in the 1948 census. In his words, ‘we do not need to rush to provide Arabs full rights and citizenship … we do not know how things will unfold in the coming years’ (Cabinet Meeting, 15 February 1951, my translation from Hebrew).21 In his important work, Bäuml shows that until the end of the 1950s, the Zionist leadership had surmised – or at least hoped – that the presence of Palestinians in Israel might be temporary (Bäuml 2007).22
While, internationally, Israel celebrated the inclusion of Arabs as citizens, the ’48 Palestinians were placed under military rule until 1966. During this period, the lives, communities, economies and very existence of Palestinians continued to be severely strained by Israel’s colonisation policies, marked by ethnic cleansing and by the de-
20 Even Palestinians who were granted suffrage rights during the first elections for the Constituent Assembly in 1949 and the Israeli legislative elections in 1951 were not issued with an Israeli passport (they were instead issued with a Laissez-Passer), as were Jewish citizens. See Cabinet Meeting Protocols, 27 June 1951, Israel State Archives, Jerusalem [Hebrew].
21 Furthermore, Ben Gurion’s position on this issue has been consistent. As Robinson states, in 1947 Ben Gurion objected to the extension of citizenship to Arabs, because then it would be impossible to expel them (Robinson 2013, 24).
22 Some scholars have suggested that the massacre in 1956 was an attempt to create such conditions, similar to the effect that the Deir Yassin massacre had. However, no substantial historical evidence has yet been found to substantiate the claim (in Bäuml 2007).
Arabising and the Judaising of the space (on the policies of Judaisation, see Falah 2003; Marx 2011; Yiftachel 1999; Yiftachel and Yacobi 2003; on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, see Masalha 1992; Pappe 2006). During the military rule period, Israel dramatically transformed the geographic and demographic landscape by demolishing abandoned Palestinian villages, erasing signifiers of Arab presence, and transforming the space by changing the names of cities, villages and historical monuments from Arabic to Hebrew (Benvenisti 1997; Peteet 2005).
Controlling the Palestinian minority militarily was intrinsic to the Zionist task of mass transfer of Palestinian land to Jewish and state ownership. In fact, the vast majority of Palestinian land and property was confiscated during the military rule. By 1962, the state had expropriated 75% of the land in the northern area of the country (Payes 2005, 54) and 60% of the land belonging to the Palestinian villages in Israel. By the early 1970s, Israel had secured control of 93% of the land (compared with only 8.5% Jewish-owned land in 1947) (Bäuml 2007). Today, only 3–3.5% of the land is owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, Palestinian local government (Adalah 2011).
Moreover, the mass expropriation of land and state incentives and investments in Jewish agriculture – as part of the Zionist agenda of redemption of the land (Ge’ulat Ha-Adama in Hebrew)23 – have forced 72% of Palestinian farmers to abandon agriculture: ‘by 1961, more than half of the Arab workers were employed outside their local village, in occupations such as drivers, waiters, unskilled construction workers, or other low-skill jobs’ (Haklai 2011, 60).
The Arab population has thus undergone a massive proletarianisation process, becoming dependent on the Israeli labour market (Haklai 2011; Sultany 2012; Zureik 1979).
Furthermore, Palestinians were governed through an entrenched system of surveillance (Cohen 2006; Lustick 1980; Pappe 2011; Sa’di 2013). Israel was committed to erasing any national identity and sentiments among the remaining Palestinians and to remaking them as loyal, submissive and quiescent subjects (Cohen 2006; Shihade 2013). As part of these efforts, the state attempted to produce the ‘Israeli-Arab’, a dutiful Arab citizen. This
23 See Shafir (1989) on the politics of land colonisation in Israel.
should not, however, be confused with an assimilatory policy. It was, rather, a policy intended to manufacture consent and support for the Zionist project (Jamal 2007a), while maintaining racial difference and hierarchies as constitutive to the operation of the Israeli regime.
In addition – and much like colonial practices of indirect rule elsewhere in the world (Mamdani 2012) – Israel pursued the fragmentation of the Palestinians in Israel along religious and ethnic lines (Cohen 2006; Shihade 2011). Divide and rule was the central pillar in Israel’s program to manage and control the Palestinian population. The Druze were recognised as a distinct nationality (le’um) and were conscripted into the army (Cohen 2006, 187–204; Louer 2007, 10–18). The Naqab-Bedouin were ethnicised as a separate group and classified as ‘good/loyal’ Arabs in order to create animosity between them and other Arab citizens. Christians were distinguished as being exceptionally civilised, unlike the Muslim Arab majority (Louer 2007, 14–16). Divide and rule remains at the core of Israel’s policy. In recent years, the state has promoted the conscription of the Christian Bedouin communities into the army (Jerusalem Post Staff 2016; Lazarus 2016) and, for the first time, the Ministry of Interior has afforded Palestinian Christians the option of being registered as Arameans instead of Arabs (Lis 2014b).
The historical conditions that framed Palestinian citizenship significantly differ from those of other settler colonial contexts. As Robinson pointedly observes, ‘Israel was not the first state in history to emerge from a settler-colony that extended citizenship and voting rights to its indigenous inhabitants, but it was the first to do so in the midst of its ongoing quest for their land’ (Robinson 2013, 9). Palestinian citizenship in Israel continues to be shaped, albeit in different ways, by these conditions and by the paradoxes they create. As Patrick Wolfe argues, Israel remains fully invested in the ‘frontier stage of dispossession’ (Wolfe 2013, 9). The Nakba is not only an event but also a structure, with the entire country still regarded as a settler colonial frontier awaiting settlement. Even though the state controls over 93% of the land within the Green Line, Palestinian lives continue to be ravaged by land dispossessions, house demolitions and evictions (Plonski 2016). Thus, colonisation trumps citizenship. This has informed a Palestinian citizenship that is fragile, transparent, partial and hollow (Algazi 2010; Jamal 2007b;
Molavi 2013; Rouhana and Sutlany 2003; Swirski 2008; Swirski and Hasson 2006; Yiftachel 2002).
Subjected to a frontier-stage settler colonialism and racialised citizenship, Palestinian lives in Israel are marked by anxiety and vulnerability. This state of stress builds on the memory and trauma of the 1948 Nakba, the present fact of dispossession, and the fear of future ethnic cleansing (Rabinowitz 1994, 28). Sixty-eight years after the establishment of Israel, the logic of elimination marked by the Judaisation of the space and by the practice of ethnic cleansing continues to dominate the state’s policies towards the ’48 Palestinians, who are still seen as a demographic and security threat – a fifth column. As stated by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, ‘If there is a demographic problem, and there is, it is with the Israeli Arabs who will remain Israeli citizens’ (quoted in Alon and Benn 2003).
Moreover, the state and its Jewish citizens are yet to make peace with the existence of the Palestinian citizens within its (undefined) borders. A recent poll by Pew Research Center indicates that about half of the Israeli Jewish population supports the transfer or expulsion of Arabs (Aderet 2016), with other polls indicating that more than two-thirds of Israeli Jews support encouraging Palestinian citizens to emigrate (Blecher 2005, 738).
In addition, Israel’s leaders actively pursue the making of geopolitical conditions that will allow the state to reduce the number of Palestinian citizens within its territory. Plans circulate for a population transfer (re-branded as a ‘population/territorial exchange’) of the Little Triangle and its estimated 300,000 Palestinian residents to the Palestinian state as part of a peace deal (Blecher 2005; Saban 2010, 2011). Such plans have been mainstreamed throughout the Israeli political landscape. Support, as Blecher shows, runs the gamut from Israel’s right wing to its ‘political centre’ and the Zionist ‘liberal-left’ of the Labour Party (Blecher 2005).24 Transfer plans are joined by efforts to make
24 In fact, these plans are being further developed and are raised in international forums in order to mainstream them as viable and legitimate to a peace plan. In 2010, for example, Israel’s then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, raised his plans for population exchange in a speech before the UN General Assembly (Shamir and Ravid 2010).
Palestinian citizenship contingent upon a loyalty declaration to Israel as a Jewish state and attempts to make it revocable based on security offences.
As Ahmad Tibi, a Palestinian member of the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament), stated, ‘Israel is democratic for Jews, but Jewish for Arabs’ (quoted in Lis 2009). The enfolding of ’48 Palestinians into Israeli citizenry has created contradictions, paradoxes and ambivalences that shape the lives and struggles of Palestinians in Israel. These must be understood in light of the successes and failures of Israel’s efforts to pursue, at the same time, both liberal values (or at least their performance) and colonial aspirations. In the words of Shira Robinson:
Israel’s development as a liberal settler state was the outcome of the imperative to establish a colonial rule of difference within a liberal order imposed largely from the outside – to find a legal way to partition the population, and thus facilitate colonization for exclusive Jewish use. (Robinson 2013, 198)
With the lifting of the military rule in 1966, Palestinians in Israel have become figured at once as citizens and as colonial subjects – what can be characterised as citizen-subjects. The colonial encounter, marked by normalised sovereignty and its disavowal, renders Palestinian subjectivities hybrid in Bhabha terms and pathologically schizophrenic in Fanonian terms. To understand ’48 Palestinian resistance, we must acknowledge the ways in which it has been forged by the encounter with Israel as a liberal settler state (as opposed to an ethnic state governed by an ethnocratic regime). This has shaped – and continues to shape – particular (and changing) modalities of resistance (which are heavily gendered, sexualised, classed and ethnicised) and competing political visions.
2. Legitimacy and Settler Sovereignty: Palestinians in Israel and the Production of Liberal Israel
Emerging as a settler colonial project in the 20th century, Israel, Robinson argues, has had a double task: to advance the colonisation of Palestine and to emerge as a liberal state (Robinson 2013). Born under conditions of contention and controversy, establishing its image as a Western liberal democracy was essential to Israel’s leveraging of international recognition and legitimacy while continuing its territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing policies.
To further this agenda, Israel has invoked the ’48 Palestinians as part of its foreign policy and propaganda efforts. The naturalisation of ’48 Palestinians has allowed Israel to claim that it is upholding its international commitments, particularly as specified in the 1947 Partition Plan (Jabareen 2014; Robinson 2014)25. Though seen as a demographic hurdle, the Palestinians in Israel proved also to be a diplomatic asset that enhanced Israel’s larger efforts to assert itself as a liberal democratic state and a beacon of civility.
The fact that Arabs had the right to vote and be elected was conducive to Israel’s attainment of international recognition and legitimacy. Israel’s practices of capitalising on the inclusion of Palestinians as members of parliament can be traced to the first Knesset following the 1949 elections. With the world watching the newly established state, only two speeches were made during the opening session of the inaugural Knesset: the first by Chaim Weizmann, the first president of the State of Israel, and the second by Amin Jarjoura, an Arab member of the Knesset (MK) (Jabareen 2014). The presence of Arabs in the Knesset and the voting of some Arab MKs supporting the Israeli government’s repressive decisions towards the remaining Palestinians, suggests Hillel Cohen, have allowed Israel to promote itself as a democratic state that is attentive to its minorities (Cohen 2006).
Israel’s version of liberalism was exclusionary and premised on racial hierarchies. However, emerging during the rise of universal human rights, racialised liberalism posed particular problems for the new state. Israel was facing international pressures to adhere to some liberal democratic norms. Like other imperial and colonial powers, Israel used the rhetoric of modernising the natives to guise its colonising agenda. As the protocols of the Israeli Cabinet meetings show, Israel was sensitive to the (limited) interest of international media, the Catholic Church and foreign diplomats in the conditions of the ’48 Palestinians (Cabinet Meetings, 20 March 1949; 5 July 1949; 20 July 1952; ISA, 69/20). Israel’s vulnerability to its international image forced it to react. During a Cabinet
25 The Partition Plan is a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1947 for the partition of Palestine into two states. The resolution was based on the recommendation of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine.
meeting, Moshe Sharett, Israel’s first Minister of Foreign Affairs, suggested that Israel respond to international concerns by using the Arabs in Israel as part of its hasbara efforts:
We need more hasbara in the world, also in pictures. We need to show that the Arabs who are settled in the State of Israel are settled on their lands, receiving education and health services and all that is needed from the state. It is not my intention that these pictures will be used as propaganda that will encourage Arabs to return, but to prove that Arabs are adequately settled in the State of Israel, as human beings. We need to show this time and again. (Cabinet Meeting, 20 January 1952, my translation from Hebrew)
Since the early days of the state, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has distributed pamphlets and booklets titled The Arabs in Israel (ISA, 5252/2).26 It has also published a special Bulletin on the Christians in Israel (ISA, 5252/2). In addition, in 1958–59, a Minorities Hasbara Unit was formed as part of the Hasbara Centre at the Prime Minister’s Office (Bäuml 2007, 98). Hasbara materials provided information showing how Israel’s policies had improved the living standards of the Arabs in Israel (including with regard to agriculture, education, infrastructure, health and sanitary services, access to water, a building boom in Arab villages, and the promotion of Arab women),27 especially when compared with those in other Arab countries. Pictures of Arabs enjoying modernity, voting, and celebrating Israel’s Day of Independence were circulated as additional proof of the successful integration of Arabs (see images).
26 These include The Arabs in Israel (1955) published by the government of Israel, and The Arabs in Israel (1958) published by Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem.
27 See The Arabs in Israel (1955; 1958).
(Pictures taken from The Arabs in Israel, published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1958.)
(Picture taken from The Arabs in Israel, published by the Government of Israel, 1955.)
The Zionist depiction of the Arabs in Israel as a backward people in need of civilisation and modernisation registered well in the West, building on a sound legacy of Western orientalism (Said 1978a). This identification, however, has also proven to be a double-edged sword. It is a source of Israel’s weakness as much as its strength, for Israel’s legitimacy has been – and still is – contingent upon its ability to maintain a convincing performance of liberal democracy.
Writing a decade after the occupation of the ’67 territories, Said states in The Question of Palestine (1979a) that the ‘new obstacle for Zionism-liberalism is the problem of the
occupation’ (Said 1979a, 38). The Palestinians in Israel today pose an additional challenge to Zionism-liberalism. With the normalisation of the Occupation, ’48 Palestinians increasingly function as a litmus test for Israel’s democracy and thus for its legitimacy. Recent years have seen a growing concern among liberal-Zionists and their Western allies with the question of Palestinians in Israel. Israel’s treatment of its Palestinian citizens is seen to undermine its stability as a ‘Jewish and democratic’ state (Peleg and Waxman 2011).
Ilan Peleg and Dov Waxman warn that ongoing deterioration in the relations between the Palestinians in Israel and the Jewish majority has ‘put Arab-Jewish coexistence in Israel, the country’s political stability, and the quality of its democracy seriously at risk’ (Peleg and Waxman 2011, vii).28 This view also extends to the foreign policy of European governments, the European Union (EU) and the United States. An EU secret paper has recommended that Israel’s policies towards the Arab population be considered a ‘core issue’, adding that ‘addressing inequality within Israel is integral to Israel’s long-term stability’ (quoted in Ravid 2011). The British embassy in Israel invests considerable effort in promoting the integration of Arabs in the Israeli economy, specifically the high-tech industry (Elis 2014). And, for the first time, the Obama administration ‘has updated America’s official vision of Israel’s future to stress that the Jewish state must ensure equal rights for Israeli Arabs’ (Benn 2010).
This challenge to Israel’s liberal image is at once enabled and restricted by the ambivalent enfolding of ’48 Palestinians as citizens. With the prolonged occupation, ’48 Palestinians have become – as in the early days of the state – an even more important element in Israel’s efforts to substantiate its image as a liberal democracy and a modernising force. Israel’s oppressive policies domestically are significantly different from its rhetoric internationally. In the last legislative elections in 2015, Benjamin Netanyahu urged his
28 In the last decade, the question of the Palestinians in Israel has begun to be of interest to many of Israel’s liberal-Zionist supporters, especially among the world Jewry. For example, recent years have seen the establishment of special task forces that aim to increase the Jewish communities’ awareness of the problems faced by Palestinians in Israel. Such task forces have been established in the United States and in the United Kingdom. For more information, see the websites of the US Inter-Agency Task Force on Israeli Arab Issues at http://www.iataskforce.org and the UK Task-Force on Issues Relating to Arab Citizens of Israel at http://uktaskforce.org.
constituents to vote by warning that ‘Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves’ (quoted in Zonszein 2015). Yet, in his address to the US Congress, he stated:
Courageous Arab protesters are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We’re proud in Israel that over 1 million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. (Applause.) Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. (Applause.) Now, I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of 1 percent are truly free, and they’re all citizens of Israel. (Applause.) This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East; Israel is what’s right about the Middle East. (Applause.) (quoted in The Globe and Mail 2011)
The appropriation and co-optation of ’48 Palestinians in Israel’s hasbara efforts take different forms, and these are deeply racialised, gendered and sexualised discourses. Arab citizens are sent to tour United States and EU campuses and other forums in order to refute allegations of discrimination and apartheid (Goldklang 2016). Israeli hasbara also emphasises that Arabs in Israel (including women) enjoy political rights and individual freedoms. Arab MKs – who face persecution and attempts to disqualify them personally, as well as their parties, from running for the Knesset – are touted as evidence of the state’s democracy. Arab reality-show celebrities – winners of the Israeli versions of Idol, MasterChef or The Voice – are presented as Israeli success stories.
The appropriation of Palestinians in Israel should not be viewed merely as propaganda. It is intrinsic to the working of Israel as a liberal settler state. ’48 Palestinians figure in both revealing the paradoxes that the liberalism of the settler state produces and concealing them. Moshe Arens, an old-school Zionist-Likud liberal and former Minister of Defence, has vocally opposed the efforts of the Knesset – led by his own party – to limit Arab representation in the legislature. Responding to the attempts to disqualify Haneen Zoabi, a Palestinian MK, Arens commented that:
MK Haneen Zoabi has a talent for raising the blood pressure of most Israelis. Some are almost driven out of their minds by her provocative statements accusing Israel of the most despicable crimes … Once we have cooled down, we realize that she is actually an asset to Israel. Her outbursts in the Knesset are proof that Israel is a model democracy. That the slander that Israel is an apartheid state and is going down a slippery slope toward fascism, is belied by her very appearances in the Knesset. Proof that not only can the freedom of speech existing in Israel serve as example to other democracies, but that there probably are no other democracies where this kind of slander against the state would be permitted. It is hard to imagine such attacks on the state in the American Senate or House of Representatives, the British parliament or the French legislature. Only in Israel. (Arens 2016)
Palestinians in Israel remain a vital signifier used to demarcate legitimate democratic Israel (the ’48 territories) and colonising Israel (the ’67 territories). But they are also a significant force in challenging Israel’s international image as a liberal democracy.
3. Palestinian Resistance: The Impasse of Resisting Liberal Setter Colonialism
’48 Palestinians have long resisted the Zionist settler colonial project. In contrast to the common misconception that they were passive and quiescent under the military rule (see, for example, the work of Lustick 1980; Rabinowitz and Abu-Baker 2005), studies have shown that – despite draconian restrictions on their movement and an entrenched system of control, surveillance and population management – ’48 Palestinians did resist (Cohen 2006; Jiryis 1976; Nasasra 2015b; Shihade 2014). Their resistance during the military rule, argues Cohen, was no less significant in its volume and intensity than their resistance after the end of the military rule in 1966 (Cohen 2006).
During the military rule, resistance took the form of organised protests and explicit confrontation with authority, as well as everyday intransigence marked by the sumud29 (steadfastness) of ordinary ’48 Palestinians. ’48 Palestinians employed different strategies to defy and undermine colonial authority. They protested the military rule, the expropriation of their land, and the building of Jewish settlements on the confiscated land. Demonstrations and confrontations with the Israeli authorities were also part of Palestinian resistance. Protestors and activists were regularly detained, arrested, interrogated and subjected to severe restrictions on their movement. ’48 Palestinians also challenged Israel’s attempts to expel them, hiding and sheltering tens of thousands of returnees (Cohen 2006; Nasasra 2015b; Robinson 2013). Policies of divide and rule were also resisted, as exemplified by the Druze resistance to forced conscription into the Israeli army (Cohen 2006).
29 Sumud is a Palestinian term that describes Palestinian resistance to Zionist/Israel settler colonialism. It refers to the survival of Palestinians on their land under conditions of oppression, dispossession, occupation and erasure.
As discussed in Chapter 1, the analysis of resistance must not neglect the hidden transcripts of resistance – the ‘critique of power spoken behind the back of the dominant’ (Scott 1990, xii). This is particularly relevant to extreme conditions of repression. Mockery is one such hidden transcript. By mocking state officials and collaborators and mocking Israel’s attempts to force ’48 Palestinians to enact a love for Israel (for example, by celebrating Israel’s Independence), ’48 Palestinians asserted their humanity. Cultural resistance has also played an important role. Palestinian poetry, for example, was a significant form of expression during this period (Ghanim 2009). Resistance was also conveyed in popular culture, such as wedding songs that celebrated Palestinian/Arab nationalism or expressed contempt for colonial authority (Nasasra 2015b).
Culture and memory continue to be important sites of resistance even today. ’48 Palestinians protect the Arab history of the space. They insist on using the Arabic names of villages and cities, challenging state efforts to Judaise and Hebrewise the land. The pre-1948 history is invoked not only as a nostalgic exercise, but also as a challenge to state/Zionist discourses that have framed Palestine as an empty land awaiting settlement. Invoking the Arab-Palestinian history fosters national pride, cross-generational memory and a culture of sumud (S. Aburabia 2015).
3.1 Formal and Informal Mobilisation
Parliamentary politics has been central to the mobilisation of ’48 Palestinians from the very early days of the state. In the first two decades (during Israel’s military rule of the remaining Palestinians), Mapai, then the ruling party in Israel,30 formed Arab satellite parties and used a system of patronage to encourage Arabs to vote for Mapai-affiliated parties (Landau 1969). Palestinians in Israel voted in their masses: 79% voted in the 1949 elections and 90% in the 1955 elections (Louer 2007, 28). More than 60% of Arabs voted for Mapai-allied parties (Peled 1992).
A second important political force among the Palestinians in Israel was the Israeli communist party, known as Maki. Unlike Mapai’s allied parties, Maki was critical of the
30 Mapai was formed in 1930 as a socialist-Zionist party. It served as Israel’s ruling party in the first of decades of the establishment of the State of Israel. In 1968, it merged with the Israeli Labor Party.
military rule. It called to ease the naturalisation of the Arabs in Israel. It was also the only Israeli party to include Arabs among its leadership, with two Arab MKs – Tawfiq Tubi and Emile Habibi, who became iconic figures in Palestinian politics in Israel – serving on its behalf. The Zionist establishment was tolerant of Maki because the party accepted the very legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. In fact, Meir Vilner, a leader of the party, was a signatory on its behalf to Israel’s Declaration of Independence (Sa’di 2010).
Since its early days, Israel has been adamant in its efforts to suppress the rise of Pan-Arab and Palestinian nationalism among the remaining Arabs. Despite state repression, Al-Ard, a Palestinian national movement, was formed in 1959 by a group of young activists and intellectuals, who were influenced by the Pan-Nasserist ideology (Dallasheh 2010). The state responded by regarding the movement as a security threat. Al-Ard’s newspaper was banned and its leaders were harassed, detained, arrested and subjected to severe restrictions on their movement. These repressive policies impeded Al-Ard’s ability to mobilise its constituency and to survive as a political force.
Al-Ard is often portrayed in the literature as a radical movement that refused to ‘recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli state and sought its abolition’ (Haklai 2011, 86). Whether the movement did in fact recognise Israel remains debatable. However, as Dallasheh argues, the demands of Al-Ard:
… were made in the framework of demanding full citizenship … while rejecting the Zionist nature of the state, the activists of Al-A’rd clearly made a conscious decision to act within the framework of the Israeli system, concentrating on legal struggle to gain legitimacy. (Dallasheh 2010, 24).
In 1965, Al-Ard decided to run in the Israeli legislative elections and so formed the Socialist Party. Facing state suppression of the movement, Al-Ard’s leaders hoped that participation in the Knesset would provide much-needed parliamentary immunity and protection that would allow it to become a meaningful political force in ’48 Palestinian politics. The party was banned from running for the Knesset (a decision upheld by the Israeli Supreme Court) and was outlawed in 1965 by the Minister of Defence using the 1945 British Emergency Regulation (Dallasheh 2010). The case of Al-Ard is important not only because it instigated a ‘nationalist moment’ in Palestinian politics in Israel, but also because it illuminates the paradoxes and the predicament that are at the heart of
Palestinian resistance in Israel. The simultaneous rejection of colonial authority and its normalisation seem to be an inescapable structural feature of native-citizen resistance to liberal settler colonialism.
In the same year that Al-Ard was banned, Tawfiq Tubi and Emile Habibi, together with a number of Jewish members of the party, split from Maki and formed the New Communist Party (Rakah), a Jewish-Arab party (Edelstein 1974). Rakah was permitted to register as a political party and it ran for the 1965 Knesset. The establishment of Rakah was a transformative moment in Arab politics in Israel.31 In 1977, the party united with other Jewish socialist forces (including the Black Panthers, a Mizrahi radical movement) and established the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (DFPE), also known as Hadash in Hebrew and Al-Jabha in Arabic. The party became the most significant political and mobilising force among the ’48 Palestinians, shaping Arab politics through to the present day.
The rhetoric of Rakah and the DFPE focused on civic quality, inclusion, equal opportunity and redistributive justice. The party saw itself as the representative of Israel’s disadvantaged population, regardless of ethnicity. It was – and remains – a strong advocate of a politics of alliance and the bringing together of disadvantaged social groups.32 The political discourse of the party – unlike that of many of its Arab supporters – was blind to nationalism and race as major factors shaping Jewish–Arab relations. Invocation of Palestinian nationalism was reserved for the question of the ’67 occupied territories. Grievances of Palestinians in Israel, including land dispossession, were articulated along class lines and represented as class-based injustice (Haklai 2011). The party’s animosity to nationalism, in addition to the fact that it was a joint Jewish–Arab party, helped protect it from state persecution. This experience stands in contrast to the experience of ’48 Palestinian national movements that were crushed time and again.
31 The dominance of its Jewish members continues to be significant today, even though only a fraction of its voters are Jewish. Rakah changed its name to Maki in 1989.
32 In a debate before the 2015 legislative elections, Ayman Oden, the head of the Joint Arab List and a leader of Al Jabha, publicly approached Aryeh Deri, the leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas, to form ‘an alliance of the oppressed’ (Ben Elul 2015).
Attempts to create a meaningful ’48 Palestinian national movement continued to be thwarted by the state. The establishment of Abna’a Al-Balad (Sons of the Village) after the 1973 War marked another important benchmark in the history of the Palestinian national movement in Israel. Abna’a Al-Balad advocated the formation of one secular democratic state in historical Palestine (Haklai 2011) and called to radicalise the Palestinian struggle in Israel by basing it on more confrontational strategies and tactics (Louer 2007). It considered ’48 Palestinians to be integral to the Palestinian national movement and people (Louer 2007). Abna’a Al-Balad recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, including the ’48 Palestinians. To this day, Abna’a Al-Balad refuses to run for the Knesset, arguing that participation serves to legitimise the Israeli state.
The lifting of the military rule in 1966 had a major impact on Palestinian political organising. The next two decades witnessed the rise of a vibrant nationwide student movement and the resurgence of Palestinian national sentiments, influenced by the renewed connection with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza in the aftermath of the 1967 occupation (Rouhana 1989). The 1970s and 1980s were also formative in the development of Palestinian NGOs in Israel (PNGOs). Led by the DFPE, a number of important representative bodies were formed during this period, including the National Committee for the Defence of Arab Lands (NCDL), the High National Committee for the Heads of Arab Local Councils (NCALC), the Arab Student Union, the Union for Arab High School Students, and the High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Affairs, considered to be the representative body of Palestinians in Israel (Payes 2005).33
The NCDL and the High Follow-Up Committee took a leading role in extra-parliamentary activity and in the mobilisation of the Palestinians in Israel. The two bodies organised nationwide strikes to protest the confiscation of land, discrimination against the Palestinians in Israel, and the occupation (Rouhana 1989). A milestone event occurred on 30 March 1976. Led by the NCDL, thousands of ’48 Palestinians took to the streets to
33 The High Follow Up Committee includes all Arab mayors, all Arab members of the Knesset, and representatives of dominant extra-parliamentary political movements. The state still refuses to recognise the Follow-Up Committee as the representative of Palestinians in Israel. For more on the Committee, see Jadal (2012).
protest the planned expropriation of thousands of square kilometres of land in the Galilee. They defied a curfew imposed by the state on ’48 Palestinian villages in an attempt to stifle the planned protest (Yiftachel 1991). The protests were met with state violence, including live ammunition. Six demonstrators were shot dead by police. The events became known as Land Day and are commemorated annually by Palestinians in Israel, in the occupied territories and in exile.
Scholars argue that following the occupation of Palestinian territories in 1967, Arabs in Israel underwent a process of Palestinianisation (Rouhana 1997). According to Rouhana, the ‘Arabs’ collective identity became fully Palestinianized by the early1980s’ (Rouhana 1989, 48). However, Palestinianisation was limited to the not-insignificant symbolic realm of identity politics. The slogan ‘two people, two states’ best captures the ideological underpinnings of Palestinian nationalism in Israel during this period. The common belief was that the establishment of a Palestinian state would result in civil equality and integration. During the first intifada34, mobilisation by Palestinians in Israel was limited to humanitarian aid and campaigns to end the occupation. Shany Payes is correct to argue that ‘despite the solidarity felt by Palestinians in Israel, the Intifada enhanced the distinctions between Palestinians in Israel and those in Gaza and the West Bank’ (Payes 2005, 91). Palestinians in Israel have seemed to make peace with their status as citizens in a Jewish state, limiting their claims to liberal notions of civil equality.
This view would significantly change with the rise of the Palestinian liberal national movement during the 1990s, and in the aftermath of the October 2000 events and the second intifada (Bishara 2001)35. With the outbreak of the second intifada, thousands of ’48 Palestinian protesters took to the streets to join the widespread protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territories following Ariel Sharon’s visit to Al-Aqsa Mosque. The police responded with unrestrained violence, including firing rubber bullets and live ammunition. Thirteen Palestinian protestors were shot dead in what became known as the
34 The first Intifada refers to the Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories, which broke out in 1987 and ended with the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993.
35 The second Intifada, also known as the Al-Aqsa intifada refers to a Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories which broke out in 2000, following the visit of Ariel Sharon, then the head of the opposition to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. It followed the first intifada (1987–93).
October 2000 events. An official inquiry, the Or Commission, was formed to investigate. However, despite evidence presented by the human rights organisation Adalah, not a single indictment has been issued for the killing of the 13 protestors.
The October 2000 events were a turning point in the relations between the state and its Palestinian citizen-subjects (Waxman 2012; M. Al-Haj 2005). They transformed the ways in which ’48 Palestinians perceive themselves in relation to the state, Israeli society, the Palestinian liberation movement and the Palestinian people. The illusion of inclusion, which dominated their engagement with the state and shaped their political vision and activism, was shattered. It became clear that the structural subjugation of ’48 Palestinians is rooted in the racial ideology of the state. Citizenship seemed hollower than ever (Jamal 2007b). Not only did it fail to provide equality and justice, it also failed to provide basic protection for the lives of ’48 Palestinians.
4. The Rise of Liberal Nationalism
It was not until the 1990s that Palestinians in Israel saw the rise of a significant and durable national political force. The National Democratic Assembly (NDA), also known as Al-Tajammu and Balad, was formed in 1996 by Azmi Bishara (who left the DFPE during the 1980s), together with former members of Abna’a Al-Balad and the Progressive List for Peace (PLP, a Palestinian national party that ran for the Knesset in the 1980s) who were dismayed by the failure of the Palestinian national movement to become a leading representative force among ’48 Palestinians. The signing of the 1993 Oslo Accord left the ’48 Palestinians outside of the Palestinian question, officially fortifying their position as an internal issue of the Jewish state. Articulating a political strategy and vision was an urgent task. This crisis provided a fruitful ground for the emergence of the NDA. The rise of the NDA, this chapter argues, marks the rise of ’48 Palestinian nationalism as a liberal national movement – a development that should be understood in light of the global rise of minority rights regimes and liberal multiculturalism.
Responding to the challenges of the post-Oslo Accord era, the agenda of the NDA involved organising the Arabs in Israel as a national minority. Strengthening the Palestinian identity, the party contended, was necessary in light of decades-long efforts
by the state to create the Arab-Israeli as a dislocated and ahistorical subject. As Edward Said notes, ‘even the assertion of Palestinian identity therefore takes on the form of a political challenge’ (Said 1979b, 14). The NDA was critical of the DFPE for its exclusive focus on class and for its narrow negative conception of equality as the lack of discrimination (Bishara 1993). The NDA instead argued that demands should be made on a collective rather than individual level.
The idea of a Jewish and democratic state, the NDA further argued, is an oxymoron. No equality is possible without questioning the structure of the state as a Jewish state. The NDA demanded the transformation of the State of Israel from a Jewish state to ‘a state of all its citizens’ that would recognise the national collective rights of both ’48 Palestinians and Israeli-Jews (as opposed to world Jewry). Under this framework, Palestinians in Israel would be recognised as a national minority and would be entitled to cultural autonomy as specified in international law (Haklai 2011).
The NDA’s political program and ideology were inspired – and influenced – by the global rise of the minority rights regime and liberal multicultural ideology. The new rhetoric employed – and idealised – Western liberal multiculturalism and international law. In his writings, Bishara invokes the Quebecois model of autonomy in Canada, the examples of Belgium and Switzerland, and the experience of the Basques in Spain (though ignoring the experiences of indigenous peoples in Anglophone settler colonialism) to justify claims for cultural autonomy and recognition (Bishara 1993). As Louer elaborates, ‘Tajammu [NDA] activists, explaining their goal, frequently drew attention to such multicultural societies as those of Britain and the United States, where ethnic groups enjoy de facto recognition’ (Louer 2007, 83, emphasis in original).
Relying on liberal and universal claims, the NDA challenged Israel’s claims to be a liberal democracy – the very premise of Israel’s legitimacy in the West. By exposing Israel’s refusal of the liberal demand to transform itself into ‘a state of all its citizens’, the NDA revealed the paradoxes at the heart of Israel’s claim to be a Jewish and democratic state. In Bhabha terms, the discourse of the NDA has subversively destabilised Israel’s identification with Western liberalism by reversing the gaze and positioning the
Palestinians in Israel as the carriers of the true commitment to democratic and liberal values.
Compared with the other Arab political parties, the NDA has taken a more confrontational approach towards the state. Its resistance as subversion has been antagonistic. Like the national movements that preceded it – such as Al-Ard, Abna’a Al-Balad, and the PLP – the NDA faces fierce state opposition and its leaders are the targets of political persecution. Since 1999, there have been four attempts to disqualify the party from running for the Knesset (1999, 2003, 2006 and 2009), with the Supreme Court overturning those actions. In addition, efforts were made to disqualify Azmi Bishara (2003) and Haneen Zoabi (2012, 2015) from running for the Knesset. In 2007, Bishara fled the country amid charges of treason and espionage.36
4.1 The Prospects of Palestinian Parliamentary Activity
In recent years, attempts to exclude Palestinian parties from participating in the Israeli elections have intensified. Before the 2015 legislative elections, the Knesset raised the electoral threshold from 2% to 3.25% in an effort to prevent Palestinian parties from being elected (Lis 2014a). As a result, for the first time in the history of the Palestinians in Israel, Palestinian parties formed an alliance (not unity) and established the Arab Joint List, which ran in the 2015 elections. This has been an important historical juncture in ’48 Palestinian politics, amid decades of fragmented leadership (Jamal 2006). The Joint List – an alliance of the DFPE, the NDP, the United Arab List and Ta’al – is the third-largest party in the Israeli Knesset.
36 In 1999, an appeal was made to the Supreme Court to disqualify Al-Tajammu (Erlich v Central Election Committee). In 2003, the Central Election Committee decided to disqualify Al-Tajammu from running as a party and to disqualify Azmi Bishara personally and Ahmad Tibi (Ta’al party) personally. The Supreme Court overturned these decisions (in accordance with the Basic Law, the Knesset demands Supreme Court approval for any decision by the Committee to disqualify a party or a person from running for election). In 2006, the Committee rejected a request to disqualify Al-Tajammu. In 2009, the Committee decided to disqualify the Al-Tajammu and Ta’al parties from running. The Supreme Court overturned these two decisions. In 2012, the Committee decided to disqualify Hanin Zoabi from running. The Supreme Court overturned this decision. In 2015, the Committee decided to disqualify Hanin Zoabi from running, rejecting a request to disqualify the Joint Party. The Supreme Court overturned this decision.
However, despite its significant electoral achievement, the party is marginalised, excluded and incited against. Arab MKs are seen as illegitimate and as a foreign element in the Knesset. Their presence in the Knesset, like their citizenship, is temporary, conditional, partial and vulnerable – an indulgence of the settler state. Recently, Palestinian MKs were accused by Jewish-Israeli MKs of being ‘agents of terror in the Knesset’ (Nahmias 2016), while the Prime Minister stated that ‘they don’t deserve to be MKs’ (quoted in Harkov 2016). Avi Dichter, a former head of the General Security Services and today an MK on behalf of the ruling Likud Party, contemplated ‘the merits of assassinating Mr Odeh [the head of the Joint List], before concluding it was not worth “wasting the ammunition”’ (Cook 2016).
The current political atmosphere is driving a serious debate among the Palestinians in Israel on whether they should continue to participate in the Israeli elections. Calls to boycott the elections and to transform the High Follow-Up Committee into a democratically elected representative body are gaining momentum. These calls have been prompted in light of Israel’s banning of the Islamic Movement Northern Branch (Ravid 2015) and its attempts to ban the NDP. Restrictions on Arab participation in the Knesset continue to be promoted. The Israeli government has recently approved a Bill that will enable the suspension of Arab MKs (Lis 2016). Passed on first reading, the Bill ‘grants powers to members of Knesset to suspend or depose serving MKs for political reasons’ (ACRI 2016). Under these conditions, the ability of Arab lawmakers to influence Israeli politics – let alone make significant achievements to benefit their constituency – is becoming even more limited.
The paradoxes that are at the heart of Palestinian parliamentary activity are best explained through an understanding of Israel as a liberal settler state (Robinson 2013) at the frontier stage of settlement (Wolfe 2013). As the history of ’48 Palestinian mobilisation shows, political movements have always been challenged, suppressed, restricted and surveilled by the state. However, paradoxically, participating in the Knesset has also provided some of the necessary conditions for Palestinian political organisation, and for the consolidation of the ’48 Palestinian national movement as a leading political force. The experiences of Al-Ard and Abna’a Al-Balad reveal the vulnerability inherent in operating outside Israeli parliamentary politics. At the same time, the history of participation in the
Knesset indicates a structural failure of parliamentary activity to secure equality, rights and basic protections.
5. Palestinian Civil Society in a Jewish State
The mushrooming of PNGOs in Israel has been shaped by local, regional and global processes (at both the state and minority levels). Hundreds of PNGOs were established during the 1980s, a surge similar to that of the Israeli NGO sector. It was a period that ‘saw the initial move to institutionalised and subject-specific’ PNGOs (Payes 2003, 69). Key to this growth was the 1980 Association Law, which eased the requirements to register as an NGO. As in other parts of the world, developing a third sector was part of the neoliberal turn (Peled 2005a). By engaging in service delivery, NGOs filled welfare roles previously performed by the state. These transformations did not bypass the Palestinian society in Israel, whose socio-economic disadvantage has worsened under Israel’s neoliberal policies.
Consequently, the 1980s saw the burgeoning of PNGOs dealing mainly with service provision and community development. Similar to other contexts in the Middle East, the Islamic movement in Israel flourished under conditions of economic neoliberal policies. Able to mobilise resources independently from state and Western sources, the movement became a major provider of social and welfare services across Arab towns and villages. It also became a major political force (see Louer 2007 on the rise of the Islamic movement in Israel).
Israeli and ’48 Palestinian civil societies are far from equal. Even though Palestinians in Israel are citizens of a developed state, the ratio of PNGOs per Palestinian citizen is 1:1000, compared with 1:192 for NGOs in the Jewish-Israeli society (Payes 2003). The former figure, argues Payes, resembles the average rate in the developing world. Payes argues that ‘exclusion has always been the underlying approach of the state towards Palestinian organizations’ (Payes 2003, 67). The Association Law was legislated with Arab organising in mind. It places significant power in the hands of the Registrar, who has the authority to approve or reject registrations. As a result, a significant number of Palestinian associations – including Al-Fanar and Mossawa – were denied registration and had to appeal (or threaten to appeal) to the courts in order to reverse the Registrar’s
decision. Furthermore, while Jewish NGOs receive significant state funding, PNGOs are denied similar support. Of the budget that the Ministry of Education allocates to NGOs, only 1% is delivered to PNGOs (Payes 2003, 69).
The Israeli third sector is a microcosm of the Israeli state. It is exclusionary, discriminatory and racist. Israeli civil society has been complicit with advancing Jewish privilege and deepening the socio-economic inequalities between the Jewish and Arab populations. Committed to promoting the rights and wellbeing of the Jewish population, and supported by the state and by Jewish philanthropy, Israeli civil society has helped to safeguard Jewish privilege. The philanthropy of world Jewry, estimated at over US$2 billion per year (Blumenfeld 2012),37 has served to deepen the socio-economic disparities between the Jewish and Arab populations. While PNGOs receive about US$3 million per year from Jewish philanthropic bodies (Haklai 2008), this amount, alongside Western and Palestinian funding sources, remains a small fraction of the overall support that Israeli civil society enjoys. Furthermore, under a rhetoric of development, socio-economic empowerment, and developing the periphery, Jewish philanthropy and state funding of Jewish-Israeli NGOs have facilitated the Judaising of the Galilee, the Naqab and mixed cities, as well as East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Blau 2015; Blau and Hasson 2016; Hasson 2010).
The relationship between the Palestinians in Israel and the progressive/liberal Israeli peace camp has been problematic, though in different ways. In the leftist-liberal Israeli circles, ’48 Palestinians were treated with paternalism. They were viewed as subjects that needed to be protected from the discrimination of the state, and to be helped out of their backwardness. Ashkenazi-dominated groups sought to formulate the agenda of the Palestinian struggle in Israel as a liberal struggle for equality. Solidarity was thus racialised (Hooker 2009). Promoting the rights of Palestinian citizens was carried out alongside the normalisation of Jewish privilege and the entrenchment of Jewish sovereignty. Zionist-liberals sought to strengthen the democratic character of the state by promoting the equality of its Arab citizens without compromising the Jewishness of the state.
37 This figure applies only to US donations. The overall number is estimated to be much higher (Blumenfeld 2012).
The work of the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), the oldest and largest civil rights organisation, on behalf of the Arabs in Israel exemplifies the ways in which solidarity and activism have been deeply racialised. ACRI was modelled on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organisation that has been critiqued for its blindness to race. At the same time that ACRI petitioned the Israeli courts on behalf of Palestinians in Israel, it also petitioned for the recognition of same-sex partners by the Israeli military (ACRI 2009) and for the right of Israeli women to be combat pilots in the Israeli air force (NIF 2015). Under the liberal-colonial logic, the two are not contradictory. Instead, they are seen as part of the same agenda of promoting liberal notions of rights and equality for Arabs, gays, women and economically disadvantaged communities before the law. Following in the footsteps of the ACLU, ACRI supported, in the name of freedom of association, an application by extreme right-wing activists for permission to march in the ’48 Palestinian village of Umm Al-Fahm. The activists were calling for the ethnic cleansing of the residents of the village (ACRI 2008; on the liberal blindness of Israeli courts in this case, see Triger 2009a). In its statement, ACRI explained:
Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democracy, and its most genuine test is in the facilitation of its most outrageous, extreme, and controversial forms. It is unacceptable to prohibit a demonstration because of fear of a violent reaction by those who oppose the demonstration; taking such a step would have dangerous implications. (ACRI 2008)
Being citizens of the Israeli state, ’48 Palestinians are the casualties of liberal Zionist aspirations. They are expected to tolerate settler colonial violence in order to maintain the performance of liberal democracy.
5.1 The Liberalisation of Palestinian Civil Society
The experience of ’48 Palestinians with – and working in – Israeli civil society organisations has led Palestinian leaders, intellectuals and activists to pursue the establishment of independent and autonomous ’48 Palestinian civil society organisations. The global revival of civil society in the aftermath of the Cold War – together with the liberal celebration of NGOs as the magic bullet for development, empowerment and democratisation – resonated among the ’48 Palestinian liberal national and intellectual elite, which was keen to enhance the minority’s capacity for self-representation (Ghanem
2001). The creation of NGOs was seen by the Palestinian national movement in the 1990s as an opportunity to form national, autonomous and representative political and cultural institutions. To an extent, this goal was subversive. Investing in NGOs, it was argued, could help advance the recognition of ’48 Palestinians as a national minority and could promote demands for cultural autonomy and power sharing.
Western investment in seeding civil societies globally provided opportunities and resources for the emergence of a new generation of PNGOs. The 2000s saw a wave of new PNGOs dealing with civil and human rights, land and planning rights, equal distribution of resources, women’s rights and sexuality, education, knowledge production, cultural institutions, community development and empowerment, and capacity building – just to name a few (Payes 2005). This period saw the rise of some of the most prominent PNGOs, such as the Galilee Society, the Regional Council for Unrecognised Villages in the Negev, the Arab Center for Alternative Planning, Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Mossawa – The Advocacy Centre for Arab Citizens in Israel, and the Arab Association for Human Rights. Think tanks such as Mada Al Carmel – The Arab Center for Applied Social Research, and Dirasat – The Arab Center for Law and Policy, were also established during this period. So were organisations that focus on reinforcing Arab and Palestinian culture and identity, such as the Arab Culture Association and Baladna, the Association for Arab Youth. In addition, feminist groups were formed, such as the Kayan Feminist Organisation, Muntada – The Arab Forum for Sexuality, Education and Health, Alnuhud: The Association for the Promotion of Bedouin Women’s Education in the Negev, and Women against Violence. The queer groups Aswat: Palestinian Gay Women and Al-Qaws for Sexual & Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society also emerged during this time. The rise of PNGOs, argues Payes, has empowered the minority capacity for self-representation (Payes 2005). Amal Jamal goes so far as to argue that PNGOs have developed to play a counter-hegemonic role vis-à-vis the state (Jamal 2008a).
The disillusionment with parliamentary politics and a steady decline in Arab voter turnout – from 75% in 1999 to 56% in 2013 (Ben Solomon 2013)38 – fostered the ascent of NGOs
38 The number of Arab voters increased in 2015 with the forming of the Arab Joint List, reaching 63.5% (Ben Solomon 2015).
in the Palestinian struggle in Israel. Gradually, these organisations took a leading role in representing the Palestinian community both at the state level and internationally. Mastering the vocabulary of human rights, PNGOs grounded their demands for cultural autonomy and power sharing in international law. Their professionalisation and ‘apolitical’ character made them a credible source of information for diplomats, UN institutions and international organisations.
Political parties were largely sidelined, while PNGO activity was blooming. In 2005–06, PNGOs formulated and published what have become known as the Future Vision Documents. These documents specified the minority’s vision for state–minority relations and articulated the minority’s demands for principles of recognition, power sharing and distributive justice (Agbaria and Mustafa 2012; Jamal 2008b; Smooha 2009). The state responded by referring the matter to the General Security Service (GSS). Yuval Diskin, then head of the GSS, declared the documents to be ‘a strategic threat’ and reiterated the mandate of the GSS ‘to thwart the subversive activity of entities seeking to harm the character of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, even if their activity is conducted through democratic means, and this is by virtue of the principle of a “self-defending democracy”’ (quoted in Adalah 2007).
Arguably, the 1990s and early 2000s saw a process of NGO-isation of Palestinian resistance and a rise in professionalised forms of activism, such as monitoring and collecting data, producing reports, lobbying, litigating in courts, and advocating internationally. Influenced by the spirit of 1990s judicial activism in Israel and mimicking the practices of Israeli civil society organisations, Palestinian activists focused their efforts on the Israeli courts (Amara 2015; Jabareen 2010; Sallon 2009). Given the impasse in parliamentary activity, it was believed that advancing the equality and rights of Palestinians in Israel would best be pursued through the Israeli Supreme Court.39
The overreliance on courts reinforced Israel’s image as a functioning liberal democracy, especially given the positive reputation of the Israeli Supreme Court internationally. It
39 An exception is the work of the Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA). HRA refuses to engage in litigation and lobbying at the state level, instead working directly with the Palestinian community and advocating at the international level. Interview with Muhammad Zeidan, Director of HRA, 28 October 2013.
also extended the liberal discourse of multicultural recognition into an absurdity. Analysing Adalah and ACRI’s joined petition to the Supreme Court against the 2011 Nakba Bill – which penalised local authorities and other state-funded bodies that mark the Nakba (Stoil 2011) – Haneen Naamnih demonstrates how legal activism has transformed the Nakba into a liberal question of freedom of speech and recognition. The Nakba was constructed as a site of contestation against which Israel’s liberalism and democracy are measured (Naamnih 2013).
Despite their shortcomings, and amid growing disillusionment, PNGOs remain important actors in supporting the struggle of Palestinians in Israel – especially in light of the escalation in state violence. As Marlies Glasius and Armine Ishkanian (2015) show in their work on activism in Athens, Cairo, London and Yerevan, the relationship between NGOs and popular movements is far more complicated than appears. This is also the case for PNGOs. While PNGOs are not a mobilising or revolutionary force, they have an important function in supporting grassroots protest by providing technical support, monitoring and documenting human rights violations, and offering legal aid to protesters and to political parties and MKs.
6. Contemporary Palestinian Protest: A Challenge to Liberal Nationalism
Palestinian political discourse has been dominated thus far by liberal frameworks, some of which have been marked by classic liberal discourses of equality and civil rights, while others have been informed by multicultural frameworks of meaningful citizenship and recognition. Despite the differences between the two, both frameworks have centred citizenship as core to the Palestinian struggle. Recent years, however, have witnessed a new phase in Palestinian political discourse and mobilisation. This phase has been conceptualised by Nadim Rouhana and Areej Sabbagh-Khoury (2014) as a ‘return of history’. It is characterised by a rising consciousness of the settler colonial condition and of the Nakba as a structure that continues to shape Palestinian lives (on the prominence of the discourse of the Nakba among the Palestinians in Israel, see also Rekhess 2014). Palestinians in Israel, Rouhana further argues, engage today in homeland nationalism, asserting historical Palestine as their homeland (Rouhana 2015, 2).
These developments, I argue, reflect a deeper process of challenging and rejecting the liberal rhetoric that has historically framed ’48 Palestinian political discourse around liberal notions of recognition, inclusion and citizenship. New movements perceive these discourses as part of a politics that seeks to contain ’48 Palestinian resistance within the logics and institutions of the liberal settler state and, in the process, normalise it. These movements see Israel as an illegitimate settler colonial enterprise. ’48 Palestinians, it is argued, should not reform Israel (as articulated in the agenda of the DFPE) or transform it (as articulated in the agenda of the NDA). Instead, Israel is rejected en bloc. The focus is on decolonisation and the dismantling of the settler state. In other words, the new phase is indicative of a deeper transformation in the ’48 Palestinian struggle, from liberal nationalism to a national political project that is articulated in anticolonial and antagonistic Fanonian sentiments.
New movements in grassroots ’48 Palestinian activism have abandoned citizenship as an organising concept for Palestinian struggle and identity. For the very first time since 1948, citizenship is not seen as an opportunity structure (on citizenship as an opportunity structure, see Jamal 2007a). It is instead seen as a colonial construct and as a mechanism of taming, co-optation and containment. This reflects wider changes in attitudes towards citizenship. A poll among Palestinian in Israel indicates that ‘only a small and declining minority feel that affiliation to Israeli citizenship, as compared to religion and Palestinian people, is their most important identity – dropping from 29.6% in 2003 to 12.2% in 2012’ (Smooha 2013, 18).
Citizenship is thus perceived as a structure that ought to be transcended. In the words of Majd Kayyal, a Palestinian writer and activist, ‘We, the Palestinians in Israel, are taking responsibility of our rights, our future and our self-determination … not by the Israeli institutions but in the streets, not as Israeli citizens but as a united people beside [Palestinians in the] West Bank and Gaza’ (quoted in Kestler-D’Amours 2013).40 Contemporary protests are further guided by an anticolonial agenda that seeks to transgress colonial borders and the fragmentation of the Palestinian people. ’48
40 Similar sentiments were raised in my interviews with Yara Sa’adi (2012) and Lana Khaskia (2012).
Palestinian mobilisation is conceptualised as part of a larger Palestinian anticolonial movement, rather than as part of an Israeli movement against the occupation. Movements such as Hungry for Freedom (Nabulsi 2014), Revolt (‘Thoury’ in Arabic) and Al-Hirak Al-Shababi have made issues such as Palestinian political prisoners and the Palestinian right of return integral to the ’48 Palestinian resistance. Similarly, the ’48 Palestinian struggle for land rights has been framed as part of a broader struggle against the Israeli colonisation of Palestinian land in the whole of historical Palestine.
The Nakba, the right to the land, and the right of return are placed at the heart of the political discourse. Activists organise the annual March of Return to commemorate the Nakba day, asserting their commitment to the right of return (Rouhana 2015). These events are attended by tens of thousands of Palestinians, with the numbers increasing every year. In addition, a Return Youth Camp is organised annually, with Palestinian youths spending several days working to reconstruct destroyed Palestinian villages and learning about their history. Relatedly, descendants of the destroyed Palestinian village of Iqrith have defied state authority and returned to live in and rebuild the village (Esmeir 2014). Their action has come after the case of Iqrith has been litigated in the Israeli courts for decades, failing to deliver justice (Peled and Rouhana 2007). Iqrith, in particular, illuminates the new sensibilities of ’48 Palestinian protest, its defiance of settler authority, and its assertion of native sovereignty.
The new movements, I suggest, have developed to reflect Fanonian sensibilities in their rejectionist and antagonistic spirit and in their mobilisation of rage as a cathartic, revolutionary and emancipatory force. The argument on the deployment of Fanonian rejectionist pedagogy of resistance will be further developed in the coming chapters.
This chapter has examined the development of ’48 Palestinian resistance. The trajectory of the Palestinian struggle in Israel illuminates the impasse and the contradictions that underpin native resistance to liberal settler colonialism. As has been shown, playing by the rules is bound to be marked by failure, while breaking the rules is met with oppression and violence. As Ahmad Sa’di pointedly argues, ‘the Palestinians have been given the
right to participate in this system, however, without being allowed to challenge its fundamentals’ (Sa’di 1996, 396–7). Nonetheless, despite Israel’s repressive policies, ’48 Palestinian resistance in its accommodative, subversive and antagonistic modalities challenges the fundamentals of the state. Even the basic liberal demand for equality is in defiance of the Israeli Zionist racial regime.
This chapter has argued that the political discourse and resistance of ’48 Palestinians have been shaped in light of the structure of Israel as a liberal settler state. Drawing on the discussion in Chapter 1, this chapter has suggested that ’48 Palestinian resistance has been marked by three political projects: the first is a reformative project that is grounded in a liberal demand for equality and civic inclusion. The second is transformative, based on demands for national recognition and the transformation of Israel from a Jewish state to a state of all its citizens. This project has been facilitated by the rise of the Palestinian national movement in Israel and of PNGOs during the 1990s. The third is an anti-colonial antagonistic project that refuses to recognise the settler state and instead seeks to dismantle it. It is a project of decolonising Palestine, not one of reforming or transforming Israel. ’48 Palestinian politics in Israel is shaped by the contestation over these different projects and visions.
The next two parts of this thesis focus on the Palestinian Bedouin struggle for land (Part II) and the Palestinian queer movement (Part III). These two case studies inform a broader understanding of the subjugation and resistance of Palestinians in Israel. They allow us to explore the racialised, ethnicised, gendered and sexualised dimensions of settler colonial violence, to consider how these shape colonial subjectivities and modalities of resistance, and to identify the ways in which the transnational is imbricated within these processes.
Not least importantly, through the case studies of Palestinian Bedouin and queers, ’48 Palestinian resistance is understood as diverse. The next chapters elaborate on whether, in what ways, and to what extent ’48 Palestinian subaltern resistance fits within the typology of resistance presented in Chapters 1 and of 2 this thesis. The case studies reveal the multiple ways in which Palestinians in Israel conceptualise their identities, their citizenship and their relationship with the state. Through engaging with the transnational
discourses of indigenous and LGBT rights, the next chapters further unpack the ways in which Palestinian Bedouin and queers engage, employ, challenge and subvert – and are appropriated by – the liberal politics of human rights.
Finally, the Palestinian queer movement is a particularly informative case study. It allows us to expand our analysis of how the identification between Zionism and liberalism takes racialised, gendered and sexualised forms. As we will see, this affinity is reinforced through the intersections of settler racialisation regimes and the gendered and sexualised violence of orientalism, Islamophobia and imperialism, as they figure – and converge – between the local and the transnational.
The Burden of Culture in the Palestinian Bedouin Struggle for Land
Introduction to Part II
Part I of this thesis examined the development of Palestinian resistance in Israel. It argued that the Palestinian struggle has been embedded in liberal and multicultural political discourses, centred on notions of equality, inclusion, citizenship, minority rights and national recognition.
Part II of the thesis moves to explore the Palestinian Bedouin struggle for land rights. It analyses the racialised and ethnic dimensions (and their gendering) of settler colonial violence and domination. This case study illuminates how the specific regimes of racialisation and the practices of ethnicisation to which Palestinian Bedouin are subjected inform particular modalities of resistance. By focusing on the ways in which culture and culturalisation figure simultaneously as a form of colonial violence and as a liberating force through the mobilisation of indigeneity, Part II contributes to unravelling the complex and ambivalent ways in which the Palestinian Bedouin respond to – and engage with – the liberalism that animates the liberal settler state and the liberal politics of indigenous rights.
More specifically, Part II is concerned with the place that culture and culturalisation occupy in shaping both colonial domination and Bedouin resistance to settler colonialism. To this end, Part II is divided into two chapters. Chapter 3, ‘Culturalisation as Dispossession’, explores the racial, ethnic and gendered dimensions of Zionist colonial domination, focusing on the dynamics between culturalisation and domination. It argues that the culturalisation of the Bedouin as a premodern nomad society has been invoked as a central mechanism to justify the dispossession of Bedouin land.
Chapter 4, ‘Culturalisation as Emancipation’, focuses on Bedouin resistance to settler colonialism and on the mobilisation of indigeneity as a central framework and discourse in the contemporary Bedouin struggle. The chapter explores the place that culture occupies in the transnational liberal-multicultural conception of indigeneity, and the ways in which it has informed the development of a culturalised discourse on Bedouin indigeneity. The juxtaposition of the two chapters helps to illuminate the ways in which state-led culturalisation of the Bedouin can intersect with a culturalised conception of indigeneity as a transnational human rights framework.
In recent years, indigeneity has become a salient discourse in the struggle of the Naqab Bedouin for land rights. Despite this prominence, very few studies have explored the development of the indigenous discourse among the Bedouin (see Abu-Saad and Amara 2012; Champagne 2012; HRW 2008; A. Kedar 2004; Meir, Roded and Ben-Israel 2016; NCF 2006; Roded and Tzfadia 2012; Stavenhagen and Amara 2012; Yiftachel 2010, 2012; Yiftachel, A. Kedar and Amara 2012; Yiftachel, Roded and A. Kedar 2016; for studies that reject the recognition of the Bedouin as indigenous, see Frantzman, Yahel and Kark 2012; Yahel, Frantzman and Kark 2012). Furthermore, these studies have been confined to the application of international human rights law to the Bedouin case, debating whether the Naqab Bedouin qualify to be recognised as an indigenous population under international law.
Critical research on the Naqab Bedouin tends to employ a normative view of the human rights framework and the discourse of indigenous rights. It argues that indigenous rights empower the Naqab Bedouin by leveraging new opportunities and by providing an alternative framework for making claims. However, informed by a commitment to multiculturalism, these studies have overlooked how the transnational discourse and framework of indigeneity have also developed to be imbued in an essentialist conception of culture. Moreover, the focus of this scholarship on international indigenous rights law and liberal-multiculturalism has informed its complicity in the production of a culturalised and depoliticised discourse on Bedouin indigeneity. Despite good intentions,
the multicultural bias has led this body of work to look ‘for “culture” instead of sovereignty’ (Simpson 2014, 20).
To be clear, the thesis does not contest the recognition of the Bedouin as indigenous. Rather, it is troubled by the ways in which Bedouin culture and its authentic performance are increasingly forming the basis for the recognition of the Bedouin as indigenous and for making land claims. Against this background, Part II of the thesis makes an intervention in the existing literature on the Naqab Bedouin. It offers an original analysis by arguing that recognition of the Bedouin as indigenous has built on principles of cultural distinctiveness, non-dominance and the fetishisation of the indigenous as a premodern subject. The Naqab Bedouin, as a result, face the burden of repressive authenticity, which paradoxically intersects with the racialisation, culturalisation and ethnicisation practices of the state. Moving beyond international law, Chapter 4 of the thesis further engages with the ways in which the indigenous discourse and framework have been deployed, appropriated, subverted and reworked in the process of Bedouin resistance. It examines the ways in which Bedouin activists have been responding to and challenging their racialisation, culturalisation and ethnicisation, both at the state level and transnationally.
Methodologically, Part II of the thesis builds on ethnographic interviews with prominent Bedouin and non-Bedouin (’48 Palestinian and Israeli-Jewish) activists, academics and NGO professionals. The interviews inform an analysis of the different ways in which grassroots activists, NGOs and academics talk about Bedouin identity, struggle and indigeneity. They reveal the conflicting viewpoints from which the various actors perceive the indigenous discourse. Interviews with Bedouin grassroots activists and with residents of ‘unrecognised’ Bedouin villages have been particularly important in unpacking how culturalisation is experienced and responded to by the colonised themselves. I also draw on ethnographic participant observations. These have included joining solidarity delegations, visiting unrecognised villages, and taking part in protest activities. Textual resources – such as news items and NGO and UN reports, statements and press releases – are used to exemplify the multiple discourses and sites of culturalisation that the Naqab Bedouin face.
Chapter 3
Culturalisation as Dispossession
Chapter 3 focuses on the racialised, ethnicised and gendered dimensions that shape the Zionist settler colonial violence to which the Naqab Bedouin are subjected.
Section 1 of the chapter provides a historical background to the Zionist colonisation of the Naqab. It argues that nearly seven decades into Israel’s existence, the logic of elimination still guides state policies towards the Palestinian Bedouin. Consequently, Bedouin lives continue to be shaped by experiences of dispossession, displacement and de-development. Bedouin subjectivities, it is further suggested, have developed in light of state racialisation of the Bedouin as Arabs, their ethnicisation as Bedouin, and their erasure as Palestinians.
Sections 2 and 3 of the chapter focus on the interplay between culturalisation and dispossession, and between culturalisation and erasure. Section 2 argues that state-led culturalisation of the Bedouin has built on their production as a premodern and backward nomadic society in need of modernisation (understood in terms of resettlement). The ‘women question’ is invoked to indicate the backwardness of Bedouin society, and to justify the forced transfer of the Naqab Bedouin to state-planned townships through a discourse of liberating and empowering Bedouin women. Culturalisation, it is further suggested, is not only an exercise of symbolic, discursive and epistemic violence; it is also embroiled in the pursuit of land as a central commodity.
Section 3 concludes the chapter by examining the role that Bedouin culture has played in the making of the Israeli-settler national identity. More specifically, it explores the ways in which Bedouin culture has been reconfigured by the Israeli settler state in the
development of Bedouin ethnic tourism. It argues that Bedouin culture is located at the centre of settler ambivalence – at once desired, mimicked and appropriated, and also rejected, derided and erased.
1. Historical Background: Settler Colonialism and the Naqab Bedouin
No other imperial or colonial rule has had as devastating an impact on the Bedouin population in the Naqab as has the Zionist settler colonial project (Falah 1985; Goering 1979). Living for over four centuries under foreign Ottoman rule, followed by the British Mandate, the Bedouin population enjoyed relative autonomy and self-governance (Amara and Miller 2012).41 Though colonised, their belonging and rights to the land were not denied (Falah 1985; Goering 1979; Shamir 1996) and their local cultures, economies and indigenous forms of justice and customary law were also relatively acknowledged and respected (Jones 1975; Nasasra 2011).
The Zionist colonisation of Palestine would dramatically transform Bedouin existence and life in the Naqab. As it has for other settler colonial projects, land has been a desired commodity for the Zionist settler project (Wolfe 2007). From the early days of Zionism, the Naqab was signified as one of the most important settler frontiers. In a letter to his son written in 1937, David Ben Gurion wrote:
Negev land is reserved for Jewish citizens, whenever and where ever they want … we must expel Arabs and take their places … and if we have to use force, then we have force at our disposal not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev, and transfer them, but in order to guarantee our own right to settle in those places. (David Ben Gurion in a letter to his son, Amos, 5 October 1937, quoted in Zuabi 2012)
Following the 1948 War, the Naqab was cleansed of the majority of its Palestinian Bedouin inhabitants. ‘From the indigenous, majority population of the Negev Desert prior to 1948, they became fringe dwellers of a growing, modernizing Beer Sheva metropolitan region’ (I. Abu-Saad, Lithwick and K. Abu-Saad 2004, 14). In 1947, the Naqab was home to between 75,000 and 90,000 Bedouin belonging to 95 tribes. The 1948 War constituted
41 For more on Bedouin life under the Ottoman and British rule, see Nasasra 2015a.
a rupture in the lives of the Naqab Bedouin (Falah 1985). They were dispossessed of their land, their native economies were destroyed, and their communities were shattered. About 85% of the Naqab Bedouin population were expelled; most became refugees in Jordan, Egypt, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Only 11,000 Bedouin belonging to 19 tribes remained in the Naqab. Bedouin land was confiscated, and 11 of the 19 tribes were forcibly transferred from the fertile southern and western lands of the Naqab to a closed and restricted area in the north-east, joining the eight remaining tribes (Falah 1985). This area, known in Hebrew as the Siyag (ghetto), constituted only 10% of the land originally inhabited by the Naqab Bedouin.
Like the rest of the Palestinian population who remained in Israel, the Naqab Bedouin were placed under military rule until 1966. However, state policies towards the Bedouin community(ies) took a harsher and more brutal form. As Sabri Jiryis has noted, ‘more than any other group, the Negev Bedouin suffered the full and unrestrained harness of military rule’ (Jiryis 1976, 122). The Naqab Bedouin faced severe restrictions on their freedom of movement and were governed by a colonial regime of permits (Robinson 2013). Furthermore, the expulsion of the Bedouin population from the Naqab continued for a decade after the establishment of Israel. According to a UN report, 7,000 Bedouin – half of whom belonged to the Azazme tribe – were expelled from the Naqab in 1953 (Jones 1975, 218). Expulsion beyond state borders stopped only in 1959, following an intervention by the United Nations (Jiryis 1976; Jones 1975).
Since the 1960s, the state has pursued an aggressive campaign to resettle the remaining Bedouin population in state-planned (semi-urban) townships – the Zionist equivalent of the reservation model. Ismael Abu-Saad has termed this process forced-urbanisation (Abu-Saad 2008a; 2008b; I. Abu-Saad, Lithwick and K. Abu-Saad 2004). These strategies resembled and were parallel in their development to the policies of forced urbanisation to which indigenous people in Canada and the United States were subjected (Abu-Saad 2008a; Champagne 2012). Between 1968 and 1990, seven state-planned townships42 were built with the aim of concentrating the Naqab Bedouin on as little land
42 The seven towns are Tal a Sabi’ (established in 1968); Rahat (1972); Ara’ra Al-Naqab (1981); Kseife (1982); Shaqeb A-Salaam (1984); Hura (1989); and Laqiya (1990): Abu-Saad and Creamer 2012.
as possible. Like reservations in other places, the townships became the most distressed towns in Israel, suffering the highest rates of poverty and unemployment (Abu-Saad 2008a).43
Almost seven decades after the establishment of the state, the Naqab remains one of the most significant internal settlement frontiers within the Green Line. Bedouin existence in the Naqab is viewed as a threat to Jewish sovereignty and territorial integrity. The mission of Judaising the Naqab and the view of the Naqab as ‘a giant desert’ that ‘is waiting to bloom’ (Margalit 2013) still guide state policies towards the Bedouin population. As Israel’s current Minister of Defence, Avigdor Lieberman, has stated, ‘nothing has changed since the Tower and Stockade days [the 1920s–30s mandate period of Zionist settlement]. We are fighting for the lands of the Jewish people and there are those who intentionally try to rob and seize them’ (quoted in Weiss 2013). Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, further echoed this sentiment during a governmental meeting, asserting that ‘the goal of this historical decision is to end the reality of the last 65 years in which the state has lost its control over the Negev lands’ (quoted in Eidelman et al 2013, my translation from Hebrew). Similarly, Doron Almog, the former head of the Prime Minister’s special office for the implementation of the Prawer-Begin Plan, has claimed:
The Bedouins who object to the [resettlement] plan believe that every tin shack needs to be fought over, not in order to preserve the Bedouin society, but in order to ensure territorial sequence between Hebron and Gaza. (Quoted in Ben-Amos 2013, my translation from Hebrew)
Bedouin citizenship has thus been structured as inferior (Swirski and Hasson 2006, 5), transparent (Swirski 2008, 25), partial and vulnerable (Algazi 2010, 234). The state remains occupied with ‘solving’ the ‘Bedouin problem’, as addressed in the official state discourse (Abu-Saad 2008a).44 Between August 1996 and August 1999, seven ministerial and inter-ministerial committees were formed to find a ‘solution’ to the problem (Amara 2013). In 2005, the government endorsed the 2015 Negev Development Plan. It has since
43 According to Israel’s socio-economic index ranking of local authorities, the townships occupy the lowest level in the country (for more statistics, see I. Abu-Saad, Lithwick and K. Abu-Saad 2004, 21–31, 98–108). See also Swirski 2007.
44 The treatment of indigenous people as a problem that needs to be solved is not unique to Israel. See, for example, Sarah Maddison (2009) on Australia’s treatment of Aboriginals.
formed the Goldberg Committee (2007), adopted the Prawer Plan (2011), approved the Begin recommendations and the amended Prawer Bill (2013), scrapped the Prawer Bill (2013) and approved Shamir’s proposal (2014). The Minister of Agriculture, Uri Ariel of the Jewish Home party, has now been handed the Bedouin portfolio (Lewis 2015).
The Bedouin population is the only population in Israel that is governed and managed by special agencies and bodies. These agencies include the Bedouin Authority, the Green Petrol, the Bedouin Education Authority and, most recently, the notorious Yoav Unit, which was formed to manage the affairs of the Bedouin population and implement state plans for the transfer of the Naqab Bedouin into townships (Abu Saad and Creamer 2012; Swirski 2008). The agencies operate ‘independently of and largely in isolation from other government bodies’ (Swirski 2008, 36), ‘setting [the Naqab Bedouin] apart from the rest of Israeli citizenry’ and also from the rest of the Arab population in Israel (Swirski 2008, 25). Israel, like other colonial powers, has worked to divide the ‘native population into two: race and ethnicities’ in the exercise of indirect rule (Mamdani 2001, 654). Since its inception, the state has racialised the Bedouin as Arabs, ethnicised them as Bedouin, and erased them as Palestinians, seeking to widen the divide between the Bedouin population and the rest of the Arab population (see Jakubowska 1992; Stavenhagen and Amara 2012; Yonah, Abu-Saad and Kaplan 2004 on the ethnicisation of the Naqab Bedouin).
The state has also invested in the production of the Naqab Bedouin as a loyal population – as good Arabs who serve in the Israeli army (even though the number of Naqab Bedouin in the army is minimal, estimated as 280 in 2016) (Abu Kweder 2016). This has increased the animosity between the Bedouin population and the rest of the Palestinian population in Israel. Policies of divide and rule were also applied to the Bedouin community itself, using the tribal structure of Bedouin society to deepen tribal rivalries and ‘weaken opposition’ (Yiftachel 2009, 252).
Today, about 230,000 Bedouin reside in the Naqab (NCF 2016), constituting 33% of its overall population (Amara and Miller 2012). They live on no more than 3% of its lands (R. Abu-Rabia 2013). Despite decades of state harassment – including the demolition of houses, the annihilation of entire villages, the destruction of crops, the confiscation of
flocks, and the state’s refusal to deliver basic services – only about 70% of the Bedouin population have transferred to the townships. The rest of the Bedouin population continue to live in about 40 villages (NCF website),45 which have come to be known as the ‘unrecognised’ villages. Some of these villages are still on their original ancestral land. Others are on land to which Bedouin tribes were forcibly transferred by the state after being expelled from their own land.
Considered illegal under Israeli law, the ‘unrecognised’ villages consist of tin and wooden shacks or tents, along with some stone houses. They are deprived of basic services, such as access to water and electricity, health services, sanitary services, paved roads, public transportation and schools.46 The Naqab Bedouin today claim today about 5%, or 800,000 dunams,47 of the Naqab’s land – a fraction of what they once owned (Nasasra 2015a). According to the state’s plans, the Naqab Bedouin are to be dispossessed of the 800,000 dunams of land, the unrecognised villages are to be demolished, and about 70,000 people are to be displaced and transferred to the seven townships. New Jewish settlements and military bases are planned for the land now inhabited and owned by the Bedouin (Reuters 2013; Reed 2013; Roth 2015).
1.1 Orderly Dispossession: Israeli Law as a Settler Colonial Frontier
Before 1948, Zionist agencies and individuals secured land in the Naqab by purchasing it from its Palestinian Bedouin owners. With the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948, Zionism was no longer required to secure Bedouin land in this way. Over the next several years, land was colonised through a combination of military power, colonial law and the exertion of state sovereignty (Algazi 2013). Instead of buying land from its Bedouin
45 For a full list, see the NCF website at http://www.dukium.org/transcription/, accessed 18 August 2016.
46 In 1999, the state recognised 11 Bedouin villages. Ten of these villages are still not connected to electricity and none are connected to water and sewerage services. Basic infrastructure (such as roads) has not been developed, and municipal plans are yet to be formulated, resulting in the continued criminalisation of the Bedouin population and mass home demolitions. Recognition alone, therefore, has not improved the daily lives of the Naqab Bedouin. The state is still guided by de-development policies and it continues to make the lives of the Naqab Bedouin unbearable. See NCF report (2015).
47 Dunam is an Ottoman unit for the measurement of land, commonly used in Israel/Palestine. One dunam equals 1,000 square metres, or about one-quarter of an acre.
owners, the state would seize Bedouin land in the Naqab and transfer its ownership to the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and later to the Israel Land Administration (ILA).
Under Ottoman and British legislation, the Naqab Bedouin were able to claim ownership of the land, particularly by proving that it had been cultivated by them. Both the Ottomans and the British acknowledged and respected Bedouin regimes of property ownership, even though they sought the regulation of land ownership through registration and the introduction of modern property regimes in Palestine. It is important to note that by the end of the Ottoman rule, only 5% of the land was officially registered, with Bedouin land in the Naqab remaining unregistered (Amara 2013).
The British Mandate, therefore, sought to accomplish the orderly registration of the land in Palestine. A significant hindrance to this task was the failure of the British to establish the relevant offices that would handle systematic registration. Consequently, the British efforts to register the land, having begun in the north in Palestine, had not reached the Naqab by the time the State of Israel was established (Yiftachel, A. Kedar and Amara 2012). Nonetheless, during the British Mandate, the Naqab Bedouin employed a mixture of tribal property regimes alongside Western property regimes. They often registered their land when it was sold and purchased, but the vast majority of Bedouin land remained unregistered.
The Israeli settler state, like other settler polities, endorsed a mimetic Western regime of private property, based on the negation of indigenous property systems and customary law (Blomley 2003). The fact that the majority of Bedouin land was not registered made the Bedouin, who were already perceived as savage nomads, particularly vulnerable to land confiscation by the Israeli state. The state ignored the legacy of Ottoman and British recognition of particular dimensions of tribal property regimes and native land title (though both the Ottomans and the British instilled law provisions that aimed to increase their hold of public lands, and registration aimed to facilitate these efforts).
Israel also systematically ignored – and still ignores – the fact that the British never completed the registration of Bedouin land in the Naqab. Instead, Israel used this gap to
exercise a manipulative interpretation of the 1858 Ottoman Land Code and the 1921 Mawat Land Ordinance (Mawat is, literally, ‘dead lands’ or ‘wasteland’ – the Israeli version of the Australian terra nullius). Through forcibly transferring the Bedouin from their land and preventing them from cultivating it, the state declared a significant portion of land owned by the remaining Bedouin in the Naqab as Mawat, effectively rendering the land as public land and hence Jewish and state land (Amara 2013; Yiftachel, A. Kedar and Amara 2012).
Bedouin land was colonised through a sophisticated colonial legal system, based on a mixture of colonial law inherited from the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate (as mentioned above), and the enactment of new laws by the Israeli government that enabled the confiscation of Palestinian property (see, for example, the 1950 Absentee Property Law and the 1953 Land Acquisition Law) (Amara 2013). The expropriated land was classified as state and Jewish land and administered by the Israel Land Authority (ILA) and the Jewish National Fund (JNF), respectively.
During the 1970s – shortly after the end of the military rule – the state declared the northern part of the Naqab an area subject to land settlement. As a result, the Naqab Bedouin filed 3,220 land claims relating to the ownership of more than 900,000 dunams. In 1975, the state formed the Albeck Committee. The Committee was mandated to make recommendations on the status of the Naqab land (Amara 2008, 2013; Swirski 2008). The Committee made the legal case for considering Bedouin lands as mawat, basing its recommendations on the 1858 Ottoman Land Code and the 1921 British Mawat Land Ordinance – though Bedouin title had been recognised by both of those laws (see Kram 2012; Mihlar 2011; Yiftachel, A. Kedar and Amara 2012).
The hope that Israeli courts would deliver justice was shattered with the 1984 Supreme Court verdict in the Al-Hawashleh case. In that case, the Bedouin-Hawashleh tribe challenged the confiscation of their land in order to build the Jewish settlement of Dimona. As Shlomo Swirski points out, the ruling ‘brought to a definitive end the possibility of state recognition of Bedouin habitation on the Siyag lands’ (Swirski 2008, 33). The Supreme Court confirmed the position of the executive and legislative branches,
solidifying in the judiciary the colonial narrative of the Bedouin as nomads and the doctrine of the ‘dead Negev’ (A. Kedar 2016).
The narrative of nomadism produced the Naqab Bedouin as ‘invisible to the law’ and as ‘movable objects – a property that allows the state to freely move them in space’ (Shamir 1996, 237). In the thousands of land rights cases brought by the Naqab Bedouin, the Israeli courts have consistently ignored the ways in which the state has compelled the Bedouin population to be ‘nomads against their will’ (Bishara and Naamnih 2011). They have overlooked decades of state policies of forcibly transferring the Bedouin population from one area of the Naqab to another in the effort to prevent them from acquiring rights to the land (see Pfeffer 2014).48
In 2004, the state began to submit counterclaims against the Naqab Bedouin, insisting that they had settled on state land. While only 12% of the claims filed by the Naqab Bedouin have been settled (Amara 2013), the courts have been swift in dealing with the counterclaims. So far, hundreds of cases have been decided – and in 100% of those cases the court has ruled in favour of the state, dispossessing the Bedouin of more land (Yiftachel, A. Kedar and Amara 2012). In Israel – as in other liberal settler colonial contexts – the law has functioned as a settler colonial frontier, a vehicle in the spatial and demographic rearrangement of the Naqab (Evans 2009). As further argued by Alexandre Kedar:
… settlers’ law and courts attribute to the new land system an aura of necessity and naturalness that protects the new status quo and prevents future redistribution. Formalistic legal tools play a meaningful role in such legitimization. Courts apply ‘linguistic semantics, rhetorical strategies and other devises’ to disenfranchise Indigenous peoples. (A. Kedar 2003, 415)
By requiring the Naqab Bedouin to submit claims for land ownership, and at the same time instituting legal methods of denying them land ownership in the Naqab, the liberal
48 In 1972, Sharon ordered the expulsion of 3,000 Bedouin. It is worth noting that, for a brief period, Moshe Dayan pursued a policy of transferring Bedouin communities from the Naqab into ‘mixed’ cities. Four thousand Bedouin were transferred to Lod and Ramla. However, this policy was always marginal and it was quickly abandoned in favour of the township/urbanisation model. See Yiftachel 2003, 35.
settler state has sought to produce dispossession as a neutral and apolitical act of law and order.
1.2 Colonisation as De-Development
Historically, the Bedouin economy and Bedouin livelihoods have relied on land for agriculture and animal husbandry. As part of Israel’s pursuit of Bedouin land, Bedouin local economies were targeted by the state (Marx 2000; Falah 1989b; Dinero 1996). During the military rule, the Naqab Bedouin were prevented from cultivating their land. They were thereby unable to sustain their economy and secure their ownership rights under colonial law. Additionally, The Naqab Bedouin were denied access to the Israeli job market, due to a fear that cheap (and more efficient) Bedouin labour would replace Jewish labour. Until 1958, only 3.5% of Bedouin male residents were given permits to work outside the Siyag area (Robinson 2013, 39). This amounted to fewer than one hundred individual permits. By 1962, the figure had risen only to 13% (Goering 1979).
Israel’s attempts to destroy the Bedouin economy continued after the military rule had ended. A special statute – the ‘black goat’ law – came into force in 1977, forbidding ‘the grazing of goats in most parts of the Negev because they are presumed to cause ecological damage’ (Ginguld, Perevolotsky and Ungar 1997, 572). Harassment, fines and confiscation of livestock led eventually to the erasure of the livestock economy. In the early 2000s, the state also began ploughing tens of thousands of dunams of cultivated land annually (Adalah website; HRA 2004; Silverstein 2015; Yoaz 2005).49
The loss of land has led to the proletarianisation of the Naqab Bedouin and their transformation from landowners and self-sufficient producers into cheap labour for the Jewish economy (Swirski and Hasson 2006). The new townships have only furthered the
49 In 2002, the ILA began the aerial spraying of Bedouin fields with the herbicide Roundup (a banned material) in order to destroy Bedouin crops. In 2004, Adalah petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court to stop the aerial spraying of Bedouin cultivated land, arguing that ‘the spraying of crops endangers the life and health of human beings and animals, as well as their environment’. In 2007, the Court prohibited the ILA from spraying Bedouin crops. However, this verdict was a short-lived victory. The state instead began ploughing fields cultivated by the Naqab Bedouin, as well as fields used for grazing livestock. See the Adalah website at http://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/6646, last accessed 18 August 2016.
economic marginality of the Naqab Bedouin. No land was allocated for cultivation and livestock. At the same time, the state did not develop alternative economic infrastructure to serve the Bedouin residents of the townships. This has resulted in chronic conditions of unemployment, poverty, impoverishment and de-development (Abu-Bader and Gottlieb 2008, 2009; A. Abu-Rabia 2000).50
The destruction of the self-sufficient Bedouin economy has also had devastating gendered outcomes. The confiscation of lands, according to Nora Gottlieb, ‘has led to rapid socioeconomic transition and loss of livelihoods. This has stripped Bedouin-Arab women of their previous productive roles in herding and agriculture, and thus also of their economic powers’ (Gottlieb 2008, 53; see also Al-Krenawi and Graham 2004; Degen 2003). Bedouin women ‘became unemployed in their own domestic sphere’ (Abu-Rabia-Queder 2007, 73), with their role ‘largely restricted to the fulfilment of responsibilities in the household, as a mother and caretaker of the family’s well-being’ (Gottlieb 2008, 53–4). This has resulted in the entrenchment of patriarchy and the undermining of women’s power and agency within their communities (Abu-Rabia-Queder 2006; Gottlieb 2008; Karplus and Meir 2015; Meir 1997). Moreover, the state fails to fulfil its obligation to ensure access to education for Bedouin girls (R. Abu-Rabia 2015), at the same time arguing that it is the Bedouin patriarchal culture that denies them this right (Abu-Rabia-Queder 2006). With the Naqab Bedouin dispossessed of their land, Bedouin girls and women have found themselves simultaneously deprived of an education and excluded from their social-economic communal roles.
50 According to Abu-Bader and Gottlieb: ‘Most Bedouin-Arab men work in the Jewish labor market. In 2004, about 55% of the employed Bedouin-Arab males were working in a Jewish town, mostly in the same region where they live … Among these, 80.3% were employed in the low-tech sector with low-paying jobs: 21% worked in transportation, 9% in construction services and 22% in other non-professional jobs (the remainder worked in low-paying professional jobs). Less than 40% of employed men work in the same village where they live or in a nearby Bedouin-Arab village. As in the case of females, most locally employed males work in the education sector, while a small fraction of them work in jobs provided by local councils.’ (Abu-Bader and Gottlieb 2008, 133).
2. Culturalisation and Dispossession: Settler Modernity and Its Bedouin Other
Dispossessing the Naqab Bedouin of their land has taken a different form and a different logic from the confiscation of land in the rest of Palestine, where private ownership of land was recognised – though not respected. In the case of the Naqab, the state has systematically refused to recognise Bedouin ownership of the land.51 So far, the state has been persistent in its claims that the Naqab Bedouin are a nomadic population that has no history in or rights to the land. Nomadism has been produced as ‘an essentialist ahistorical category’ (Shamir 1996, 236) and a paramount discourse in the justification and advancement of Zionist colonisation of the Naqab. As Ronen Shamir argues:
One aspect of this official story emphasizes the emptiness of Al Naqab, while another aspect discovers the Bedouin nomads as part of nature. Both aspects ultimately converge into a single trajectory: an empty space that awaits Jewish liberation, and a nomadic culture that awaits civilization. (Shamir 1996, 236)
The different treatment of the Naqab Bedouin is neither coincidental nor arbitrary. Rather, it speaks to the particular racial logic that underpins Zionist/Israeli governance of Bedouin life, history and identities.
So far, the vast majority of critical scholarship on the Naqab Bedouin has tended to focus on the inheritance of Ottoman and British land laws and Israeli colonial laws to explain land dispossession. Scholars have shown how Israel manipulated the interpretation of Ottoman and British law to produce the Naqab as an empty land (see, for example, Amara 2013; Kram 2012; A. Kedar and Yiftachel 2006; Yiftachel, A. Kedar and Amara 2012). Little attention has been given to the role that culturalisation has played in justifying land dispossession and settler violence. An exception is a pioneering article by Shamir that examines how colonial law reconfigures time and space through the narrative of Bedouin nomadism (Shamir 1996). While the law is a central mechanism in what Povinelli conceptualises as the governance of the prior (Povinelli 2011; see Naamneh 2016 in the
51 The only cases in which the state did recognise Bedouin ownership rights were those in which members of the Bedouin community sold land to Zionist individuals or institutions before the establishment of the state.
context of Palestine), the focus on colonial law alone, I suggest, misses the particular racialising logics that shape the state’s differential treatment of the Bedouin population.
Building on Chapter 1 of this thesis, I move beyond legal explanations and argue that state/Zionist culturalisation of the Naqab Bedouin as rootless premodern nomads has been the most significant colonial mechanism in the exercise of internal colonialism and the governance of the Bedouin native population. The cultural, social and economic distinctiveness of the Naqab Bedouin has been invoked by the state to produce them as ontologically distinct from the rest of the Palestinian population and epistemologically distinct from the Zionist settlers. The law has been a mechanism for translating the culturalisation of the Bedouin natives into a legal narrative – and infrastructure – that facilitates the orderly dispossession of land.
Like other indigenous groups, the Naqab Bedouin are produced as antithetical to modernity, ‘in a different temporal zone’ (P. J. Deloria 1998, 106). Bedouin settlement on their own land has been represented as a result of premodernity. Therefore, their transfer to state-planned townships has been justified through a discourse of modernising and civilising the natives. Land dispossession has thus been translated into a project of urbanisation that was designed to serve two goals. First, the state has aimed to facilitate the appropriation of the remaining Bedouin land. Second, perceiving Bedouin culture as a threat to state/Jewish sovereignty in the Naqab, the state has sought through urbanisation to erase Bedouin culture in a process of ‘de-Bedouinisation’ (Dinero 2012, 495). As Moshe Dayan, a prominent military and political figure in the history of Israel, famously stated:
We should transform the Bedouins into an urban proletariat – in industry, services, construction, and agriculture. 88% of the Israeli population are not farmers, let the Bedouins be like them. Indeed, this will be a radical move which means that the Bedouin would not live on his land with his herds, but would become an urban person who comes home in the afternoon and puts his slippers on. His children would be accustomed to a father who wears trousers, does not carry a Shabaria [the traditional Bedouin knife] and does not search for vermin in public. The children would go to school with their hair properly combed. This would be a revolution, but it may be fixed within two generations. Without coercion but with governmental direction … this phenomenon of the Bedouins will disappear. (Quoted in Shamir 1996, 231)
Fifty years after this statement, modernising (read as urbanising) the Naqab Bedouin continues to dominate the state’s approach. In the words of Moshe Arens, former Minister of Defence, ‘only a process of Westernization, or in this case Israelization, can bring normality to Bedouin society’ (Arens 2013a).
‘Cultural talk’ (Mamdani 2004) is implored to explain political contention between the Naqab Bedouin and the state in terms of cultural difference. Culturalisation, Brown argues, builds on the logic of ‘“we” have culture while culture has “them”; or we have culture while they are a culture’ (Brown 2006, 151). It differentiates between ‘us’ (modern, civil) and ‘them’ (premodern, uncivil). Culturalisation of the Bedouin population is expressed in their treatment as a culture represented in pathological and racialised terms. As Moshe Shochat, the head of the Bedouin Education Authority, stated in an interview:
Blood-thirsty Bedouins who commit polygamy, have 30 children and continue to expand their illegal settlements, taking over state land … In their culture they take care of their needs outdoors. They don’t even know how to flush a toilet. (Quoted in Abu-Saad 2008a)
The refusal of the Naqab Bedouin to willingly urbanise is used by the state to portray them as an ‘unruly’ society guided by an irrational desire to ‘remain backward by choice’. ‘Savageness’ and ‘wildness’ are invoked as indicators of Bedouin racial inferiority. The existence of the native Bedouin on their own land is stripped of its historical and political terms and is presented instead in a vocabulary of criminality. These discourses are then used to justify the production of the Naqab Bedouin as a population governed by lawlessness that ought to be controlled and tamed. As Havatzelet Yahel, the department director and head of the Land Title Settlement Unit in the Negev, stated:
Many residents of the Negev sometimes feel that they live on a different planet from the rest of Israel. No wonder it is sometimes referred to as the ‘Wild South’. The ‘wildness’ is manifest above all in the illegal construction and the invasion of state lands by some Bedouin …
… In other words, thousands of Bedouin are breaking the law. (Yahel 2006, 4–5)
The culturalisation of the settler–native relationship is part of a larger project marked by the ‘politics of distraction’ that renders the politics of land dispossession invisible (Smith
2003). Hubert Law-Yone argues that ‘there is perhaps no sector in society in Israel in which the clash of cultures has been as profound as in Bedouin society subjected to Zionist planning’ (Law-Yone 2003, 179). Mordechai Kedar goes so far as to suggest that:
… the truth of the matter is that the problem is not only an issue of the land and the Bedouins’ illegal settlement on state lands, but is both wider and deeper. Wider – because there are still serious problems between the state and the Bedouins, and deeper – because all of these differences stem from the tremendous gaps between the Bedouin culture and a state culture. (M. Kedar 2013)
The culturalisation of the Naqab Bedouin has strong gendered dimensions (Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2012; Shalhoub-Kevorkian et al 2014). Bedouin women are located at the centre of settler ambivalence. They are represented at once as a menace and as a vulnerable population in need of saving. On the one hand, the Bedouin birth rate is the highest in the country and one of the highest in the world. Thus, in their reproductive roles, Bedouin women pose a threat to Jewish sovereignty and to Jewish demographic superiority. At the same time, they are seen as victims of Bedouin-Arab-Muslim men. Tapping into orientalist discourse, the saving of Bedouin women is invoked to justify state interventionist policies and to advance state plans of forced urbanisation and displacement. Doron Almog, who was formerly in charge of implementing the Prawer-Begin Plan, has argued that the plan would benefit ‘many Bedouin women [who] are tired of oppression and of being the third and fourth wife. The young and the women want education, employment, progress and modern settlements’ (Karov 2013, my translation from Hebrew).
The gendered dimensions of culturalisation should further be understood in the invocation of polygamy, by the state, as a cultural category. Polygamy has been used in recent years (by the state, by liberal Zionists and by some non-Bedouin Palestinians) as a signifier of the poor condition of Bedouin women’s rights and the backwardness of Bedouin society. It is estimated that polygamy exists in more than 33% of Bedouin households (Dinero 2012) and that the numbers are on the rise (Deniro 2012). Racist concerns with the high Bedouin birth rate have led the state to declare war on polygamy. As stated by Mordechai Kedar, ‘the Bedouin problem is not land but polygamy’ (M. Kedar 2013). Former Agriculture Minister Yair Shamir, who was also the head of the ministerial committee on Bedouin resettlement arrangements, declared that Israel should
‘deal with the phenomenon of multiple wives to reduce the birthrate and raise the standard of living’, adding that ‘only a suicidal country doesn’t recognize the Bedouin problem’ (quoted in Seidler 2014). Recently, the Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked, announced that the state would begin enforcing the law against polygamy. Polygamy, according to Shaked and Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, ‘undermines the foundations of public order in an enlightened society’ (quoted in Hovel and Seidler 2015).
Rawia Abu Rabia argues that ‘polygamy in the Arab Bedouin society is not a phenomenon that occurs in a vacuum. It operates in the intersection of colonial power and patriarchal power’ (R. Abu-Rabia 2011, 461). Israel’s obsession with polygamy has made it part of the politics of the Bedouin struggle for land, resulting in the reinforcing of patriarchal power. As Albert Memmi has argued, the aspects of native lives that have been denounced by the coloniser become central to the colonised’s ‘identity and to his [or her] resistance’ (Memmi [1965] 2003, 176). Polygamy – much like the veil in the ongoing struggle against imperialism, colonialism and racism – is increasingly leveraged as a symbol of the Bedouin struggle against colonisation and the erasure of Bedouin culture. Bedouin women and their bodies have thus become a site and a symbol of colonial contention. Bedouin feminist groups that have long worked to combat polygamy are labelled as native informants.
3. Bedouin Culture and the Project of Settler Indigenisation
Native people and their culture are located at the centre of settler ambivalence (P. J. Deloria 1998, 3; see also Guez 2015; Mendel and Ranta 2016). As Homi K. Bhabha reminds us, otherness is ‘at once an object of desire and derision’ (Bhabha [1991] 1994, 96). This has particular relevance in settler colonialism, where indigenous culture is, on the one hand, mocked, racialised and targeted for elimination, and, on the other hand, desired, mimicked and appropriated.
In his book Playing Indian, Philip Deloria argues that American nationalism and identity were not only constituted in relation to the Indians as others, but also in light of and through the imaginative figure of the Indian and Indian culture as authentic to the space.
It is through playing Indian that the new European settlers were able to shake off their Europeanness in favour of a new form of Americanism and American nationalism. Similarly, Yonatan Mendel and Ronald Ranta argue that Israeli identity and nationalism have been constituted both in relation to the figure of the Arab as ‘other’ and through the appropriation of Arab culture. They argue that Arab-Palestinian culture has been treated with ambivalence, being both imitated and disdained (Ranta and Mendel 2014; Mendel and Ranta 2016). Examining orientalist photographs of the Zionists of the early aliyot (Jewish immigration), Dor Guez shows that Zionists dressed up like Arabs (thus playing Arabs) in order to orient(alise) themselves and to appear proper and authentic to the space (Guez 2015). The appropriation of the Arab-native culture, Guez argues, is the appropriation of nativeness – of indigeneity (Guez 2015).
In this respect, it is important to recognise that mimicry is not only a practice of the colonised imitating the coloniser (whether in order to trouble colonial authority, as suggested by Bhabha, or as a pathological outcome of the colonial encounter, as suggested by Fanon) (Bhabha [1991] 1994; Fanon 1967). It is also a practice of the coloniser mimicking the native. In the specific context of settler colonialism, settler mimicry of the native facilitates the process of settler indigenisation and the making of the settler as authentic to the space. However, while the American settlers sought a complete erasure of their European culture and origins, the Zionist settlers pursued indigenisation while maintaining their Europeanised identity. After all, it was only in Palestine that the European Jew could finally become a master.
Bedouin culture has also been treated with ambivalence: feared, rejected, ‘othered’, mocked, desired, mimicked, appropriated, adapted, oriented, fetishised and exoticised. In his book The Sabra, Oz Almog demonstrates the ways in which the Bedouin have acted as a model for the creation of the new Jew, the Sabra (a native Israeli, a Jew rooted in the land of Palestine – like the indigenous sabra cactus) (Almog 2010). The Bedouin were represented in ambivalent way. They were portrayed as savage, primitive, cruel and bloodthirsty, while at the same time were viewed as embodying an authentic and desired image of the native – though the Bedouin, and Arabs more generally, were simulatenously viewed as invaders and foreigners to the land (Almog 2000).
The Naqab Bedouin embodied many qualities that Zionists desired. They were rooted in the land, resilient and ‘represented a role model to the new Jew: assertive, independent, pure, simple and brave’ (Mendel and Ranta 2016, 111). Similarly to the Native Americans, who were believed to speak the ‘spirit of the continent’ (P. J. Deloria 1998, 3), the Bedouin were believed to speak the mystical spirit of the Naqab desert. The special place that the Bedouin occupied in inventing Israeli national identity should also be understood in light of the mystification of the desert in the Zionist settler ethos of state building. As Ben Gurion stated in his famous speech ‘The Meaning of the Negev’:
It is in the Negev that the creativity and pioneer vigor of Israel will be tested, and this will be a crucial test …
It is in the Negev that the youth will be tested – its pioneer strength, vigor of spirit, and creative and conquering initiative …
It is in the Negev that the people of Israel will be tested – For only with a united effort of a volunteering people and a planning and implementing State will we accomplish the great mission of populating the wilderness and bringing it to flourish. This effort will determine the fate of the State of Israel and the standing of our people in the history of mankind. (Ben Gurion, ‘The Meaning of the Negev’, 17 January 1955)
To appear proper to the land, Jewish settlers have engaged in different forms of playing Bedouin. They have adopted Bedouin desert wear (the kufiya and sandals), claimed resilience by producing Jewish settlers as brave pioneers who were taming the wild desert, and appropriated symbols associated with Bedouin life in the desert (such as the tent, Bedouin hospitality and the camel). However, this form of mimicry and appropriation was rooted in a particular formation of the Zionist settler indigenisation process of reclaiming and reviving an ancient Jewish/Hebrew identity in Palestine. Almog argues that for the early generations of the Jewish settlers,
Bedouin culture resembled ancient Israelite culture, so they drew on the Orient as a source of symbols for the ancient Hebrew nation … Like the ancient Israelites, the Bedouin herded sheep, used beasts of burden to plow and winnow, pressed olives for oil, ground wheat with millstones, baked bread over a fire, lived in tents sewn from goatskins, wore robes, practiced hospitality, and belonged to a tribal community that lived near sources of water. (Almog 2000, 185)
Thus, in the process of appropriation, these symbols have been de-Bedouinised and Israelised. This interplay between appropriation and settler indigenisation continues to be seen in the contemporary encounter between current generations of Israeli settlers and
Bedouin culture. The following description of a Jewish-owned camel ranch demonstrates the current working of this narrative of settler indigenisation:
The ranch cares for and raises riding camels and it offers camel tours, desert hospitality and lodging. We aim to provide a unique desert experience, along with the opportunity to enjoy the calm and serenity of the biblical landscape surrounding our home – the Negev. We make sure to protect the environment, natural sites, monuments in all our activities and care for the welfare of our precious camels. (The Negev Camel Ranch website)52
At the same time, the erasure of Bedouin culture has been coupled with a seemingly contradictory – yet complementary – process of preservation. This has been articulated in the state-driven development of a Bedouin-ethnic tourism industry. Since the early 1970s, the state has actively encouraged the Bedouin to develop authentic ‘Bedouin tourism in the Naqab, to capitalize on the exotic’ (Jakubowska 1992, 100; see also Dinero 2002; Stein 1998). These efforts had limited success during the 1970s, 80s and 90s (Jakubowska 1992). The strategy is not unique to the Bedouin case. Neoliberal settler states have been encouraging the commodification of the indigenous as part of the tourism industry (Furniss 1998; Gilbert 2013; see also R. Butler and Hinch 2007, pt 4).
During the 2000s, Israel renewed its efforts to develop Bedouin tourism as part of a larger plan to develop the Naqab as a prime tourist destination. A new master plan was developed in the mid-2000s under the auspices of the Negev Development Authority and the Jewish agency. Its goal was:
… to develop ethnic tourism that emphasises the unique characteristics of the population and the environment, and to preserve the Bedouin heritage, as part of a process of preservation of ethnic heritage in Israel and worldwide … People will want to come to enjoy Bedouin hospitality, spend a night in a community because it’s interesting, and the next day hike in the Judean Desert with a local guide … [An additional] important goal, says Meninger [a consultant on environmental and tourism issues], is to turn the Bedouin into guardians of the environment, as opposed to the situation at present. The areas around the Bedouin communities have become garbage dumps. Overgrazing and unsupervised hunting are systematically destroying flora and fauna. Meninger is convinced that, as elsewhere in the world, turning nature into a financial and existential resource will bring about a change in attitudes toward nature among the Bedouin. (Rinat 2005)
52 See http://www.cameland.co.il/the-negev-camel-ranch, accessed 6 September 2016.
In 2014, the state initiated the Desert Magic Festival, an annual event that aims to encourage thousands of tourists to visit Bedouin communities in the Naqab. As reported in the Jerusalem Post, ‘the concept is to draw tourists to the Bedouin community and allow the local people to lift the veil on their products and traditions’ (Frantzman 2015, emphasis added). These initiatives often reduce Bedouin culture to oriental signifiers of Bedouin hospitality: the tent, the camel, Bedouin coffee and tea, Bedouin flatbread and Bedouin embroidery. With exotic names – such as the Ya-Hala [Welcome] Bedouin Hospitality Tent, Touring with Salem, and the Sheikh’s Castle – a host of Bedouin small initiatives, mostly ‘Bedouin hospitality tents’, offer the orientalist fantasy of the desert experience. For example, Salima’s Dream Tent and Desert Embroidery presents the ‘feminist’ Bedouin experience, where tourists can imagine a Bedouin tent that ‘provides women with equal space as men’,53 buy crafts made by women, and gaze on Bedouin women (for more on the neoliberal agenda of empowering Bedouin women, see Shalhoub-Kevorkian et al 2014).
In the ‘development’ of the Naqab, the Bedouin population are assigned a single role: to be authentic Bedouin. Bedouin culture is to be performed on the terms of the settler and represented in ahistorical and apolitical terms. Through an ‘ethnic’ tourism industry, the state regulates and governs Bedouin identity. The state ‘preserves’ Bedouin traditions, while also defining what constitutes Bedouin heritage, identity and culture. The aspects of culture that are deemed worthy of preservation are the oriental imaginaries of Bedouin culture that reinforce the narrative of the Bedouin as nomads. For example, ‘conceived as a nonsettlement’ (Shamir 1996, 240), the tent is celebrated and fetishised by the state, while the long history of Bedouin settlement in the Naqab is ignored.
The engagement of the Naqab Bedouin in the tourism industry illuminates the ‘economic organization of indigeneity’ (Cattelino 2010, 235), in which culture – and the performance of culture – is invoked as a practice of economic survival. Some argue that indigenous tourism can be seen as a positive form of self/strategic essentialism that allows indigenous communities to humanise themselves, maintain their culture, and make
53See http://www.gonegev.co.il/%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%93%D7%95%D7%90%D7%99%D7%AA.html, accessed 20 February 2015.
themselves visible (Furniss 1998; Gilbert 2013). However, I suggest that indigenous tourism must be understood in light of economic exclusion and colonial erasure of native economies. In other words, indigenous people are forced into practices of self-essentialising as a means of economic survival. Self-culturalisation, self-exoticisation and the commodification of native culture should be read as intrinsic to colonial structural violence.
This chapter has explored the particular racialising logics to which the Bedouin are subjected, and the ways in which these are deeply ethnicised and gendered. State invocation of Bedouin cultural distinctiveness, it has been demonstrated, has been the main mechanism in shaping Israel’s discursive, epistemic and material violence towards the Naqab Bedouin. Racialisation, ethnicisation and culturalisation have been constitutive to Zionist settler colonialism as a land-centred project. These strategies have shaped the structures, discourses and forms of colonial violence that govern Bedouin life. At the same time, as the next chapter shows, they have also played an important role in shaping Bedouin modalities of resistance.
As the discussion of Bedouin indigeneity in the next chapter shows, state culturalisation of the Naqab Bedouin as premodern subjects can intersect with the liberal human rights discourse on indigeneity. The culturalisation of the Bedouin natives is thereby reproduced – only this time simultaneously as a repressive structure and as a potentially emancipatory force.
Chapter 4
Culturalisation as Emancipation
The previous chapter has focused on the ways in which culture – along with culturalisation – figures as a structure, discourse and mechanism of domination by the Zionist settler state, setting the ground for this chapter’s focus on the ways in which culture figures in Bedouin resistance to settler colonialism. This chapter argues that for the Naqab Bedouin, there is no escape from culturalisation. Culture and culturalisation figure simultaneously as a structure of domination and as a force of emancipation. International recognition of Naqab Bedouin as indigenous has been grounded in an orientalised and culturalised view of them, and has built on the mobilisation of a culturalised conception of indigeneity. Paradoxically, the culturalisation of the Bedouin population at the state level is mirrored in the discourse on Bedouin indigeneity. Consequently, in their resistance, Bedouin activists face the burden of culture. This demands that the Naqab Bedouin negotiate their identities, struggles and political agendas in multiple circuits of power, as they operate at the intersection of the local and the global.
The first section of the chapter provides a historical overview of Bedouin resistance to the Zionist settler project. It argues that since the early days of Zionism in Palestine, the Naqab Bedouin have been agents of resistance, adopting a range of strategies, discourses and practices in their struggle for land rights. The section suggests that recent years have seen the development of two new trends in the Bedouin struggle. The first is characterised by the Palestinianisation of the Bedouin struggle. The second is marked by the transnationalisation of the struggle and the rise of the indigenous discourse as central to Bedouin resistance. The latter is the main focus of the chapter.
The second section reviews the rise of the global indigenous movement and the development of the international indigenous human rights regime. It examines the ways
in which indigeneity, as a reclaimed political identity and rights framework, has, on the one hand, empowered indigenous struggles and claim making, and how it has, on the other hand, also functioned as a containment mechanism by re-enshrining settler sovereignty and framing indigenous struggles in state-centric and liberal terms. Indigeneity, this section suggests, should be understood not only as a legal category, but also as a political, economic and cultural construct, a liberal/oriental/settler fantasy, and a site of contestation.
The third section discusses the development of the discourse on Bedouin indigeneity. It suggests that critical scholars and friendly NGOs have predicated their arguments in favour of the relevance of the indigeneity framework to the Bedouin case on principles of cultural distinctiveness, non-dominance and the perpetual practice of traditional culture – thereby reproducing the colonial gaze on culture. This focus has produced a culturalist and essentialist discourse on Bedouin indigeneity that builds on the fetishisation of the Bedouin natives as premodern subjects and on a dangerous entwinement of land rights and cultural authenticity.
The fourth section argues that predicating Bedouin indigeneity on cultural distinctiveness has subjected Bedouin activists – and Bedouin communities more broadly – to identity inspection regimes and repressive structures of expectation that require them to prove their authenticity by conforming to orientalist imaginaries of Bedouinness. The Naqab Bedouin, it is argued, face a double bind. They are recognised as indigenous because they are perceived to confirm the cultural tenets of indigeneity and the view of the indigenous as victim in need of rescue. However, any signs of modernity and expressions of agency risk compromising their claim of indigeneity.
The concluding fifth and sixth sections of the chapter focus on the different strategies that the Naqab Bedouin employ in their efforts to subvert, contest and refuse their racialisation, culturalisation and ethnicisation. It is argued that cultural expectations do not go unchallenged. While the Naqab Bedouin build on their culturalisation in order to gain access to new audiences and to leverage new opportunities and spaces for mobilisation, they simultaneously subvert the culturalist interest in the Bedouin case and
mobilise the powerful spectacle of suffering in order to expose Israel as a racially driven regime. Moreover, the younger generation of Bedouin activists refuses the text of premodernity by insisting on hybrid articulations of Bedouin identities that bring together traditionalism and modernity. They also challenge the conditionality of land rights on cultural authenticity by employing a discourse that insists on the right of the Naqab Bedouin to choose their own lifestyle. Despite the challenge to culturalisation, the question of whether Bedouin expressions of agency are intelligible to outside supporters persists.
1. Bedouin Resistance to Settler Colonialism: A Historical Background
The Naqab Bedouin have a long history of resistance to foreign colonisation, including the Ottoman rule, the British Mandate and Zionist settler colonialism (Nasasra 2011, 2015a). Furthermore, as the work of Mansour Nasasra shows, the Naqab Bedouin have long seen themselves as part of the Palestinian people. Like other Palestinians, the native Bedouin advocated that the British restrict Zionist immigration and prohibit the sale of land to Jewish settlers. They also took an active role in Palestinian resistance and revolts (Nasasra 2011).
Resistance to Zionist colonisation persisted after the Nakba. Despite the severe restrictions imposed by the military rule, the Naqab Bedouin continued to assert their right to the land and struggled to ensure their cultural, social and economic survival. During the period of the military rule, Nasasra argues, Naqab Bedouin:
… adopted non-violent, political and cultural methods of resistance to circumvent the military rule system, including campaigning for land rights, seeking unification with fellow Bedouin who had been expelled or left across borders, gaining their rights as refugees and Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs), and pursuing claims to their lands and confiscated properties. (Nasasra 2015b, 123)
In the decades that followed the end of the military rule, Bedouin struggles were largely domesticated. The Naqab Bedouin resisted dispossession and settler encroachment from within state institutions, focusing on litigation and lobbying. In addition, the mushrooming of NGOs in Israel during the 1990s did not bypass the Naqab Bedouin.
Dozens of Bedouin NGOs were formed to enhance the community’s capacity for self-representation and to empower and professionalise the Bedouin struggle. These NGOs focused on issues such as land rights, gender inequality and women’s empowerment, welfare, education, sustainable economic development, litigation, advocacy, community empowerment, lobbying and international advocacy. Most significant was the establishment in 1997 of the Regional Council of the Unrecognised Villages (RCUV), a democratically elected body formed to act as the legitimate representative of the unrecognised villages (Meir 2005). The RCUV was at the forefront of developing alternatives to state plans and advocating the recognition of Bedouin villages based on ‘rural settlement models’ (Abu-Saad 2008b, 16). The state refuses to recognise and negotiate with the RCUV.
Given the state’s sweeping refusal to recognise Bedouin rights to the land, litigation became a central strategy of resistance. Palestinian Bedouin thus sought to use the law as an anti-colonial tool (Amara 2015). However, despite submitting thousands of land claims since the 1970s, not a single case of land ownership has been won in the Israeli courts (Amara and Miller 2012).54 As a result, during the 1990s, the Naqab Bedouin, with the support of NGOs, adopted ‘proactive legal action that aims to find the cracks in the Israeli legal structure in order to oppose its one-sided policy of Judaization and control’ (Yiftachel 2003, 40). Instead of seeking land ownership, litigation focused on demands that the state build schools and health clinics and deliver basic services, such as access to water and electricity (Amara and Miller 2012). This strategy has been a subversive attempt to secure ‘creeping recognition’ of Bedouin villages (Amara 2015, 182). While the strategy did result in some achievements during the 1990s, since 2000 the courts have
54 Furthermore, courts have legitimised the eviction of entire villages. See, for example, the case of Um Al-Hiran. In May 2015, the Supreme Court allowed the state to evict and demolish the entire Bedouin village of Um Al-Hiran in order to replace it with a new Jewish settlement, which will be called Hiran. The Bedouin residents had been forcibly settled on the land in 1956, on the order of the Israeli military rule, after being evacuated from their own land. Before 1948, the tribe of Abu Alkiyan had lived in Khirbet Zubaleh, on land that is now occupied by the Jewish Kibbutz Shuval. Dispossessed of that land, the tribe was resettled on 7,000 dunams of land now known as Um Al-Hiran. The court effectively argued that the residents have acquired no rights over the land and that the land remains state-owned, ignoring the dispossession of the Um Al-Hiran Bedouin from their original land and the fact that they had been forcible settled on the land by the state itself (see Seidler 2015). Even in the exceptional case of the village of Al-Sire, in which the court (temporarily) ordered the state not to evacuate the village, the court refused to discuss the ownership rights to the land of the Al-Sire Bedouin residents (Rotem 2014).
been less willing to intervene in favour of the Bedouin citizens in civil rights cases (Interview, Suhad Bishara 2013).
The experience of the Naqab Bedouin in colonial courts invites us to ponder the extent to which the law can serve as an anti-colonial tool for resistance, given that the Israeli legal system is integral to the colonial infrastructure of dispossession. Phrased differently, can the master’s tool dismantle the master’s house? (Lorde 1984). The use of colonial courts by the colonised, I suggest, should be conceptualised as more than an opportunity structure. It should be understood as part of the structural violence of the liberal settler state. The Naqab Bedouin are forced to engage with the very legal system that dispossesses them and, in doing so, legitimise it. Given their status as citizen-subjects, it is almost impossible for Palestinian Bedouin to avoid the colonial legal system. As Khalil Alamour, an activist of the Bedouin village of Al-Sire and a staff member of the NGO Adalah, states: ‘I don’t believe that law will free us, or that through law we will win back our land. Do you see the eviction order on my house? I have no choice but to go to the same court that issued it, knowing I will probably lose’ (Interview, Khalil Alamour 2012).
Yet, the relationship between the colonised and the settler colonial legal systems is one of ambivalence. The judiciary functions at once as a form of state-sanctioned colonial violence and as an illusionary opportunity structure for achieving justice. As Awad Abu-Freih, a Bedouin activist from the village of Al-Arakib, says: ‘The Supreme Court is a dangerous institution. We keep believing that we can get our rights there, but we can’t’ (Interview, Awad Abu-Freih 2013). This illusion must be understood in light of the nature of the liberal settler state and its fetishisation of law and order. Courts also have a pacifying effect by containing native struggles within state institutions and the liberal logic of citizenship and the rule of law.
The heart of Bedouin resistance, however, remains sumud (roughly translated as ‘steadfastness’). Sumud – surviving on one’s own land – is articulated in the refusal of the Naqab Bedouin to leave their land and on their defiance of state authority and settler sovereignty. It is the centring of the Bedouin body as a site of resistance. As Patrick Wolfe reminds us, ‘to get in the way of settler colonization, all the native has to do is stay at
home’ (Wolfe 2006a, 388). Staying at home, however, is neither a simple nor a passive act. It is surviving under conditions of personal and collective suffering. In the words of Awad Abu-Freih:
The primary strategy which we, the Naqab Arabs, master is the sumud. It is the sumud against harsh physical and geographic living conditions of desert or semi-desert conditions characterised by strong wind, very hot weather during the summer, and floods in the winter. We have no water and no electricity. We tolerate these conditions because we love our land, because of our relationship to the land. Sumud is our daily struggle against the expulsion and transfer policies of the state, against state efforts to erase our identity. It is a sumud against our de-development, impoverishment, starvation, ghettoisation and illiteracy. People are still willing to pay the price of the sumud, also in the price of suffering. You are isolated, far from schools, far from other cultures. The price is heavy and we are paying it on a daily basis. But as long as we have sumud, we will triumph. (Interview, Awad Abu-Freih 2013)
Bedouin sumud, Oren Yiftachel argues, has been ‘translated from a general national ideal to the art of surviving in the criminalized zone of planning illegality, and to a set of tactics for developing the villages, bit by bit, to meet basic needs such as water, electricity, mobility, education and health’ (Yiftachel 2009, 250). By building mosques, football courts and self-delivering basic services – such as water, electricity, gas and even the internet – the Naqab Bedouin seek to reinforce the permanence of their presence (Abu-Saad 2008a; Interview, Khalil Alamour 2012). House demolitions and crop destructions have been met with a strategy of rebuilding and replanting. In the words of Aziz Al-Touri, a resident of the Bedouin village of Al-Arakib (which has so far been destroyed over one hundred times):
We have sumud on our side. They destroy our village, we rebuild every time. They destroy crops every year and we cultivate and replant once again. We are determined to stay on our land. We will continue to rebuild our houses and cultivate our land, no matter what. (Interview, Aziz Al-Touri 2013)
Through rebuilding and replanting, the Naqab Bedouin reclaim indigenous sovereignty and assert the principles of self-determination. The visibility of Bedouin villages in the space, even if as a grey zone (Yiftachel 2009), disrupts the colonial temporal and spatial logics that seek a pure Jewish landscape. Women play a central role in Bedouin sumud. As suggested by Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, it is the women who ‘carry the burden of rebuilding a new house/home, and cope with all the incontinences of moving, with the entire economic, social and psychological load it entails’ (Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2007).
Another important feature of Bedouin resistance – both in townships and in unrecognised villages – is the cross-generational transfer of Bedouin history, culture and identity (S. Abu-Rabia 2008, 2015). Families regularly visit their historical lands and older Bedouin share their stories and their indigenous knowledge with the younger generation. Furthermore, Palestinian Bedouin identify according to their ancestral lands, rather than the current location of their residence. In their insistence on an exile positionality (S. Abu-Rabia 2015) and the right of return, the Naqab Bedouin trouble settler indigenisation and transform remembrance, history and cultural survival into sites of resistance. In the words of Awad Abu-Freih:
We plan to stay on our lands. Our children know our story, our history, our culture. My children know the borders of our village and our land, the name and location of each and every well, the names of our medicines. They know the location of the homes of their grandfathers and great grandfathers. They know who our neighbours were and when and from whom we bought the land. (Interview, Awad Abu-Freih 2013)
1.1 New Frontiers in the Bedouin Struggle: Palestinianisation, Indigeneity and the Transnationalisation of Bedouin Resistance
We can identify two significant transformations in the Bedouin struggle in recent years. The first is the resurgence of Palestinian Bedouin identity and the renewed identification of the Bedouin struggle with the Palestinian national struggle. The second, which is the main focus of this chapter, is the rise of the indigenous discourse among the Naqab Bedouin and the transnationalisation of the Bedouin struggle. The two processes are taking place concurrently, though more often as parallel rather than intersecting trends.
The first development follows decades of state ethnicisation of the Bedouin, producing them as a separate ethnic group that is disassociated from the Palestinian community in Israel and from the Palestinian people more generally (Parizot 2001). Today, it is not
uncommon to see the Palestinian flag in demonstrations in the Naqab55 and to hear Bedouin identify as Palestinian Bedouin.56
Moreover, the Bedouin struggle also figures prominently in the larger Palestinian struggle in Israel (Nasasra 2012). In 2011, the High Follow-Up Committee declared a one-day general strike to protest the confiscation of Bedouin land (Nasasra 2012). In the last few years, Al-Hirak Al-Shababi, a grassroots movement, has declared three Days of Rage and organised dozens of demonstrations across ’48 Palestinian cities and towns (within and across the Green Line), including nationwide protests against the Prawer Plan that took place in Hura and Haifa (Activestills and +972 Magazine 2013). In addition, the first act of the Joint List after the 2015 elections was a four-day march – beginning at the Bedouin village of Wadi Al-Na’am and moving across the Naqab to Jerusalem – to convey the party’s commitment to advancing the Bedouin struggle for land rights (Deger 2015). Bedouin activists have been actively connecting with and supporting other Palestinian struggles for land and housing rights – such as in the Palestinian cities of Lydd and Ramla and in the Galilee – as well as standing in solidarity with political prisoners across Palestine.
As for the second development, indigeneity has become a prominent discourse and rights framework in the contemporary Bedouin struggle. The failure to achieve justice through Israeli courts, the limited opportunity structure at the state level, and the escalation in state policies and violence have led NGOs and Bedouin activists to transnationalise their struggle and to adopt indigeneity as an alternative framework to advance their cause (Interview, Haia Noach 2012). Since the mid-2000s, local NGOs – led by the Negev Coexistence Forum (NCF, a Jewish-Arab-Bedouin organisation) – and a host of critical scholars have been promoting the recognition of the Naqab Bedouin as an indigenous group under international law (see Abu-Saad and Amara 2012; Champagne 2012; HRW
55 On 12 December 2012, I attended a demonstration against the Prawer Plan in the city of Beer Al-Sabe’a. Palestinian flags were an integral part of the demonstration, which was organised by the Bedouin community. The flags were raised mostly by members of the younger generation of Bedouin.
56 This has been apparent in my interviews with Bedouin activists who identified as Palestinians. They discussed the need to resist state policies of divide and rule, along with the need to reconnect the Bedouin struggle and the Bedouin people with the Palestinian national struggle and the Palestinian people. See interviews with Amir Abu-Kweder (2014); Awad Abu-Freih (2013); Huda Abu-Obaid (2014); Khalil Al-Amour (2012); and Rawia Abu-Rabia (2012).
2008; A. Kedar 2004; Meir, Roded and Ben-Israel 2016; NCF 2006; Roded and Tzfadia 2012; Stavenhagen and Amara 2012; Yiftachel 2010, 2012; Yiftachel, Kedar and Amara 2012; Yiftachel, Roded and A. Kedar 2016). The volume of transnational activity – both institutionalised and grassroots mobilisation – among the Naqab Bedouin, Nasasra argues, has ‘put the Naqab Bedouin case on the international map’ (Nasasra 2012, 80).
The lobbying efforts have been remarkably successful. The Naqab Bedouin have been recognised internationally as an indigenous people – an achievement unique among the Palestinian population – including by the European Parliament (Adalah 2012b), UN human rights bodies, and international human rights NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Minority Rights Group, the International Federation for Human Rights, and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network. The most significant achievement was the recognition of the Bedouin as an indigenous people by the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations, and the former Special Rapporteur on indigenous people, James Anaya. In addition, over the last few years, Bedouin activists have regularly travelled overseas in order to raise international awareness of their cause. Hundreds of delegations – including diplomats, European members of parliament, international NGOs and solidarity groups – have visited Bedouin villages. Transnational mobilisation has also resulted in significant transnational grassroots support. For example, on 30 November 2013 – which Al Hirak Al Shababi declared a Day of Rage – more than 40 protests were organised in dozens of locations worldwide, calling on the Israeli government to ‘Stop the Prawer Plan’.57
Bedouin claims to indigeneity have been met by Israel with a sweeping refusal to afford recognition. This refusal stands in stark contrast to the official positions of Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand – all of which recognise indigenous populations within their territories. Israel’s position also differs from that of African governments, which deny the existence of indigenous peoples within their territories based on the argument that ‘we are all indigenous’ (Saul 2016). Unlike Anglophone settler colonialism, the main contention over claims of indigeneity takes on a particular
57 Protests took place in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Turkey and Morocco, to name just a few. For a full list, see http://abirkopty.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/schedule-of-actions-worldwide-to-stop-prawer-on-nov-30th-day-of-rage/, accessed 2 September 2016.
political significance in the context of Israel/Palestine. Israel’s refusal to recognise the Bedouin as the indigenous population of the Naqab is rooted in the theological ethos of Zionism, which considers Jews (and, more broadly, world Jewry) to be the only population indigenous to the land.
Settlement has been conceptualised in terms of Jewish return to – and redemption of – ancestral land and has been justified by theological/biblical narratives. Claims of indigeneity by the Naqab Bedouin and other Palestinians are perceived as questioning the legitimacy of the Zionist settler project and Israel’s sovereignty. Israel’s official position maintains that the Bedouin population cannot be said to have inhabited the Naqab from ‘time immemorial’. Even more so, the Bedouin are constructed as invaders: ‘If anything, the Bedouins have more in common with the European settlers who migrated to other lands, coming into contact with existing populations with often unfortunate results for the latter’ (Yahel, Frantzman and Kark 2012, 13–14). As Nicola Perugini and Neve Gordon (2015) have demonstrated in their recent work, human rights frameworks are not only an instrument of the oppressed. They can also be leveraged by the powerful to facilitate and justify domination. Indeed, Zionist scholars have recently invoked the indigeneity framework to claim recognition of Jews as indigenous:
The Jews have always considered the Land of Israel their national homeland, have lived in it as a sovereign nation in historical times, maintained at least a toehold there despite persecution, and returned to it time and again after being exiled. This spiritual relationship is also expressed in both Jewish daily prayers and Israel’s Declaration of Independence. If the parameters and preconditions for indigenousness are made more flexible to include arrivistes like the Bedouin, surely Jews can also raise a claim to be the indigenous people in Israel, a land which they called home thousands of years before the Negev Bedouin. (Yahel, Frantzman and Kark 2012, 14)58
Nonetheless, despite the state’s refusal to recognise them as indigenous, the Naqab Bedouin are increasingly mobilising indigeneity to negotiate their rights and their relationship with the state.
58 For more studies on the indigeneity of the Jewish people, see Hertz 2011.
2. Global Indigenism
Recent decades have seen the rise of a global indigenous movement and the international indigenous rights regime, pioneered primarily by indigenous peoples in the Americas and Australia. The word ‘indigenous’ has its roots in the encounter between colonials and natives, and between whiteness and the racialised ‘other’. Early anthropological research reinforced the association of indigeneity with primitivism – including among those empathetic to indigenous people. For example, Survival International, a prominent international organisation working on behalf of indigenous people, began as the Primitive People’s Fund (Kuper 2003, 389).
However, especially since the 1970s, indigeneity has increasingly become a powerful normative concept and a legal framework that seeks to empower and protect indigenous peoples who are subjected to an ongoing colonial history of dispossession and domination. Benedict Kingsbury argues that
‘the concept of “indigenous peoples”, or its local cognates, has become an important unifying connection in transnational activist networks, linking groups that were hitherto marginal and politically unorganized to transnational sources of ideas, information, support, legitimacy and money’ (Kingsbury 1998, 416–7).
The first international indigenous NGOs were formed during the 1950s. In 1957, the International Labour Organization (ILO) adopted Convention No 107, the Convention concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries. The establishment of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples in 1975 marked another important juncture in promoting indigenous issues in the international arena and connecting indigenous struggles within a global framework (Kemner 2011). The indigenous discourse gained more currency in 1982 with the establishment of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations, which was tasked with drafting a declaration on the rights of indigenous people. In 1989, the ILO adopted Convention No 169, the Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. In 1990, the UN General Assembly proclaimed 1993 the International Year of the World’s Indigenous People. In 1993, the UN proclaimed the First International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (1995–2004), which was
followed by a Second International Decade (2005–14).59 Benchmark achievements were the establishment of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2000, the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples in 2001, the establishment of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007, and the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) also in 2007.
While it is often claimed that the concept of indigeneity remains vague and contested, the UN did produce a common working definition and an official discourse to determine who can be considered indigenous under international indigenous rights law (Muehlebach 2001). The definition is largely based on a comprehensive study, known as the Martínez Cobo report. The report was submitted to the UN in 1982 by the former Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, José Martínez Cobo. It states that:
Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems. (Cobo 1986/87, 1)
Building on Cobo’s definition, in 1996 the Working Group on Indigenous Populations developed a set of guiding principles to determine what constitutes indigeneity. Criteria include priority in time; voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness; self-identification as indigenous; and experience of subjugation, marginalisation, dispossession, exclusion or discrimination (Daes 1996, para 69).60 Spiritual connection
59 See http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/Pages/InternationalDecade.aspx, accessed 20 August 2016.
60 See also the UN Resource Kit on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues, which further elaborates criteria for being recognised as indigenous. These criteria include that the peoples ‘identify themselves as indigenous peoples and are, at the individual level, accepted as members by their community’; ‘have historical continuity or association with a given region or part of a given region prior to colonization or annexation’; ‘have strong links to territories and surrounding natural resources’; ‘maintain, at least in part, distinct social, economic and political systems’; ‘maintain, at least in part, distinct languages, cultures, beliefs and knowledge systems’; ‘are resolved to maintain and further develop their identity and distinct social, economic, cultural and political institutions as distinct peoples and communities’; and ‘form non-dominant sectors of society’ (UN Resource Kit on Indigenous Peoples 2008, 8).
to the land is another feature of indigenous lives and cultures. As Cobo suggests: ‘It is essential to know and understand the deeply spiritual special relationship between indigenous peoples and their land as basic to their existence as such and to all their beliefs, customs, traditions and culture’ (Cobo 1986, para 196). Similarly, Daes emphasises that ‘a profound relationship exists between indigenous peoples and their lands, territories and resources’, and that ‘this relationship has various social, cultural, spiritual, economic and political dimensions and responsibilities’ (Daes 2001, 9). Spiritual connection to the land is further acknowledged in Article 13 of ILO Convention No 169 and in Article 25 of the UNDRIP.61
The indigenous rights regime has challenged the view of indigenous peoples as ‘subjects of exclusive domestic jurisdiction of the settler state regime that invaded their territories’ (Williams 1990, 664), visibilising indigenous issues and making them an international concern. It also disrupted the ‘totalizing views of “nation” and the “nation-state”’ (Kingsbury 1998, 422). The indigenous rights regime has become an important avenue for indigenous people to seek rights and legitimacy beyond the confines of the sovereign settler state and its institutions; to bypass the restraining force of colonial law; and to assert a semi-sovereign status at the international level. It has also become an important opportunity structure that enables indigenous people to exert pressure from the outside – an example of what Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink call ‘the boomerang effect’ (Keck and Sikkink 1998).
The 2007 UNDRIP, however, was the result of a political compromise between states and indigenous people made in extreme conditions of unequal power structures. The issues of autonomy, sovereignty and self-determination, it is argued, remain vague and contentious in the current indigenous rights regime (Niezen 2005). Some have argued that the UNDRIP reaffirms a respect for settler sovereignty and authority over indigenous peoples (Engle 2011). More generally, Jeff Corntassel has argued that the centrality of
61 See also Article 25 of the UNDRIP: ‘Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources’. Article 13 of ILO Convention 169 states that parties shall respect ‘the special importance for the cultures and spiritual values of the peoples concerned of their relationship with the lands or territories, or both as applicable, which they occupy or otherwise use, and in particular the collective aspects of this relationship’.
the rights discourse has resulted in the co-optation of indigenous struggles by defining their limits and boundaries, the NGO-ising of indigenous struggles, and the undermining of grassroots and community-based resistance (Corntassel 2007).
Finally, it is important to consider the multiple ways in which indigeneity as a concept registers among indigenous people. As recent ethnographic studies have suggested, the word ‘indigenous’ is perceived by many indigenous people to be foreign – a ‘white people’s word’ (quoted in Glauser 2011, 26). It is further seen as a homogenising word that lumps all native people under a single category, erasing their rich and diverse experiences, identities, cultures and histories. As Mateo, an Ayoreo leader, has commented: ‘I do have an origin, a name … it is “Ayoreo”’ (quoted in Glauser 2011, 26).
Scholars have argued that ‘the Bedouins living in Israel/Palestine also identify themselves as an indigenous people’ (Yiftachel, Roded and A. Kedar 2016, 12) and that ‘the Bedouins of the Naqab have grown increasingly aware of their own “indigeneity”’ (Stavenhagen and Amara 2012, 165). However, while the concept of indigeneity can be leveraged as a form of strategic essentialism (Yiftachel, Roded and A. Kedar 2016), the question of whether it registers as an authentic component of Bedouin identity is different. Evidence from my fieldwork demonstrates that, like other indigenous populations, the Naqab Bedouin conceive of indigeneity as an inauthentic foreign concept, imported by NGOs and sympathetic academics. As Amir Abu Kweder, a Bedouin activist of the unrecognised village of Al-Zarnouk, states:
One of the big problems we have in the Naqab is that those who formulate the discourse of our struggle are friendly leftist forces. The discourse of indigenous people did not develop from within the Arab-Bedouin society in the Naqab. It came most dominantly from Jewish experts. They imported theoretical frameworks and applied them on us. (Interview, Amir Abu Kweder 2014)
In the interviews I conducted, it was only NGO professionals and academics who used the word ‘indigeneity’. Most grassroots Bedouin activists identified themselves as ‘Bedouin Palestinians’, ‘Arab Al-Naqab’ or ‘Naqab Bedouin’, or in relation to the specific tribe, community or village to which they belong (see also Nasasra 2012). The gap between NGOs and the community is not unique to the Bedouin case. For example,
in her study of highlanders in Thailand, Katharine McKinnon has documented the debates between NGOs, which advocated indigeneity as a framework for leveraging political power, and the local villagers, who insisted on choosing terms not ‘defined and called by others’ (McKinnon 2011, 167). To be clear, this does not mean that Bedouin do not consider themselves as indigenous to the land: they do, and they always have. For them, indigeneity is articulated in local terms and through the simple assertion of ‘we were here before the state’.
Indigeneity should be understood as more than an opportunity structure or as a legal category. Indigeneity, not least importantly, is also a political construct (Thuen 2006, 24), an economic relationship, a cultural category, an identity, a settler and liberal fantasy (Cattelino 2010), and an expectation and anomaly (P. J. Deloria 2004). As such, indigeneity is a site of contestation (Merlan 2009; Wolfe 2006b) in which the identities – and rights – of native people are negotiated (and imposed) (Alfred and Corntassel 2005).
3. Indigeneity as a Cultural Category
Contemporary discourses and the human rights regime on indigeneity are imbued in a highly essentialised conception of culture and indigenous people. Cultural distinctiveness has become a paramount principle in the conceptualisation of indigeneity (Saul 2016, 14) and in the recognition and governance of indigenous peoples (Cattelino 2010; Povinelli 1998; Sylvain 2002). The focus on the cultural characteristics of indigeneity is also enshrined in international law, as demonstrated by the inclusion of cultural distinctiveness, non-dominance, spiritual connection to the land, and continued performance of indigenous culture in the definitions of Cobo and Daes, the ILO conventions and the UNDRIP.
In her work on the San/Bushman, Renée Sylvain shows that the consolidation of indigeneity as a cultural category has forced indigenous people ‘to choose between being excluded from the debate and asserting themselves in essentialist and primordialist vocabulary’ (Sylvain 2002, 1074; on the centrality of culture in San/Bushman struggles, see also Guenther 2006). Similarly, reviewing the discussions within the UN Working
Group on Indigenous Populations between 1982 and 1999, Andrea Muehlebach has shown how the failure of morally based arguments prompted indigenous people to invoke culturalist arguments and mobilise a politics of culture in order to ‘make place’ for indigenous claims (Muehlebach 2001). This has resulted, she argues, in a ‘highly fetishized discourse on indigeneity voiced by both indigenous and nonindigenous actors’ (Muehlebach 2001, 417).
The use of indigeneity in the Bedouin context was pioneered in the early 1990s by Professor Ismael Abu-Saad, a prominent Bedouin scholar (Interview, Ismael Abu-Saad 2013; see also Frantzman, Yahel and Kark 2012 on the development of the indigenous discourse in the Bedouin case). Influenced by his studies in the United States, Abu-Saad identified similarities between the colonisation faced by Native Americans and by the Naqab Bedouin (Interview, Ismael Abu-Saad 2013). His approach to indigeneity has been deeply political, placing the settler colonial condition at the heart of the analysis (see Abu-Saad 2008a; for a similar use of Bedouin indigeneity as a political concept, see also Nasasra 2012). Since the mid-2000s, critical scholars and NGOs have further developed the applicability of the framework of indigeneity in the Bedouin context, focusing on advancing an argument in favour of the recognition of the Naqab Bedouin as indigenous under international law.
To promote the recognition of the Naqab Bedouin as indigenous, activists and scholars have built on culturalist arguments to substantiate the claim that the Bedouin population meet the international criteria for indigeneity, using the common principles as defined in the Cobo report and by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations in 1996. They have based their arguments on the following principles: The Naqab Bedouin predate the establishment of the State of Israel; they are culturally distinct from both the Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority in Israel; they maintain and continue to practise a distinct indigenous culture, customs, traditions and language; they are a tribal society; they express a unique spiritual connection to the land; they rely on the land as a source of livelihood and as the basis for their cultural life; they have historically enjoyed a relative form of autonomy and self-rule; they have been subjected to marginalisation, dispossession and exclusion; and they self-identify as indigenous (see Champagne 2012;
HRW 2008; A. Kedar 2004; Meir, Roded and Ben-Israel 2016; NCF 2006; Roded and Tzfadia 2012; Stavenhagen and Amara 2012; Yiftachel 2010, 2012; Yiftachel, A. Kedar and Amara 2012; Yiftachel, Roded and A. Kedar 2016).
Transnational lobbying efforts have been remarkably successful, resulting in the international recognition of the Naqab Bedouin as indigenous, as well as their rights to the land. In 2007, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD) called on Israel to search for alternatives to the relocation of the Bedouin population from their own lands (UNCERD 2007). In 2012, the UNCERD urged Israel to ‘withdraw the 2012 discriminatory proposed Law for the Regulation of the Bedouin Settlement in the Negev, which would legalise the ongoing policy of home demolitions and forced displacement of the indigenous Bedouin communities’ (UNCERD 2012). In the same year, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on Israel to stop the Prawer displacement plan, stating that ‘Arab Bedouins are indigenous people leading a sedentary and traditionally agricultural life on their ancestral lands and are seeking formal and permanent recognition of their unique situation and status’ (2012/2694(rsp)). In 2010, the Human Rights Committee (HRC) stated that it was ‘concerned at allegations of forced evictions of the Bedouin population … and of inadequate consideration of traditional needs of the population in the State party’s planning efforts for the development of the Negev, in particular the fact that agriculture is part of the livelihood and tradition of the Bedouin population’ (HRC 2010). In 2011, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) stated in its Concluding Observations that ‘the Committee recommends that the State party ensure that the implementation of the Plan does not result in the forceful eviction of Bedouins’ (CESCR 2011). And in 2012, the HRC asked the State of Israel to report on the measures taken to ‘recognize and promote the Bedouin population’s right to ancestral land and traditional livelihood’ (HRC 2012).62
However, looking at the development of discourse on Bedouin indigeneity suggests that we can identify what Edward Said conceptualised as ‘discursive consistency’ (Said 1978a, 273). This consistency is marked by the consolidation of indigeneity as a legal-cultural category, rather than a political one. Recognition of the Naqab Bedouin as
62 See the NCF website at http://www.dukium.org/reports/, accessed 9 September 2016.
indigenous, I argue, has been imbued in an essentialised conception of culture that is reliant on Bedouin cultural distinctiveness (and vulnerability) and the fetishisation of the native Bedouin as premodern subjects. The focus on principles of cultural distinctiveness and non-dominance, I further suggest, has produced Bedouin indigeneity as a depoliticised cultural category and has dangerously tied land rights claims to repressive demands for cultural authenticity.
The culturalised conception of Bedouin indigeneity intersects with the culturalisation of indigeneity as a powerful transnational discourse and rights framework. The production of global indigenism and Bedouin indigenism as a cultural category, rather than a political one, should be understood against a background in which ‘the international movement of indigenous peoples is part of a general transformation in the politics of culture’ (Niezen 2005, 591). The rise of liberal multiculturalism – premised on the governance of cultural difference – has further entrenched the view of indigenous rights as sourced in cultural membership (Danley 1991; see also the work of Kymlicka 1989, 2007). The entitlement of indigenous peoples to rights has thus been conditioned upon cultural distinctiveness and vulnerability, rather than on the history and persistence of settler colonialism. As Danley argues, for Kymlicka, ‘the only relevant difference [between aboriginal and other minorities] is that aboriginal cultures are more vulnerable and hence require more drastic measures for their protection’ (Danley 1991, 169). Multiculturalism has thus mirrored the colonial gaze on culture. If in the colonial discourse culturalisation is invoked to justify colonial violence, the multicultural conception of indigeneity has transformed culture into a justification regime for claiming rights and – even more troubling – for claiming land rights.
3.1 The Principle of Cultural Distinctiveness
The recognition of the Naqab Bedouin as indigenous people has been predicated, first and foremost, on establishing their cultural distinctiveness. This has meant that the Naqab Bedouin have had to be produced not only as distinct from the dominant Jewish-Israeli population, but also – and equally importantly – as distinct from the Palestinian population in Israel and from the Palestinian people more generally. As stated in a report submitted to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues by the Negev Coexistence
Forum (NCF), a joint Bedouin–Israeli NGO and a leader in promoting the recognition of the Naqab Bedouin as indigenous:
The Bedouins have retained their language (a Bedouin dialect of Arabic), their religion (Islam), and their social, cultural, economic and political characteristics. They are ethnically distinct from the Jewish majority and socially distinct from the Palestinian Arab minority living in Israel. (NCF 2006, 8)
The Palestinians are a heterogeneous people who include diverse religious and ethnic groups such as Druze, Christians and Bedouin. To be clear, I am not trying to erase difference, or to undermine the various ways in which different Palestinian communities experience state violence along the intersections of race, ethnicity, class, gender and sexuality. The Naqab Bedouin are a distinctive group subjected to a particular form of colonial violence (as has been elaborated on in Chapter 3). This difference ought not be erased in the name of national unity or any other cause. However, we should ask what it is that makes the Bedouin indigenous. Is it cultural distinctiveness, or is it the structure of settler colonialism?
I suggest that there is a particular oriental and exotic imaginary of Bedouinness, without which the recognition of the Naqab Bedouin as indigenous would not have been possible. In other words, what makes possible the recognition of the indigeneity of Naqab Bedouin, as opposed to that of other groups of Palestinians, is the view that they conform to the cultural tenets of indigeneity. As Awad Abu-Freih states:
It is easy to recognise us [the Naqab Bedouin] as indigenous because we maintained our culture. And it is an indigenous culture, a desert culture and a very ancient one. They [foreigners] see a very simple life, living in the desert, in a tent, with your sheep and goats, far from urbanism. They don’t see that in Palestinians. When they see a Palestinian from Haifa, they do not see an indigenous way of living. I used to argue with them on these issues, but could not convince them that all Palestinians are indigenous to the land. (Interview, Awad Abu-Freih 2013)
Cultural distinctiveness, non-dominance and marginalisation are principles without which recognition of the Naqab Bedouin as indigenous cannot be established. The UNDRIP ‘accommodates situations where colonisation did not occur, as in parts of Asia and Africa’ (Saul 2016, 29). Therefore, as in the Bedouin case, recognition can be premised merely on a combination of principles of cultural distinctiveness, non-
dominance, and an experience of systemic marginalisation and discrimination. The grievances of the Naqab Bedouin are thus explained in relation to cultural difference and extreme conditions of cultural vulnerability, and they alone can justify recognition. Rodolfo Stavenhagen and Ahmad Amara exemplify this culturalist bias:
The Bedouins’ cultural distinctiveness from the Israeli Jewish majority and the ongoing marginalization and discrimination that the Bedouins suffer as a distinct collective are more than sufficient to grant them protection as an indigenous group under international law. (Stavenhagen and Amara 2012, 181)
The focus on Bedouin cultural distinctiveness builds on the scholarly commitment to multiculturalism. This bias should be understood in light of a context in which Bedouin cultural distinctiveness has been figured, at the state level, in only one way: a justification for dispossession, as discussed in Chapter 3. This is in contrast to the situations in Australia and Canada, where indigenous cultural distinctiveness at the state level operates in an ambivalent way, both as a structure of domination and as a ‘quality’ to be mobilised in securing (limited) recognition of land rights.
The focus on culturalist arguments and on cultural distinctiveness evokes the dangers of essentialism (Muehlebach 2001; Sylvain 2002). In this respect, it is important to address the only article on Bedouin indigeneity that addresses the relationship between indigeneity and essentialism. In this article, Oren Yiftachel, Batia Roded and Alexandre Kedar argue that:
… our approach to the concept of indigeneity is relational, historical and political, and has issue with the essentialist approach to the subject. In other words, we do not claim that it is a single system which formally and permanently defines groups with an indigenous identity around the world, and that the Bedouin group has characteristics that permanently and eternally assign it to the indigenous category. (Yiftachel, Roded and A. Kedar 2016, 4, emphasis added)
However, their argument fails to escape an essentialised and de-politicised conception of indigeneity. In fact, the article continues by justifying Bedouin indigeneity on the grounds of cultural distinctiveness and non-dominance. The argument constructs indigeneity merely as an opportunity structure rather than as an antagonistic political category, implying that at this temporal moment the Naqab Bedouin exhibit cultural characteristics that make indigeneity a suitable framework. This is why it is possible to ‘imagine later
stages in their struggle when indigeneity may become superfluous or taken-for-granted, and perhaps be replaced by other categories of struggle and resistance’ (Yiftachel, Roded and A. Kedar 2016, 5). The authors fail to acknowledge that a political approach to indigeneity must acknowledge that it is the settler who has brought the indigenous into existence and who perpetuates this existence (Fanon 1963, 36). As long as settler colonialism exists and as long as the logic of elimination continues to govern native lives, indigeneity as a political category remains relevant.
Failing to escape the yoke of an essentialised conception of indigeneity, the authors argue for strategic essentialism. However, native engagement in strategic essentialism does not necessarily eliminate the dangers of essentialism (see Spivak in Milevska 2003, 30). Furthermore, self-essentialising practices are embedded in histories and relations of extreme inequalities and imbalances of power (Sylvain 2002). This means that dire conditions of marginalisation and the need to expand opportunity structures can force indigenous peoples to engage in practices of self-essentialism in order to gain access to the human rights discourse in order to advance their cause.
3.2 Indigeneity as Premodernity
In the hegemonic discourse on indigeneity, the focus on cultural distinctiveness is closely associated with the production of indigeneity as premodernity. The term ‘indigenous’, argues Ronald Niezen, ‘invokes the idea of a community or society pursuing a timeless way of life, the first occupants of remote, wild territories living simply with the use of basic technology’ (Niezen 2005, 587). The term continues to be dominated by the view of indigenous people as located outside of modernity, building on orientalist and exotic imaginaries of a fetishised premodern subject (P. J. Deloria 2004). Centring cultural difference, Sylvain argues, has meant that ‘the criteria for indigenous status tend to become ontologically saturated with essentialist and primordialist conceptions of culture’ (Sylvain 2002, 1075). While, in principle, the indigenous rights framework does recognise that indigenous cultures and societies do transform (Saul 2016), the very focus on cultural difference that renders the depiction of indigenous cultures as static and frozen in time is inescapable. As Brenna Bhandar argues:
While we can acknowledge that cultural identities are fluid, hybrid, and always changing, the moment that we make a rights claim based on these partial and
contingent identities, it becomes necessary – at least momentarily – to represent this cultural identity in a complete, bounded form. It becomes necessary to represent the cultural community as possessing an essential difference that makes it distinct – because it is that distinctiveness that forms the basis of the rights claim. (Bhandar 2007, 129–30, fn 23)
Premodernity has been constituted as a core element to authenticate claims to Bedouin cultural difference. Bedouin culture has been fetishised as a culture that ought to be preserved and protected because of its premodern uniqueness. Scholars and NGOs have played the card of premodernity by emphasising the ‘traditional’ characteristics of Bedouin culture. For example, in the 32 pages of the Negev Coexistence Forum’s first report to the UN, the words ‘tradition’, ‘culture’ and ‘customs’ appear about 60 times – almost as frequently as ‘land’ (NCF 2006). Another tendency in the writing on Bedouin indigeneity is to attach the word ‘traditional’ when describing different aspects of Bedouin lives: ‘traditional semi-nomadic people’, ‘traditional lands’, ‘traditional homeland’, ‘traditional territories’, ‘traditional culture’, ‘traditional way of life’, ‘traditional agriculture’, ‘traditional economy’, ‘traditional livelihood’, ‘traditional ownership’ and ‘traditional tribal laws’ (see Amara and Stavenhagen 2012; Champagne 2012, 13; Roded and Tzfadia 2012; Sheehan 2012). Similarly, Bedouin indigenous property laws and indigenous regimes of justice are labelled as ‘traditional’ property regimes and ‘traditional’ law – a deviation from modernity – and are conceptualised in cultural rather than historical and political terms.
Rather than seeking its troubling, the conceptualisation of indigeneity that is promoted remains trapped in a Western epistemology of modernity. Though well intentioned, the contemporary discourse on Bedouin indigeneity reproduces and is premised on a dichotomy between traditionalism and modernity. It is mired in a colonial and orientalist epistemology that places culture at the heart of settler–native relations.
The preoccupation with indigenous cultural authenticity builds not only on a colonial exotic imaginary, but also on a settler anxiety and the ambivalent location that indigenous people occupy in relation to settler sovereignty and national identities. By focusing on cultural authenticity, whether under a (racialised) rhetoric of liberal multiculturalism (as in Australia and Canada) or an explicit colonial rhetoric (as in Israel), settler polities
monitor, govern, regulate and reconfigure indigenous identities in ways that reaffirm racial hierarchies.
3.3 Governing Indigenous Land Claims: The Entwinement of Culture and Land Rights
The multicultural logic that underpins the dominant understanding of indigeneity has culture as the source of land rights. Culture and land are juxtaposed as equal and interwoven elements of indigeneity. Under international law, the continued practice of traditional culture is an important criterion in the definition of what constitutes indigenous people. Entitlement to land rights is thus contingent upon cultural authenticity and the place that land occupies in contemporary formations of indigenous cultures, identities and economies.
The literature on Bedouin indigeneity demonstrates a disturbing impulse to juxtapose culture and land rights as inextricable and equally constitutive elements of indigeneity. This entwinement has produced a rhetoric in which claims for land rights are justified through claims for cultural survival and spiritual connection to the land. For example, Stavenhagen and Amara argue that:
Israel should respect, protect, and fulfil the rights held by the Bedouin people, particularly the right to their traditional Naqab lands and the right to adequate housing in a manner that permits them to maintain their traditional way of life. (Stavenhagen and Amara 2012, 186, emphasis added)
The NCF report to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues takes a similar approach:
As with other indigenous minorities, the Bedouins are struggling for equality, recognition, and preservation of their culture and way of life. Dispossessed of the lands they had lived on for centuries, the Bedouins have lost their established means of livelihood and have consequently experienced a disruption of their traditional social and economic structures. (NCF 2006, 5, emphasis added)
Similarly, in an expert position paper prepared in support of the Al-Okbi case, a Bedouin tribal land ownership claim that was litigated in Israeli courts, Yiftachel writes that ‘land is the most important axis in the struggle of indigenous struggles. It is because land has
the most significant importance to indigenous culture’ (Yiftachel 2010, 3, my translation from Hebrew, emphasis added). Oren Yiftachel, Batya Roded and Alexandre Kedar also invoke culture to stress the importance of land to Bedouin life: ‘the Bedouin are distinct in their culture, customs and laws, as well as their notion of identity, and this uniqueness is also articulated in the importance they ascribe to land ownership’ (Yiftachel, Roded and A. Kedar 2016, 18, emphasis added). And the former Special Rapporteur on indigenous people, James Anaya, states:
… the Bedouin people share in the characteristics of indigenous peoples worldwide, including a connection to lands and the maintenance of cultural traditions that are distinct from those of majority populations. Further, the grievances of the Bedouins, stemming from their distinct cultural identities and their connection to their traditional lands, can be identified as representing the types of problems to which the international human rights regime related to indigenous peoples has been designed to respond. (Anaya, UN report, 2011, 30, para 25, emphasis added)
These justifications reconfigure Bedouin land claims as a matter of lifestyle preservation (see Abu-Saad and Creamer 2012; Stavenhagen and Amara 2012). The modern settler state is tasked with accommodating and recognising indigenous culture – not as a burden, but as part of a multicultural governance of difference. As stated by Stavenhagen and Amara, ‘the Israeli state should be responsive to the distinctive culture and lifestyle of Bedouins as an indigenous people’ (Stavenhagen and Amara, 185).
The scholarship on Bedouin indigeneity has idealised multiculturalism, as exemplified in its repeated reference to the Australian jurisprudence on Aboriginal land rights and Australian multiculturalism as a model (see Sheehan 2012; Yiftachel 2012). As a result, it fails to engage with the complicity of multiculturalism in the continued governance of indigenous people and their right to the land. In her book The Cunning of Recognition, Elizabeth Povinelli unpacks the ways in which Australian liberal multiculturalism has produced particular forms of governance and domination that centre narratives of respect and tolerance of cultural difference, replacing colonial policies of assimilation. This shift, she suggests, has reinforced a liberal understanding of difference that is embedded in the production, perpetuation and celebration of an imaginary of Australia along a progressive multicultural ethos of nation-building, in which the tolerance of indigenous cultures – as long as they are not repugnant – plays a constitutive role (Povinelli 2002). Liberal multiculturalism, Povinelli further suggests, functions not only as a form of governance,
but also as a mechanism and a structure of domination that relies on coercing ‘subaltern and minority subjects to identify with the impossible object of an authentic self-identity’ (Povinelli 2002, 6).
Offering a further critique of the paradigm of liberal multiculturalism, Wolfe posits that the adoption of multiculturalism by the settler state has been a response to indigenous resistance. Through multiculturalism, he argues, ‘settler states have sought to depoliticise Indigenous difference by reducing it to the toxified arena of cultural variety, a sovereignty-free zone’ (Wolfe 2016b, 271). The focus on recognition of multicultural identities, Bhandar further argues, leaves ‘existing political and economic structures intact, and does not push the boundaries of existing social relations past the point of “tolerance” of cultural differences’ (Bhandar 2007, 20).
Multicultural domination extends beyond the symbolic realm and is translated also into jurisprudence on land cases. The experiences of indigenous people in Canada and Australia are exemplary of how multicultural governance of cultural difference has in itself become a structure of domination that can enhance indigenous dispossession and the denial of indigenous entitlement to the land. Jurisprudence in land entitlement cases in both Australis and Canada reveals that cultural authenticity has become a legal principle for defining whether indigenous people have retained their rights to the land. In Canada, Bhandar argues, courts have conditioned indigenous rights to the land on the ability of indigenous people to demonstrate their continued practice of customs and traditions (Bhandar 2011). Focusing on Australia, Elizabeth Povinelli shows that even in the celebrated 1992 Mabo case, ‘the court found that Aboriginal Australians retained their native title interests in land if they retained the traditional customs, beliefs, and practices that created the substance of their difference’ (Povinelli 1998, 587, emphasis in original). Consequently, ‘indigenous performances of cultural difference must conform generally to the imaginary of Aboriginal traditions and more specifically to the legal definition of “traditional Aboriginal owner”’ (Povinelli 1998, 590; for more on the conditioning of land rights on cultural authenticity in Australia, see Maddison 2009, ch 6).
Such forms of conditionality make multicultural conceptions of indigeneity complicit in the erasures of settler colonialism. As the case of the Palestinians shows, where indigenous groups are no longer seen to meet the cultural tenets of indigeneity, or where they do not exhibit such characteristics to begin with (for example, urban Palestinians), indigeneity can be questioned and even denied. Mohammad Zeidan, the executive director of the Arab Association for Human Rights, explains:
How much can we speak of the inhabitants of Nazareth as indigenous? If we want to follow the strict academic definitions or the definitions of the UNDRIP, we can only speak of the Bedouin as indigenous – a traditional society that lives on and is attached to the land. This does not apply to Nazareth or Um Al Fahem. It is not our problem, it’s the UNDRIP. It is so limited. It was easier to define the Palestinians as indigenous decades ago. The signifiers of the relationship with the land were much clearer. (Interview, Mohammad Zeidan 2013)
Playing the ‘culture card’ to claim land rights can leverage opportunities in the short term, but it is a risky proposition in the long term (S. Deloria 2002, 58). As long as indigenous claims to land are articulated and justified on grounds of culture, indigenous people risk losing or undermining their claims to land. As Sam Deloria pointedly argues:
… if we stake out a position that says that our right to self-government is tied to our dedication, our adherence to culture, don’t you see what that does to us in the legal and political arena? That is, we are saying for the first time, we are saying, it’s conditional. (Deloria 2002, 58, emphasis added)
The Naqab Bedouin face a similar risk. The political implications of focusing the gaze on culture could be grave in the long term. Paraphrasing Deloria, this means that, for the first time, the Naqab Bedouin risk saying it’s conditional.
3.4 Indigeneity: An Anti-Politics Machine
The Naqab Bedouin have mobilised indigeneity in their challenge of state racialisation, culturalisation and ethnicisation. However, the discourse and framework of indigeneity have paradoxically also reinforced the gaze on culture and resulted in perpetuating the fragmentation of the Palestinian people along ethnic and religious lines. As stated by Awad Abu-Freih:
I feel the indigenous discourse is dangerously disconnecting us from our Palestinian identity and belonging. If I say I am indigenous, we start talking of a separate people who are distinct from the rest of the Palestinian population. I am not interested in
divide and rule. At the same time, we are indigenous. Why should I deny my indigeneity? (Interview, Awad Abu-Freih 2013)63
The development of Bedouin indigeneity along culturalist lines has framed the Bedouin struggle as a multicultural accommodative political project centred on frameworks of citizenship, recognition, reconciliation and transitional justice. This approach has further rested on the normalisation of the settler state, its authority and its sovereignty. In their work on Bedouin indigeneity, Yiftachel, Roded and A. Kedar suggest that:
… rather than forming a bone of contention, indigeneity can be used as an historical opening. It presents an opportunity for redressing the colonial relations existing in the Negev since the late 1940s. This is because under certain circumstances, the indigenous concept enables (mutual) recognition and flexibility. Indigeneity and customary traditions, rather than the strict letter of the law, are open to mediation and mutual adjustment, instead of the current reliance on rigid legalities or violent dictates. In such a process, recognition can progress mutually, enabling the transformation … of Israeli Jews from a settler, to a non-colonizing, homeland group. We therefore suggest thinking about indigeneity as an opportunity to give substance to Bedouin-Palestinian citizenship, based on the UNDRIP principles outlined above. This will enable the reconciliation of rivaling cultures brought together by fate of history and geography, whose futures are intertwined in the Negev/Naqab. To do so, the ruling forces must shift their paradigm and transform their treatment of indigenous Bedouins from oppression and denials to recognition and rights – the sooner, the better. (Yiftachel, Roded and A. Kedar 2016, 25–6, emphasis in original)
Their approach exemplifies Glen Sean Coulthard’s argument that ‘the purportedly diversity-affirming forms of state recognition and accommodation defended by some proponents of contemporary liberal recognition politics can subtly reproduce nonmutual and unfree relations rather than free and mutual ones’ (Coulthard 2014, 17; for additional critique on the politics of recognition, see Bhandar 2011 and, in the context of Australian multiculturalism, Povinelli 2002).
Framing indigeneity as a multicultural project of recognition had led some grassroots Palestinian Bedouin activists – particularly (but not limited to) the youngest generation – to favour resistance grounded in Palestinian nationalism (not liberal nationalism). The agenda of these new movements among the Naqab Bedouin have come to favour an
63 Similar concern was raised in my interviews with Amir Abu-Kweder (2014); Awad Abu-Freih (2013); Huda Abu-Obaid (2014); Mohammad Zeidan (2013); and Nabila Espanioly (2013).
antagonistic project of decolonisation framed around demands for self-determination, sovereignty and the dismantling of the settler colonial regime. As Huda Abu Obaid, a Bedouin activist, explains:
I am not with the use of the term indigenous people. When you use this phrase, you effectively legitimise the existence of the occupier. You accept the reality as it is. But here the Zionist existence is illegitimate, not acceptable. I instead use the term of the Palestinian Bedouin society in the Naqab. I don’t want to legitimise the Zionist ideology, which is built on the takeover of our land. (Interview, Huda Abu Obaid 2014)
Suhad Bishara, a land rights lawyer in Adalah, also argues that the indigenous framework is based on the normalisation of the settler polity and the naturalisation of settler sovereignty:
For me, the issue of the utility of indigeneity is whether this framework is suitable to our historical and political context. In the context of the indigenous framework, you already have certain experiences in the US, Australia – states that emerged as colonial. The discourse there makes peace with the colonial system that already exists. There is no talk about dismantling the settler state. Do we want to find a way that we can live with the settler state and the colonial system as indigenous? I think this is the main consideration. Is this framework compatible with our political vision and desire? Some might answer this question with a ‘yes, we want equality and to find a way to live within the system’. Others tell you, ‘this is my homeland, and I want it back’. Using the indigeneity framework in the context of occupation is very problematic. (Interview, Suhad Bishara 2013)
Nonetheless, as in other cases of indigenous struggles, Bedouin activists appropriate ‘the universal “indigenous” label when engaging strategically with laws, institutions and social movements’ (Saul 2016, 24). As Amir Abu Kweder states:
To an extent, we have internalised the use of this indigenous discourse, especially when we advocate foreign audiences. We use it since it gives us access to the UN and other international forums. I personally try to avoid this discourse as much as possible. But sometimes, I use indigeneity as an instrumental tool, but not as an ideological one. Nonetheless, the Palestinianisation of our society is much stronger than any parallel process of trying to distort our identity and transform it into a folklorised and exoticised form of identity. (Interview, Amir Abu Kweder 2014)
4. Repressive Authenticity and the Double Bind of Culturally Based Rights
Indigeneity, as Wolfe pointedly reminds us, ‘is not just a matter of native self-ascription. It is also, among other things, a matter of settler imposition’ (Wolfe 2006b, 26). In his
important book Indians in Unexpected Places, Philip Deloria illuminates how cultural expectations have become constitutive to the representation and governing of indigenous people in the United States (P. J. Deloria 2004). Expectations, he suggests, are ‘the dense economies of meaning, representation, and act that have inflicted both American culture writ large and individuals, both Indian and non-Indian’ (P. J. Deloria 2004, 11).
The focus on cultural distinctiveness has subjected the Naqab Bedouin to a particular structure of expectations that is entrenched in racial stereotypes and oriental imaginaries of Bedouin culture. To continue to be recognised as indigenous, the Naqab Bedouin are expected to demonstrate ‘an archaic lifestyle’ (Thuen 2006, 24). As a result, they are subjected to the violence of ‘repressive authenticity’ (Wolfe 1994), based on the expectation that they continue to obey the cultural tenets of indigeneity by playing authentic Bedouin.
Repressive demands for indigenous authenticity are not limited to the symbolic realm; they also have significant implications to the economic, social, cultural and political dimensions that shape indigenous lives and entitlement to rights. In her work on native gaming wealth in the United States, Jessica Cattelino argues that the sovereignty of Native Americans hinges on a settler imaginary of indigenous people as poor. Native Americans, she argues, face a double bind of need-based sovereignty: ‘American Indian tribes can undertake gaming only because of their sovereignty, and yet gaming wealth threatens to undermine that very sovereignty’ (Cattelino 2010, 237). Indigenous wealth renders non-poor Indians as no longer being ‘real’ Indians, compromising their sovereignty.
The Naqab Bedouin also face a double bind. They are recognised as indigenous because they are seen to conform to the cultural tenets of indigeneity. However, any deviation from premodernity – any sign of ‘modernisation’, ‘’urbanisation’ and ‘progress’ – compromises their claims for indigeneity. The argument made by Law-Yone exemplifies this double bind: ‘since almost all the true nomadic population in Israel have become sedentarized, it is technically incorrect to call them Bedouins’ (Law-Yone 2003, 183). In their efforts to undermine Bedouin claims of indigeneity, some Zionist scholars have argued that the Naqab Bedouin have been urbanised and no longer exhibit the nomadic
lifestyle and the characteristics of tribal society that are used to justify their claims for indigeneity (Yahel, Frantzman and Kark 2012).
Repressive demands for authenticity also extend to sympathisers and supporters. As Niezen suggests, solidarity often:
… comes with a price because, to succeed, indigenous leaders must, to some extent, tailor their forms of cultural expression and exercise of power to the tastes and inclinations of their outside sympathizers. The politics of embarrassment brings with it the risk of collective self-stereotyping in conformity with broadly accepted ideals of indigenous authenticity. The consumers of indigenous identity are intolerant of economic and political strategies that are inconsistent with their image of what an Indian society, in its many iterations, should entail. (Niezen 2005, 593–4)
Recent years have seen hundreds of delegations of diplomats, international organisations and solidarity activists (Israeli and international) visit unrecognised Bedouin villages. These villages are often in dire condition after decades of state refusal to deliver basic services. In some cases, particularly in villages that have been subjected to repeated house demolitions, families live in tents or shacks. The spectacle of suffering is inescapable. Supporters, however, can also see this suffering as a manifestation of ‘simplicity’. Simplicity becomes fetishised as an authentic expression of Bedouin premodern culture, ignoring the underlying state policies of dispossession, de-development and impoverishment. As Awad Abu-Freih explains:
Some people who visit us are in love with our simplicity, the connection to the land, living in harmony with nature, etc. Multiculturalism today has become a trend. Some of the people are in solidarity with us because they value our culture and think it deserves to be preserved. They want us to stay this way, preserve our simplicity. They want us to maintain our way of life, not to surrender to modernity. (Interview, Awad Abu-Freih 2013)64
The Palestinian Bedouin are also often seen as victims awaiting rescue. As such, the Naqab Bedouin feel the burden of performing a ‘drama of suffering’ (Khalili 2007, 33) in their mobilisation of support and solidarity. As Khalil Al-Amour asserts: ‘I am tired of playing the role of the victim. We are not just victims. We build, we cultivate, we educate, we self-deliver services, and we resist’ (Interview, Khalil Al-Amour 2012).
64 This view is echoed in my interviews with Huda Abu Obaid (2014) and Amir Abu-Kweder (2014).
The Naqab Bedouin are also subjected to inspection regimes that regulate Bedouin identities. Solidarity is thus racialised, meaning that the ‘social fact of race shapes the practice of solidarity and the challenges this poses to the project of achieving racial justice’ (Hooker 2009, 4). Racialised solidarity renders expressions of Bedouin agency and modernity as unexpected and even as anomalous (P. J. Deloria 2004). This is not unique to the Bedouin case. Urban Aboriginals in Australia, Maddison argues, are subjected to inspection regimes and are scrutinised over ‘the authenticity of their indigeneity’ (Maddison 2013, 288; see also Maddison 2003). Urban Aboriginals, she argues, live a ‘racialised paradox … they are not black enough to be “authentic”, but too black to be safely urban’ (Maddison 2013, 295–6). The Naqab Bedouin live a similar racialised paradox. Bedouin who refuse to adhere to a narrative of victimhood and suffering, and those who appear to be too modern, are scrutinised over their inauthenticity and challenged over their claim to indigeneity. Awad Abu-Freih describes his encounters with supporters as follows:
You should see the surprise on people’s faces when I say that I am a doctor of chemistry. How can you be both? As if education and science are incompatible with Bedouin culture and life. (Interview, Awad Abu-Freih 2013)
Amir Abu Kweder recalls similar encounters:
Foreigners have expectations, it is something that repeats itself in tours and talks. Let me tell you a secret. I never rode a camel. Does that make me less of a Bedouin? A while ago I led a tour of a group from the Jewish community in Australia. We were at Wadi Al-Na’am [an unrecognised village]. They asked me later, ‘How come people here have cutlery, plates, etc? How do they have water?’ [Access to water is not provided by the state, it is self-delivered by the residents.] They argued that the residents of the village seem just fine. They then attacked me personally, saying ‘You are an educated man, wearing jeans. You [Bedouins] need to stop playing the victim role.’ I was too modern for them to be a victim. (Interview, Amir Abu Kweder 2014)
The Bedouin struggle is thus marked by the burden of culture. For the Naqab Bedouin, the yoke of culture is inescapable. This is not only because Israel continues to culturalise the Naqab Bedouin as central to the colonial machinery of domination, or because the native Bedouin are subjected to practices of cultural genocide and have legitimate claims for cultural rights. It is also – and not least importantly – because essentialised conceptions of culture continue to dominate the conversation on indigenous people and
on Bedouin indigeneity. The two – culturalisation by the state, and culturalisation through the liberal discourse on indigeneity – intersect in ways that reinscribe race and power structures between whiteness and indigenous people.
5. Resistance and the Ineligibility of Bedouin Agency
Culture occupies a central – and an ambivalent – place in Bedouin resistance. On the one hand, it is a source of power that can be leveraged for political gains and recognition, especially at the transnational level. On the other hand, the discourse on Bedouin indigeneity is marked by a repressive culturalist gaze that can intersect with the long colonial epistemological production of indigenous people as a primitive non-modern population. This requires Bedouin activists to challenge the colonial/culturalist discourses not only vis-à-vis opponents, but also among the most committed of supporters. As Abu-Freih explains:
Before meeting us, all that our supporters have heard of us is that we want to live in neither a village nor a city. That we want to practise a nomadic life wherever we want, to live in tents, and to take over hundreds of thousands of dunams wherever we want. That we do not want our daughters to study, that we are primitive people who refuse state efforts to urbanise and modernise us. We constantly need to counter this view and explain why we do not accept the state’s ‘generous’ offer to resettle and urbanise us. (Interview, Awad Abu-Freih 2013)65
The Naqab Bedouin capitalise on – and subvert – the indigenous discourse in order to make their struggle visible, both locally and internationally. They build on the oriental interest in their cause and mobilise the spectacle of suffering in order to recruit support and sympathy. As Thabet Abu-Ras, former director of the Naqab Office in Adalah, explains, ‘we do not have to say much to explain the state’s oppressive policies to diplomats and other delegations, the reality speaks for itself’ (Interview, Thabet Abu-Ras 2012). However, once they have ensured access to the ‘transnational’ and to new audiences, Bedouin activists centre the racial politics of Israel and its policies of dispossession and challenge the state’s image as a democracy. In their talks, the Naqab Bedouin tell of their long habitation of the Naqab, the history of their community/tribe/village, and how the State of Israel has been pursuing the destruction of
65 The need to challenge state discourses and their circulation transnationally was also raised in my interviews with Aziz Al-Touri (2013) and Amir Abu-Kweder (2014).
Bedouin life in the Naqab. They share their experiences of being subjected to a systemic policy of house demolitions, de-development, harassment and oppression.
No doubt, Bedouin activists use different a range of strategies to challenge their culturalisation, both at the level of the settler state and in the discourse on Bedouin indigeneity. However, as Cattelino points out, structures of expectations are inescapable. In 2013, I joined a solidarity visit by a committed group of radical anti-Zionist Israeli activists to the Bedouin village of Al-Arakib, just a few days after it had been demolished by the state. We decided to leave the city of Jaffa early in the morning, so as to avoid traffic and reach Al-Arakib by 9am. We were welcomed by local activists, who talked us through the most recent of the demolitions that they had endured. They generously and patiently shared with us the history of the village and their experience of state/JNF policies of dispossession, erasure and Judaisation. After two hours, our hosts hinted that the visit had exhausted itself. They exchanged looks and tried to fill the awkwardness in a conversation that clearly had ended. Another Palestinian activist and myself suggested that maybe we should consider leaving before noon, so as not to burden our hosts with having to provide lunch. The other activists replied that ‘it would be rude to leave. They expect to feed us. It is part of their culture’ and that ‘our presence here empowers them’.
A host of stereotypes was at play, ranging from the Bedouin culture of hospitality, to the Bedouin conception of time, to Bedouin victimhood. Guided by a respect to an imagined Bedouin culture, the activists failed to read the subtle-yet-notable hints of our hosts. And, as lunchtime arrived, our hosts were forced to perform the role of good Bedouin. Days after their village was demolished by the state, the men were burdened with shopping for ingredients and preparing the tent, while the women were tasked with cooking and cleaning. As we left (it was already around 3pm), our exhausted hosts moved to welcome the next group of solidarity activists. Against their will, the Bedouin activists had performed the role of authentic Bedouin. Their challenge to their oriental image had gone unnoticed.
This example illuminates that performative indigeneity is not only (or necessarily) a practice of strategic essentialism, but also a practice that is deeply entrenched in the
duress of cultural expectations. It exemplifies the disciplining effect that expectations can have. Expectations can impose themselves even when indigenous people try to challenge and refuse them. The violence of repressive authenticity, argues Cattelino, demands that indigenous peoples refuse and reorganise cultural expectations (Cattelino 2010, 252). We often see Bedouin resistance articulated in the management, negotiation, subversion and rejection of these expectations. Importantly, the question is not whether the Naqab Bedouin can talk or challenge their culturalisation (they can and do), but rather ‘whether their utterances are intelligible in relationships of power’ (Rao 2013, 279).
These relationships of power make the hidden transcripts of resistance (Scott 1990) particularly relevant in the assertion of native agency. The fact that the Bedouin activists ended up offering lunch is subverted as a testament to the inferiority of Israeli culture and the novelty of Bedouin culture. This subversion is articulated through the practice of mockery as a practice that subjects the coloniser to the gaze of the colonised. Through mockery, Bedouin activists challenge their culturalisation and reaffirm their agency.
We can see the centrality of mockery also in the Bedouin response to the Israeli appropriation of their culture. As Aziz Al-Touri has commented: ‘What do they know about the camel, about hospitality? Their culture is a culture of taking. We welcome everyone. Our guests are always treated with respect’ (Interview, Aziz Al-Touri 2013). Mockery facilitates a process of inversion in which Bedouin culture is produced as morally superior to Jewish-Israeli culture, with the latter represented as an individualist society dominated by the greed, emptiness and hollowness of capitalism.
Mockery is further invoked to reveal the hypocrisy in the discourse that produces the Naqab-Bedouin as premodern: ‘If living a modern life is being connected to nature and growing organic food, then we are the gods of modernity’ (Interview, Aziz Al-Touri 2013). It is further mobilised to refuse inspection regimes and the regulation of Bedouin identity along an orientalist imaginary. As Amir Abu-Kweder’s asks: ‘I never rode a camel. Does that make me a less of a Bedouin?’ (Interview, Amir Abu-Kweder 2014). Mockery is also evident when Awad Abu-Freih adds: ‘No, I do not ride a camel to
commute anymore. I use a car to get to my work at university as a professor of chemistry’ (Interview, Awad Abu-Freih 2013).
Finally, with the transnationalisation of their struggle, the Naqab-Bedouin are increasingly represented as victims in need of rescue. This view has compromised Bedouin agency and undermined the centrality of resistance-as-sumud, a practice that emphasises the ‘possibility of political praxis outside the space of normalized forms of politics’ (Meari 2014, 549). Through mockery, Bedouin activists undermine the white/liberal saviour complex and question ‘whether a human rights activism operating in a colonial context can be an emancipating force’ (Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2012, 106). As Nawal, a Bedouin woman resident of an unrecognised village, proclaims ‘human rights organizations need our help, not the other way around’ (Nawal in Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2012, 126). Aziz Al-Touri adds, ‘those who can make a difference are only the land owners, the people who struggle every day for justice, those in sumud’ (Interview, Aziz Al-Touri 2013).
While a human rights vocabulary can be strategically invoked in order to communicate grievances in a universal language, the Naqab Bedouin insist on reclaiming their agency by positioning the sumud of ordinary Bedouin at the centre of their discourse. Sumud is seen as an authentic form of resistance that is disassociated from the discourses of capital and of privileged civil society to which many of the marginalised have no autonomous unmediated access. By emphasising sumud and mocking the rescue narrative, activists reassert Bedouin agency and challenge the liberal grammar of human rights.
6. Hybrid Identities and the Decoupling of Land Rights and Culture
Indigeneity is not only a discursive field defined by others. It is also a discursive field shaped by indigenous people themselves, bringing their own meanings, concepts and interpretations (Wolfe 2006b). As Khalili argues:
… the local adoption of the language of rights and development can intrude upon the transnational depoliticizing logic, and can modify the meaning and intent of the language through domesticating it. (Khalili 2007, 38)
This is also the case for the Palestinian Bedouin. Some modalities and discourses of resistance (mobilised particularly by the younger generation of Bedouin activists) reveal innovative imaginaries that challenge the repressive demands for authenticity and conceptions of indigeneity that are premised on the principle of cultural distinctiveness and the fetishisation of premodernity.
Bedouin activists refuse to be subjected to a polarised discourse of traditionalism and modernity. Similarly to other indigenous people, the Naqab Bedouin ‘seem to share a desire to create collective futures for themselves that do not succumb to either side of the oppositional structures they face: to be Indigenous or to be modern’ (Shaw 2008, 5). Challenging the view of Bedouinness and modernity as incompatible, activists assert a hybridised conception of Bedouin identity that brings modernity and traditionalism together. Being Bedouin, they argue, does not require the rejection of science, technology, modern agriculture, education and Western medicine. It is not about keeping Bedouin culture isolated and intact. It is, rather, about developing Bedouin life and culture on their own terms, not on terms imposed by others:
We [the Naqab Bedouin] are prevented from having a modern desert life. We are only given two options: either super-fast urbanism or that I die in the desert. I want neither. We are indigenous and we have the right to develop and progress. I want a rural life with scientific progress, under the condition that I maintain my own land and identity. I live multiculturalism. It enriches me. I take what I want from other cultures and keep what I want from my own culture. What I take from the West, however, cannot compromise my identity, belonging and culture. (Interview, Awad Abu-Freih 2013)
Bedouin activists tap into – and subvert – the liberal discourse and ethos of the freedom to assert autonomy and sovereignty by arguing for the right of the Naqab Bedouin to choose which lifestyle they wish to follow. Amir Abu-Kweder articulates the idea of freedom to choose as being core to the Bedouin struggle:
The issue here is about choosing to lead the life that you want to lead. It is about the right to shape your own life and to choose how to exercise your identity. I want people to be able to choose the life they want to lead, to live in dignity – a cliché, but important. My vision is prospering villages. Some people will have olive trees, others will raise sheep and goats. Others will be bourgeoisie like me, smoking a cigar on their balcony and reading a stupid book on self-improvement. Some villages and villagers will rely on agriculture, others will also have high-tech. Some will work in
the village, others outside of it. It will be a place where people can live in dignity, dream, raise their children. (Amir Abu Kweder 2014)
Awad Abu-Freih adds:
I am today a doctor in chemistry. I want my land. It does not matter if I want to build a house, to build a tent, or to build whatever. The bottom line is that we want to keep our land. We love our land. Let us keep our land and we will make the choice. (Interview, Awad Abu-Freih 2013)
This liberal discourse enables activists to challenge the state discourse on modernising the Naqab Bedouin through urbanisation. The state’s refusal to allow Bedouin to choose their own way of life – a right exclusively reserved for (Ashkenazi) Israeli-Jews – is used by activists to expose Zionism’s racial logics, policies and structures.
Not least importantly, this discourse allows activists to counter the narrative on Bedouin indigeneity that conditions land rights on cultural authenticity, performativity and distinctiveness. The right of the Naqab Bedouin to retain their historical lands and to live their chosen lifestyle is premised on an understanding of indigeneity as a political identity. The decoupling of land rights from principles of cultural difference reflects how Bedouin activists politicise, subvert, rearticulate and rework the indigeneity framework.
Insisting on the freedom to choose articulates indigeneity as a simple – yet radical – criterion of ‘prior presence of indigenous peoples before the arrival of new settlers’ (Nasasra 2012, 86). The politics of indigeneity, as Wolfe reminds us, is ‘first and foremost a politics of land’ (Wolfe 2006b, 26). Instead of asking the Naqab-indigenous Bedouin to prove their indigeneity along culturalised lines, we must refocus our scholarly (and activist) gaze on the racial-colonial rationales, policies and structures of Zionism that have governed Bedouin lives for almost seven decades. Decoupling land rights from the principle of cultural distinctiveness is an opportunity to reclaim indigeneity as an antagonist political category, rather than a negotiated identity. In other words, it is an opportunity to insist that Bedouin rights to the land are not conditional. After all, it is the continued Zionist pursuit of native land – not a fetishised authentic premodern culture – that renders land central to the struggle of the indigenous Bedouin.
Part II of this thesis has illuminated the racial and ethnic dimensions (and their gendering) of settler colonial violence and resistance to it. More specifically, it has focused on exploring the ways in which culture – and culturalisation – figures in shaping both the subjugation and the resistance of the Palestinian Bedouin to Israeli settler colonialism, demonstrating how culture has been constituted simultaneously as a dominating and an emancipating force.
Chapters 3 and 4 have suggested that we need to understand the subjugation and resistance of the Palestinian Bedouin in light of the particular racialising logic of the Israeli state as a liberal settler state. Critically, they have demonstrated that these logics cannot be understood outside of the intersectionality of race with ethnicity and gender.
The racialisation and ethnicisation of the Bedouin by the state have been central to the dispossession of their land. The Naqab Bedouin have been produced as a culturally distinct and premodern society in need of modernisation (understood as urbanisation). For decades, the Naqab Bedouin have resisted through litigation and from within state institutions. Failing to achieve justice, the Naqab-Bedouin have mobilised indigeneity as an alternative framework for making land claims.
The international indigenous rights regime plays an important role in empowering indigenous struggles and claims, and the Bedouin case is no exception. However, the recognition of Naqab Bedouin as indigenous has been grounded in a culturalised conception of indigeneity and the fetishisation of the indigenous as premodern. Recognition has been justified through principles of cultural distinctiveness and non-dominance. Through the mobilisation of indigeneity, the Naqab Bedouin and the organisations working on their behalf have transformed Bedouin cultural difference from a technology of colonial domination into a moral justification for rights. The culturalised discourse on Bedouin indigeneity has thus converged in disturbing ways with the racialisation, ethnicisation and culturalisation of the Bedouin by the liberal settler state, reproducing epistemological assumptions that locate the Bedouin population outside of
modernity. This intersection is best explained as a result of the liberalism that underlies both the settler state and the indigenous discourse and rights regime.
The Naqab Bedouin face the burden of culture and the violence of repressive authenticity. Activists have responded to the violence of repressive authenticity with hybridised modalities of resistance. Some are accommodative, some are antagonistic and rejectionist, and others are subversive. Facing systematic marginalisation, exclusion and dispossession, the Naqab Bedouin play the culture card. They capitalise on the indigenous discourse and rights framework to leverage access to new audiences and to expand opportunities for resistance. To this end, native Bedouin engage in self-essentialising and self-exoticising practices. They also mobilise a drama of suffering as a political asset (Khalili 2007, 33). These strategies have been joined by practices and discourses that refuse the logic that conditions entitlement to land rights on cultural authenticity and the dichotomy between traditionalism and modernity, thereby politicising, subverting and reworking the indigenous framework. Importantly, Bedouin resistance continues to be premised on an antagonistic and rejectionist modality of resistance that centres defiance of settler sovereignty. This is achieved mainly through the everyday practice of sumud.
The Naqab Bedouin have thus responded to the discourse of indigeneity with ambivalence. This ambivalence is articulated in a simultaneous deployment and refusal of indigenous rights. Threats of further dispossession of land and mass displacement of Bedouin communities mean that the ability to unequivocally and antagonistically refuse indigeneity is often a matter of privilege. The mobilisation of indigeneity as a form of strategic essentialism should be understood as the outcome of extreme structural conditions of marginality shaped by the violence of settler colonialism and its racialising regimes.
The Politics of Refusal in the Palestinian Queer Movement
Introduction to Part III
Part III moves to focus on the struggle of the Palestinian queer (PQueer) movement. It explores the racialised, gendered and sexualised dimensions of settler colonial violence and domination, considers how these shape PQueer subjectivities and modalities of resistance, and identifies the ways in which the transnational is imbricated within these processes. While Part II focused on the ways in which Palestinian Bedouin resistance has been shaped in light of the culturalisation and fetishisation of the Naqab Bedouin as premodern subjects, this part explores the PQueer movement in light of the transnational LGBT discourse that builds on the ambivalent folding of racialised queers into modernity.
More specifically, Part III considers the ways in which the PQueer movement is situated between different discourses, representations and circuits of power that operate on local, national and transnational registers. It explores how PQueer protest sensibilities and modalities of resistance have developed in relation to the particularities of sexual politics in Israel/Palestine, Palestinian nationalism, Western sexual liberalism and the epistemic violence that underscores them.
Part III comprises two chapters. Chapter 5, ‘Settler Homonationalism: Domination and Sexuality in Israel/Palestine’, investigates the gendered and sexualised dimensions of settler colonial domination, while Chapter 6, ‘Refusal as Emancipation’, is concerned with PQueer organising and mobilisation. More specifically, Chapter 5 focuses on the entanglement of homonationalism and homocolonialism with orientalism, imperialism and settler colonialism to theorise the working of sexual politics in the context of Israel/Palestine. It further examines the ambivalent place that PQueers occupy in the metanarrative of Western sexual modernity and the script of sexual liberation.
Chapter 6 considers the complex and ambivalent ways in which PQueers have responded to – and engaged with – the liberal violence of the settler state and the liberal politics of global LGBT rights. It focuses on the ways in which PQueer subjectivities, protest sensibilities and modalities of resistance have developed in relation to – and against – the encounter with the Israeli LGBT community, homonationalism, the homocolonial practice of pinkwashing, and the Gay International. Lastly, the chapter explores the dilemmas that PQueers face in their mobilisation and the strategies that they employ in their challenge of both cultural imperialism and settler colonial domination.
PQueer organising began in the early 2000s with the formation of two LGBT groups: Aswat: Palestinian Gay Women, and AlQaws for Sexual and Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society. The PQueer movement, therefore, has only recently begun to draw scholarly attention. The (limited) study of the PQueer movement, moreover, has been confined to postcolonial transnational queer studies (see Amireh 2010; Darwich and Maikey 2014; Elia 2012; Hochberg et al 2010; Maikey and Stelder 2015; Ritchie 2010, 2014, 2015; Schulman 2012).
Similar to the struggles of other groups, PQueer organising has been ignored in the wider study of Palestinian resistance in Israel. This thesis brings the PQueer movement (along with the Palestinian Bedouin struggle) into the study of Palestinian resistance and politics in Israel in order to understand the broader dynamics that shape settler colonial domination and modalities of resistance and how these are informed by the liberal and colonial violence of the liberal settler state and by human rights discourses.
Aswat and AlQaws emerged as part of the mushrooming of Palestinian NGOs (PNGOs) in Israel and the consolidation of autonomous Palestinian civil society. However, with time, AlQaws and the PQueer movement against Israeli settler colonialism – marked most specifically by the establishment of Palestinian Queers for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (PQBDS) in 2010 – have developed to represent PQueers from both sides of the Separation Wall66, defying colonial borders and the fragmentation of the Palestinian
66 The Separation Wall is also known as the separation barrier, security barrier and apartheid wall. The Wall was initiated by Israel in 2000, the wall was designed to separate Israel and the West
people. To be clear, I do not seek to appropriate the PQueer movement as a movement of ’48 Palestinians. However, its transformation from an organisation that emerged as part of an Israeli and ’48 Palestinian civil society into a Palestinian movement is a unique trajectory that is a particularly telling case study for broader questions involving Palestinian resistance in Israel. This experience illuminates a different modality of resistance and a different political project, one that is rooted in a radical and uncompromising anticolonial and anti-imperial agenda that refuses, on the one hand, the ambivalence of liberal settler colonialism and, on the other hand, the imperial vocabulary and emancipatory promise of the Western liberal gay agenda.
Part III argues that the particular racialising logics to which PQueers are subjected have played an important role in shaping their resistance. PQueer resistance, it is argued, has developed from one based on accommodative and liberal LGBT politics to an antagonistic anticolonial and anti-imperial movement. This transformation has been informed by a Fanonian reading of the colonial condition as dichotomous and total and by a Fanonian politics of rejection/refusal/negation and the restructuring of the self. Refusal is articulated in the rejection of the cultural imperialism of the Gay International, its models of sexual emancipation, and the liberal quest to modernise and ‘save’ PQueers. It is also articulated in an en bloc rejection of the colonial settler state and a rejection of political projects that centre citizenship, recognition and inclusion. Refusal is leveraged as a political imperative and a pedagogy of resistance. It is also constituted as part of a larger project of recovering PQueer subjectivity under powerful structures of erasure.
Methodologically, Part III is based on interviews with prominent PQueer activists, most of whom are associated with Aswat, AlQaws and PQBDS. To expand the engagement with PQueer voices, I make use of blogs and cultural and political writings in diverse online platforms published in both Arabic and English. In addition, I build on participant observation, my experiences attending talks by PQueers, and online videos of public talks, workshops and conferences that feature PQueers. I also make use of textual sources,
Bank. While in principle it should be based on the 1967 Green Line, 85% of the wall is in West Bank territory. The International Court of Justice has found the wall to be a violation of international law.
including NGO materials, newspaper articles, feature stories, op-eds, speeches by global and Israeli leaders, Israeli hasbara materials, films and visual images. Finally, some of the interviewees quoted in this part of the thesis have requested anonymity; therefore, their names have been changed.
Chapter 5
Settler Homonationalism, Domination and Sexuality in Israel/Palestine
This chapter focuses on theorising sexual politics in Israel/Palestine, illuminating the racialised, gendered and sexualised dimensions of Zionist settler colonial domination. The chapter also introduces the theoretical framework and concepts that guide the discussion of PQueer resistance in Chapter 6. It builds on Jasbir Puar’s theorisation of homonationalism (Puar 2007), Momin Rahman’s concept of homocolonialism (Rahman 2014), and Joseph Massad’s work on the Gay International and the universalisation of a Western sexual epistemology and ontology (Massad 2007).
The chapter is composed of three sections. Building on postcolonial feminist and queer studies, the first section focuses on the particular workings of homonationalism in shaping sexual politics in Israel/Palestine. It proposes that sexual politics in Israel and the state’s relatively progressive position on gay rights cannot be disassociated from the larger Zionist project of settler encroachment and ethnic cleansing, along with its racialising logics. Sexual politics in Israel/Palestine need to be understood in light of Israel’s broader policies that regulate Palestinian family life and reproductive rights, as well as the state’s anti-miscegenation policies. These, I suggest, are embedded in racialised sexual regimes that work to tame Palestinian desire, safeguard Jewish racial purity, and bolster Jewish demographic superiority.
The second section begins by looking at the ways in which the consolidation of the ‘queer question’ has been translated into new forms of neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism. It discusses the particular ways in which Islam has figured in Western homonational and homocolonial discourses, and how these representations have reinforced and reproduced xenophobia, Islamophobia and Arabophobia. The section then moves to discuss Israel’s
homocolonial practice of pinkwashing – the invocation of gay rights in order to divert attention from and to justify its occupation of Palestine. I suggest that pinkwashing should be understood as part of the longer history of Zionist investment in aligning itself with Western liberalism. Pinkwashing, I argue, should be conceptualised as being intrinsic to a process of naturalising Israel’s sovereignty and its claims to the land of Palestine.
The third and final section explores the place that PQueers occupy in liberal LGBT politics, focusing specifically on their framing as victims in need of rescue and the view of queerness and Palestinianness as being incompatible. I suggest a reading of the rescue paradigm as a gendered and sexualised manifestation of settler indigenisation processes that naturalise settlers as proper to the land.
1. Homonationalism and Sexual Politics in Israel/Palestine
It is important to note that homonationalism has scalar movement between local, national, and transnational sites; from the internal contradictions that homonationalism produces within Israel, to the production of Israel as liberal and progressive in relation to the homophobia of Palestine, to the level of global transnational organising where homonationalism translates – within a liberal telos of progress – onto this register as well. (Puar 2011a, 138)
Sexual politics in Israel/Palestine should be understood within the broader history – and contemporary workings – of imperialism, colonialism and settler colonialism as deeply racialised, gendered and sexualised phenomena (for sexual dimensions of settler colonialism, see Morgensen 2011, 2012a; Smith 2010). As postcolonial and transnational feminist and queer studies have shown, imperial and settler colonial forces have long invoked the mission of saving native women in order to justify colonial domination and imperial expansion and to produce whiteness as racially superior. Examples include British efforts to abolish the practice of sati in India (Spivak 1988), the French mission to modernise and unveil Muslim women in Algeria (Fanon 1965), and the recent US endeavour to liberate Muslim women in Iraq and Afghanistan (Abu-Lughod 2002). The recent French banning of the burkini – and the images of armed police on a beach in Nice forcing a Muslim woman to remove her clothes (Quinn 2016) – further demonstrates how Muslim women’s bodies have become a site of imperial/colonial contestation. Israel is no different from other colonial powers that have sought to justify their violence through
a gendered civilisation mission. As shown in Part I, since its early days Israel has been appropriating ’48 Palestinian women in Israel to present itself as a modern, civilising and liberating force.
The consolidation and internationalisation of women’s rights, Lila Abu-Lughod argues, have been marked by a ‘new common sense’ of going to war in the name of women’s rights (Abu-Lughod 2013). Gradually, this mindset was expanded to include gay rights, with the treatment of gays becoming ‘a barometer by which the right to and capacity for national sovereignty is evaluated’ (Puar 2013a, 336). For example, in the discourse on Iran – especially before the nuclear deal – gay rights were used to rationalise the potential infringement of Iran’s sovereignty (Puar 2007). More recently, the treatment by ISIS of gay men was invoked to justify intervention (Cowburn 2016). The case of ISIS was discussed even by the UN Security Council – the first time in its history that it has addressed LGBT issues (Segalov 2015).
Jasbir Puar argues that ‘the “Woman Question” is now being supplemented with the “Homosexual Question”’, meaning that ‘the question of “how do you treat your women?” as a determining factor of a nation’s capacity for sovereignty has now been appended with the barometer of “how well do you treat your homosexuals?”’ (Puar 2011a, 139).
The queer question has become the new marker for modernity and civility, by which states and nations – and civilisations – are divided (gay-friendly and non-gay-friendly nations/cultures/peoples); otherness is devised (not only in relation to the West and the Rest, but also in relation to internal racialised others); and imperial interventions are justified (‘have you seen how they treat their gays?’) (Puar 2013a, 2013b; Rahman 2014).
Building on Lisa Duggan’s concept of homonormativity (Duggan 2002),67 Puar develops the concept of homonationalism – a portmanteau for national homosexuality – to explain how the homosexual question has come to occupy such a central place in national and
67 According to Duggan, homonormativity is:
… a politics that does not contest dominant heteronormative assumptions and institutions – such as marriage, and its call for monogamy and reproduction – but upholds and sustains them while promising the possibility of a demobilized gay constituency and a privatized, depoliticized gay culture anchored in domesticity and consumption. (Duggan 2002, 179)
international politics. Homonationalism, Puar suggests, is a process of inclusion of some homonormative gay subjects (predominantly white) as legitimate members of the national body. It is the rise of the patriot gay subject as a participant in, and reinforcer and (re)producer of, nationalism, racial hierarchies, imperialism and settler colonialism (Puar 2006). In the words of Puar, homonationalism is a:
… facet of modernity and a historical shift marked by the entrance of (some) homosexual bodies as worthy of protection by nation-states, a constitutive and fundamental reorientation of the relationship between the state, capitalism, and sexuality. (Puar 2013a, 337)
Recent years have seen an increased international commitment to LGBT rights and to the recognition of gay rights as human rights. In her speech on Human Rights Day in 2011, Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, confirmed the US commitment to promoting LGBTQ rights, both nationally and globally, and called other nations to join the United States and ‘be on the right side of history’ (quoted in Huffington Post 2011).68 In ‘The Time Has Come’, his historic speech to the Human Rights Council in 2012, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon confirmed the UN’s commitment to advancing gay rights. Ban called on states to decriminalise same-sex conduct, respect gay rights, and promote LGBT equality (quoted in Huff-Hannon 2012). The following year, the United Kingdom enacted the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. In the United States, the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy was repealed in 2011 and the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.69 International financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have also incorporated commitment to gay rights into their agendas (Rao 2015).
Importantly, the recognition of sexual citizenship by the nation-state, Puar argues, has been paralleled by a deprivation – and even a retraction – of rights both from non-homonormative sexual others and from racialised others (poor, non-white immigrant, black, Muslim and indigenous communities). Understood along the registers of class and race and as an assemblage, homonationalism, argues Puar, is marked by:
… the concomitant rise in the legal, consumer and representative recognition of LGBTQ subjects and the curtailing of welfare provisions, in migrant rights and the
68 For more information on the Obama administration’s promotion of gay rights, see https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/lgbt_record.pdf, accessed 10 September 2016. 69 Obergefell v Hodges, 576 US __ (2015).
expansion of state power to engage in surveillance, detention and deportation. The narrative of progress for gay rights is thus built on the backs of racialised and sexualised others, for whom such progress was either once achieved but is now backsliding or has yet to arrive. (Puar 2013b, 25)
An example of the interplay between extending rights to gays and retracting rights from racialised minorities is exemplified in two US Supreme Court decisions released in the same week of June 2013. The first decision nullified section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which provided federal government oversight of the states in order to protect the voting rights of African-American citizens.70 The second decision led to recognition by the federal government of same-sex marriage.71 The timing of the two verdicts and their outcomes – extending civil rights to gays while retracting civil and political rights from African-Americans – is indicative of these homonationalist times and the hierarchisation of bodies. In the words of Irene Monroe, an African-American lesbian activist, ‘the Supreme Court’s rulings force LGBTQ people of color, like me, to reside a bifurcated reality in terms of full civil rights protections’ (Monroe 2013). The production of gay rights as the barometer of modernity is used to reaffirm American exceptionalism and to bolster the fantasy of the United States as a post-racial society.
The incorporation of gays into the nation-state did not bypass Israel. The 1990s (also known as the ‘gay rights decade’) were an important period in the folding of Israeli queers as legitimate members of the Israeli-Jewish nation-state and nationalism. Israeli gays secured significant rights through litigation in the Supreme Court. These achievements included the abolition of discrimination in the Israeli army; the provision to same-sex partners of equal rights to workplace benefits; the realisation of parental rights, especially for lesbian couples; and the recognition of marital status for same-sex couples (Gross 2000, 2013; Kadish 2005; Ziv 2010).
The Israeli gay movement has embraced the racialised logics of settler citizenship by placing Zionism at the centre of its politics and naturalising the Israeli state as a ‘horizon of freedom’ (Morgensen 2012b, 170). By focusing on the integration of queers into the nation and its military apparatus and on the right of lesbians to parenthood, Israeli gays
70 Shelby County v Holder, 570 US __ (2013). 71 United States v Windsor, 570 US __ (2013).
did not undermine the (re)productive roles that Zionism has designated to men and women (Kadish in Gross 2013a). Furthermore, as Anat Lieber rightly argues, Israeli gays ‘challenged neither the venues to inclusion in the Israeli regime of citizenship, nor the boundaries of the national collective’ (Lieber in Ziv 2010, 540). An example is a recent ruling by the Ministry of Interior, which determined that the Law of Return should be extended to Jews in same-sex marriages who decide to immigrate to Israel, even if the partner is not Jewish (Baruch and Dvorin 2014).
As Scott Morgensen argues, settler homonationalism takes place whenever settler colonialism is naturalised in queer politics (Morgensen 2010, 107). The Israeli LGBT struggle has been based on demands to be equal contributors to, and equal benefactors of, the settler colonial project and on the right to enjoy equal access to settler privilege and Jewish racial supremacy. In pursuing sexual citizenship, Israeli queers have reinscribed Zionism’s racial national and civic boundaries.
Israel’s sexual politics and its relatively progressive gay rights record cannot be disengaged from the larger Zionist project of ethnic cleansing. Israeli gays were being incorporated into the nation as productive and reproductive citizens just as Palestinians were being deprived of their freedom and denied their national and human rights. As Stein argues:
… during the 1990s Israel’s gay communities were being recognized in unprecedented ways in Israeli legal spheres, while changing Israeli policies vis-à-vis the occupied territories were creating new forms of unrecognition for its Palestinian population; gay communities were enjoying new forms of social mobility within the nation-state while the literal mobility of Palestinians from the occupied territories was being increasingly curtailed. (Stein 2010, 521)
While bestowing rights to parenthood and family life on Israeli gays, the state has inflicted even more draconian policies on Palestinians that limit their right to family life and further restrict family reunification and freedom of movement. For example, an amendment to the Citizenship Law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, ‘prevents spouses of Palestinian citizens of Israel, who are from the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and countries deemed “enemy states” by Israel, from living together in Israel’ (Adalah 2013; see also Jabareen and Zaher 2012). In another measure, Palestinians in East Jerusalem – illegally annexed by Israel – are prevented from residing there with their West Bank or
Gaza spouses. If they want to live with their spouses, they must relinquish their East Jerusalem residence and move to the West Bank or the Gaza Strip (Society of St. Yves 2013). Similarly, Israel prohibits family unification of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank who wish to live in the West Bank unless they move to sieged Gaza (Gisha 2015). These policies are embedded in the eliminatory racial grammar of demography that lies at the heart of the Israeli settler colonial project.
Furthermore, the logic of settler colonialism renders the division between Israeli queer life and Palestinian death intrinsic to the working of Israeli sovereignty (Ritchie 2014). While Israeli gays have been folded into the nation as bodies worthy of life, Palestinians are doomed to occupation, violence, ghettoisation, racial discrimination, bombardment, siege and death. The incorporation of Israeli gays into the nation runs parallel to the colonial creation of death worlds, meaning the ‘new and unique forms of social existence’ in which Palestinians are ‘subjected to conditions of life conferring upon them the status of living dead’ (Mbembe 2003, 40, emphasis in original).
To understand Israel’s racial sexual politics, we must turn to its reproductive policies. These, Rhoda Kanaaneh argues, are driven by the desire to fortify Jewish demographic superiority. Israel’s pronatal policies are underpinned by a racialised logic that incentivises childbearing in Jewish families while actively working to reduce Palestinian procreation (Kanaaneh 2002). As my discussion of Bedouin subjugation in Israel has shown, Israel’s campaign against polygamy is premised on a desire to limit the Bedouin birth rate rather than a concern for the well-being of Bedouin women and children. The racialisation of reproductive policies is not limited to Palestinians; it also targets Jewish racialised others. As revealed by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Israel had injected, by deception and against their will, ‘women of Ethiopian origin with the long-acting contraceptive Depo-Provera’ (Nesher 2013). The program resulted in a ‘50-percent decline over the past 10 years in the birth rate of Israel’s Ethiopian community’ (Nesher 2013).
Israel’s sexual order further includes the regulation of interracial sexual relations, as manifested in the state’s anti-miscegenation policies. The absence of civil marriage as an option in Israel effectively prohibits intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews (though civil marriages conducted overseas are recognised by the state). Commenting on the racial underpinning of this prohibition, Hanna Arendt observed that ‘there certainly was something breathtaking in the naiveté with which the prosecution [in the Eichmann trial] denounced the infamous Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which had prohibited intermarriage and sexual intercourse between Jews and Germans’ (Arendt [1963] 2006, 7).
Israel’s anti-miscegenation law, Zvi Triger argues, should be read as the desire to protect Jewish women from hypersexualised Arab men (Triger 2009b). In efforts to prevent sexual relations between Arabs and Jews, Israel also directly funds groups such as Lehava, which works to ‘save’ Jewish women from Arab men (Blau and Greenberg 2011; Crowcroft 2014). In addition, the Knesset Committee on the Status of Women and Gender Equality convened a special meeting on the prevention of sexual relations between Jewish women and Arab men (Atali 2011). Even the ‘liberal’ municipality of Tel Aviv has launched a program, run by its welfare department, for preventing relationships between Arab men and Jewish women (Ben-Yosef 2010).
Where possible, the Israeli state seeks to manage – and discipline – deviations from the racial sexual order, as the case of Sabbar Kashur demonstrates. In 2010, an Israeli Court convicted Kashur, an Arab, of rape by deception for concealing his Arab identity from a Jewish woman, with whom he had consensual sex while allegedly pretending to be a Jew. Kashur, Aeyal Gross argues, was punished ‘for “passing” for a Jew’ and for ‘being an Arab man who had sexual relations with a Jewish woman’ (Gross 2015, 32). The court has assumed the task of protecting Jewish women and racial boundaries by delimiting what constitutes normative sexual relations.
Israel’s record on gay rights and its simultaneous policies of denying rights to Palestinians and regulating a racialised sexual order, I suggest, are not anomalous or inherently contradictory. They are constitutive of the liberal racism of the settler state, and to the particular racialising structures and logics of Zionism.
2. Homocolonialism, Pinkwashing and the Gay International
The commitment of the West to the universalisation of gay rights has taken neo-colonial forms, with gay rights being the latest innovation – and neoliberal commodity – to be exported as part of an imperial civilisation mission. In 2011, while serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, declared that ‘the Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority
of our foreign policy’ (quoted in Huffington Post 2011).72 Similarly, with the enactment of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 in the United Kingdom, then Prime Minister David Cameron stated:
I want to export gay marriage around the world …
Many other countries are going to want to copy this. And, as you know, I talk about the global race, about how we’ve got to export more and sell more so I’m going to export the bill team. I think they can be part of this global race and take it around the world. (Quoted in Hope 2013)
The neo-colonial deployment of gay rights has been conceptualised by Rahman as homocolonialism, a product and a manifestation of homonationalism. Homocolonialism, according to Rahman, is ‘the deployment of LGBTIQ rights and visibility to stigmatize non-Western cultures and conversely reassert the supremacy of the Western nations and civilization’ (Rahman 2014, 6–7). It is a continuation of a larger project of culturalising and racialising non-Western societies, thereby asserting Western exceptionalism and superiority. Homocolonialism is also expressed in the missionary task of ‘white homosexuals saving brown homosexuals from brown homophobes’ (Rao 2014, 5), paraphrasing Spivak’s famous statement about ‘white men saving brown women from brown men’ (Spivak 1988). Massad has termed ‘these missionary tasks, the discourse that produces them, and the organizations that represent them … the Gay International’ (Massad 2002, 362). As scholars have argued and as elaborated in the earlier discussion of Israeli LGBT groups, gay rights groups in the West have been complicit with – and producers of – homonationalism and homocolonialism, following a similar path to that of Western colonial feminism (Massad 2002, 361; Mikdashi 2011; Spade 2015).
Nations and societies that share a similar record on gay rights to that of the West are labelled as backward and needing help in making the journey towards modernity. David Cameron remarked that ‘these countries [with a poor record on gay rights] are all on a journey and it’s up to us to try and help them along that journey, and that’s exactly what we do’ (quoted in Marr 2011). This ‘help’ has taken the form of aid conditionality, tying the provision of aid to state performance on gay rights issues (Rao 2012). While the
72 For policies and measures taken to promote gay rights internationally as part of US foreign policy, see Gross forthcoming.
United Kingdom has been a pioneer in gay conditionality,73 international financial institutions have recently followed suit by imposing sanctions on countries that fail to protect gay rights (Gross forthcoming; Rao 2012, 2015). African countries such as Uganda, Malawi and Nigeria have been particularly vulnerable to aid conditionality.74 Aid conditionality, advocated by the Gay International, has reinforced the perception that homosexuality is a foreign Western import, further forcing non-Western queer activists to ‘manoeuvre between powerful interlocutors in the cosmopolitan Gay International on one side, and communitarian homophobic opponents at home on the other’ (Rao 2010, 189).
The Gay International, Massad argues, ‘has reserved a special place for the Muslim world in both its discourse and its advocacy’ (Massad 2002, 362). Homonationalism and homocolonialism are embedded in an orientalist discourse that presents Islam as antithetical to homosexuality and therefore to Western modernity as well. In the words of Rahman:
… we are living within a discourse of Islamic otherness that positions Islam against homosexuality because homosexuality has become deployed as the marker of the superiority of Western modernity. (Rahman 2014, 2, emphasis in original)
Homophobia is seen to be a cultural pathology of Islam. In this discourse, Muslims are represented as not only premodern, but also anti-modern. As Mahmood Mamdani explains, ‘whereas the former [premodern] conception encourages relations based on philanthropy, the latter [anti-modern] notion is productive of fear and pre-emptive police or military action’ (Mamdani 2004, 18).
This invocation of the queer question to demonstrate the incompatibility of Islam and Western modernity is also applied to Muslims living in the West, subjecting them to particular forms of liberal racism and exclusions. The discourse is used to justify restrictions on Muslim immigration to the West. For example, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump justified his call to halt Muslim immigration to the United States
73 In an interview, Cameron stated: ‘Britain is now one of the premier aid givers in the world – saying that our aid, actually we want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights, and that includes how people treat gay and lesbian people.’ (Marr 2011).
74 Uganda and Malawi, for example, have had some of their funds in donations and loans cut (see Gross forthcoming).
by charging that Islam oppresses and kills gays and women (Grindley 2016). In Germany and Canada, Islamophobic anti-immigration and anti-refugee groups and liberal LGBT groups have invoked the women and queer questions to call on their governments to refuse Syrian refugees (Levant 2015; Porter 2016). The Netherlands went so far as adopting policies of ‘pink-testing’ Muslims as part of a ‘test on Dutch citizenship’ (Hekma and Duyvendak 2011, 626), conditioning the right to citizenship on sexual visibility as a pretext for modernity (Butler 2008).75 In the context of the Netherlands, Paul Mepschen, Jan Duyvendak and Evelien Tonkens argue:
Gay rights discourses have thus offered a language for the critique of Islam and multiculturalism – an idiom that underscores an Orientalist discourse that renders Muslim citizens knowable and produces them as objects of critique. Sexuality offers a prism through which cultural contrast comes to be perceived, temporally, as the difference between modernity and tradition. (Mepschen, Duyvendak and Tonkens 2010, 970)
Through the queer question, Muslim immigrants, argues Rahman, are characterised ‘as bearers of a “traditionalism”’, subjects that are ‘yet to fully experience or embrace modernity’ (Rahman 2014, 277). Islam, Judith Butler further argues, is conceived to be ‘not of this time or our time, but as another time, one that only anachronistically emerged in this time’ (Butler 2008, 7, emphasis in original). Muslims, as a result, are presented as a threat to Western freedom and modernity – one from which the West ought to be protected.
2.1 Pinkwashing: The Question of Palestine in Homonationalist Times
Puar argues argue that ‘the United States and Israel are the largest benefactors of homonationalism in the current geopolitical configuration’ (Puar 2013a, 338). Israel has capitalised on homonationalism largely through the homocolonialist strategy of pinkwashing. As Rahman states, ‘“pinkwashing” is the most cynical expression of this assumption of sexuality as Western exceptionalism’ (Rahman 2014, 139).
75 For more examples on the ways in which Islamophobia has shaped European policies (in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark) towards citizenship, see Fekete 2006, 2–6.
The term ‘pinkwashing’ was coined in 2010 by Ali Abunimah (Schulman 2012). It describes Israel’s use of gay rights to rebrand its image from occupying force to modern civil liberal state in order to divert attention from – and to justify – the occupation and the violation of the rights of Palestinians. As stated by Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the United States, gay rights have been mobilised to challenge the image of Israel as ‘a nation of conflict’ (quoted in Goldman 2014). Pinkwashing, as Puar points out, is ‘Israel’s promotion of a LGTBQ-friendly image to reframe the occupation of Palestine in terms of civilizational narratives measured by (sexual) modernity’ (Puar 2013a, 337). Through gay rights, Israel is produced as modern, in contrast to Palestinian/Arab/Muslim backwardness and barbarity.
Gross traces Israel’s pinkwashing efforts back to Benjamin Netanyahu’s first government in 1999, when the Prime Minister sent a letter to the World Congress of Gay and Lesbian Jewish Organisations drawing their attention to a homophobic statement made by a Palestinian Minister. But it was only in 2005, with the launch of the Brand Israel campaign, that pinkwashing became a central foreign policy strategy. Brand Israel is a well-funded campaign that aims to promote Israel as a civil, modern and liberal state in light of its deteriorating international image, given the prolonged occupation of Palestinian territories and gross violations of human rights (Elia 2012).76 Gay rights, argues Gross, have ‘essentially become a public relations tool’ (Gross in Schulman 2011), serving as a fig leaf for Israeli democracy (Gross 2013a, 108).
As part of the pinkwashing efforts, Israel’s foreign office and pro-Israeli/Zionist lobby groups have introduced campaigns to highlight Israel’s progressive record on gay rights in order to ‘sell Israel to tourists and cultural consumers’ (Schulman 2012, 24). Organisations, campaigns and projects such as Stand with Us, iPride, Israel21c, Stand for Israel, the Israel Project and Hillel have taken leading roles in expanding pinkwashing efforts internationally, seeking to mobilise the support of liberals in the West (Elia 2012; Spade 2015). Israeli embassies and consulates have sponsored international gay film festivals, pride parades and other major events to publicise Israel’s gay rights record, with Israeli LGBT groups actively participating in these propaganda efforts.
Through pinkwashing, Israel seeks to reinforce the identification of Israel/Zionism with the liberal West by positioning itself as a global pioneer in gay rights. For example, following the repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy in the United States, Israeli propaganda emphasised that gays in Israel have long been enjoying equality in the Israeli army (see images 1 and 277). In addition, Israel is portrayed as a gay-friendly nation. Israel’s tourism ministry and the Tel-Aviv municipality promote that city as a prime gay
76 Israel’s rebranding efforts are not confined to gay rights (though gay rights are central to them). They also include highlighting Israel as a high-tech nation, showcasing Israel’s green technologies, and marketing Israel and the Israeli army as vegan-friendly (Gross 2013b; Kadushin 2015; Spade 2015; Steinberg 2015).
77 This image is part of Israel’s propaganda program. Though it was proven to be a fabrication, it shows Israel’s investment in publicising gay equality in the army as an indication of Israel’s modernity and its progressive record on gay rights.
tourism destination (Schulman 2011) and a testament to Israel as a force for modernisation (see images 3 and 4).
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4
Embedded in an orientalist epistemology, pinkwashing, argues Puar, ‘reinforces ideologies of the clash of cultures and the “cultural difference” of Palestinian homophobia’ (Puar 2013b, 34). Pinkwashing, Mikdashi further points out, ‘only makes
sense as a political strategy within a discourse of Islamophobia and Arabophobia’ (Mikdashi 2011). A modern and gay-friendly Israel is the inverse of a backward and homophobic Middle East/Palestine (see images 5 and 6). The two representations are juxtaposed in the assertion of Israel’s civility. As stated by Michael Oren, ‘Israel was fighting for gay rights before the 1967 war. Even when terrorists were blowing up our buses and cafes, there was equality for gays’ (quoted in Goldman 2014).
Image 5
Image 6
Gay rights help to produce Israel’s exceptionalism by representing the state as a positive force of civilisation. Pinkwashing thus builds on an orientalist ‘hierarchy in which the West is better than the non-West, Israel is superior to Palestine, Christianity is preferable to Islam’ (Rao 2010, 181). As Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed in his address to the US Congress in 2011, the Middle East is ‘a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted … Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East; Israel is what’s right about the Middle East’ (quoted in The Globe and Mail 2011). This discourse is reiterated in Israel’s hasbara efforts. As a campaign that circulated in the United States urged: ‘In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel’ (Dabashi 2012; see image 7). Criticism over Israel’s violence is then
rejected through the mantra ‘have you seen how they treat their gays?’ An example is Netanyahu’s call to the peace activists who were on the freedom Flotilla to Gaza:
Go to places where women are oppressed, homosexuals are hanged in public squares, to places where there are no human rights. Go to Tehran. Go to Gaza. Anyone who genuinely cares about human rights should support the democratic and the liberal state of Israel. (Quoted in Gross 2013a, 108, my translation from Hebrew)78
Image 7
To cover for aggression directed against Palestinians, Amal Amireh argues, Israel also engaged in the queer demonising of Palestinians, building on the view of Palestinians as a homophobic society (Amireh 2010, 637–8). One of the most recent cynical uses of this practice was the case of Muhammad Abu-Khdeir, a 16-year-old Palestinian from East Jerusalem who was kidnapped, murdered and burned to death by a group of Israeli teens. After his parents reported the kidnapping, Israeli police and media circulated a rumour that Abu-Khdeir was killed by his family for being gay (Silverstein 2014). Israel had
78 Netanyahu’s cynical use of gay rights internationally was criticised for not being matched by a commitment to advancing gay rights in Israel. Former MKs from Meretz have accused ‘Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of using Iran’s persecution of homosexuals to attack it on the world stage while doing nothing to advance gay rights at home’ (quoted in Potts 2013). For more critique of Netanyahu’s use of gay rights in the case of Iran, see Barak Ravid at Ha’Aretz:
In Israel, Netanyahu flees from LGBT issues as though they were on fire, but abroad he enjoys using the community for propaganda purposes in his war against a nuclear Iran. In almost every speech he has made in the United States or Europe, Netanyahu points out that in Iran they hang gay people in the public square, while in Israel we have gay pride parades. (Ravid 2013)
hoped that the story would stick long enough to tarnish Palestinians as bloodthirsty homophobes and to discredit Abu-Khdeir and his family among Palestinians themselves (Samuel 2014; Spier 2014).
Pinkwashing, Puar argues, also extends to the liberal supporters of the Palestinian cause. This is manifested in the intertwining of the Palestine question and gay rights. A common articulation of this liberal sentiment is the position that ‘of course we support the Palestinians in their quest for self-determination, but what about how sexist and homophobic they are?’ (Puar 2013b, 27), or the slogan ‘Israel, stop persecuting Palestine; Palestine, stop persecuting gays’, raised in a Palestine solidarity demonstration in London (see image 8). Similar sentiments also feature in Israeli liberal-Zionist circles. In a conference in Paris on sexual diversity, Nitzan Horowitz, a former gay MK of Meretz, a liberal-Zionist party, called on the Palestinian authority ‘to stop persecuting homosexuals. This situation is intolerable’ (quoted in Meranda 2009).
Image 8
To conclude, it is important to recognise pinkwashing as more than a rebranding campaign that aims to distract from the Israeli occupation by exploiting PQueers. Maya Mikdashi is right to argue that it ‘is not primarily about gay rights or homosexuality at all’ (Mikdashi 2011). Heike Schotten and Haneen Maikey suggest a reading of pinkwashing as ‘part of the ongoing Nakba. Both Zionism and pinkwashing depend on a notion of the prior destruction and continued negation of Palestine and Palestinian belonging’ (Schotten and Maikey 2012). Similarly, Ghadir Shafie suggests an understanding of pinkwashing as a strategy that is ‘deeply rooted in the Israeli ideology of racism, hatred, and denial of Palestinian existence’ (Shafie 2015, 84).
If we are to take seriously the argument of homonationalism as a structure of modernity, then pinkwashing, I suggest, should be read as part of a larger project of entrenching Israeli sovereignty and legitimising Zionist claims over Palestine. The naturalisation of sovereignty through gay rights works to enshrine Israel’s international legitimacy ‘to define who matters and who does not, who is disposable and who is not’ (Mbembe 2003, 27) and to justify Israel’s right to dominate and kill Palestinians (Perugini and Gordon 2015).
3. Palestinian Queers in Liberal LGBT Politics: Conditionality and Erasure
Israel’s global investment in pinkwashing rests on the hypervisibility of PQueers as moribund figures and as victims of ‘honour killings’ perpetrated by their backward society. The Gay International has been complicit in perpetuating such images by circulating horror stories of Palestinian gays. Documentaries such as The Invisible Men, blogs, magazine articles and feature stories focus on the vulnerability of PQueers and the barbarity of Palestinian society. PQueers are flooded with requests for stories of victimisation. Khader Abu Seif, a Palestinian PQueer activist, tells of his experience:
About a year ago, I received a phone call from the BBC asking to interview me about the condition of Palestinian gays. I agreed in principle, and then the journalist asked me to share my difficult experience of coming out. I explained to him that in my specific case it was quite easy. So he asked me to tell him about the difficulties that Palestinian queers experience. I answered that I assume that some experience difficulties, while others less so. At this stage, he thanked me and asked me to connect him with someone who had been abused, kicked out of home, etc. (Quoted in Glazer 2014, my translation from Hebrew)
The view of PQueers as dying figures is joined with their representation as victims in need of rescue. As Jason Ritchie has shown, the encounter between PQueers and the Israeli LGBT community has been marked from its early days by a rescue mission (Ritchie 2010). The rescue project builds on the assumption that Palestinianness/Islam and queerness are irreconcilable. Israel’s LGBT National Association, Ha’Aguda, has recently launched a helpline for Palestinian gays (even though this service is offered by PQueer organisations). The ad for the helpline featured a mosque (a signifier of Palestinian backwardness) with the caption ‘“If the village will know [I am gay], I am screwed [read as dead].” We are here to listen to you’ (see image 9).
Image 9
As Puar suggests, ‘the LGBT rights project itself relies on the impossibility/absence/non-recognition of a proper Palestinian queer subject, except within the purview of the Israeli state itself’ (Puar 2013b, 34). The implication of this impossibility is that ‘queer identities and rights are possible only in the West’ (Rahman 2014, 120). Within this discourse, the only path to freedom is the rescue and removal of PQueers from their society. Ghadir Shafie, a queer activist and a member of Aswat: Palestinian Gay Women, shared her story of seeking support through an Israeli LGBT helpline: ‘When I called them, questioning
my sexual identity, the only advice they could offer me was to move to Tel-Aviv once I turn 18, because only there could I be free’ (Interview, Ghadir Shafie 2013).
The gesture of rescue is conditional. PQueers are expected to respond with gratitude, erasing their Palestinian identity and denouncing their society. The opportunity to live at the intersections of one’s own identity is a privilege exclusively reserved for Israeli gays. Forced to repress or even to hide their Arab and Palestinian identities, PQueers ‘found themselves “in the closet”, so to speak’ (Maikey in Hochberg et al 2010, 603). Ghadir Shafie talks of her experiences of erasure, after moving to Tel Aviv at the age of 18:
While living in Tel Aviv, I was told by my Jewish friends: ‘You do not look like an Arab and you do not have an accent in Hebrew like the rest of the Arabs. So why don’t you just change your name to a Hebrew name? You pass easily as a Jew.’ Although I was only 18, it became clear to me that I have been questioning my sexuality, while now they [the LGBT Israelis in Tel Aviv] are questioning my identity as Palestinian. So, I packed up my things and left Tel Aviv. Thinking back, it was the Israeli society – supposedly gay-friendly, enlightened and liberal – which put me back in the closet for 10 years, more than my Palestinian community ever did. (Interview, Ghadir Shafie 2013)
The insistence that PQueers renounce their Palestinianness takes an ambivalent form. Palestinianness is to be erased as a political antagonistic national identity, but it is also to be made visible as a culturalist identification that testifies to the barbarity and backwardness of Palestinian society and to the benevolence of Israeli liberals. Demands for erasure, however, should not to be confused with a desire to assimilate PQueers. Israeli gays, suggests Ritchie, constantly ‘remind queer Palestinians who they really are and where they do – and don’t – belong’ (Ritchie 2010, 565, emphasis in original). Put differently, the liberal promise of inclusion and the colonial practice of erasure work in tandem to regulate and govern PQueer presence in ways that do not threaten racial hierarchies and power relations.
Saving PQueers is premised on a reproduction of Israel as a legitimate sovereign nation-state. The rescue paradigm, I suggest, should be understood as a sexualised manifestation of settler indigenisation and native de-indigenisation processes. To illuminate this argument, I analyse a report – Nowhere to Run: Gay Palestinian Asylum-Seeking in Israel – published in 2008 by the Public Interest Law Programme at Tel Aviv University. This report draws on the involvement of the authors, Michael Kagan and Anat Ben-Dor, in
legal representation of Palestinian gays who have sought asylum or temporary residence in Israel. The report challenges Israel’s refusal to grant asylum to Palestinians gays.
It is first important to mention that, despite its propaganda that reiterates Israel as a safe refuge for PQueers, Israel has in fact been systematically refusing to grant asylum to Palestinian queers (Kagan and Ben-Dor 2008). Moreover, even though Israeli propaganda claims that PQueer are persecuted , an Israeli interoffice committee, which included members from the Justice, Foreign and Interior Ministries, as well as the Prime Minister’s Office, has determined that ‘there is no systematic persecution based on sexual orientation in the Palestinian Authority’ (quoted in Magnezi 2014).
In the report, Kagan and Ben-Dor argue for the de-politicisation of cases of PQueers seeking asylum in Israel. They call for evaluating the applicants not as Palestinians, but rather as queers. They also advocate for a consideration of these cases irrespective of the ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict’, because ‘gay Palestinians are caught in the middle of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’ (Kagan and Ben-Dor 2008, 5, emphasis added). Not least disturbingly, in the report the occupation is seen as a problem only insofar as it inhibits the ability of Palestinian gays to ask for asylum in Israel: ‘One of the tragedies confronting gay Palestinians today is that the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict distracts from their ability to find safe haven from dangers that stem from their sexual identity’ (Kagan and Ben-Dor 2008, 5). PQueers are thus subjected to a bifurcated regime of protection that frames their bodies as worthy of protection because of their queerness, but at the same time renders them vulnerable to violence as Palestinians. As Mikdashi pointedly argues:
Today, the promise of ‘gay rights’ for Palestinian goes something like this: The United States [or, in this case, liberal Zionist Israelis] will protect your right to not be detained because [you are] gay, but will not protect you from being detained because you are Palestinian. As a queer, you have the right to love and have sex with whomever you choose safely and without discrimination, but you do not have the right to be un-occupied, or to be free from oppression based on your political beliefs, actions, and affiliations. As long as it is Arabo-Islamic culture and its manifestation through (Palestinian) law that is oppressing you, we are here for you. If you are being oppressed by Israeli colonial policies, you’re on your own. (Mikdashi 2011)
The report further argues that Israel has an obligation to grant asylum-seeking status to PQueers under international refugee law. At the same time, the authors stress that:
This report does not in any way touch on the debate over the fate of the 1948 Palestinian refugees and their descendants, which is one of the more difficult topics in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. As a matter of law, the right to seek asylum abroad is entirely separate from the question of refugee return …
Not every Palestinian who applies would necessarily have a valid claim, and Israel is not obligated to provide sanctuary to individuals who are actually dangerous, Palestinian or otherwise. We believe that the best way to balance security against the need to protect people from persecution is simply to address each Palestinian case by the same standards applicable to everyone else. (Kagan and Ben-Dor 2008, 5–6)
Naturalising settler colonialism occurs, Morgensen suggests, ‘whenever conquest and the displacement of Native peoples are ignored or appear inevitable’ (Morgensen 2010, 121). PQueers are stripped of their history and their identity as indigenous to this land. They are constructed as asylum seekers in their own homeland, to be granted admission by an indulgence of the settler (now a sovereign native). By disconnecting PQueer claims for asylum in Israel from the larger Palestinian right of return, Israeli activism on behalf of PQueers safeguards Israel’s racialised national boundaries and naturalises its border regime as a legitimate expression of sovereignty.
This chapter has explored the racialised, gendered and sexualised dimensions of Israel’s settler colonial project, analysing it in relation to global homonationalism. It has demonstrated how the racialising gendered and sexualised logics of the settler state intersect with the politics of homonationalism at the global level. The next chapter elaborates how these racialising logics and the violence that underscores them have been important dynamics in shaping PQueer modalities of resistance. As will be shown, in their struggle, PQueers are required to navigate and challenge multiple structures of domination, as figured both locally and transnationally.
The consolidation of the queer question, as demonstrated in this chapter, has been deeply entangled with the violence of Islamophobia, especially post-9/11. Israel’s strategy of pinkwashing, it has been suggested, should be understood as a practice of racialising not only PQueers, but also Palestinian society as a whole. However, when compared with that of other Palestinians who are racialised as a backward and barbaric society, the
racialisation of PQueers has taken more ambivalent forms. PQueers are produced as subjects worthy of life by virtue of their sexual identity, while at the same time they are subjected to the colonial necropolitics that governs their lives and deaths as Palestinians.
This chapter has introduced the theoretical framework and concepts that will guide the discussion of PQueer resistance in the next chapter. As will be demonstrated, homonationalism, the homocolonial practice of pinkwashing, and the encounter with the Israeli LGBT community, the Gay international and Palestinian exclusionary nationalism have been important factors in shaping PQueer resistance.
Chapter 6
Refusal as Emancipation
This chapter explores PQueer modalities of resistance to settler colonialism and cultural imperialism. It argues that PQueer resistance has been shaped by the particular racialising gendered and sexualised logics of settler colonialism, and the ways in which these intersect with global homonational sexual politics. PQueer resistance, it is further argued, has developed to be informed by a Fanonian politics of rejection joined by a project of recovering the self.
The chapter comprises five sections. The first section provides an overview of the emergence of the PQueer movement, beginning with the founding of two organisations: AlQaws for Sexual and Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society in 2001, and Aswat: Palestinian Gay Women in 2002. The establishment of these two groups, it is suggested, should be understood in light of the rise of the LGBT movement in the West and in Israel, the mushrooming of PNGOs during the 1990s and 2000s, and the oppressive encounter between PQueers and the Israeli LGBT community – each of which has played a role in shaping the trajectory of the movement and its agendas.
The second section explores how the Western epistemology of sexual identities and Western scripts of sexual liberation have been experienced by PQueers. In this section, I argue that emancipatory models based on sexual visibility and coming out have had an oppressive rather than empowering effect. These models have subjected PQueers to structures of expectation that govern their identities and to inspection regimes against which they are measured and evaluated. This onerous experience has informed the movement’s anti-imperial politics, leading to the rejection of the universalising doctrine of gay liberation propounded by the West. Instead, PQueers have engaged in an experimental journey of rearticulating PQueer subjectivities that are grounded in local experiences and culture.
The third section focuses on how PQueers have mobilised their intersecting identities in order to challenge the discourses that produce Palestinianness and queerness as irreconcilable identities. The insistence on the compatibility of these identities, I suggest, has also disrupted the homogenous category of the universal queer, refusing single-axis identitarian politics based on sexual identities, and carving out a space of legitimacy for non-Western articulations of sexual identities.
The fourth section analyses the development of the PQueer movement against Israeli occupation and settler colonialism. I argue that the practice of pinkwashing has provided an opportunity for PQueers to subvert homonationalism in order to (re)claim their voice, their agency and their visibility. Aligning the PQueer agenda with the global Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement has empowered the development of the queer movement as an antagonistic political force that refuses both queer and national accommodative liberal politics. Not least importantly, articulating a PQueer vision for BDS has been important in claiming legitimacy in Palestinian society itself – especially against imperial discourses that produce homosexuality as a signifier of Western modernity and exceptionalism, and against a history in Israel that has rendered homosexuality equivalent to colonial collaboration.
In the fifth and final section of this chapter, I argue that the success of PQueers in reclaiming their agency has evoked the dangers of reorienting queers through the fetishisation and exoticisation of their agency as exceptional. The section concludes by examining the ways in which PQueers have negotiated, resisted and refused the reorienting of PQueers and their tokenisation by supporters.
1. The Emergence of the Palestinian Queer Movement
The onset of the 21st century was an important moment in the history of PQueer organising. It saw the founding of two PQueer groups – AlQaws for Sexual and Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society in 2001, and Aswat: Palestinian Gay Women in 2002. Since the establishment of these groups, PQueer organising has been remarkably
successful in developing a vibrant PQueer community and creating a self-organised, self-represented and self-sustained movement marked by collective agency.
Before Aswat (‘voices’) and AlQaws (‘rainbow’) were formed, PQueers lived in isolation. There was neither an organised PQueer community nor a forum in which they could meet, socialise and seek support. The absence of a space of their own impelled many PQueers to turn to the Israeli LGBT community. This experience often engendered a sense of alienation. Lesbian activist Samira Saraya, a cofounder and former director of Aswat, shares her experience:
Every time a friend of mine wanted to introduce me to an Arab lesbian whom one of his friends knew, it would turn out to be me. I cannot even recall the number of times that I was matched to myself. But seriously, I did not know of other Arab lesbians. And that came with a price. I had a Jewish girlfriend for two years. After we broke up, I was sitting with an Arab friend. We were drinking and listening to Oum Kalthoum. Then it suddenly hit me: this is what I was missing for the past two years. For two years, I had hardly spoken Arabic or listened to Arabic music. (Interview, Samira Saraya 2012)
Naya, a co-founder of Aswat, adds:
When I moved to Jerusalem, I went a few times to the Israeli women’s group at the Open House [LGBT community centre], but I just could not find myself there. I did not feel I belonged. It simply did not feel right. (Interview, Naya 2013)
Aswat began its journey as an online forum for Palestinian lesbians. It was only after months of trust-building that members of the group finally met in person. A sense of euphoria accompanied these meetings, which provided the first opportunity for Palestinian lesbians to meet. As Samira Saraya recalls:
It was amazing. We talked about sexuality in Arabic. We went together to demonstrations. We were finally able to be lesbians and Palestinians at the same time. (Interview, Samira Saraya 2012)
The meetings highlighted the need to form a space that was independent from that of the Israel LGBT community and could accommodate their particular needs and their intersecting identities as Palestinians, women and lesbians. As Naya explains:
We decided that we wanted to form a Palestinian women-only organisation. We felt that as women and as lesbians, we have different experiences from Arab gay men. We don’t have the same protection, freedoms and mobility as they have. (Interview, Naya 2013)
Aswat was formally established in 2002 as part of Kayan, a Palestinian feminist organisation. For Aswat, the decision to organise as part of the Palestinian feminist movement was ideological. Gender, sexual and national identities have been perceived as mutually constitutive to the experiences of Palestinian gay women. Rauda Morcos, a cofounder of Aswat and also its first director, explains:
We wanted to form from the core of Palestinian society and Kayan was the most suitable place to start from. Working on forming Aswat, I started realising that your sexual identity becomes a political identity, while in the village [Rauda was living in a Palestinian village at the same time] your sexual identity is only about the fact that you have sex with women. This gap was suffocating. I wanted the two spaces to meet. (Interview, Rauda Morcos 2012)
The insistence on being part of the Palestinian feminist movement was not free of difficulties. Some feminist groups and activists were reluctant to cooperate, partner or be associated with Aswat, seeing such an alliance as a burden and an obstacle in their work on gender-related issues. Some groups, for example, objected to the inclusion of Aswat’s name in petitions, or insisted on using only ‘Aswat’ and not the full title ‘Aswat: Palestinian Gay Women’ (Interviews with Rauda Morcos 2012; Ghadir Shafie 2013). Aswat was also excluded from a consortium of Palestinian feminist organisations convened to write the first shadow report on the status of women in Israel for the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Interview, Rauda Morcos 2012). Divergences in the agendas of the feminist and queer movements are not unique to the Palestinian case; they are embedded in the trajectories of the women and queer questions (Rao 2014).
The need to respond to these exclusions impacted Aswat’s ability to formulate its own feminist and queer agenda. As Rauda Morcos states: ‘Who said we wanted to be part of this liberal agenda of the UN? But then we were excluded, and this posed a different kind of challenge’ (Interview, Rauda Morcos 2012). Nonetheless, the strategic investment in strengthening relationships with Palestinian feminist groups has led to growing cooperation between feminist and queer groups. Today, Aswat and AlQaws run joint projects in order to advance perceptions of gender and sexuality in Palestinian society (Interviews, Rauda Morcos 2012; Ghadir Shafie 2013; Roza 2012).
The genesis of AlQaws was quite different. The organisation began its journey in 2001 as the ‘Arab project’ of the Jerusalem Open House (JOH), an Israeli LGBT organisation. The JOH decided to develop the Arab project in response to a significant decline in the numbers of Palestinian gays who visited the centre (most of whom were from East Jerusalem and the West Bank). The initiative was an effort to encourage Palestinian gays to return. Driven by a liberal and apolitical LGBT rights agenda, the JOH failed to recognise that the reduction in numbers was a result of the second intifada and the apartheid separation wall. As Haneen Maikey, co-founder and director of AlQaws, recalls:
They wondered why Palestinians stopped coming, and the answer they gave themselves was that there is no Arab member of staff. Even their answer was out of political context. This is how AlQaws started. They wanted someone Arab, who was me, who speaks Arabic. They even intended to name the position with the insulting title of ‘Arab Language Coordinator’. My only condition was to change the title of the position. (Interview, Haneen Maikey 2012)
The JOH is guided by an agenda that excludes LGBT issues from ‘politics’. It considers itself to be inclusionary and open to all strands of Israeli society, including secular and Orthodox Jews, West Bank settlers and Arabs. The project of AlQaws was part of the formulation of the JOH as a liberal-multicultural space. AlQaws was expected to adhere to the separation of sexuality from politics. As Maikey argues, it ‘can be seen, in retrospect, as an attempt to depoliticise the PQueer struggle, bringing it in line with an Israeli LGBT struggle that has been and continues to be largely apolitical’ (Maikey 2012, 124). Palestinian gay organising was welcomed – as long as it maintained itself as an Arab, as opposed to Palestinian, gay organisation and as long as it mimicked the model of Israeli gay organising.
The year 2006 was an important juncture in the development of AlQaws as a political agent. The decision of the JOH to pursue hosting World Pride in Jerusalem and the outbreak of the month-long Lebanon War during the summer intensified the alienation felt by PQueers in the Open House. This decision raised difficult questions regarding the possibility of PQueer organising within a framework of Israeli LGBT organising. How could PQueers support World Pride in the occupied Palestinian city of Jerusalem? How
could they be silent while Lebanese and Palestinian people were being subjected to violence and bombardment?79
In 2007, AlQaws officially separated from the JOH and became an independent NGO. Based in Jerusalem, the experience of AlQaws was different from that of the Haifa-based Aswat, which emerged mainly as a space for ’48 Palestinian lesbians. The location of AlQaws between East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Israel’s normalised sovereignty in the ’48 territories informed the emergence of the organisation as a space for PQueers from both sides of the Separation Wall. In fact, AlQaws is the only organisation that represents Palestinians from both sides of the wall. The trajectory of AlQaws would inform its development as a PQueer radical emancipatory project that transcends colonial borders and the fragmentation of the Palestinian people. However, this endeavour is not without difficulties. AlQaws faces the challenge of building a Palestinian movement in a reality in which Israel enacts multiple colonial regimes of sovereignty in the territories under its control.
Despite the differences between Aswat and AlQaws, both share a commitment to transforming the attitudes of Palestinian society to sexual and gender diversity. Both groups run support groups and operate helplines for Palestinian gays. These services are tailored to the multiple experiences of PQueers as shaped through the intersections of their national, gender and sexual identities (Interviews, Adnan 2012; Roza 2012). Aswat and AlQaws also invest significant efforts in the production of PQueer content that can capture the unique identities and experiences of PQueers. In addition, both organisations share a commitment to social transformation and to working with – and within – the Palestinian community. This commitment is articulated in collaborative projects with Palestinian feminist groups, including work with schools, social workers, counsellors and educational personnel.
2. Western Sexual Epistemology and Its Discontents
79 Aswat’s international call to boycott World Pride in Jerusalem was met with rage by Israeli LGBT groups, who saw it as a betrayal of a purportedly universal LGBT alliance (Interview, Rauda Morcos 2012).
In her book Do Muslim Women Need Saving?, Lila Abu-Lughod reminds us: ‘When you save someone, you imply that you are saving her from something. You are also saving her to something’ (Abu-Lughod 2013, 46–7, emphasis in original). As has been discussed in Chapter 5, the Gay International (including Israeli liberals) is driven by a mission to save PQueers from their society (see also Ritchie 2010). But PQueers are also saved to something. As Joseph Massad’s important intervention reveals, this ‘something’ is articulated in the universalisation of Western epistemological and ontological conceptions of sexual identities (Massad 2002). He argues that this universalisation has entailed the transformation of ‘practitioners of same-sex contact into subjects who identify as homosexual and gay’ (Massad 2002, 362–3). The Gay International, Massad further argues, ‘produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist, and represses same-sex desires and practices that refuse to be assimilated into its sexual epistemology’ (Massad 2002, 362–3).80
As scholars have shown, the universalisation of Western sexual modernity also extends to settler colonial contexts. Imperial and colonial intervention has erased native structures and orders of gender and sexuality (Morgensen 2010). The modern-white-national heteronormative sexuality in the United States, Scott Morgensen argues, was produced ‘by regulating Native sexuality and gender, while appearing to supplant them with the sexual modernity of settlers’ (Morgensen 2011, 31). Similar to Massad’s argument that imperial intervention has imposed a binary of straight versus gay, Andrea Smith argues that the Western binary conception of gender has been imposed on native peoples. This binary, she argues, has also shaped vulnerabilities of natives to the violence of settler colonialism. Writing on settler colonialism in the United States, Smith notes that ‘the first peoples targeted for destruction in Native communities were those who did not neatly fit into western gender categories’ (Smith 2005, 178).
In his work, Massad goes so far as to argue that Arab queer organising is complicit with the imperial epistemic reproduction of sexual identities and the hetero–homo binary. He argues that:
80 Massad has been critiqued for homogenising Western gay groups and the politics and agendas that underpin their work (see Rahman 2014; Rao 2010). However, despite differences, he is correct to argue that ‘a certain ontology and epistemology are taken as axiomatic by all of them’ (Massad 2002, 365).
… the production of the gay (and her/his correlate, the straight) Arab is predicated on the invisibilization of the majority of Arabs whose ontology is not dependent on this Euro-American formation nor on its imperial missions and who do not live under a Western regime of sexuality. (Massad in Éwanjé-Épée and Magliani-Belkacem 2013)
Massad labels those Arabs who identify as gay as native informants, a highly charged term in the Arab World. Similarly, Aswat and AlQaws have been dismissed and discredited by Massad as organisations based ‘in Israel that are staffed by Palestinian citizens of Israel’ (Massad in Éwanjé-Épée and Magliani-Belkacem 2013). Nonetheless, Massad’s work is not rejected by PQueers, who have responded to it with mixed feelings. As Rauda Morcos explains:
When his article was published in 2002, it was just when we started forming Aswat. Massad’s work hit us in a really sensitive place. We needed his work. It captured the imperial sentiments of Israeli and Western gay groups that we have been experiencing in our encounter with them. But he also did not leave a room for us to be gays. For him we are nothing less than collaborates. (Interview, Rauda Morcos 2012)
Massad’s work leaves Arab queers with two options. You can either be an Arab gay who is a native informant, or an authentic Arab who engages in same-sex relations (Shalakany 2007). Massad homogenises both the Gay International (Rahman 2014; Rao 2010) and Arab queers. Commenting on the latter, Frances Hasso argues that his work ‘does not acknowledge the possibility of plural sexual subjectivities that may or may not rely on bounded sexual object choice and that may or may not include visibility and identity’ (Hasso 2011, 653). Massad’s view leaves little room for exploring Arab queer activism as a complex, dynamic and diverse phenomenon, which also includes activism that rejects the Gay International imperialist interventionist agendas.81 Nonetheless, his work
81 Massad’s work has been controversial also for its arguments that resisting homosexuality is a sign not of homophobia, but rather of resistance to Western imperialism. Using the Queen Boat as the main example, Massad argues that ‘it is not same-sex sexual practices that are being repressed by the Egyptian police but rather the socio-political identification of these practices with the Western identity of gayness and publicness that these gay-identified men seek’ (Massad 2002, 382). In other words, homophobia cannot exist where homosexuality (as sexual identity) does not exist. The interference of the Gay International and its complicit native informants, he argues, has resulted in a backlash in the form of escalating state violence against same-sex practitioners, who are usually from the underprivileged class. Massad’s analysis, argues Rahman, reproduces the view of homosexuality as a form of Western exceptionalism and reduces sexuality to Western modernisation (Rahman 2014, 89). Consequently, homophobia is seen to be the result of imperialist interventions, ‘ignoring the oppressiveness of communitarian homophobia’ (Rao 2010, 176). Massad fails to consider that both nationalism and imperialism are heavily invested in reproducing homophobia. Anti-imperialism becomes a trope used by repressive and authoritarian regimes that mobilise
remains vital to our understanding of the ways in which the universalisation of a Western sexual epistemology has been constitutive to the subjectivity and resistance of PQueers.
2.1 Refusal and the Project of Restructuring a Palestinian Queer Self
For PQueers, the problem of history and memory is at the heart of queer organising. Unlike the Bedouin struggle, where remembrance is a central site of resistance and sumud, the queer case is marked by the absence of a collective memory. As Sami, a leading queer activist at AlQaws, points out:
We don’t know much about our history. We don’t always know what was there before imperialism/colonialism. This is not unique to queer activism. We experienced a brutal act of erasure and replacement with something new. (Interview, Sami 2013)
This erasure complicates the task of carving out a space for a PQueer subjectivity to emerge. Haneen Maikey discusses this erasure:
Speaking of memory, part of the Zionist project is to erase history. I was in LA for a big anti-normalisation BDS meeting. This really amazing man comes to me and introduces himself as someone from Jerusalem who was displaced in 1967. He was actually involved in queer organising in Palestine in the early 1960s. He was working with more than a hundred gay men in Palestine. I knew that we are not the first ones to do that. It was so powerful. (Maikey in AlQaws 2014b)
Rauda Morcos also shares her experience:
A while after I was outed [Rauda was outed against her will in one of Israel’s major newspapers], I went to visit my grandma who was very old. I was dreading seeing her because of all the gossip that my outing spurred in the village. We talked and then she suddenly asked me, ‘What is all this gossip in the village that you are – what is that word? – les-something?’ I was going, ‘Oh my god, how will I explain this to my grandmother?’ I simply explained that I am a woman who is attracted to other women. She said, ‘That’s all?’ Then she said, ‘I don’t understand what all the fuss is all about. Back in the days there were two women X and Y, who were living together in the village. Everyone knew about them. You are not the first. As long as you are happy.’ And, I had no idea about them! And then she started telling me about her life with my grandfather, opening up a whole new world to me about her life. (Interview, Rauda Morcos 2012)
homosexuality (and homophobic sentiments) to define and mark the boundaries of the nation and position themselves as guardians and protectors of national sovereignty (Pratt 2007). The discourse of homosexuality as a Western conspiracy is further invoked in order to distract the population from everyday repression, state-sanctioned violence, economic recession and a lack of political rights and freedoms (Bahgat 2001). While the origins of homophobia in the Arab-Muslim world can be traced to imperialism, nationalism and the postcolonial state have been major forces in institutionalising and sustaining it.
This erasure partially helps to explain the reliance on the Western gay agenda and discourses when Aswat and AlQaws were each beginning to organise. During these periods, both organisations experimented in translating Western materials into Arabic and adapting them to the local context. As PQueers met, shared their experiences, and discussed sexuality in Arabic, it became clear that mimicking a liberal gay agenda and scripts of sexual liberation limited the development of local understandings of sexuality and sexual identities. This realisation led PQueers to question the relevance of Western frameworks and to seek local alternatives. In the words of Haneen Maikey:
We realised that Western agendas of coming out, gay visibility, pride and fighting homophobia are simply not suitable for our own experiences as Palestinian queers. We started asking: How can we discuss homosexuality in a society that does not discuss sexuality? How do we discuss homophobia in a society that does not discuss sexuality? And, is homophobia a relevant concept to our society? We realised that the focus of our work should be opening the conversation about sexuality. (Interview, Haneen Maikey 2012)
Western scripts of sexual emancipation centre visibility and coming out as inherent to the journey of sexual emancipation. Queer visibility, Jason Ritchie argues, ‘is both a tactic and a goal, the means and the end of gay activism’ (Ritchie 2010, 533). In the West, coming out, Darnell Moore suggests, ‘is often considered the only means of survival for queer people’ (Moore 2012). The obsession of Western feminism and LGBT rights with sexual visibility is based on the ‘precept that women [and gays] are not free until and unless they are sexually free’ (Zakaria 2015).
Like colonial feminism, the Gay International has failed to consider whether these models are relevant to the experiences and agendas of non-white queer groups both in and outside of the West. Interviews with PQueers reveal that the trope of sexual visibility and the discourse of coming out have proven to be repressive rather than emancipating, creating another burden for PQueers. Tamer, a gay activist, shares his experience:
My friends, siblings, parents and some of my extended family know I am gay, but my co-workers, for example, do not. So, am I in or out of the closet? I do not find this framework to be useful or helpful. It mainly seems to be out of context. (Interview, Tamer 2012)
The trope of the closet and the equation of sexual liberation with sexual visibility form a powerful discursive framework and inspection regime against which PQueers are measured. Liberation is constantly gauged by the ability of PQueers to hold hands, hug and kiss each other, and dress freely in public. Inability to perform according to these norms renders PQueers as insufficiently free. The liberation of PQueers (and of Palestinian society) is further assessed by the freedom to hold pride parades in Ramallah or other Palestinian cities, regardless of whether sexual visibility is a relevant pretext for PQueers and their society. Israeli and Western gays, and non-gays, have assumed the role of the gatekeepers who determine who is a proper liberated gay subject, and who is not. As Tamer explains:
Israeli Jews often ask me, ‘Are you in or out of the closet?’ Why is this question relevant? What does it indicate about me? That I am courageous enough? And what constitutes in and out of the closet? (Interview, Tamer 2012)
The closet, I suggest, has come to serve a civilisational mission function that is similar to the colonial quest to unveil Muslim women. Just as Muslim women are to be liberated through their unveiling, Arab/Muslim/Palestinian queers are to be liberated by being helped out of the closet. Though the veil has cultural and religious significance not shared by the trope of the closet, both impulses speak to similar liberal-oriental sensibilities. They are signifiers of the repression of women and gays and of the backwardness of Arab and Muslim societies.
The imposition of the precept of sexual visibility as sexual liberation on Palestinians also extends to Israeli radical anti-occupation (and even anti-Zionist) queer activism. In her work on Black Laundry (Kvisa Shchora in Hebrew), a group of Israeli queer anti-occupation activists, Amalia Ziv describes the following incident as a testament to the group’s uncompromising radical politics:
Black Laundry … linked the marginal sexual and gender identity of its members to the group’s solidarity with the oppression of Palestinians and insisted on rendering that sexual and gender identity visible when participating in Left demonstrations. This insistence became particularly salient in the face of pressures toward closeting, as happened, for instance, in 2002 when Black Laundry, together with other Jewish peace groups, participated in the Arab Land Day procession. Muslim organizations that took part in the organizing objected to the group marching with signs proclaiming its members’ sexuality. Eventually, a compromise was reached according to which none of the Jewish groups carried signs, but the Black Laundry contingent showed up with T-shirts that stated the members’ identity. (Ziv 2010, 541)
This story exemplifies that a radical anti-occupation stance does not absolve Israeli queers of complicity with cultural imperialism. The refusal of Palestinian society to submit to enforced sexual visibility is characterised as ‘pressures towards closeting’ (Ziv 2010, 541). Palestinian society is once again measured according to its tolerance of sexual visibility. Even in the radical circle of Israeli queer organising, support of Palestinians is conditioned (even if implicitly) upon civilising Palestinians into a Western/settler sexual modernity.
These experiences have led the PQueer movement to adopt an antagonistic and rejectionist stance vis-à-vis the Western liberal gay agenda. This has been joined by the movement’s engagement in articulating – and disarticulating – what it means to be a ‘queer in Palestine and a Palestinian queer’ (Maikey in AlQaws 2014a). The very act of rejection has been constitutive to the decolonisation of PQueer politics and the queer self. As Tamer says:
We had to go through the stage of expressive refusal and rejection, which was powerful and full of anger, in order to move to the next stage of articulating what it means to be a Palestinian queer. (Interview, Tamer 2012)
Rejection, however, is more than a strategy, a tactic or a means to an end; it is also a political imperative of the PQueer struggle. This refusal to mimic the Western gay agenda is complemented by a positive project of restructuring a PQueer subjectivity that is grounded in local experiences, culture, history and politics. To engage in this positive project of recovery of the self, both Aswat and AlQaws invest in developing spaces for local queer political and cultural content to emerge.82
82 Committed to working with and expanding the conversation on sexuality within Palestinian society and civil society, AlQaws has partnered with progressive Palestinian platforms in order to produce queer content and integrate it into the flourishing scene of Palestinian cultural production. It has worked to intervene in and transform the larger discourse on gender and sexuality in Palestinian society. Such outreach projects include Queeriat as part of Qadita, a radical Palestinian online platform that focuses on culture, society and politics; Hawamesh (‘margins’), a monthly discussion forum that brings ‘sexual and gender diversity discourse more directly to the public’; running an ‘academic school’ for Palestinian activists and academics to discuss sexual and gender diversity, which resulted in the publication of a special issue of Jadal, a journal by Mada Al-Carmel, a Palestinian research centre; and, finally, the Ghanni A’an Ta’arif/Singing Sexuality project, which brought together Palestinian artists to produce an album that uses music to bring gender and sexual content to the wider Palestinian public.
PQueer resistance can be conceptualised as an experimental journey of disarticulating and rearticulating PQueer subjectivity. It is, using the words of Partha Chatterjee, a project of rejecting the modernities established by others (as discussed in Chapter 1). Such a journey, Chatterjee suggests, requires courage (Chatterjee 1997). This courage is articulated in confronting and challenging powerful forces and discourses, as well as imagining alternative ways of being a PQueer. But this journey is also an experimental project, which demands the courage to make mistakes and to engage in constant self-reflection and reformulation of strategies. This endeavour is not free of contradictions and ambivalence. It is marked simultaneously by the pursuit and denouncement of authenticity, and by the rejection and inescapability of Western sexual modernity. Nonetheless, the very advancement of such a project is courageously confrontational and subversively radical.
3. Intersectionality as Disruptive
As discussed in Chapter 1, colonial domination includes the production of binary representations of self and otherness (Fanon 1963; Said 1978a) and their inherent ambivalence (Bhabha [1991] 1994). As demonstrated above, PQueers occupy an ambivalent place in the liberal imaginary. In Bhabian terms, they are not quite gay and not quite Palestinian. Their folding into modernity is never complete; they continue to be racialised as Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims.
The colonial discourse renders queerness and Palestinianness/Islam as incompatible. The two are viewed as ‘the product of mutually exclusive “cultures”’ (Rahman 2010, 948). In his work on queer Muslims, Momin Rahman argues that ‘the “impossibility” of gay Muslims is exactly their power in resistance’ (Rahman 2010, 952). This is also the case for PQueers. The insistence of PQueers on intersectional articulation of their identities is a powerful form of resistance to the violence of homonationalism and homocolonialism, and the racialisation of Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims.
I suggest that just as we can speak of intersectional subordination – that is, marginalisation that is shaped by the intersections of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, age and ability – we can we also speak about intersectional subaltern resistance.
From its origins dating back to Sojourner Truth’s renowned speech ‘Ain’t I a Woman?’ in 1851, to the introduction of intersectionality as a term in Kimberle Crenshaw’s famous article in 1989 (Crenshaw 1989), intersectionality has been mainstreamed into feminist studies as a prominent theoretical framework for theorising difference and social stratification (Yuval-Davis 2006). Intersectionality has been problematised for its treatment of identities (race, gender, class and sexuality) as separate categories that meet at a single point of crossing (Puar 2011b). My use of intersectionality builds upon approaches that accommodate an understanding of intersectionality as a lived structure, not an event, perceiving race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality and class as being interwoven, interconnected and mutually constitutive (see Brah and Phoenix 2004; Puar 2011b).
Articulating Palestinian and queer identities as mutually constitutive, I argue, is a particularly powerful and subversive act that allows PQueers to challenge the homonational and homocolonial discourses that produce sexual identities as signifiers of Western exceptionality and modernity. Similar to the Naqab Bedouin, who articulate hybrid Bedouin traditional/modern identities in order to challenge their view as premodern subjects, PQueers mobilise intersectionality to reclaim the possibility of Palestinian queerness.
Intersectionality as resistance further allows PQueers to disrupt the universalisation of a homogenous category of universal queer and to challenge the liberal gay agenda that is based on a single-axis identity politics. Such politics assumes sexuality as the paramount factor that shapes subjugation and experiences of violence. As Maya Mikdashi rightly points out, ‘homophobia could be a less defining experience than say, the racism experienced by an African American queer or a Syrian queer protesting against authoritarianism and neoliberal market restructuring’ (Mikdashi 2011). This could be the case for PQueers whose lives are shaped through the experience of occupation, dispossession, displacement and racial discrimination. As pointedly articulated by Sami, ‘there is no pink door leading to a secret pathway through the Wall for me’ (Sami in Schulman 2012, 154).
As has been elaborated in Chapter 5 and earlier in this chapter, the polarising discourse on PQueers is premised on their disaggregation from their society (Jamal 2015). Articulating Palestinianness as constitutive to queerness plays an important role in refusing the logics that position PQueers and their society in antagonistic terms. By mobilising intersectionality, PQueers reject their conceptualisation as subjects in need of rescue by insisting that Palestinian society is not something from which they need to be saved. Instead, the PQueer agenda is based on reinforcing the relationships between PQueers and their societies. As Rauda states, Aswat is about ‘finding what connects you to your society, and investing in these connections’ (Interview, Rauda Morcos 2012). Similarly, AlQaws sees its role as creating a conversation about sexuality in Palestinian society (Interview, Haneen Maikey 2012).
As the next section shows, the political mobilisation of intersectionality as disruption, and intersectionality as rejection, plays an important role in the development of a PQueer activism that is grounded in a radical anticolonial and anti-imperial agenda.
4. Centring the Question of Palestine in Palestinian Queer Organising
The project of articulating PQueer subjectivity that transcends the Western sexual modernity as its guiding script has been coupled with efforts to create a space where PQueers can engage – from within their own intersecting identities – with the Palestinian struggle for liberation. PQueers have tapped into this homonationality moment and subverted Israel’s growing investment in pinkwashing to instigate a PQueer political voice.
Early expressions of the PQueer political voice can be traced to 2006, when Aswat issued a statement and engaged in an international campaign against the decision to hold World Pride 2006 in Jerusalem. The statement read as follows:
In a time where the world will be celebrating their pride in being Lesbians, Gays, Bi-sexual, Trans, Queer and Intersexual in the heart of Jerusalem, the Palestinian people will be paying the price. ‘Love Without Borders’ in a country that believes in sep[a]rating two people by checkpoints, walls, closures, curfews, confiscation of lands, demolishing houses, arresting and killing. (Aswat, 2006)
However, PQueer activism against pinkwashing emerged as a ‘publicly and strategically organised’ (Schulman 2012, 157) movement only in 2010, amid a growing investment by Israel in pinkwashing rebranding efforts. In her book Israel/Palestine and the Queer International, Sarah Schulman, an American writer and a lesbian activist, shares her (contested) narrative of the development of the PQueer movement for BDS.
In 2010, Schulman came to Palestine on a solidarity/study visit after rejecting an invitation to give a keynote address at Tel Aviv University. During her visit, she travelled across historic Palestine and met with PQueer activists and BDS leaders (as well as Israeli anti-occupation queer activists). She explored the possibility of bringing a queer voice into the Palestinian-led BDS movement, and sought to recruit the support of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) for her idea of enlisting PQueers who ‘could tour the United States to talk about boycott’ (Schulman 2012, 91). PACBI’s response was dismissive, arguing that there were no PQueers who would be willing to participate. To that, PQueer responded: ‘We don’t need them [PACBI] to speak to the U.S. queer community … We just do it directly’ (Maikey in Schulman 2012, 92). And, indeed, the tour took place without the endorsement of PACBI.
The position of PACBI is not exceptional in the history of anticolonial struggles. It is yet another example of the rift that has long existed between nationalism as a hegemonic masculine exclusionary project and its ethnic/racial/religious/gendered others (in the context of India, see Chatterjee 1989; on Palestinian nationalism, see Massad 1995; in the context of South Africa, see McClintock 1991; on the gendering of nationalism, see Yuval-Davis and Anthias 1989). However, Maikey’s statement reflects a defiance of national authority. This defiance asserts the autonomous standing of PQueer agency and claims a PQueer role in the struggle against settler colonialism. Since then, the BDS movement has endorsed Palestinian Queers for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (PQBDS) and the PQueer movement has come to occupy an internal/exterior positionality. This ambivalent positionality carves out a space for PQueers to articulate a radical alternative politics to that of liberal and neoliberal nationalism.
PQBDS was established in 2010 as ‘a group of Palestinian queer activists who live in the Palestinian Occupied Territory and inside Israel, who came together to promote and stand for the Palestinian civil society call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel’ (PQBDS website).83 That same year, Pinkwatching Israel, a transnational network of activists, was formed with a mission to create ‘a global movement to promote queer-powered calls against pinkwashing and pushing the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment Campaign against Israel to the forefront of the global queer movement’. The network ‘brings together vibrant queer and BDS activists from around the world to imagine, visualize, and campaign for BDS and expose pinkwashing’ (Pinkwatching Israel website).84
The anti-pinkwashing movement has grown rapidly, gaining momentum and becoming an important voice in global LGBT politics and in the global Palestinian solidarity movement. It has raised awareness of pinkwashing and Israeli occupation in the West and has urged Western audiences to support BDS. The movement mobilises supporters to monitor and protest Israeli funding and sponsorship of queer conferences, gay film festivals and gay pride parades. It also campaigns against gay tourism in Israel and lobbies LGBT groups to withdraw from holding or participating in events in Israel (for a detailed chronicle of anti-pinkwashing activism, see Schulman 2012).
With time, the political agenda of PQueer organising has developed beyond anti-pinkwashing activism that monitors, reveals, reacts to and contests pinkwashing. It has transformed from a reactive form of activism into a movement that is grounded in a ‘vision of decolonization and liberation’ (Darwich and Maikey 2014, 283). The PQueer agenda has expanded to explore broader questions concerning the intersection between sexual politics, imperialism and settler colonialism, reflecting a ‘commitment to work on theoretical and practical terrains that is broad and expansive’ (Davis in AlQaws 2012).
PQueer politics and analysis have been innovative. As opposed to the Palestinian liberal national movement, which sought to reveal Israel’s violence as contradictory to Western
83 See the PQBDS website at https://pqbds.wordpress.com/about/, accessed 3 February 2016.
84 See the Pinkwatching Israel website at http://www.pinkwatchingisrael.com/about-us/, accessed 3 February 2016.
liberalism, PQueer refuses the idealisation of Western liberalism and recognises liberalism and colonial violence as constitutive to one another. It contextualises liberal sexual politics within the broader politics of Islamophobia, xenophobia and racism. This political agenda simultaneously works to politicise Palestinian (and global) queer organising and to integrate a queer viewpoint into the question of Palestine by developing an analysis that illuminates ‘the connection between sexual repression and political oppression’ (Hayes 2000, 19, emphasis in original).
4.1 The Dynamics of Anticoloniality and Legitimacy
In the discourse of the Gay International, Amal Amireh pointedly argues that ‘Palestinian queers occupy two extreme locations: either they are hypervisible or they are invisible. In both cases, it is their Palestinianness, not their queerness, that determines if and how they are seen’ (Amireh 2010, 636). Anti-pinkwashing mobilisation has had two central aims: the first aim was to visibilise PQueers as political agents and to challenge their appropriation as victims in need of saving; the second was to visibilise the question of Palestine and to challenge Israel’s legitimacy globally by centring Israel’s settler colonial violence. As Sami reflects:
Pinkwashing took our voice, made us visible as victims and Israel as benevolent saviours. PQBDS was us reclaiming our voice. Israel claimed that to support Palestinian queers is to support Israel. Our message was that if you want to support us, support the BDS. The BDS as a campaign that relies on Palestinian civil society’s call for BDS was a good fit in challenging pinkwashing. It just required us to add the nuances and specificities of pinkwashing and how it works and to tie it with BDS. (Interview, Sami 2013)
The decision to endorse BDS was a significant step in making the PQueer movement integral to the Palestinian struggle for liberation. Articulating a queer BDS facilitated the development of the movement as an antagonistic political force that can speak both to the larger Palestinian solidarity movement and to queer audiences (though they are not its main target audience). As Angela Davis has observed, ‘queer BDS is helping radical forces around the world to develop new ways of engaging in ideological struggle. What might appear to be small and marginal is in fact vast and central’ (Davis in AlQaws 2012).
A vision of queer BDS assisted the movement in questioning the relevance of the liberal grammar of LGBT rights. PQueer questioned the relevance of LGBT demands for
recognition, inclusion and sexual citizenship in the context of a settler state that has political, social, economic, cultural and legal structures aimed at advancing Jewish racial supremacy. Instead, the PQueer movement pursued an articulation of resistance that is not complicit with the normalisation of settler/sexual citizenship, authority and sovereignty.
Articulating resistance as antagonistic is also reflected in PQueer rejection of the ‘common sense’ that frames the anticolonial Palestinian struggle as a joined struggle that is built on a politics of alliance. It allows PQueer to continue to reject cooperation with the Israeli LGBT community and Israeli queer anticolonial groups as partners (Interview, Haneen Maikey 2012). Cooperation with the Israeli LGBT movement is conceived by PQueers as an attempt to appropriate them as part of the Israeli anti-occupation movement. The politics of alliance is viewed as a perpetuation of the fragmentation of Palestinian political subjectivity. Furthermore, the power relations in the encounter between natives and settlers, it is believed, invite a containment of the PQueer struggle, risk undermining PQueer autonomy and agency, and subject PQueers to demands to negotiate their identities and their struggle. Furthermore, partnership with Israelis is viewed as a divestment of attention and resources from the PQueer struggle for liberation. As Audre Lorde pointedly states:
… this is an old and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with the master’s concerns [in this case, the master’s fantasies] … This is a diversion of energies and a tragic repetition of racist patriarchal thought. (Lorde 1984, 113)
PQueer resistance thus refuses the ambivalence of liberal settler colonialism. It insists on marking all Israelis as settlers. This is a significant political statement, particularly since the radical Israeli leftists still refuse to acknowledge their position as settlers. PQueer resistance builds on a Fanonian understanding of the colonial condition in dichotomous and absolute terms of occupier–occupied, coloniser–colonised and settler–native. Postcolonial theorists have rightly emphasised the need to ‘go beyond the binary categories used in standard interpretations of domination’ (Mbembe 2001, 103). However, I suggest that we need to acknowledge that binary framings serve an important function in enabling natives to transcend the ambivalence of liberal settler colonialism and to refuse the co-optation of native struggles through the frameworks of citizenship and agendas of recognition and reconciliation.
Israel’s decades-long practice of blackmailing Palestinian gays in order to force them to collaborate with the state has produced, in the Palestinian society, an association of homosexuality with colonial collaboration. This has resulted in the literal production of PQueers as native informants and in aligning homosexuality with colonialism (Maikey and Hillal 2015). Furthermore, the consolidation of the queer question as the litmus test for national sovereignty and the homonationalist racial hierarchisation of bodies have made legitimacy an even more urgent battle to fight. The movement’s political oppositional agenda, and its endorsement of BDS, have thus been vital to its pursuit of legitimacy in Palestinian society. As Sami explains:
Our work overseas on BDS impacted us internally and our relationship to the Palestinian national movement. In Palestine, your political activism gives or denies you legitimacy in society. (Interview, Sami 2013)
Seeking legitimacy within Palestinian society is complicated by the burden of homonationalism. As Puar argues, ‘like modernity, homonationalism can be resisted and resignified, but not opted out of: we are all conditioned by it and through it’ (Puar 2013a, 336). This burden is characterised by, on the one hand, the movement’s disavowal of the homonational logic that produces queer bodies as superior and, on the other hand, the impossibility of not being conditioned by it. An example of how the burden of homonationalism imposes particular discourses is a letter sent in 2014 to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a group of 43 Israeli reservists, who served in the Israeli army’s elite intelligence unit known as Unit 8200. In the letter, the soldiers revealed what had been long known to every Palestinian, that in their service they gathered information on innocent and vulnerable Palestinians who could potentially be blackmailed into collaborating with Israel. This included material on Palestinians facing severe economic hardship, Palestinians in need of medical treatment outside the OPT, and gay Palestinians. As stated by one of the signatories:
If you’re a homosexual who knows someone who knows a wanted man – Israel will turn your life into a misery. If you need an urgent medical treatment in Israel, the West Bank or overseas – we’re on your tail. The State of Israel will let you die before it lets you go for medical treatment without your first giving information about your cousin, the wanted man. Every time we hook an innocent person who can be blackmailed for information, or to conscript him as a collaborator, that’s like gold for us and for the entire Israeli intelligence community. In a training course we actually learned and memorized the different Arabic words for homosexual. (Quoted in Derfner 2014)
Once the story broke, it took on a life of its own. PQueer bodies were prioritised. The story was framed around Israel’s practices of blackmailing Palestinian gays. Other Palestinians who were subjected to similar forms of surveillance and blackmail were ignored. The focus on PQueers was also reinforced by supporters and sympathisers who tapped into the homonationalist interest in PQueers to highlight Israel’s oppressive policies. Responding to the reproduction of homonationalism, AlQaws published the following statement:
Singling out sexuality ignores the stranglehold that Israel’s militarized colonial regime has on the lives and privacy of Palestinians more generally throughout Palestine. Blackmailing and extorting an individual on the basis of their sexuality is, of course, a naked act of oppression. But it is no more or less oppressive that blackmailing and extorting an individual on the basis of their lack of access to healthcare, disrupted freedom of movement, exposure of marital infidelities, finances, drug use, or anything else. (AlQaws 2014c)
Another manifestation of the burden of homonationalism is the appropriation of PQueer agency in order to humanise Palestinians by producing them as (semi)Western. For example, a piece in the New York Times celebrated the ‘Liberal Arab Culture’ in Haifa, where ‘the cool kids are Palestinians, and they have unfurled a self-consciously Arab milieu that is secular, feminist and gay-friendly’ (Hadid 2016). Palestinian claims for freedom and sovereignty are legitimised through the queer question. As Haneen Maikey explains, these appropriations demand that PQueers reject the discourse that says ‘there are Palestinian radical gays’, but PQueers insist that ‘we are not doing pinkwashing in reverse’ (Interview, Haneen Maikey 2012).
5. (Re)Orienting Palestinian Queers: Whiteness and the Double Bind of Palestinian Queer Organising
There is little doubt that anti-pinkwashing activism has resulted in the exposition of the PQueer voice, both locally and transnationally. PQueer agency and political subjectivity are now hard to ignore.
In the Bedouin case, we have seen that the question of whether Bedouin agency is intelligible to supporters and sympathisers remains open. In contrast, the antagonistic
nature of the PQueer movement and its mobilisation of anger make PQueer agency intelligible to supporters. But this acknowledgement of agency does not necessarily revoke the dangers of self-orientalising (as manifested in the slogan ‘we are a new generation of strong Palestinian queers’) and the (re)orienting of PQueers by supporters.
The encounter of PQueers with whiteness subjects them to a double bind. Anti-pinkwashing activism has allowed PQueers to reclaim agency, visibility and voice. However, once agency has been reclaimed, it becomes fetishised in ways that risk PQueers being appropriated, tokenised, (re)orientalised and exoticised by supporters and sympathisers.
A recent example of the fascination with the PQueer as a figure of strength is the documentary film Oriented, which has achieved international success. Oriented presents the story of three forceful and charismatic Palestinian gay men – Khader, Fadi and Naim – who live in Tel Aviv and battle the accommodation of their intersectional identities. The film has been praised for telling a different story about Palestinian gays, one that moves beyond their portrayal as victims in need of saving (Goldman 2015). However, Oriented exemplifies the cynical use of PQueer agency to satisfy a liberal-oriental gaze without undermining Israel as the locus for Palestinian queer freedom. It is premised on a fetishised treatment of PQueer agency and its commodification as a source of strength. The narrative of strong Palestinian gay men, as a phenomenon deserving attention, is the motivation behind the film. In the words of the director, Jake Witzenfeld, a British Jew who was living in Israel at the time:
I came across the writing of Khader Abu Seif for Mako, an Israeli online publication, representing new voices of Palestinian citizens in the Tel Aviv LGTB centre. This identify was new to me: an Israeli citizen who identifies as a Palestinian, is homosexual and is vocally active, trying to make people aware of his identity. (Quoted in Fathom 2016)
AlQaws rightly critiqued the film for its focus on PQueer life in Tel Aviv, arguing that this focus reproduces the image of Tel Aviv as a liberal gay haven that can accommodate a flourishing PQueer agency (AlQaws 2015). Furthermore, while the film has built its success on (re)orienting PQueers through the fetishisation of their agency, the director has ignored the call of one of its stars, Fadi Daeem, to refrain from screening the film
during Pride Week in Tel Aviv, as this is an act of pinkwashing. In response, Fadi released the following statement:
3 years ago I took part in a documentary called ‘Oriented’. Over the last year the film has spread through cinemas around the world, from New York to Bucharest. I feel proud of what my closest friends and I accomplished but somewhere along the way the message I tried to bring got lost. Now the film is set to open the TLV Fest (an LGBTQ film festival that takes place during Pride Week in Tel Aviv) and I couldn’t be more ashamed.
In my opinion, the film was made to highlight a new struggle that the occupation has created, the struggle of clashing identities and discrimination. Screening the film during TLV Fest, a festival sponsored by the Israeli government, is a direct act of Pinkwashing and represents the opposite of what I tried to accomplish with the film.
An occupying country cannot celebrate freedom while denying it from a whole nation. A racist country cannot celebrate diversity. I will not take part in these screenings and celebrations, I hope you won’t either. (Facebook post, 28 May 2016)
The dangers of tokenising and (re)orienting also extend to the political mobilisation of PQueers. In the early days of anti-pinkwashing activism, PQueer mobilisation was focused on raising the awareness of liberal sympathisers and supporters – in Europe, the United States and Canada – to Israel’s practices of pinkwashing and advocating that they support the Palestinian call for BDS. At this time, the ascendance of whiteness was inevitable, given that the main target of Israel’s pinkwashing was the West. Similarly, white activists were important interlocutors in facilitating access to a wide range of audiences through capitalising on existing transnational networks. The dominance of white activists demanded that PQueers carefully navigate the liberal violence of white benevolence and the dangers of reorienting PQueers through the exoticisation of their agency.
While living in London, I attended two public events with Haneen Maikey, the director of AlQaws. The first event was a talk delivered by Maikey as part of the Marxism 2012 conference. The second was a community-based event that took place in 2013.85 In general, Maikey’s overseas talks attract wide attention – and rightly so, as she is a compelling speaker. Her presentation at the Marxism 2012 conference was no different, and it attracted hundreds of people. Maikey’s talk, as always, was political. It focused on sexual politics, pinkwashing, the occupation and the violence of settler colonialism. And
85 The event was held at 5–7pm on Saturday, 6 July 2013, at the Fitzrovia Community Centre in London.
yet, at the Q&A that followed, most of the questions were concerned with Maikey’s own experience of being a lesbian in Palestinian society. (The second talk saw a similar dynamic.) Maikey was asked how her parents reacted to her being lesbian, whether they accepted her, how the village reacted, and so on. The questioners wanted the exotic and juicy details. Refusing this oriental gaze, Maikey skilfully shifted the focus back to the sexual politics of settler colonialism and to challenging the Islamophobic discourse that produces Palestinian society as pathologically homophobic.
The oriental gaze builds on a representation of PQueer agency as exceptional and even anomalous (P. J. Deloria 2004). To these audiences, Maikey embodied that exceptionalism by being a smart, funny and assertive Palestinian lesbian. These encounters are not unique to PQueers. Palestinians (and, more generally, Muslims) who appear to break these stereotypes (‘You don’t look Arab’, ‘How come you wear a veil and are educated?’, and so on) are subjected to similar forms of orientalising.
The celebration of agency, Nayrouz A.H. argues, reflects a wider problem in the dynamics that are in play in transnational PQueer organising. A.H. goes so far as to argue that international solidarity activists are trying to engineer a PQueer activist who can adhere to an imagery of a politicised, strong-yet-authentic subject. She argues that:
The International solidarity movement is best described as constructing a fantasy through which many people can imagine a particular queer Palestinian subject, who is appealing to the North American queer activist discourses …
I see today a danger with some forms of international queer solidarity, not only, in being complicit with uncritical racist and imperial construction of a ‘liberated Palestinian queer subject’, but also in dumping the orientalist fantasy of western queer activists on specific image of politicized freedom-fighter queer Palestinian, who is always already burdened with keeping up with the fantasy …
I absolutely felt like we are heading again to what Gayatri Spivak described as ‘White men are saving brown women from brown men’. While, the forces are different, the dynamics are similar. I felt that that here North American (often) white queers want to save Palestinian queers from the Israeli Pinkwashing and homonationalism, then call this act ‘solidarity’. (A.H. 2013)
In our interview, Maikey further describes the pressures faced by PQueer activists in the early days of anti-pinkwashing mobilisation:
In 2010, we had a big tour in the US. It was very successful. The last talk was at City University of New York. Four hundred people attended, and another three hundred
people were turned down because of space limits. They [white organisers] wanted to build on this experience, arguing that it should become a blueprint for our activism in strategising our struggle. The strategy was that we need to bring pretty, articulate, sassy, funny, smart, sharp people with American accents to speak to American audiences, do interviews for TV, the New York Times, etc. They even sent emails to the BDS national committee, saying that this is what should happen. Since then, we have cut our relationships with many of them. (Interview, Haneen Maikey 2012)
Thus, homonationalism, orientalism and cultural imperialism shape not only conservative politics, but also progressive politics. The double binds that result from structures of expectation cannot be avoided. They are part of the structural violence to which native peoples are subjected. Jessica Cattelino argues that such a double bind ‘must be refused by reorganizing the cultural expectations on which it rests and by attending to the lived practices by which indigenous people enact sovereignty’ (Cattelino 2010, 252). PQueer activists navigate their struggle in the face of multiple structures of expectations that risk reorienting and tokenising them as an authentication stamp for solidarity activism. This has demanded that PQueers invest significant efforts to guarantee their ownership and leadership of the movement. Maikey shares her experience:
We realised that we need to take ownership and control the building and management of our movement as we see fit. This required managing interests, power relations, how to deliver your message, and how to control it. It took a lot of effort and time. In the beginning, we were very much hands on. Today, we let go more. We feel that we have built an effective movement and that our voice is strong enough. We don’t need to control everything all the time. But at the beginning it was necessary. And we made a lot of people angry. (Interview, Haneen Maikey 2012)
The intersectional location of the PQueer movement between the global queer movement and the Palestinian solidarity movement posed an additional challenge for the PQueer movement. In her keynote address at the Homonationalism and Pinkwashing Conference at City University of New York, Maikey described the tensions that underlay the first LGBT delegation to Palestine in 2012. The delegates included prominent activists, academics and writers from the US LGBT community, including Sarah Schulman and Jasbir Puar.86 Tensions were evident in the desire of participants to learn more about LGBTs in Palestine and the desire of PQueers to focus on Palestine and the occupation.
86 For more information on the delegation, see Cassell 2012; see also Barrows-Friedman 2012.
These tensions reflected a wider contention over what the PQueer struggle is about. Some have perceived PQueer activism as an effort to transform, politicise and radicalise global queer politics, or as a project that aims ‘to make Palestine more appealing to queer people’ (Maikey and Stelder 2015, 98). Instead, PQueers insist on framing the movement as part of wider radical project of decolonisation and liberation. This approach challenges an understanding of the movement as one that seeks to liberate PQueers. Rather, it articulates the movement as a project of decolonising Palestine. This agenda, Maikey has argued, ensures that solidarity is with Palestine, rather than with queers in Palestine (Maikey in AlQaws 2013). The agenda has also led to an increased focus within the movement on forging and strengthening alliances with Palestine solidarity groups, as well as with African-American groups such as Black Lives Matter, the Audre Lorde Project, and indigenous peoples (see Atshan and Moore 2014).87
The case study of the PQueer movement offers an important contribution to the study of ’48 Palestinian resistance to settler colonialism, illuminating the often overlooked gendered and sexualised dimensions of settler colonial domination and resistance to it. It also brings to the fore a different political project that refuses the ambivalence of liberal settler colonialism, articulating instead a resistance that calls into question the colonial condition (Fanon 1963). Emerging in ’48 Palestine, the movement has demonstrated the ways in which the liberalism of the settler state – and national liberalism – can be transcended, articulating instead a radical and antagonistic anticolonial and anti-imperial project.
Part III of this thesis has argued that PQueer subjugation and resistance should be understood in light of the particular racialising gendered and sexualised logics of settler colonialism, and in light of the intersection of these logics with the global politics of homonationalism. The ambivalent positionality of PQueers between life and death, nationalism and its discontents, modernity and backwardness, inclusion and exclusion, legitimacy and illegitimacy have shaped the many burdens – and the structures of
87 For example, a delegation of 11 indigenous women and Women of Color feminists who visited Palestine. For more information on the delegation, see Abunimah 2011.
expectation – that they face. These burdens are negotiated, challenged, navigated, managed and refused in the processes of resistance. But, as this case study has illuminated, for these burdens to be transcended, they first need to be identified, understood and unpacked in the process of resistance.
Responding to the particular structures of racialisation (and their intersections), PQueer organising has made defiance central to resistance. PQueer resistance has developed as a project that refuses mimicry. It is a subversive project of disruption, drawing its strength in outright expressions of rejection. This unequivocal politics of refusal further builds on the mobilisation of anger and on the articulation of the colonial condition in dichotomous terms. These strategies are important in managing the danger of being appropriated by the liberal sexual agenda and also by supporters of the PQueer movement. Rejection, as both a negative and a constructive project, is intrinsic to a larger project of restructuring PQueer subjectivity. It also functions as a political compass in guiding the development of the movement, its agenda and its engagement with different actors.
History is made by men and women, just as it can also be unmade and re-written, always with various silences and elisions, always with shapes imposed and disfigurements tolerated, so that ‘our’ East, ‘our’ Orient becomes ‘ours’ to possess and direct. (Said 2004, 871)
This thesis has sought to fundamentally reconceptualise the resistance of ’48 Palestinians to Israeli settler colonialism. By engaging ethnographically with the case studies of the Palestinian Bedouin struggle for land rights and the Palestinian queer (PQueer) movement, I have explored the racialised, ethnic, gendered and sexualised dimensions of settler colonial violence, asked how these factors shape colonial subjectivities and modalities of resistance, and identified the ways in which the transnational3 is imbricated within these processes.
Building on an understanding of resistance as diagnostic of power (Abu-Lughod 1990), this thesis has argued that the resistance of Palestinians in Israel is diagnostic of the structure of Israel as a liberal settler state, and unfolds in relation to the liminal positionality of ’48 Palestinians in the Israeli liberal settler state as both citizens and colonial subjects. This core argument has challenged the frameworks of ethnocracy, ethnonationalism and minority studies that have been most prevalent in earlier research on ’48 Palestinians.
’48 Palestinian modalities of resistance, it has been further suggested, are indicative of the ambivalent encounter of Palestinians in Israel with liberal frameworks of human rights as simultaneously empowering and oppressive. This thesis has demonstrated the ways in which the subjugation, subjectivities and modalities of resistance of ’48 Palestinians are shaped in complex ways by the racialising logics of liberal settler colonialism, which cannot be understood outside of the intersectionality of race with gender, sexuality and class, and the ways in which these racialising logics can be reproduced in the deployment of particular liberal discourses of human rights.
This thesis has intervened in and contributed to the study of Palestinians in Israel, and more specifically to the theorisation of their resistance, in a number of important ways. It has innovatively brought together settler colonial studies and postcolonial theory as an analytical framework for the study of Palestinians in Israel. Settler colonialism and race, I have suggested, are fundamental factors in understanding not only the oppression but also the political mobilisation of ’48 Palestinians. In addition, this thesis has integrated the transnational as an important additional dimension, challenging the prevalent tendency to domesticise the Palestinians of Israel as an internal issue of the settler state. Instead, this research has positioned the study of Palestinians in Israel within a larger critical body of Palestine studies and the broader context of the study of settler colonialism as a transnational phenomenon.
The two selected ethnographies have pioneered a new approach to the study of Palestinian political mobilisation. Existing studies on the national politics of Palestinians in Israel have limited their focus to formal political movements and parties, parliamentary participation and PNGOs. Grassroots movements and the mobilisation of women, LGBT people, Bedouin and other ethnic/religious minorities have therefore been routinely excluded from these studies. Notably, the Bedouin struggle has received attention only within the field of Naqab/Negev Bedouin studies, while the PQueer movement has received very limited attention and only from within postcolonial and transnational queer studies. The two ethnographies have therefore broadened our understanding of domination and resistance by incorporating diverse elements of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality.
Finally, through the focus on indigeneity and LGBT rights, this research has problematised the dominant normative conception of multiculturalism and liberal human rights as emancipatory frameworks and tools. The case studies have illuminated the complex and ambivalent ways in which settler colonial modes of racialisation can intersect – and be reproduced – in liberal frameworks and discourses of human rights.
1. Resistance and the Impasse of Liberal Settler Colonialism
I have suggested that in order to properly understand Palestinian resistance in Israel, we need to conceptualise Israel as a liberal settler state. This is not a trivial proposition, yet it remains marginal in the field. The call to rethink Israel as a liberal settler state is bound to be contested by mainstream scholars who reject the framing of Israel as a settler colonial project (but would welcome recognising its liberal dimension). It is also bound to be rejected by critical scholars who have invested considerable effort in debunking claims that Israel is a liberal democracy, arguing instead that it should be conceptualised as an ethnic state or ethnocracy.
To understand why, how and in what ways Palestinians engage with the Israeli state and its institutions (such as the parliament, courts, ministries and other governmental institutions), we should consider the specific liberal and democratic configuration of the settler state, and what this liberal order imposes on indigenous people. This thesis has demonstrated the interplay between inclusion and exclusion, citizenship and colonial subjecthood, and the ambivalence within liberalism as a structure of both opportunity and violence. This renders the colonial condition ambivalent, producing hybrid colonial subjectivities and hybrid modalities of resistance. Contradictions and paradoxes are therefore inescapable. Native resistance is often marked by engaging settler sovereignty while also disavowing it, mobilising citizenship while transcending it, and challenging settler legitimacy while reproducing and normalising it.
Building on the work of Shira Robinson (2013) and Nadia Abu El-Haj (2010), this thesis has advocated a need to open a space to critically engage with the complex structuring dynamics that constitute Israel as a liberal settler state. There is a need to move away from viewing liberalism as a normative concept, against which the Israeli regime should be evaluated and measured. Treating liberalism in normative terms has, in some respects, aided subversive projects of undermining Israel’s normative power. However, it has also left the dark side of liberalism unacknowledged. Such an approach risks simplistically reducing the scope of critical inquiry to Israel’s democratic shortfalls, as opposed to its underlying settler colonial dynamic. The misleading implication, therefore, is that in order to become a true liberal democracy, Israel should remedy the treatment of its
Palestinian citizens and ensure substantive equality through a liberal politics of recognition.
Acknowledging Israel as a liberal settler state does not mean celebrating Israel as a liberal democracy. It also does not mean viewing Israel’s liberalism and settler colonialism as two separate features of the settler polity. My proposition is different. Instead, I have argued that it is important to read the two as convergent and interrelated. In other words, it is an understanding of liberalism as constitutive of the Zionist Israeli settler colonial project. The work of Edward Said, Joseph Massad and Nadia Abu El-Haj (among others, but one aspect of decolonising research is privileging Palestinian critical pioneering scholarship) provides a substantive theoretical basis for such engagement. Instead of being treated as a merely normative concept, liberalism should be treated as an analytic, a political project (a vehicle of both liberation and domination) that is rooted in Western modernity, imperialism and orientalism, and in a European conception of race.
2. The Settler Colonial Condition
This thesis has further demonstrated that in order to unpack the different performances, discourses, strategies and practices of native resistance to settler colonialism, we must first examine how the colonial condition is conceptualised by the colonised themselves. Postcolonial theory shows that colonial violence impacts how resistance and decolonisation are conceptualised. As Albert Memmi and Frantz Fanon describe, the colonial condition is one of brutal occupation, shaped by physical and material violence such as the encounter with checkpoints, soldiers and colonial administration, and the denial of citizenship, freedoms and rights (Fanon 1963; Memmi [1965] 2003). It is thus not surprising that both theorists understood resistance and decolonisation to be no less than a total revolt.
While Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are subjected to military occupation, the governance (and colonisation) of Palestinians in Israel is more equivocal because of their incorporation as citizens, especially after the end of the military rule in 1966. Israel’s illusionary promise of inclusion has produced a colonial condition that is marked by ambivalence (Bhabha [1991] 1994). This leaves more room for ambiguity in how native
people articulate their own condition and positionality vis-à-vis the state’s colonial power.
How the colonial condition is experienced, understood and expressed is neither a matter of semantics nor a mere intellectual exercise. It produces concrete and lived social meanings, political visions and social worlds. As Vine Deloria, a prominent Native American intellectual, has argued, ‘to bring about a radical change in present structure … depends upon how clearly those people advocating change want a change and understand the system they are facing’ (V. Deloria [1970] 2007, 67, emphasis added).
The history of Palestinian resistance in Israel illustrates that the conceptualisation of Israel as a settler colonial polity is not as straightforward as it might appear. As I have suggested, this ambivalence has produced ’48 Palestinian projects that are framed in both reformative and transformative terms. During the first decades, mobilisation was framed as a liberal struggle of equality: ’48 Palestinians were conceptualised not as colonised indigenous people, but rather as a population that was discriminated against. The rise of the Palestinian national movement since the 1990s has inspired a more radical political project that is grounded in multicultural demands for recognition and democratisation through the transformation of Israel from a Jewish state to a state for all its citizens. This project has been both subversive in Bhabian terms and antagonistic in Fanonian terms (Bhabha [1991] 1994; Fanon 1963).
Throughout the history of Palestinian struggle in Israel, there have been persistent voices and movements centring upon an anticolonial political vision (such as Al-Ard and Abna’a Al-Balad). These movements remained, however, marginal in Palestinian politics. In recent years, new and explicitly anticolonial movements have mobilised a Fanonian antagonistic-rejectionist modality of resistance and vision of decolonisation. These movements insist on a political project of decolonising Palestine, not transforming Israel.
This multiplicity of projects is best understood as the result of the liberal settler colonial condition. The predicaments and closures within native resistance to settler colonialism, this thesis has suggested, emphasise the need to bring together Fanonian and Bhabian
theorisations of the colonial condition and resistance. This thesis has argued that there is a need to transcend the ambivalence of liberal settler colonialism and the liberal politics of human rights in order to achieve a more radical vision of decolonisation. This demands problematising the conventional view of citizenship as merely an opportunity structure (Jamal 2007a) and looking instead to how the structure of citizenship works to contain and control native struggles by confining them to the liberal institutions and logics of the settler state. Put differently, in order to transcend the ambivalence of settler colonialism, there is a need to de-normalise native citizenship.
The PQueer movement is a profound case study for considering how the predicaments and closures of resistance within the liberal settler state can be challenged. The case study demonstrates the need to diagnose the ambivalence of the liberal settler state not as transformative (in Bhabian terms), but rather as pathological (in Fanonian terms). While dichotomising colonial relationships may be limiting theoretically, the PQueer movement shows that these dichotomies have political significance. ‘Transcending’ is not a straightforward or easy task. Here, the Fanonian politics of rejection becomes an important modality and organising principle of native resistance. It generates a radical project of decolonisation that refuses the settler state and troubles its authority and sovereignty.
3. Intersectional Resistance, Racialisation and the Liberal Project of Human Rights
This thesis has argued that the resistance of Palestinians in Israel should be understood as being shaped by its encounters with the liberal discourse of human rights. Despite the prominence of liberal multiculturalism and human rights in the struggle of Palestinians in Israel, little attention has been given to how ordinary people experience the liberal grammar of human rights (Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2012; Shalhoub-Kevorkian et al 2014). Most studies have tended to adopt a normative approach that perceives multiculturalism as an ideal form of governance and human rights as an empowering tool and a vehicle for emancipation.
This thesis has suggested that the racialising logics of settler colonialism, as well as its intersections with ethnicity, gender and sexuality, are important factors that shape ’48 Palestinian resistance. By incorporating critical approaches to human rights (Abu-Lughod 2013; Massad 2002; Perugini and Gordon 2015) into the study of Palestinians in Israel, the discussion in this thesis of the Palestinian Bedouin struggle and the PQueer movement has highlighted how such racialising logics are reproduced in disturbing ways when they encounter the liberal politics and discourses of human rights.
’48 Palestinian civil society, political discourse and political mobilisations have been influenced by the rise of multiculturalism, as well as minority, indigenous and LGBT rights, and the hegemony of identity politics in the global politics of culture. ’48 Palestinian subjectivities and modalities of resistance evolve and transform in response to the liberalism that animates the settler state, global imperialism, and the politics of international human rights. Focusing on indigeneity (based on the fetishisation of the premodern indigenous subject) and LGBT communities (based on the ambivalent folding of the queer racialised subject into modernity), the selected ethnographies have exemplified the ways in which the human rights framework has figured in two ambivalent ways: as a vehicle for empowerment and emancipation, and as a framework that is complacent with the reproduction of colonial violence.
The rise of the indigenous and LGBT movements globally – as part of the transnational ascent of identity politics – has provided Palestinian Bedouin and PQueers with new spaces, recourses and opportunities to organise, mobilise and resist. After decades of failure to achieve justice through the Israeli courts, and following an escalation in the state’s use of violence against them, the Naqab Bedouin have turned to the indigenous rights framework to become visible and transcend the constraints of settler colonial law and Israeli citizenship. Grounded in international law, indigeneity offered marginalised Bedouin an alternative legal framework and moral justification for making land claims. It opened a space for them to become part of a larger global community of indigenous peoples who face similar structures of violence and colonial practices of erasure.
The rise of the LGBT movement – both globally and in Israel – did not bypass PQueers, who began to organise in the early 2000s. The emergence of PQueer groups, this thesis
has shown, should be understood in light of the encounter of PQueers with the liberal Israeli queer community. It is an encounter marked by alienation, erasure and liberal racism. Capitalising on the global transformations of LGBT politics and the mushrooming of PNGOs in particular, PQueers organised autonomous spaces that could accommodate their intersecting identities.
By mobilising indigeneity and LGBT rights, Palestinian Bedouin and queers have been able to circumvent the restraining forces of the settler state and exclusionary Palestinian nationalism. At the same time, however, both of these frameworks are marked by epistemological and ontological structures that regulate and reconfigure identities, subjectivities and struggles. The Gay International has universalised Western sexual identities and imposed Western scripts for sexual liberation. Similarly, global indigenous frameworks are complicit with the epistemological reproduction of indigenous people as premodern, only this time it is an emancipatory force and a justification for land rights.
The racialising logics of the settler state – in its ethnic, gendered and sexualised workings – have been reproduced in the violence of liberal human rights, thereby re-enshrining colonial power and re-inscribing race. Indigeneity and gay rights have maintained, though in different ways, the singularity of Western modernity and the epistemological distinction between the West and the Rest. In the case of the Palestinian Bedouin, configuring their identity as premodern became an asset that heralded in protection under the umbrella of indigenous rights. The simultaneous production of PQueers as dying figures in need of rescue, and as modern subjects by virtue of their sexual identity (as long as it conformed to the Western model), has disturbingly aligned with Israel’s pinkwashing and racialising practices. To ‘enjoy’ protections as gays, PQueers are required to denounce their Palestinian, Arab and Muslim identities and to adopt Western models of sexual liberation.
The emancipatory promise of the indigenous and LGBT frameworks has proven to be conditional, with each undermined by a particular structure of expectation. While indigeneity requires the Bedouin to remain preserved as authentic and exotic premodern subjects, the Gay International requires PQueers to be proper modern queer subjects by adopting Western sexual identities and agendas. Any refusal to conform with – and
perform – these expectations meets serious sanctions: a retraction of the status of indigeneity and the associated bundle of rights, or re-racialisation as unruly and defiant queers.
The particular structures of racialisation and marginalisation, as shaped through the intersections of ethnicity, gender and sexuality, are determinative factors in how each group responds to liberal violence. The discursive, epistemic and symbolic violence that the Naqab Bedouin confront at the state level is tied to the very materiality of their oppression, manifested in chronic conditions of poverty, land confiscation, forced displacement and the erasure of Bedouin economies, communities and culture (or its reconfiguring through its commodification). Under such conditions, rejecting or resisting the culturalisation of indigeneity can be a matter of privilege.
Such conditions have made Bedouin engagement with indigeneity ambivalent: indigeneity is at once mobilised, subverted and challenged. Resistance has manifested in both accommodative and radical politics, as well as in hybrid modalities of resistance that include subversion and rejection. Seeking to capitalise on the political opportunities and international attention that indigeneity engenders, the Naqab Bedouin engage in practices of strategic essentialism, performative indigeneity, and a ‘drama of suffering’ that registers with liberal audiences (Khalili 2007, 33). At the same time, Bedouin activists subvert the culturalist interest in their cause in order to re-centre politics and expose Israel as a racial settler state.
While the Naqab Bedouin are subjected to the burden of culture, they are not passive to it. Bedouin activists confound the binary of modernity and premodernity and challenge their culturalisation, exoticisation and folklorisation by configuring the Bedouin figure as a hybrid modern–traditional subject. Not least importantly, younger generations of Bedouin activists are mobilising discourses that challenge making the grant of land rights conditional on cultural distinctiveness. In doing so, they subvert and rework the indigeneity framework by seeking its de-culturalisation and (re)politicisation. While the mobilisation of indigeneity is more associated with resistance as subversion, Bedouin resistance as sumud is rooted in a confrontational and antagonistic modality of resistance.
The racialisation logics facing PQueers have produced a fundamentally different modality of resistance. PQueers have responded in less ambivalent ways to the violence of homonationalism, pinkwashing, and the Gay International and its civilisation mission. They have tapped into – and subverted – the homonational moment and Israel’s increased investment in pinkwashing in order to reject the epistemic violence of Western sexuality and to leverage a space in which PQueers can become visible political agents. Western LGBT discourse is deeply polarised and imperialist. Therefore, the ability of PQueers to challenge and reject these dynamics has been central to their ability to seek legitimacy from the larger Palestinian community. Rejection has also been intrinsic to the project of restructuring PQueer subjectivities as grounded in local experiences, cultures and politics. Rejection – as a pedagogy and a political imperative – is at the heart of the PQueer movement. It informs two projects of liberation. The first is decolonising PQueer subjectivities and politics. The second is structuring the PQueer movement so that it is anticolonial, anti-imperial and anti-racial, and informed by Fanonian universal humanist sensibilities.
As the case studies demonstrate and as Jessica Cattelino persuasively articulates, there is no escape from the structures of expectation that colonised people face, or from the double binds that these expectations create (Cattelino 2012). These structures of expectation are part of the violence of settler colonialism. And they are deeply informed by the workings of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality. As the experiences of Palestinian Bedouin and PQueers show, such double binds can only be managed, negotiated, subverted, challenged, rejected and disarticulated in the process of resistance. However, as Talal Asad argues, ‘the process of “cultural translation” is inevitably enmeshed in conditions of power’ (Asad 1986, 163). The question remains whether native challenges to culturalisation and racialisation are intelligible to liberal-orientalist sensibilities.
Finally, both case studies demonstrate that the human rights framework can in fact contribute to domination, racialisation and culturalisation. When marginalised groups mobilise human rights in terms of strategic essentialism alone, this depoliticises the nature and effect of their engagements, which are embedded in deep power imbalances. The hegemony of human rights can produce political projects that contain and displace other radical emancipatory projects. As has been shown, indigeneity has produced the
Bedouin struggle as a project of cultural recognition, instead of a struggle for land and decolonisation. Similarly, the Gay International and the universalisation of gay rights produce a blueprint of the global queer subject and models of sexual emancipation. These projects often come with significant resources and political leverage. Refusing them is therefore not easy. Conditions of extreme marginality do not always enable the antagonistic politics of refusal. In these cases, resistance as subversion is an important way of asserting native agency.
4. Wider Implications and Future Research
Although this thesis has focused specifically on Palestinian resistance to the Israeli settler state, it also bears great relevance to other settler colonial contexts. The liberalism of the settler state is not new. As scholars have demonstrated, the liberal aspirations of the settler state were deeply racialised. However, the liberal settler state has changed. No longer explicitly exclusionary, it is now marked by both exclusionary and inclusionary structures and practices. As scholars have shown, the violence of elimination and dispossession is still at play. However, it is increasingly carried and justified through a sophisticated progressive liberal rhetoric of inclusion, recognition and reconciliation (Coulthard 2014; Simpson 2014). This makes the task of uncovering the racial and colonial underpinnings of these policies and rhetorics even more urgent. Indeed, there is a growing body of work that problematises the liberal rhetoric of inclusion and reveals how multiculturalism is just a gentler form of ‘managing Indians and their difference’ (Simpson 2014, 20).
This thesis provides an important basis for developing a more structural analysis of contemporary settler states. We see today many different models of liberal settler states, which are marked by different-yet-similar technologies of governing indigenous people, their struggles and their entitlement to rights. The liberal settler model of the United States is different, for example, from the Canadian and Australian multicultural models. Similarly, the liberalism that marks Israel’s frontier stage settler colonialism differs from Anglophone settler colonialism. There is therefore room to continue the theorisation of settler colonialism in a way that unpacks these different contemporary formations of settler colonialism as unmistakably liberal. A comparative agenda could help shed light
on these transformations and variations in structures, patterns and practices of domination and racialisation.
In the case of the Palestinians in Israel, there is a need to further decolonise the scholarship, which remains largely confined to Israeli sociology and political science. A constructive starting point could be to situate the study of Palestinians in Israel within the wider global history, and present workings, of imperialism and settler colonialism, as well as the broader question of Palestine. Building on the work of Robinson (2013) and critical scholars, this research opens a critical space for rethinking the theorisation of the Israeli state and its Palestinian subject-citizens. As Wolfe notes, ‘in order for something to be resisted, it must be first understood’ (Wolfe 2016a, 28). This thesis has demonstrated how the misdiagnosis of the state as an ethnocracy means that the prevalent analyses of Palestinians in Israel suffer from foundational epistemological and ontological omissions. While this thesis has shown how the liberal settler state and its racialising logics have informed ’48 Palestinian politics, it has only begun the analysis of how the liberalism of the Israeli colonial state has taken different forms and manifestations since its inception. The liberalism of the Israeli state during the military rule differs from its (neo)liberal iteration of the 1980s and 1990s, and again from the transformations in Israeli politics since the year 2000. Future research can expand our understanding of how these transformations have impacted ’48 Palestinian status, politics and struggle.
Through this thesis, I have also endeavoured to open up new spaces for further and comparative study on the practices and politics of resistance in the context of liberal settler colonialism. The incorporation of indigenous people into the settler state as citizens has dramatically transformed their conception of, and relationship and engagement with, the settler state, as well as forms of resistance and struggle. The core dilemmas, contradictions, double binds and closures that Palestinian activists in Israel face in their resistance are shared by other indigenous peoples. These could be further unpacked to inform a better understanding of contemporary native resistance to settler colonialism and the different strategies mobilised by indigenous people.
We are witnessing the rise of new indigenous movements and new scholarship engaged in expanding indigenous imaginaries of resistance and decolonisation beyond the restraining liberal logic of citizenship, recognition, reconciliation and rights. New movements are articulating fresh agendas in vocabularies of refusal and assertion of native sovereignty. Palestinians in Israel are undergoing similar processes. This research has offered some insights into such resistances through its focus on the Palestinian Bedouin and PQueer movements. However, other grassroots movements that share similar agendas and dilemmas are emerging in the ’48 Palestinian contexts. For those studying Palestinians in Israel, the recent transformations in their mobilisation and the emergence of new political agendas are fruitful grounds for further research. These should be understood within the broader context of transnational transformations in the modalities of resistance of indigenous people. A comparative perspective that engages with critical indigenous scholarship can contribute to unpacking and theorising these changes.
As the scholarship on settler colonialism shows, the economic and racialising logics of settler colonialism are foundational to the difference between franchise and settler colonialism. The engagement of this research with how these logics have manifested in the context of Palestinians in Israel has been limited (and has focused especially on the Palestinian Bedouin context). There is a need to better understand the ways in which global processes of neoliberalism are articulated in relation to the liberal settler state and how the Israeli neoliberal state is facilitating the continued dispossession and subjugation of indigenous peoples through settler encroachment. In the context of Palestinians in Israel, the convergence between neoliberalism and Israeli settler colonialism remains overlooked. Increasing poverty and de-development is best explained in relation to the particular exclusionary economic logics that drive Israel as a neoliberal settler state. Ethnic cleansing in settler frontiers within the Green Line – such as in the Palestinian cities of Acre, Jaffa, Lod, Ramla and Haifa – further exemplifies how theoretical engagement with the neoliberalism of the Israeli state can enrich and broaden our understanding of the lineages that exist between the liberal and neoliberal character of the contemporary settler state.
Finally, while this research illuminates that indigenous struggles are marked by multiple political projects, it leaves the question of decolonisation under-explored. In Black Skin, White Masks, Fanon asks ‘what does a black man want?’. This question bears relevance to indigenous peoples and to the question of decolonisation. As Fanon suggests, the pathologies that racial and colonial domination produce render the colonised at once wanting to be white and rejecting whiteness. We see this manifesting also in the multiplicity of political projects advanced in indigenous struggles. More specifically, we see this in the struggle of Palestinians in Israel and the contestations between those who seek to reform and transform the state, and those who seek to decolonise and dismantle altogether. There is a need to explore these contestations further and to unpack the political implications of the lack of a unified project, and whether this lack is chronic to the liberal settler colonial condition.
The durability of settler colonialism is a challenge in indigenous struggles, and to the critical theorisation of decolonisation in settler contexts. The absence of the possibility of a de-colonial moment – as a celebratory spectacle marked by national rejuvenation and the expulsion of the coloniser – renders decolonisation in settler colonialism anti-cathartic. It further invites us to think about questions such as these: What could it mean to decolonise regimes such as the United States, Canada, Australia or New Zealand that are ‘impervious to regime change’ (Wolfe 2006a, 402)? What could it mean to decolonise Palestine? And, finally, what could native justice mean in a decolonised settler state? One possible way to think about decolonisation is that it is a process (and an ambiguous one). Decolonisation is a lived structure, articulated in the pursuit of justice and defined by its inevitable incompleteness. Theorising resistance without engaging with the question of decolonisation renders our understanding of settler colonialism and indigenous struggles incomplete.
5. Decolonising Settler Colonialism: An (Im)Possible Project?
As Wolfe pointedly articulates, ‘the incompleteness of racial domination is the trace and the achievement of resistance, a space of hope’ (Wolfe 2016b, 272). Palestinians – like other native peoples – live in a structure of domination, inevitably making resistance a
structure itself (Wolfe 2006a). As long as domination, dispossession and violence are the forces that shape native existence, resistance will be a defining feature of native life. The miraculous survival of indigenous people as meaningful political subjects is a testament to the strength of their resistance in the face of momentous structures of oppression, erasure and dispossession. As long as indigenous people survive as political subjects, erasure is never complete. Furthermore, indigenous peoples are in themselves monuments that disturb the forces of erasure. They serve as a constant reminder that settler colonial projects – even when triumphant, durable and irreversible – have been born out of a history of violence.
When it comes to decolonisation, the case of Palestine resembles South Africa more than Australia, the United States or Canada. The one-state solution as a project of dismantling the racial Jewish settler state appears to be a viable – though contested – political project. And, as in South Africa, the task of deracialisation is likely to be an enduring challenge. However, unlike South Africa, where the political struggle of black South Africans was organised around a demand to end apartheid, the Palestinian struggle continues to be fractured across a multiplicity of political projects.
Political proposals range from the two-state solution, as advanced by Israeli leftists (Yiftachel 2013), to the one-decolonised-and-deracialised-state solution (Said 1999; Abunimah 2006). Opponents of the one-state solution invoke racial arguments – similar to those that raged in South Africa – about the barbaric nature of Arabs, implying that if Jewish domination is to end it will threaten the survival of the Jewish race altogether. In both Israel and the West, the notion of equality between Jews and Arabs is still seen as a provocative and radical proposition. Resistance to the one-state solution and equality extends to those who insist on maintaining the Jewish state in the name of pragmatism. Recently, critical Jewish Israelis advocated a model of confederation that will maintain:
… an open border between the two entities for trade, employment, and tourism (but not for residence) … Opening the possibility of Palestinian refugees to resettle in Israel as Palestinian citizens, possibly in numbers proportional to the numbers of Jewish settlers in Palestine. (Yiftachel 2013, 4)
The two-state and confederation models demand that Palestinians in Israel make peace with their racial structural subjugation. They also ask refugees to forgo their right of
return in order to allow the continued existence of the Jewish supremacist state. The rhetoric of pragmatism conceals, however, an underlying racialism. As Massad states:
… what makes the return of Palestinian refugees whom Israel expelled and whose land it stole and steals non-pragmatic is not some geographic or ‘demographic’ consideration, not some environmental or logistical obstacle; what makes their return non-pragmatic is that they are not Jews. (Massad 2003, 442, emphasis in original)
Given the plurality of political proposals – and the fact that political solutions are often developed without the participation of Palestinian peoples – the validity of models that continue to reinscribe race and racial hierarchies should be questioned.
Palestinians still struggle to impart a moral imperative that should be a common-sense understanding: that ‘nation-states should never be able to found themselves through the dispossession of whole populations who fail to fit the purified idea of the nation’ (Butler 2012, 24). The dispossession and continued exile of Palestinians is still seen as a legitimate price to pay for sustaining the Jewish state.
Struggles for decolonisation, Fanon reminds us, are also struggles to be incorporated into humanity (Fanon 1963, 1967). Almost seven decades after the establishment of the State of Israel, Palestinians continue to resist and to demand the recognition of their humanity and their right to self-representation. As Edward Said points out, ‘the Palestinian actuality is today, was yesterday, and most likely tomorrow will be built upon an act of resistance to this new foreign colonialism’ (Said 1979a, 8). The sumud of the Palestinian people renders Zionist racial domination incomplete. But this sumud must be supplemented by a more radical political project of decolonisation and deracialisation of the democratic state – the creation of one state. The emergence of new movements, both in Palestine and globally, that transcend the constraints of liberal politics and insist on nothing less than ‘a complete calling in question of the colonial situation’ (Fanon 1963, 37), is a space of hope.

British and Irish Universities Support Palestinian Political Initiative Against Israel


Editorial Note

Queen’s University Belfast, Trinity College Dublin, and Liverpool John Moores University are involved in a two-year research project that seeks to fight an international legal battle against Israel over several small villages of Bedouin in Area C, which is an Oslo II administrative division of the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority is responsible for medical and educational services to Palestinians. Israel does infrastructure construction.

The research project titled “humanitarian vulnerabilities of Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forced displacement in ‘E1’, an area of the West Bank allocated for the expansion of Israeli settlements,” is based in the Al Quds human rights clinic at Al Quds University and currently offers two positions of a research assistant. 

Heading the research project is Dr. Alice Panepinto, a Lecturer in Law at Queen’s University Belfast. Panepinto also serves on the board of trustees of Law for Palestine, an NGO in the UK, established in March 2020, which aims to build and create a network of legal professionals interested in Palestine from around the world. Before moving to Queen’s University Belfast, Panepinto studied and worked at Durham University, where she was also the secretary of the research cluster on Islam, Law and Modernity.

Panepinto is clearly biased against Israel. Evidently, she supported the academic boycott against Israel, as a signatory to a petition, in 2017, urging scholars to boycott the European Society of International Law Research Forum hosted by the Hebrew University.  In 2014 when Panepinto was a UN Fellow for Human Rights in Jerusalem and a PhD Candidate at Durham Law School, she told Middle East Eye, a London-based news outlet, after the Palestinian factions in Gaza launched over 100 rockets at Israel, that “The escalating Israeli aggression towards Gaza… calls into question whether international law is of any use in protecting civilians and non-combatants in the area… The answer rests in the ability of the international community to hold Israel accountable for any unnecessary and disproportionate military actions.”

Panepinto’s research project announces that the “Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forcible transfer have, unintentionally, become key players in the regional context, whilst simultaneously facing unique humanitarian vulnerabilities… Israeli policies and practices in those areas, including a restrictive permit and planning regime, demolitions and threats of demolitions of property and the active promotion of relocation plans all contribute to the coercive environment.”

Fighting against Israel through the International Criminal Court (ICC), Panepinto recently penned an article titled “ICC and Palestine Symposium: Mind the Gap– The ‘Palestine Situation’ before the ICC” on Opinio Juris, a journal of international law. Panepinto urges ICC to investigate Israel. Panepinto postulates that the ICC should decide whether it can investigate “international crimes in Palestine” to clarify if “impunity is granted for the most serious crimes of international concern.”  She also postulates that “the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza… are clearly under Palestinian sovereignty.” 

Panepinto claims that “Israel’s power in the West Bank is based on a temporary regime of military occupation established in 1967 at the end of the Six Day War – not on any form of legitimate authority. According to international humanitarian law, occupation does not give sovereignty, and any attempt to alter the demographic profile of occupied territories is prohibited.”

Alan Baker, an Israeli international lawyer who served as legal counsel for Israel’s Foreign Ministry and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada, responded and refuted Panepinto’s allegations. He noted this issue relates to disputed territories and not occupied. He explained that the Oslo Accords’ aim was and still is, to lay the groundwork for Palestinian-Israeli agreement on the permanent status of the territories. Both parties agreed upon the territorial division between areas A, B, and C, and the division of powers and responsibilities.

He wrote that Panepinto’s legal analysis is based on the flawed assumption as if there is “Palestinian sovereignty and sovereign territory, when no such assumption has any legal basis.” According to Baker, when Panepinto uses various designations such as “Palestinian state”, “Occupied Palestinian Territories” or “occupied Palestine,” assuming that at some stage there was a Palestinian state entity, but “the territories have never been part of any accepted Palestinian state, and no such entity has ever existed. No binding international treaty of resolution has ever determined that the territories are Palestinian.”  He added that such designations, taken from UN resolutions, are nothing more than the “wishful thinking of the political majority of states voting for such resolutions.” Therefore, she cannot invoke UN Charter article 2(4) because there isn’t and never has been any Palestinian political independence. Baker added no Palestinian national project existed before 1967 when Jordan annexed the West Bank areas and East Jerusalem, and Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip. Both Jordan and Egypt did not support a Palestinian national project between 1948 to 1967 during their annexations.

Baker argues that since 1967 Israel has never annexed the West Bank and Gaza areas or extended its sovereignty over those areas. 

The issue of the Bedouin is also complex.  For example, Israel’s TV Channel 13 report, “The Bedouin Village of Khan al-Ahmar Became a Symbol of the Struggle over Control of the Territories,” aired in August 2019, discussed how Khan al-Ahmar, a total of 28 families of the Jahlin tribe, became a Palestinian symbol.  According to one of the Israeli interviewees, “this is a battle over the road from Jerusalem to Jordan and the Dead Sea, no less.”

It is well known that the status of Judea and Samaria is one of the most complicated issues in the international arena.  Despite numerous efforts to solve the problems and the Israeli government’s generous offers at Camp David II in 2000, the Palestinians have never agreed to settle the conflict.  Their stubborn refusals have been noted most recently by the Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan.  Prince Bandar chastised the Palestinian rejection of the Abraham Accord among Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain and painted them as ingrates.

Given the Middle East developments, Panepinto and her colleagues do the Palestinians no favor by stiffening their resolve and denying reality.

Be it as it may, even more problematic is the fact that the three universities are lending their legitimacy to a blatantly political project that does not benefit the students and the taxpayers who support higher education. 


Research Assistant

Al Quds Human Rights Clinic |عيادة القدس لحقوق الإنسان


Job title: Field Researcher (Research Assistant)
Project title: Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forced displacement: IHL vulnerabilities, ICC possibilities
Location: Al Quds Human Rights Clinic, Al Quds University-main campus 
Duration: 24 months (full time)

Job purpose
Al-Quds University Human Rights Clinic is seeking to appoint a Field Researcher (Research Assistant) for the project titled “Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forced displacement: IHL vulnerabilities, ICC possibilities” funded by AHRC-DfID Collaborative Humanitarian Protection Research Programme and led by Queen’s University Belfast (Northern Ireland). 
Details of the project can be accessed here: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FT007540%2F1
Working closely with the rest of the team, the Field Researcher will actively support senior colleagues in implementing field activities and liaising with the Bedouin communities, as well as providing research assistance as required. 

About Al-Quds Human Rights Clinic 
Al-Quds Human Rights Clinic (the Clinic) is a unit based in the faculty of law at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem that aims at teaching human rights defense skills through theory and practice. Through the work of its staff and students, the Clinic documents human rights and international humanitarian law violations in the occupied Palestinian territory (hereinafter oPt) focusing on the southeastern suburbs of Jerusalem. The Clinic is also involved in research and publication on issues related to its documentation activities. 
Project overview
The Clinic, in collaboration with colleagues at Queen’s University Belfast, Trinity College Dublin, and Liverpool John Moores University, will be involved in a two-year project that seeks: 
i. To better understand the humanitarian vulnerabilities of Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forced displacement in ‘E1’, an area of the West Bank allocated for the expansion of Israeli settlements (considered illegal under international law)
ii. To ascertain the effects of impunity for International Humanitarian Law (IHL) violations driving protection risks in E1;
iii. To analyse the International Criminal Court (ICC) role in improving humanitarian protection outcomes for the Bedouin communities in E1 through accountability for past abuses and in deterring future violations.
Detailed information and application instructions can be viewed on the Al-Quds Human Rights Clinic Website. 
Deadline for applications: October 19th, 2020. 
It is envisaged that interviews will take place via video conference in the week beginning: October 24th, 2020
Please direct informal enquiries (in English) to Clinic via clinic@law.alquds.edu


UKRI Logo (press to go to the UKRI home page)

Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forced displacement: IHL vulnerabilities, ICC possibilities  

Lead Research Organisation: Queen’s University of BelfastDepartment Name: Sch of Law


This project seeks to better understand the humanitarian impact of continued forcible transfer of the Bedouin communities living in E1, Jerusalem, and how impunity for violations of international law contributes to the deterioration of humanitarian vulnerabilities. Through qualitative enquiry, combining desk based research and first hand semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, the project will gather together a significant body of evidence to highlight to ongoing deleterious impact of repeated violations of IHL (and impunity for violations) on those living at the sharp edge of the situation in Israel-Palestine, namely the Bedouin communities of E1.

In their 2017 report, Humanitarian Facts and Figures: Occupied Palestinian Territory, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs noted that forced displacement is listed as one of the four key drivers of humanitarian vulnerability. The report highlighted that, “between 2009 and 2016, Israeli authorities demolished or seized over 4,800 Palestinian-owned structures in the West Bank, mostly in Area C and East Jerusalem”. It further indicated that “46 Palestinian Bedouin communities in the central West Bank, home to some 8,000 Palestinians, the majority registered Palestine refugees, have been targeted by the Israeli authorities for “relocation” to a number of designated sites”. The expansion of Israeli settlements, considered illegal and condemned as a “flagrant violation under international law” by UN Security Council resolution 2334 of 2016, has been a driver for confiscation of Palestinian private and public land, demolition of homes (including Bedouin shacks) and repeated displacement of Palestinian civilians. The confiscation and demolition of property in Bedouin villages, and the ensuing forcible transfer/relocation of these vulnerable communities, is recognised as a violation of IHL and human rights by the UN, EU and other international actors. Forced displacement of civilians in an occupied territory is also considered a crime under International Criminal Law.

The planned expansion of the ‘Ma’ale Adumim’ settlement block east of Jerusalem is exacerbating the humanitarian vulnerabilities of the Bedouin and herder communities in the E1 area. Bedouin communities such as those residing in Abu Al-Nuwwar, Wadi Abu Hindi, Al Khan Al-Ahmar, Jabal Al-Baba and Sath Al Bahar are at the front line of defence for resisting Israeli settlement expansion, thus ensuring Palestinian access to Jerusalem. This scenario does not just affect individual Bedouin villages at risk of demolition and transfer, but carries grave implications for the broader Israeli-Palestinian situation. Thus, Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forcible transfer have, unintentionally, become key players in the regional context, whilst simultaneously facing unique humanitarian vulnerabilities that must be better understood.

A number of Israeli policies and practices in those areas, including a restrictive permit and planning regime, demolitions and threats of demolitions of property and the active promotion of relocation plans all contribute to the coercive environment, “which generates pressure on Palestinians to leave their communities”. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, impunity for violations of international law, including IHL, has been recognised as a “driver of conflict”. In espousing the benefits of holding violators of IHL to account, it has been noted that, “effective accountability not only ensures that perpetrators are brought to justice, but also ensures that victims have access to remedies and serves to deter future violations and to try to repair the harm suffered.” As such, it is vital to understand the impact of violations of IHL on the Bedouin and herder communities in Palestine, and engage with the ICC’s work. This project will work fill this gap, and produce an edited book and policy report.

Planned Impact

Who will benefit for the research?

There are three key beneficiaries of this research
(a) local groups and individuals facing humanitarian protection risks, namely Bedouin communities, including women and teenagers identified as specific vulnerable groups therein, whose improved capacity to understand, collect evidence of, and communicate issues and experiences illustrating IHL violations will enable greater participation in international accountability efforts, including at the ICC;
(b) in-country researchers and practitioners, in addition to the project partners, whose greater coordination and access to updated analysis will improve the efficiency, effectiveness and timeliness of engagement with international accountability efforts, including at the ICC; and
(c) the international community, including the State of Palestine, acting responsibly in line with the peace and security aims of the UN Charter, including accountability and guarantees of non-recurrence for violations of international humanitarian law through appropriate international legal fora (such as the ICC and UN, as well as the EU and other key players). All of this will maximize humanitarian protection of the Bedouin at risk of forced displacement by responding to past abuse by ensuring accountability for violations before an independent and impartial tribunal, building an environment founded on international law and conducive to full respect of all human rights, and offering some remedy to affected communities by acknowledging harm, seeking justice and empowering local groups to tell their story and be heard.

How will they benefit?

Each group will benefit from the planned activities by way of capacity building. And in particular, the Bedouin community will be in a stronger position to engage with the ICC preliminary examination activities.

In line with the overall purpose and aims of the AHRC-DFID humanitarian protection research grant, and as detailed in pathways to impact, this project offers potential impact in policymaking, practitioner and development contexts by addressing the IHL violations affecting Palestinian Bedouin at risk from the ground up, involving and building capacity of the communities affected, working with local researchers and practitioners and engaging with the preliminary examination activities at the ICC, UN and EU. Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forcible transfer have, unintentionally, become key players in the regional context, whilst simultaneously facing unique humanitarian vulnerabilities that must be better understood to enable and unlock the development potential of Palestine.

The impact, in line with the primary aim of this project, seeks to mitigate in the long term the significant and specific humanitarian challenges faced by the Palestinian Bedouin at risk of displacement in E1, with a view to reducing harm through an increased respect for international law. The specific humanitarian challenges underpin these communities’ possibilities for development as well, as illustrated by a range of UN reports and other sources (see Case for Support). As such, this research project on the E1 Bedouin speaks directly to the international community’s commitment to development in Palestine, and commitment to peace and justice in the region.


Alice Panepinto (Principal Investigator)Brendan Ciaran Browne (Co-Investigator)Munir Nuseibah (Co-Investigator)Triestino Mariniello (Co-Investigator)




Dr Alice Panepinto

July 23, 2020Board of trustees

Panepinto is a Lecturer in Law at Queen’s University Belfast, where she researches international law, human rights and transitional justice, with a regional interest in the Middle East. Her teaching reflects both her research interests and applied work. Current and recent projects have attracted funding from ESRC-IAA, AHRC-DFID and the Society of Legal Scholars.

Law for Palestine was established in March 2020 and formally registered in the United Kingdom as a voluntary and non-profit initiative that aims to build and create a network of legal professionals interested in Palestine from around the world and to provide enriched and objective Palestinian legal content.

The organization is currently working on three major initiatives:

  1. “Palestine’s Legal Scene” project:
    This is a weekly report that reviews the legal dynamics of the Palestine question, and everything related to international law and Palestine. The report includes an account of the most important publications, activities and conferences related to Palestine at the local, regional, and international levels. The report further covers decisions, decrees, and judicial orders affecting the Palestinian cause, whether made at the official, academic or public levels. The report aims to be a reference for monitoring, documenting and archiving the latest human rights developments related to Palestine, and to present them to individuals, researchers, study centers, and official, academic and legal institutions concerned. Subscribe to get the “Palestine’s Legal Scene” weekly report.    
  2. “International Criminal Court & Palestine – Translation and Analysis Project”:
    In light of the sensitivity and significance of the case before the International Criminal Court regarding Palestine, which is expected to continue for years, it is noteworthy that the articles, regulations, and statements discussed by the court in this regard are considered a very important archive and reference in the history and current lived reality of Palestine. Given that most of the ICC articles regarding this case are issued in English, we work on collecting and translating all official materials relating to Palestine in order to provide them to Arabic and English readers for free and to remain as a reference for researchers and readers interested in the Palestinian issue. This project also has a section for summarising these materials and presenting them as simplified documents to reach the widest possible range of interested audience. The project also works to analyse, translate, summarise, and provide full commentary on data published in international research and studies centers in relation to the International Criminal Court and Palestine.
  3. “Legal training for Palestine” project:
    This project aims to provide training courses and legal research materials as well as training opportunities in the organisation in order to create a network of experts who are able to understand the Palestinian question in its various legal dimensions. As part of this project, the Organisation provides training in the fields of: international law and Palestine, ICC & Palestine, international humanitarian law, human rights, and advocacy in regards to Palestine. Also, the project collects academic materials related to Palestine and international law and makes it available to those interested. Finally, the project provides an opportunity for training in the organisation for those interested in getting involved and getting acquainted with everything related to Palestine and international law, in addition to connecting trainees with effective and partner organisations in relevant areas. Find out about the training opportunities with us (here).


AHRC-DFID Collaborative Humanitarian Protection Research Programme – Thematic Research Grants call Thematic Research call: The protection of people in areas of war and conflict

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) – part of UK Research and Innovation – and the Department for International Development (DFID) have established a new Collaborative Humanitarian Research Programme to help tackle one of the most pressing issues of our time: the protection of people in areas of war and conflict. With the World Bank predicting that nearly half (46%) of the world’s poor will live in fragile and conflict affected states by 2030, the AHRC and DFID are working in partnership to fund world-class research into humanitarian protection of people affected by conflict. The Thematic Research Grants call launched under this initiative will support a portfolio of research projects to better understand the causes of humanitarian protection risks/violations and to gather evidence about which interventions are most effective in improving humanitarian protection outcomes.


Alice Panepinto@AlicePanepintoPalestinian human rights peeps: two job opportunities for 2 years based at Al Quds university, working on some urgent research on displacement in E1, and how impunity for international law violations drives humanitarian vulnerabilities. PM me for info http://legalclinic.alquds.edu/en/about-aqhrchttps:///opportunities/vacancies.html
8:08 PM · Oct 5, 2020


Researchers to assess humanitarian vulnerabilities of Palestinian Bedouin in West Bank

7th May 2020

An international collaboration of researchers is to embark on a two-year project having received funding to assess the humanitarian vulnerabilities of the Palestinian Bedouin at risk of displacement in an area of the West Bank that has been allocated for the expansion of Israeli settlements.

Dr Brendan Ciarán Browne from Trinity’s School of Religion, has been awarded the Research Development Grant worth approximately €500,000 from the AHRC-DFID Collaborative Humanitarian Protection Research Programme.

He will work with Principal Investigator Dr Alice Panepinto (Queen’s University Belfast), and Drs Triestino Mariniello (Liverpool John Moores University) and Munir Nuseibah (Al Quds University).

The project, entitled Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forced displacement: IHL vulnerabilities, ICC possibilities, will focus on the ‘E1’ area of the West Bank allocated for the expansion of Israeli settlements, which was condemned as a “flagrant violation under international law” in the landmark UN Security Council resolution 2334 (2016).

The project will see those involved working closely with the Palestinian Bedouin community in E1 to gather testimonies of everyday life under threat of forcible transfer, with a view to engaging with the ongoing activities of the International Criminal Court on the situation in Palestine.

The grant will support desk-based research, fieldwork, and community based outreach activities with the Palestinian Bedouin in E1, in addition to two academic conferences and an edited book.

Dr Browne, Trinity, said:

“This is a significant grant that will allow for important collaborative research with members of the Palestinian Bedouin community who are at risk of forcible transfer in the West Bank.”

“The legal work that will be conducted will be complimented by capacity building projects with the Palestinian Bedouin community in E1, ensuring that the impact of the project is felt both locally and at the International Criminal Court.”

Dr Brendan Ciarán Browne joined Trinity in 2016 as assistant professor of conflict resolution, discipline of peace studies based in Belfast. His work can be accessed here.

Tags: research

Media Contact:

Thomas Deane, Media Relations Officer | deaneth@tcd.ie | +353 1 896 4685

ICC and Palestine Symposium: Mind the Gap– The ‘Palestine Situation’ before the ICC  
Alice Panepinto

[Alice Panepinto is a lecturer in law at Queen’s University Belfast, where she researches and teaches human rights, international law and contemporary issues in property law.]

In determining its territorial jurisdiction in Palestine, the ICC is presented with a golden opportunity to revive the global reach of international criminal justice. When Pre-Trial Chamber I will rule on the question of whether “the “territory” over which the Court may exercise its jurisdiction comprises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza”, it will do much more than establish whether the ICC has territorial jurisdiction in Palestine. The Court faces a crucial decision: either it recognises that the ICC has judicial oversight over international crimes in Palestine (by virtue of the reasons put forth by my colleagues in this symposium), or it decides that Palestine remains in the blind spot of international justice, a legal black hole of where impunity is granted for the most serious crimes of international concern. As such, in accepting or rejecting territorial jurisdiction over Palestine, the Court will be forced to clarify its position within international law: not just on its ability to seek accountability for alleged crimes in Palestine; but also, more generally, on its willingness to uphold its mandate as “a permanent institution” with “the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern” (Article 1, Rome Statute). By considering two core tenets of international law, my contribution illustrates how the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza (which I will not consider in detail) are clearly under Palestinian sovereignty, despite the limitations to the full exercise of that sovereignty imposed by Israel’s protracted occupation. To conclude otherwise would create a gap that no other tribunal can bridge. 

International law prohibits annexation through force

The territory indicated in the ICC Prosecutor’s request to Pre-Trial Chamber I comprises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. These areas are commonly referenced in all UN documents, and by and large across the international community, as constituting Palestine today, distinguishing it from Historic Palestine (prior to 1948), regardless of whether the designation is Palestinian State, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or Occupied Palestine. The events of 1967, resulting in the occupation by Israeli forces of these parts, which continues today, have not modified the UN and international community’s designation of these territories, which remain Palestinian and never became Israeli (despite Israel’s unilateral declaration of annexation of East Jerusalem, which has not been recognised by the UN and the vast majority of states). Under international law, the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” is prohibited (UN Charter article 2(4)). This principle is mirrored in The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (adopted by the General Assembly on 24 October 1970 with resolution 26/25 (XXV), wherein ‘no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal’.

Sceptics could argue that in 1967 Palestine had not reached the criteria for statehood, and thus the maxim that ‘international law prohibits annexation through force’ does not hold. But regardless of the atypical connotations of formal statehood of Palestine at that time, it is undeniable that in 1967 the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza were neither Israeli nor terra nullius. Those parts were inhabited by Palestinians, and controlled by Jordan and Egypt respectively, in recognition and support of the Palestinian national project and political independence. Thus, the Palestinian territories constituted a sufficiently and clearly distinct political entity in 1967, suggesting that the prohibition contained in the ratio of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter applied. As such, there is international consensus on the fact that the start of the Israeli occupation of Palestine in 1967 did not annex the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza to Israel, nor did Israel attempt to do so openly. Therefore, it would be surprising, and indeed contra legem, if Pre-Trial Chamber I refused territorial jurisdiction over these parts based on the argument that in 1967 they were annexed to Israel, or are disputed between Israelis and Palestinians, because of the prohibition contained in Article 2(4).

Occupation does not transfer sovereignty under international law

The second issue to consider is whether the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, established with the events of 1967 and continuing to the present day can corroborate Israeli claims to those parts. This can be answered conclusively by drawing on International Humanitarian Law as encapsulated in a maxim attributed to Oppenheim: ‘there is not an atom of sovereignty in the authority of the occupying power’. Based on this assessment, even a protracted, transformative occupation, which conceals the intention to conquer territory or establish a single apartheid regime, cannot under international law enable the transfer of sovereignty (for a more detailed discussion of each of these issues, see GrossKormanBen Naftali, Gross & MichaeliKoskenniemiBhuta ). Indeed, even the carving up of the West Bank into Areas A (under Palestinian administration), B (under Palestinian administrative control, and Israeli security control) and C, entirely under Israeli security and administrative control, in Oslo II has not stripped Palestinian sovereignty from Area C (and to an extent, Area B) and substituted it with Israeli sovereignty. Despite the fact that such measures are still in place, they were designed to be a temporary arrangement to administer the West Bank, and certainly do not remove Palestinian sovereignty therein (notwithstanding the limited exercise of Palestinian sovereignty in those parts due to the occupation). And while in practice, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in particular, Palestinian jurisdiction has been eroded, as I have discussed elsewhere, this does not deny Palestinian title to those areas. The international community, including the ICC, cannot acquiesce lightly to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of Israeli military and civilian courts in the West Bank. Against the backdrop of the current Israeli administration’s intention to annex large swathes of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the de facto exercise of Israel’s extraterritorial jurisdiction is gradually absorbing Palestinian land within the Israeli state; if this remains unchallenged, the process of conquest through an expansion of jurisdiction could become irreversible, clearly contravening international law.  

Taking the example of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine (which are a “flagrant violation under international law” in the landmark UN Security Council resolution 2334 of 2016), the fact that they are located primarily in Area C has shielded them from scrutiny in the Palestinian justice system. Some have argued that Palestine cannot delegate jurisdiction over the settlements to the ICC (or other international courts) because under Oslo II it does not possess criminal jurisdiction in those parts. But this position is oblivious to the context of the occupation, and the power dynamics between Israel and Palestine. Indeed, one of the side effects of Oslo II, endorsed by the international community, has been the virtual exclusion of the Palestinian Authority from large parts of the West Bank (in particular ‘Area C’ – over 60% of the West Bank), and, relatedly, the suspension of Palestinian jurisdiction over those parts. That vacuum has been filled by Israeli jurisdiction, operating extraterritorially through a range of military and civilian legal means, which have resulted in strengthening Israel’s hold of those parts, including areas where the settlements are located. As such, the limitations imposed on the exercise of Palestinian jurisdiction in the occupied territories is not based on an intentional will to dispose of it in favour of Israel through Oslo II or any other means. The difficulties in exercising Palestinian sovereignty and jurisdiction fully in the West Bank is to be attributed solely to the effects of the ongoing occupation, and an excessive entrenchment of Oslo II that goes beyond the original aims and timeframe of that bilateral agreement.

ICC inaction will allow further Israeli international law violations in Palestine

So according to international law, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza were neither annexed to Israel in 1967, nor subsumed within Israeli sovereignty throughout the protracted occupation and effects of Oslo II that continue today. Thus, there is no legal basis for Pre-Trial Chamber I to recognise those parts as falling outside Palestine, and within Israel. The Court now is faced with a unique opportunity to clarify its adherence to international law in Palestine, recognising once and for all that it is neither Israeli territory nor ‘contested’ between two claimants. The fact that, for some, the contours of Palestinian statehood are atypical, need not hinder the Court’s assessment of its territorial jurisdiction in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. The ICC’s mandate and international law should guide Pre-Trial Chamber I in affirming the Court’s jurisdiction in Palestine.

Situations of atypical statehood pose a tangible challenge to international courts seeking to enforce international law. Yet, it is paradoxical that the system does not allow international law violations, including widespread harm suffered by the inhabitants of entities approaching statehood, quasi states or de facto states – or however one wishes to conceptualise states which fall short of full statehood – to be properly adjudicated because procedural rules prevent courts from exercising territorial jurisdiction. In some contexts, denying or refusing to acknowledge statehood can “become a pretence for enforcing politics”, and potentially a shield for abusers of human rights, international humanitarian law and criminal justice. By allowing grey areas of contested statehood to become legal black holes of unaccountability, the international legal order seems to concede that there is a degree of “planned misery” tolerated by the system in some places. This would be inconsistent with the international peace and security aims of the UN Charter as the founding document of the present international legal order, and the human rights imperatives set out in numerous instruments that underpin the present system.  

In this regard, it is important to consider the exceptional nature of the mandate of the Court as “a permanent institution” with “the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern” (Article 1, Rome Statute). In considering the universalist v delegation-based foundations of ICC jurisdiction, the “ICC Statute is a special type of multilateral treaty”, because (as argued by Stahn) the “fundamental premise of the Statute goes beyond protection of sovereignty and state interests” and, instead, is “geared at the protection of individuals and the establishment of a system of justice”. Thus, its “normative justification” is supported by “the fact that individuals face direct individual criminal responsibility under international law for international crimes”. Thus (citing Stahn) “accession to the Statute merely activates the power of the ICC to exercise a jurisdiction grounded in international law. Jurisdictional constraints encountered by the acceding state do not necessarily affect the jurisdictional title of the ICC”. So given the Court’s special purpose, it would be paradoxical if Pre-Trial Chamber I did not recognise territorial jurisdiction in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, as that would trump the Court’s core mandate to hold individuals to account for international crimes.

Indeed, while uncontested Palestinian statehood would alleviate many of the Court’s concerns, “statehood, as a remedy, does not correspond to the reality and scope of Palestinian grievances today”. Accountability for grave violations of international law, such as those considered in the OTP’s preliminary examination activities, cannot be dependent on the formalities of statehood for assessing territorial jurisdiction. So if, by avoiding recognising its territorial jurisdiction, even the ICC is unable and unwilling to pursue accountability for international criminal law violations in Palestine, the prospects of a just solution for Palestinians and Israelis are slim. For a body already struggling with its image and reputation, a more decisive ICC intervention on alleged crimes committed on Palestinian territory provides the perfect opportunity to prove critics wrong.  

1 Comment

Alan Baker:

Ms. Panepinto’s legal analysis bases itself on the flawed assumption that there exists Palestinian sovereignty and sovereign territory, when no such assumption has any legal basis. The various designations she uses, such as “Palestinian state”, Occupied Palestinian Territories” or “occupied Palestine” all assume that the territory concerned was, at some stage, granted to or belonged to a genuine Palestinian state entity. But the territories have never been part of any accepted Palestinian state, and no such entity has ever existed. No binding international treaty of resolution has ever determined that the territories are Palestinian. All the above designations taken from UN resolutions and international community determinations, are nothing more that political determinations representing the wishful thinking of the political majority of states voting for such resolutions. As such, she cannot invoke UN Charter article 2(4) because there his not, nor has there ever been any Palestinian political independence or territorial integrity. The writer mistakenly claims that Jordan and Egypt controlled the territories prior to 1967 “in recognition and support of the Palestinian national project and political independence”. This is nonsense and an utter, false interpretation of history. There was never any Palestinian national project before 1967. The fact that Jordan annexed the West Bank areas and East Jerusalem in the 1950’s would not appear to be indicative of Jordan’s supporting any Palestinian national project. Ms. Panepinto appears to ignore the fact that since 1967 Israel never annexed the West Bank and Gaza areas, and as such never claimed, or extended its sovereignty over those areas. To the contrary, the whole aim of the Oslo Accords was, and remains to lay the groundwork for Palestinian-Israeli agreement on the permanent status of the territories. But she appears to totally ignore the agreements. Her statement: “even the carving up of the West Bank into Areas A, B and C, in Oslo II has not stripped Palestinian sovereignty from area C and substituted it with Israeli sovereignty.” is pure nonsense. Both Israel and the PLO agreed that the ‘carving up’ of the territory was for the practical purpose of governance and management. Sovereignty was not given to anyone by the agreement, and was not taken from anyone. Hence the title of the agreement “interim agreement”. to the contrary – the two parties agreed that the issue of the permanent status of the territory, and as such, any possible determination of sovereignty between them, would be the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. They undertook not to alter the status of the territory prior to the outcome of such negotiations. Why is Ms. Panepinto ignoring these legal and historic facts? The territorial division between areas A, B, and C , and the division of powers and responsibilities, was agreed to, and not imposed. As such it became, and remains a form of lex specialis, pending any agreed outcome of the permanent status negotiations – including through an agreement emanating from the Trump peace plan. One might have assumed that a serious researcher on the issue of the disputed territories, participating in a serious symposium on the ICC, would familiarize herself with the agreements between the Palestinian leadership and Israel, rather than impose on the readers of ‘opinio juris’ flawed and misleading assumptions and personal political bias and hostility to Israel, all of which have absolutely no linkage to reality and to the existing legal situation.==============================================================

A tiny West Bank village is due to be demolished: here’s how international law could be used to intervene
June 14, 2018 7.09 pm AESTBy Alice Panepinto. Lecturer in Law, Queen’s University BelfastDisclosure statement: Alice Panepinto has received funding from ESRC-IAA-GCRF / Warwick University for previous research on the Al Khan al Ahmar case. Queen’s University Belfast provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

The village of Al Khan al Ahmar is home to 180 people on the West Bank of Palestine. It has 40 houses, a mosque and a school built from old tyres and mud. But its residents don’t know if their village will still exist tomorrow – after Israel confirmed plans to demolish the Bedouin settlement.

If the demolition does go ahead, it could amount to a violation of international humanitarian law. Forcible transfer of civilians living under occupation, demolition of Palestinian homes, and the expansion of settlements all violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.

According to some human rights organisations, destroying the village might also be considered a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – something which the rest of the world has a responsibility to prevent.

It was on May 24 2018 that the Israeli Supreme Court put a summary end to the Al Khan al Ahmar judicial saga in Israel. Three judges (with direct personal links to Israeli settlements) authorised the state to proceed with the demolition. It could happen any time now, despite the community which lives there having nowhere to go.

That tiny Bedouin community has been fighting a legal battle since 2009, when a donor-funded school built of used tyres and mud was ordered to be demolished. The case later expanded into plans to remove the entire village.

The argument of the Israeli state – now endorsed by the court – is that none of the makeshift structures in Al Khan al Ahmar were ever granted planning permission. Applications for permits were submitted by the villagers numerous times, but invariably refused. As a result, it is impossible for the community (and other Bedouin villagers in the area) to build anything “legally” according to Israeli law.

Israel’s power in the West Bank is based on a temporary regime of military occupation established in 1967 at the end of the Six Day War – not on any form of legitimate authority. According to international humanitarian law, occupation does not give sovereignty, and any attempt to alter the demographic profile of occupied territories is prohibited.

For too long now the Israeli Supreme Court has exercised its jurisdiction over Al Khan al Ahmar and other Palestinian Bedouin villages in the West Bank. A sober appraisal of this scenario would indicate the need for an impartial international tribunal, independent from the Israeli state, to consider the international illegality of the planned demolition.

Indeed, in 2017, International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, listed Israeli plans “to relocate Bedouin and other herder communities … through the seizure and demolition of residential properties” as potential war crimes that may fall under the court’s jurisdiction.

Israel’s plans to demolish the village present a perfect opportunity for foreign governments to reaffirm their commitment to human rights and the international rule of law.

Time for legal pressure

The world cannot afford to look away while Bedouin communities like Al Khan al Ahmar are erased to make way for the Israeli settler project.

Under the Geneva Conventions, while there is no specific action mandated for third parties, countries committed to international law cannot remain idle when faced with serious violations. Third state responsibility must be effective.

For a start, states cannot simply accept an illegal situation which results from a serious violation of international law. There must be accountability for these violations.

Foreign countries now have an opportunity to acknowledge the unwillingness of the Israeli courts to carry out a genuine investigation into the violation of international law in Al Khan al Ahmar – and a duty to endorse the ICC’s preliminary investigations into demolitions in the West Bank.

This is a tragic story of perverse justice, and it’s time for the international community to put its weight behind the ICC.

So far, some of the signs have been encouraging. In the US, 76 members of the House of Representatives have signed a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu, urging him to halt the demolitions. The letter states:

The destruction and displacement of such communities would run counter to shared US and Israeli values, while further undermining long-term Israeli security, Palestinian dignity, and the prospects for peacefully achieving two states for two people.

France has expressed “deep concern”, Germany is “extremely worried” and the EU as a whole has raised the issue with Israeli authorities.

In the UK, the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has urged Israel not to proceed with the demolition and other ministers have visited Al Khan al Ahmar and issued strong statements against the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision.

Royal role

It is encouraging that the UK government has spoken up – especially about a region severely damaged by the legacy of British colonialism.

Yet at a time of escalating bloodshed in Gaza, Prince William is about to visit Israel as a representative of the UK government amid reports of a thriving arms trade between the two countries.

There are of course many more ways in which the UK can uphold its obligations, including intervening on the arms trade and other collaborations with Israel that enable settlement activity which is driving Bedouin displacement.

At the very least, when Prince William visits the region on behalf of the UK government, a visit to Al Khan al Ahmar should be high on the agenda.



Statement by Legal Scholars and International Lawyers Against Holding ESIL Forum at the Hebrew University in East Jerusalem

by Concerned International Lawyers • 23 November 2017

To add your name, please email: palpetition17@gmail.com. The statement is open to all law academics and international lawyers. You do not have to be a member of ESIL or based in Europe to sign.

The European Society of International Law (ESIL) is holding its Research Forum at the Hebrew University in February/March. Ten Palestinian human rights organisations have condemned this decision calling on ESIL to reconsider its decision and urging international lawyers and academics to not participate in this event.

As legal scholars and international lawyers committed to the rule of law and human rights, we are dismayed by the decision of the European Society of International Law (ESIL) to hold its 2018 annual research forum at the Mount Scopus Campus of the Hebrew University. We believe that holding the annual forum on international law in an occupied territory legitimates this occupation and all of the other human rights violations that are part of it.

While we are aware that the original buildings of the Hebrew University are located in the area that was designated in 1948 as the “Demilitarised Zone”, whose status is contested, the University has expanded significantly since the 1967 occupation, and significant parts of it fall beyond the “Demilitarised Zone” line and are in the Palestinian occupied territory.

We believe that it is unbecoming for an organisation that is committed to the rule of law and international law to hold its annual forum in an institution whose campus is at least in part on an occupied territory. It is more so when this occupation is in its 50th year. Therefore, we shall not participate in this event, and we urge ESIL to reconsider its decision.

Institutions are for affiliation purposes only.

Professor (Emeritus) Georges Abi-Saab, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva Professor (Emeritus) John Dugard, University of Leiden and the University of the Witwatersrand, former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Professor (Emeritus) Richard Falk, Princeton University, and former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Dr. Noha Abueldahab, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution Huwaida Arraf, National Lawyers Guild, Free Palestine Subcommittee Co-Chair Dr. Grietje Baars, City, University of London Dr. Nesrine Badawi, American University in Cairo Dr. Samia Bano, SOAS, University of London Dr. Arnulf Becker Lorca, Brown University Dr. Jason Beckett, The American University in Cairo Dr Simon Behrman, Royal Holloway, University of London Faisal Bhabha, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Dr. Brenna Bhandar, SOAS University of London Dr. Amar Bhatia, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Professor (Emeritus) George Bisharat, UC Hastings College of the Law Dr. Isra Black, University of York Professor Bill Bowring, Birkbeck, University of London Dr Yassin M’Boge Brunger, Queen’s University Belfast Audrey Bomse, National Lawyers Guild (US), Palestine Subcommittee Reem Al-Botmeh, Birzeit University, Palestine Professor Marcel Brus, University of Groningen Dr. Michelle Burgis-Kasthala, University of Edinburgh/Australian National University Pierre-Alexandre Cardinal, McGill University Professor  Irina Ceric, Kwantlen Polytechnic University Professor Cyra Akila Choudhury, Florida International University Dr. Tanzil Chowdhury, University of Birmingham Professor Olivier Corten, Directeur du Centre de droit international, Université libre de Bruxelles Dr. Marios Costa, City, University of London Luigi Daniele, Lecturer/Doctoral researcher, Nottingham Trent University and University of Naples Federico II Professor (Emeritus) Eric David, Président du Centre de droit international, Université libre de Bruxelles Dr. Julia Dehm, La Trobe University Dr. Sara Dehm, University of Technology Sydney Professor François Dubuisson, Université libre de Bruxelles Dr. Nadine El-Enany, Birkbeck University of London Noura Erakat, George Mason University Dr. Luis Eslava, University of Kent Prof. Mohammad Fadel, University of Toronto Dr. Michael Fakhri, University of Oregon Dr. Tomaso Ferrando, University of Bristol Professor  Martin Gallié, Université du Québec à Montréal Professor Conor Gearty, London School of Economics Mariana Gkliati, University of Leiden Professor Gustavo Gozzi, University of Bologna Dr. Maj Grasten, Copenhagen Business School Professor Penny Green, Queen Mary University of London Dr. Markus Gunneflo, Lund University Friederycke Haijer, Utrecht University Prof. Wael Hallaq, Avalon Foundation Professor in the Humanities, Columbia University Dr Vanja Hamzić, SOAS University of London Dr. Jeff Handmaker, International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam Dr. Kevin Hearty, Queen’s University Belfast Dr. Gina Heathcote, SOAS University of London Dr. Loveday Hodson, University of Leicester Dr. Nora Honkala, City, University of London Emily Jones, Lecturer in Law, University of Essex Dr. Henry Jones, University of Durham Dr. Ioannis Kalpouzos, City, University of London Dr. Michael Kearney University of Sussex Dr. Asem Khalil, Vice-President for Community Affairs, H.H. Shaikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani Chair in Constitutional and International Law, Birzeit University, Palestine Professor Laleh Khalili, SOAS University of London Dr. Adil Hassan Khan, Melbourne Law School Dr. Zeynep Kivilcim, Berlin Institute for Advanced Study Kojo Koram, Lecturer in Law, University of Essex Tor Krever, University of Warwick Dr. Vidya Kumar,  University of Leicester Dr. Troy Lavers, University of Leicester Anne Lagerwall, Université libre de Bruxelles Dr. Thomas MacManus, Queen Mary University of London Professor (Emeritus) Wade Mansell, University of Kent Dr. Anne-Charlotte Martineau, Ecole Normale Supérieure Alexandra Masako Goossens, Graduate Institute, Geneva Dr. Mazen Masri, City, University of London Dr. Heidi Matthews, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Dr. Akanksha Mehta, University of Sussex Ladan Mehranvar, lawyer, SJD candidate in International Law, University of Toronto Professor Chantal Meloni, University of Milan Parvathi Menon, Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Procedure, Luxembourg Dr. Nima Mersadi Tabari, City, University of London Dr. Mathias Möschel, Central European University, Budapest Dr. Usha Natarajan, The American University in Cairo Professor Vasuki Nesiah, New York University Professor Donald Nicolson OBE, University of Essex Dr. Munir Nusseibeh, Al-Quds Human Rights and IHL Clinic, Al-Quds University, Palestine Dr. Gearóid Ó Cuinn, Lancaster University Dr. Paul O’Connell, SOAS, University of London Dr. Amr Osman, Hamad bin Khalifa University Professor Dianne Otto, Melbourne Law School Dr. Genevieve R. Painter, Concordia University Dr Alice Panepinto, Queen’s University Belfast Dr. Imranali Panjwani, The University of Notre Dame Australia Dr. Rose Sydney Parfitt, University of Kent/University of Melbourne Dr. Amin Parsa, Independent Scholar, Prev., Lund University Dr. Charlie Peevers, University of Glasgow Professor (Emeritus) Sol Picciotto, Lancaster University Professor Trevor Purvis,  Carleton University Dr. Adamantia (Mando) Rachovitsa, University of Groningen Dr. Rahul Rao, SOAS University of London Professor Danya Reda, Peking University School of Transnational Law Dr. John Reynolds, National University of Ireland Maynooth Jillian Rogin, Assistant Professor, University of Windsor Professor Hengameh Saberi, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School Dr. Hani Sayed, American University in Cairo Dr. Bérénice K. Schramm, Université du Québec à Montréal Professor Iain Scobbie, University of Manchester Rehana Seedat, Muslim Legal Network Queensland Moheb Shafaqyar, Refugee Law Clinic Berlin, Humboldt-University Berlin Dr. Halla Shoaibi, Birzeit University Oishik Sircar, Jindal Global Law School/ Melbourne Law School Dr. Adrian Smith, Carleton University Dr. Graham Smith, University of Manchester Dr. Nimer Sultany, SOAS University of London Dr. Mayur Suresh, SOAS University of London Dr. Mai Taha, The American University in Cairo Dr. Anastasia Tataryn, University of Liverpool Sâ Benjamin Traoré, University of Neuchâtel Dr. Ntina Tzouvala, Melbourne Law School Dr. Umut Özsu, Carleton University Professor Lynn Welchman, SOAS University of London Professor David Whyte, University of Liverpool Professor Daniel Wilsher, City, University of London Dr. Sujith Xavier, University of Windsor Dr. Federico Zanettin, Università di Perugia Paola Zichi, SOAS, University of London

Explanatory Note

Location of the Hebrew University

During the 1948 war, it was agreed between the Israeli and Jordanian military commanders that the Mount Scopus area, which included the Hebrew University (HUJI) buildings, would be a demilitarised zone. After Israel occupied the West Bank (including Jerusalem) in 1967, the Israeli Government confiscated the land around the Hebrew University and Hadassah hospital, and HUJI embarked on large-scale expansion plans. The expansion extended beyond the “Demilitarised Zone” and included private Palestinian land. As it stands today, significant areas of the Hebrew University are in occupied Palestinian area, and are effectively settlements. The areas are marked with the black line in the map below (the red line is the Demilitarised Zone), and they include: part of the Maiersdorf Dormitories, all of the Alan Bronfman Dormitories, the Students Village, the Lerner Family Indoor Sports Complex and the Gilbert Tennis Courts.

Role in the Settlement Project

HUJI is at least in part in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). These parts are settlements for they are used to house the population of an occupying power in an occupied territory. Furthermore, HUJI’s Mount Scopus campus as a whole is part of Israel’s illegal extension of its powers and control over the OPT. As a large higher education institution with thousands of students and employees, its presence in this area stimulates settler activities in East Jerusalem, especially in the adjacent neighbourhoods of the French Hill, Ramat Eshkol and Sheikh Jarrah and beyond. HUJI benefits from the settlement infra-structure, the transport lines, and the access roads, which are all in the occupied territory, some of which are on privately-owned Palestinian land. This infra-structure is also designed in a way to favour Israeli settlements in the area, and to the detriment of the local Palestinian population. HUJI’s campus is an integral part of Israel’s settlement enterprise in East Jerusalem.

HUJI itself does not see Israel’s occupation as an occupation, and does not distinguish between the “Demilitarised Zone” and other occupied areas. In fact, HUJI views the occupation favourably and calls it “liberation”, insinuating that Palestinian or Arab control should be seen as an occupation. As its official website states, “On the 7th of June, the Old City of Jerusalem was liberated, and the city was reunited. Efforts to return the university to Mt. Scopus began immediately, but the full restoration and building of the old/new campus took many years.” [Emphasis added]. HUJI also awarded the then Chief of Military Staff, Yitzhak Rabin, an honorary doctorate for his role in the occupation, or as HUJI’s website puts it his role “in reuniting Jerusalem, and for enabling the return of the university to Mt. Scopus.”

In 2012, the Israeli Government announced plans to build a new military college nearby (which will be wholly or in part in the OPT) because of its proximity to the University. The University did not oppose these plans, on the contrary, it expressed its support for them.

Assurances given by the Organisers to ESIL’s Board

The local organisers of the event gave a number of assurances to ESIL regarding the event.

The assurances offered by the organisers (based on emails sent by ESIL) are:

— to make a good faith effort to involve Palestinian scholars in the event.
— to facilitate visa formalities for conference participants and arrange video conference facilities for speakers who are unable to travel to Israel.
— to ensure that no part of the RF takes place in the occupied territories.
— to include Palestinian-owned hotels in East Jerusalem in the list of recommended places to stay.
— to not invite government officials to speak at the event.
— to carefully monitor security and inform the Board of any developments.

While some of these are common sense assurances, they do not address the main issue, which is that a significant part of the HUJI is on occupied territory; that, in effect, HUJI is part of the settlements project; and that holding the event at HUJI is effectively an endorsement of the occupation and the associated human rights violations. None of the assurances provided can remedy these problems.

More specifically, some of the assurances are either impractical or plainly offensive to Palestinians.
Assurance number 2 ignores the widespread boycott of Israeli academic institutions by Palestinian scholars (who also call on other academics to boycott) in protest against the role of Israeli academia in maintaining the occupation. Even if a few Palestinian scholars wanted to participate, they will most likely be unable to attend because of Israel’s restrictions on their movement.
Assurance number 3 “to ensure that no part of the RF takes place in the occupied territories” is impossible to comply with because HUJI itself sits at least in part on occupied land.
Assurance number 4 about including Palestinian-owned hotels in East Jerusalem in the list of recommended hotels is disrespectful to the local Palestinian population. It implies that the damage done by ESIL’s endorsement of the occupation and settlements could be remedied if the conference goers are given the option to spend a few hundred dollars in Palestinian-owned businesses.

HUJI’s Complicity in the Occupation

HUJI is complicit in Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in a number of ways:

1. In addition to being an integral part of the settlement enterprise in East Jerusalem, it actively played an important role to the illegal taking of Palestinian property in East Jerusalem, including attempts to evict nine Palestinian families from their homes.

2. HUJI maintains very intimate links with the Israeli army and Israeli security arms. These links include academic cooperation. One example is the Talpiot Programme academic and military training designed and delivered by HUJI and the army (for the programme’s website in Hebrew, see http://www.talpiot.mod.gov.il/traing/Pages/default.aspx). Other academic programmes included specially tailored programmes for the personnel of the Israeli secret service (General Security Service, also known as the Shabak) which is responsible for torturing Palestinian political prisoners. HUJI promotes the General Security Service as a potential employer for its students and graduates.

3. HUJI has taken measures to support Israeli soldiers who are in active combat. During the 2014 in Gaza, HUJI supported the war effort by fundraising for and offering financial support for its soldier students who participated in combat. HUJI and its official students union had a campaign to collect goods to be delivered to the soldiers fighting in Gaza.

4. As opposed to some universities in South Africa which took a formal institutional position against apartheid and consistently condemned it, HUJI has never made any public statement against the occupation and its associated human rights violations. In fact, HUJI shows support for the occupation and refers to it as “liberation”.  



Voices: Will international law protect Palestinians?

Alice Panepinto is a UN Fellow (Human Rights) in Jerusalem and a PhD Candidate at Durham Law School and told MEE:

“The escalating Israeli aggression towards Gaza, which has so far caused 1,361 injuries and 178 deaths – including 138 civilians of which 36 children – (source: UN-OCHA), calls into question whether international law is of any use in protecting civilians and non-combatants in the area. Will the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, acceded to in April 2014, assist the Palestinians of Gaza? And are the recently ratified human rights instruments relevant? The answer rests in the ability of the international community to hold Israel accountable for any unnecessary and disproportionate military actions.” 


Research Ms Alice Panepinto Member of the Islam, Law and Modernity Member of the Law and Global Justice Biography Alice joined the Durham Law School as a PhD candidate in October 2010. She holds a law degree from the University of Turin, Italy, and an LLM from SOAS, University of London, where she focused on Public International Law, Law and Society in the Middle East, Human Rights and Islamic Law. In 2014 she is serving as a UN Fellow in Jerusalem, working on human rights and justice sector. Before returning to academia, Alice completed a traineeship on international peace and security issues at the Delegation of the European Commission to the UN and a legal research internship at the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights (Interights). She has also worked for the International Training Centre of the International Labour Organisation as a research and training assistant. At Durham Law School, alongside her PhD, Alice served as Deputy Convener (PGR) of the Law and Conflict at Durham (LCD) research cluster (2011-2013) and as secretary of Islam, Law and Modernity (ILM) (2011-2013) research cluster.

Durham University ⇨ Islam, Law and Modernity

Islam, Law and Modernity (ILM) has been established with the purpose of providing an interdisciplinary environment for research, discussion and commentary on a variety of social, political and legal issues relating to the Islamic world.

Throughout the Muslim World, there are calls for re-Islamisation of the legal systems, either for the strict application of the Shari’ah in its traditional form based on imitation (taqlid), or for a return to the roots or the principles of the Shari’ah (Maqasid al-Shari’ah), a re-opening of the door to independent reasoning (ijtihad), or even for a move towards the practice of Islam in a secular state or a combination of some of these – yet even amongst Islamic scholars there is no agreement on the path to be taken. Such disagreements are exacerbated by the differences in interpreting primary sources of law between the Shi’a and Sunni schools of thought. At the same time, one can notice that some Arab and Muslim States have taken steps that have resulted in a certain rapprochement of Islamic and secular principles. The recently enacted constitutions of States such as Iraq and Afghanistan, countries that have in recent history come under the influence of Western law-makers and policies, contain provisions which, on the one hand, declare the Shari’ah to be the highest source of the law of the land, while at the same time subscribing to the ideals of democracy. Many Muslim countries to this day have laws and justice systems based to a large extent on post-colonial and in fact secularised models left behind by the colonial powers and adopted by the former colonies. Arab States are engaged in international relations which are in fact dominated by Western thinking. Many Muslims live in Western countries where they enjoy and actively exercise the rights and freedoms granted under their laws. Globalisation will result in greater interaction between societies and different spheres of law. Such globalisation-influenced processes are not uniform in the Islamic world, however, as alongside liberalisation in some countries, radicalisation and more literal interpretation of Islam occurs in others, who feel threatened by Western interference. There are also prevalent cultural distortions between various Islamic countries that may inhibit their ability to act uniformly, such as, for example, the controversial concept of temporary marriage. All of these issues have recently been thrown into much sharper relief by events in the Middle East in the so-called “Arab Spring” since 2010.

Israeli Academics Mobilized to Defend BDS


Editorial Note

Recently, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism has dealt a blow to the BDS movement.  While not enough institutions have adopted it yet, the definition has gained international prominence, indicating that some BDS arguments are anti-Semitic.

In England, Gavin Williamson, the education minister, has warned universities that they could have their funding cut if they refuse to adopt the IHRA definition. He noted that “too many disturbing incidents of anti-Semitism on campus and a lack of willingness by too many universities to confront this.” He added that “While many universities have rightly been quick over the summer to demonstrate their readiness to take action against other forms of racism, it is frankly disturbing that so many are dragging their feet on the matter of anti-Semitism.”  Williamson has asked university officials to consider directing their Office for Students (OfS) to impose a new regulatory condition of registration or suspend funding streams for universities if anti-Semitic incidents occur and have not followed the definition. A spokesman for the OfS said that “The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is an important guide to interpreting anti-Semitism and a useful tool for understanding how anti-Semitism manifests itself in the 21st century. We will explore with the Department for Education what practical steps should be taken to ensure its wider adoption, and how to make sure that anti-Semitism has no place on campuses in England.”

The international acceptance of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism prompted the Palestinian-led BDS movement to look for alternative ways to promote BDS. It has relied recently on Israeli Jews to push the BDS call forward. Several instances of mobilizing Israel academics have recently surfaced.

In Germany, on September 25, 2020, a group of Jewish radical activists and academics founded a new teaching program titled the “School for Unlearning Zionism.” It is described as a “space in which knowledge that does not belong to a hegemonic discourse is shared… originated in Berlin (as a place between Tel Aviv and Ramallah), by a group of Jewish Israelis seeking to be part of a movement for equality in Palestine/Israel and of deconstruction of systems built on inequality, oppression, and exploitation.”  The School’s October Program is “dedicated to (re)negotiation work in the face of the Zionist narrative.” The October program includes Prof. Ilan Pappe, Dr. Revital Madar, Prof. Raef Zreik, among others.  The program is also published in Arabic, translated as “Zionist renunciation school.” Worth noting that denying the right of Jews for self-determination is anti-Semitic according to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

Academia for Equality (A4E), a radical political-academic group on which IAM reported before, embraced the School of Unlearning Zionism on their Facebook page and admitted to being part of it. A4E complained that “the Israeli regime and its dubious friends only love disciplined and obedient Jews, who do not ask, who do not criticize, who do not think. Certainly not together with Palestinians. And what does the regime do when it is criticized? It accuses critics of anti-Semitism. The Israeli Embassy, instead of taking action against real anti-Semitism, which comes mostly from the white right-wing in Europe, is mobilizing this important struggle for narrow political gains and the continued silencing of Palestinian voices. As a consequence of this pressure, the school of Art Weißensee Kunsthochschule Berlin has withdrawn the program’s funding and website, but the events are still taking place.”  

The next incident occurred in the U.S, courtesy of BDS activist Prof. Ariella Azoulay of Brown University. Azulay has been accused of depicting Israeli Jews as apes in her “artwork.” In her other images, Israeli-Jews are dehumanized, darkened, and erased. These anti-Semitic visuals have prompted a group “Stop Antisemitism Now” to urge readers to file a Discrimination and Harassment Complaint to Brown University in order to insist they discipline or dismiss Azoulay.  Azoulay is notorious for anti-Israel activism. Prof. Beshara Doumani, the former chair of Palestine Studies at Brown, a radically anti-Israel Palestinian, recruited Azoulay for this purpose. Apparently, Azoulay was so eager to show Palestinian bona-fide that she added Aisha as her second name. In 2013, IAM reported that Azoulay depicted Israel as a Nazi-like state when she presented in an exhibition an image of a group of Palestinians wearing prisoners’ uniforms, chased by Israeli soldiers and pictured behind a metal fence. The caption stated, “Palestinians are the ones who will be arrested… they force the Israeli soldiers to chase them as if they were chasing (Jewish) prisoners under the Nazi regime.” 

The Palestinian-led BDS movement recruits Israeli Jewish academics because it assumes that Jews cannot be accused of anti-Semitism. However, this is a futile effort because the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism does not absolve Jews and Israelis of perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes. By offering anti-Semitic tropes, Israeli activist-academics are mobilized to defend BDS.

Antisemitism is abhorrent and I am urging universities to root it out by adopting the IHRA definition. If universities ignore the issue, I have asked officials to consider options e.g. directing the Office for Students to impose a new registration condition or suspending funding.1:03 PM · Oct 9, 2020https://twitter.com/GavinWilliamson/status/1314506646115278848/photo/1

Rt Hon Gavin Williamson CBE MP
Secretary of State
Sanctuary Buildings Great Smith Street Westminster London SW1P 3BT
tel: 0370 000 2288 www.education.gov.uk/help/contactus
Sent by Email
9 October 2020
Dear Vice Chancellor,
Adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism
I am writing to ask your institution to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The number of universities which have adopted the IHRA definition remains shamefully low, and I have asked my officials to look at developing options to address this.
The government adopted the IHRA definition in 2016. We were the first government to do so, but many other countries, institutions and organisations have followed suit.
The IHRA definition helps clarify how antisemitism can manifest itself in the 21st century, as follows (alongside examples):
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” 1
Since 2016, two Universities Ministers have written to you concerning antisemitism in higher education, setting out government’s support for the IHRA definition. In October last year, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP, also wrote to you, strongly urging you to formally adopt the IHRA definition and use it on all appropriate occasions. The question has been raised many times in both Houses of Parliament, demonstrating the strength of feeling and support for the IHRA definition.
1 The full text of the definition can be found at: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf
In recent years, I know that some universities have made real progress in tackling the scourge of antisemitism. I also welcome the work that Universities UK (UUK) is doing to address this issue, and look forward to seeing the upcoming guidance that UUK is publishing on ‘Tackling Racial Harassment in Higher Education’ on our campuses. However, there remain too many disturbing incidents of antisemitism on campus, from both students and staff, and a lack of willingness by too many universities to confront this.
The definition helps us better understand and recognise instances of antisemitism, and gives examples of the kind of behaviours, which, depending on the circumstances, could constitute antisemitism.
However, I am frankly disappointed that the majority of higher education providers have not yet adopted the IHRA definition. I am surprised that some universities have actively chosen not to use this straightforward way to demonstrate clearly that they do not tolerate antisemitism. These providers are letting down all their staff and students, and, shamefully, their Jewish students in particular.
While many universities have rightly been quick over the summer to demonstrate their readiness to take action against other forms of racism, it is frankly disturbing that so many are dragging their feet on the matter of antisemitism. The repugnant belief that antisemitism is somehow a less serious, or more acceptable, form of racism has taken insidious hold in some parts of British society, and I am quite clear that universities must play their part in rooting out this attitude and demonstrating that antisemitism is abhorrent.
I believe sincerely that adopting the IHRA definition is morally the right thing to do. Without it, Jewish students say they simply do not feel protected, should they be subject to an antisemitic attack, whether physically, verbally or online and, sadly, we are hearing of an upturn in online incidents since the start of the pandemic.
I do not want to see higher education providers continuing to ignore the issue of antisemitism. Adoption of the IHRA definition shows that providers are taking this matter seriously. If they do not demonstrate that they are taking their responsibilities in this regard seriously, I will consider going further to ensure that all providers are tackling antisemitism, with robust measures in place to address issues when they arise. I have asked my officials to explore how best to achieve this. I have asked my officials to consider options that include directing the OfS to impose a new regulatory condition of registration and suspending funding streams for universities at which antisemitic incidents occur and which have not signed up to the definition.
And so I urge you now to do the right thing, and adopt the IHRA definition if your institution has not already done so. If you have reservations, the Universities Minister or I would be happy to meet you to discuss them. You should have no doubt: this government has zero tolerance towards antisemitism. If I have not seen the overwhelming majority of institutions adopting the definition by Christmas then I will act.
The government and universities must work together to eradicate antisemitism from our world leading higher education sector. Adopting the IHRA definition is an excellent and essential step towards that goal.
Rt Hon Gavin Williamson CBE MP
Secretary of State for Education


Universities may face cuts if they reject definition of antisemitism, says education minister

Gavin Williamson says there’s ‘too many disturbing incidents of antisemitism on campus’ in the UK

Eleanor Busby@Eleanor_Busby
1 day ago

Gavin Williamson said a number of universities are ‘letting down all their staff and students'(PA)

Universities could have their funding cut if they refuse to adopt an internationally recognised definition of antisemitism, the education secretary has warned.

Gavin Williamson has said he will take action against higher education institutions if they do not adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism before Christmas.

In a letter to vice-chancellors on Friday, the minister said there were still “too many disturbing incidents of antisemitism on campus and a lack of willingness by too many universities to confront this”.

He said the number of universities which have adopted the definition “remains shamefully low”, adding he was surprised that institutions have chosen not to demonstrate that they “do not tolerate antisemitism”.

“These providers are letting down all their staff and students, and, shamefully, their Jewish students in particular,” Mr Williamson said.

The education secretary is asking officials to consider directing the Office for Students (OfS) to impose a new regulatory condition of registration or suspend funding streams for universities at which antisemitic incidents occur and which have not signed up to the definition.

He added: “While many universities have rightly been quick over the summer to demonstrate their readiness to take action against other forms of racism, it is frankly disturbing that so many are dragging their feet on the matter of antisemitism.

“The repugnant belief that antisemitism is somehow a less serious, or more acceptable, form of racism has taken insidious hold in some parts of British society, and I am quite clear that universities must play their part in rooting out this attitude and demonstrating that antisemitism is abhorrent.”

A spokesman for the OfS said: “The IHRA definition of antisemitism is an important guide to interpreting antisemitism and a useful tool for understanding how antisemitism manifests itself in the 21st century.

“We will explore with the Department for Education what practical steps should be taken to ensure its wider adoption, and how to make sure that antisemitism has no place on campuses in England.”

A Universities UK (UUK) spokeswoman said: “We recommend universities do all they can to tackle antisemitism, including considering the IHRA definition, whilst also recognising their duty to promote freedom of speech within the law.

“UUK has set up a taskforce to consider what can be done to address all forms of harassment, violence and hate crime on campus, including on the basis of religion.”

She added: “We are in regular contact with Jewish community leaders and student groups to ensure that universities are supported to do all they can to tackle antisemitism.”




Williamson accuses English universities of ignoring antisemitism

Education secretary presses institutions to adopt IHRA definition by Christmas

Richard Adams Education editor

Fri 9 Oct 2020 18.21 BST

 Gavin Williamson said there remained ‘too many disturbing incidents of antisemitism on campus’. 

The government has accused universities in England of ignoring antisemitism and ordered them to adopt an international definition before the end of the year or risk having funding cut off.

Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, said in a letter to vice-chancellors that it was “frankly disturbing” that so many universities had failed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.

“The repugnant belief that antisemitism is somehow a less serious or more acceptable form of racism has taken insidious hold in some parts of British society, and I am quite clear that universities must play their part in rooting out this attitude and demonstrating that antisemitism is abhorrent,” Williamson said.

He noted that some universities had made progress. “However, there remain too many disturbing incidents of antisemitism on campus, from both students and staff, and a lack of willingness by too many universities to confront this.”

UK universities urged to adopt IHRA wording on antisemitism

A freedom of information request by the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) found that only 29 out of 133 universities had adopted the IHRA definition, and 80 said they had no current plans to do so.

Universities have objected to adopting the definition on the principle of academic autonomy, and in other cases because of conflicts with freedom of speech requirements, which are also strongly backed by Williamson’s government.

A spokesperson for the UJS said Williamson’s letter was “a strong stand by the UK government against antisemitism and discrimination faced by Jewish students”.


Williamson said the Office for Students, the higher education regulator for England, could be asked to take regulatory action including suspending “funding streams” if universities failed to adopt the IHRA definition by the end of December.

“If I have not seen the overwhelming majority of institutions adopting the definition by Christmas then I will act,” Williamson wrote.

A spokesperson for Universities UK, which represents the sector, said: “We recommend universities do all they can to tackle antisemitism, including considering the IHRA definition, whilst also recognising their duty to promote freedom of speech within the law.

“UUK has set up a taskforce to consider what can be done to address all forms of harassment, violence and hate crime on campus, including on the basis of religion. We are in regular contact with Jewish community leaders and student groups to ensure that universities are supported to do all they can to tackle antisemitism.”

Williamson’s intervention comes at a difficult time for many universities struggling to cope with hundreds of students and staff infected with Covid-19, as well as preparing for the UK’s exit from the EU and its impact on recruitment and funding.

“When future historians look at the Covid-19 period, there will be complete mystification at what the Department for Education took to be a priority in the middle of the crisis,” said one university official.


This is Google’s cache of http://kunsthalle.kunsthochschule-berlin.de/School-for-Unlearning-Zionism.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 1 Oct 2020 13:21:19 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more.Full versionText-only versionView sourceTip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.

School for Unlearning Zionism

School for Unlearning Zionism

The School for Unlearning Zionism is a space in which knowledge, that does not belong to a hegemonic discourse, is shared. We hereby invite you to participate in our October program.

The School for Unlearning Zionism originated in Berlin (as a place between Tel Aviv and Ramallah), by a group of Jewish Israelis seeking to be part of a movement for equality in Palestine/Israel and of deconstruction of systems built on inequality, oppression, and exploitation.

In our desire to be partners in struggles within unequal power relations, we recognize the importance of having these discussions amongst ourselves as well as the importance of creating learning spaces in which non hegemonic knowledge can be shared and heard in broader contexts. 

The October Program is dedicated to (re)negotiation work in the face of the Zionist narrative (with its many meanings and political consequences). Unlearning Zionism begins, for us, with the recognition that knowledge is created within systems of power and continues with working towards forming spaces based on visions of equality – between the river and the sea – and beyond. Throughout October our school doors will be open and we invite you to join in the practice of unlearning Zionism. Together we will listen to lectures, reflect and exchange thoughts, watch movies, and participate in various workshops in Hebrew and in English.

The study sessions will take place online, in addition to an exhibition in the ‘Kunsthalle am Hamburger Platz’.

See Program
Access Link for Online Events

בית הספר לאַנְלֶרְנִינג-ציונות

בית הספר לאַנְלֶרְנִינג-ציונות “School for Unlearning Zionism” הוא מרחב אמנותי שנולד בברלין, מרחב של לימוד משותף וניהול משא ומתן עצמי, פנים ישראלי-יהודי מול הסיפור הציוני (ומשמעותו והשלכותיו הפוליטיות) שחונכנו לתוכו. את הידע שאותו אנחנו רוכשות ״בחוץ״ (ברלין כמקום בין תל אביב לרמאללה) אנחנו בוחנות מול מערכות הידע שגדלנו בתוכן.

בית הספר לאַנְלֶרְנִינג-ציונות נולד מתוך הרצון שלנו להיות שותפות במאבקים למען שוויון, ופירוק מבנים שנוסדו מתוך חוסר שוויון, דיכוי וניצול מאז שפלסטין(ה) הפכה לישראל. על מנת לפרק את ההגמוניה ולהיות שותפות במאבק בתוך מרחבים שבהם יחסי הכוח אינם שווים, עלינו לנהל שיחה זו גם בינינו לבין עצמנו.

בלמידה המשותפת שלנו מתרחש תהליך פרידה מהקולקטיב שלומדנו להיות חלק ממנו, ובו-בזמן נוצר מרחב המאפשר הצטרפות לקבוצות שיוך חדשות. הצעד הראשון הוא צעד של זיהוי העליונות של הזהות היהודית ישראלית שלנו בין הנהר לים; עבודת פירוק ידע (unlearning) מתחילה בהכרה בכך שידע נולד בתוך מערכות של כוח (שהן לרוב שקופות למי שחלק מהן ונהנה מזכויותיו וחובותיו האזרחיות) וממשיכה ביצירת מרחב חדש המתבסס על החזון לשוויון – בין הנהר לים – ומעבר לו.

בחודש אוקטובר נפתח את דלתות בית הספר שלנו לחודש לימוד-אַנְלֶרְנִינג משותף. אנחנו מזמינות אתכן.ם לחשוב איתנו, לשמוע הרצאות, לצפות בסרטים ולהשתתף בדיונים וסדנאות בעברית ואנגלית.

הלימוד יתקיים באופן וירטואלי במקביל לתערוכה שתוצג ב Kunsthalle am Hamburger Platz בברלין.

See Program
Access Link for Online Events

Die KHHP (Kunsthalle am Hamburger Platz) der Weißensee Kunsthochschule Berlin wird unterstützt durch


אקדמיה לשוויון Academia for Equality أكاديميون من أجل ألمساواة

12 October at 09:05אמ;לק: שגרירות ישראל חוברת לכוחות ימין בגרמניה במאמץ להשתיק קולות יהודיים ביקורתיים לפני מספר שבועות יזמה קבוצת אמניות ואקטיביסטיות יהודיות בברלין את תוכנית הלימודים “בית הספר לאַנְלֶרְנִינג-ציונות”, אותה הן הגדירו כ: “מרחב של לימוד משותף וניהול משא ומתן עצמי, פנים ישראלי-יהודי מול הסיפור הציוני (ומשמעותיו והשלכותיו הפוליטיות) שחונכנו לתוכו. את הידע שאותו אנחנו רוכשות ‘בחוץ’ (ברלין כמקום בין תל אביב לרמאללה) אנחנו בוחנות מול מערכות הידע שגדלנו בתוכן. בית הספר לאַנְלֶרְנִינג-ציונות נולד מתוך הרצון שלנו להיות שותפות במאבקים למען שוויון ופירוק מבנים שנוסדו מתוך חוסר שוויון, דיכוי וניצול מאז שפלסטין(ה) הפכה לישראל. על מנת לפרק את ההגמוניה ולהיות שותפות במאבק בתוך מרחבים שבהם יחסי הכוח אינם שווים, עלינו לנהל שיחה זו גם בינינו לבין עצמנו.”לאורך חודש אוקטובר מציעה התכנית עשרות דיונים והרצאות מפי חוקרות.ים ואקטיביסטים.ות יהודים, פלסטינים ואחרים (בהן חברות אקדמיה לשוויון) על נושאים כגון: ציונות וקולוניאליזם התיישבותי, המאבק המזרחי, הסכמי אוסלו, הארכיון הפלסטיני, כלכלת הכיבוש ועוד.אבל השלטון הישראלי וידידיו המפוקפקים אוהבים רק יהודים ממושמעים וצייתנים, שלא שואלים, שלא מבקרים, שלא חושבים. בטח ובטח לא יחד עם פלסטינים.ומה השלטון עושה כשמופנית כלפיו ביקורת? מאשים את המבקרות.ים באנטישמיות. שגרירות ישראל, במקום לפעול נגד האנטישמיות הממשית, שבאה רובה ככולה מצד הימין הלבן באירופה, מגייסת את המאבק החשוב הזה לצרכים פוליטיים צרים ולהמשך ההשתקה של קולות פלסטיניים.בעקבות הלחץ משך בית הספר לאמנות בוייסנזה את כספי התוכנית והסיר את האתר שלה, אבל האירועים ממשיכים להתקיים וניתן למצוא אותם בעמוד הפייסבוק של היוזמה.- די לרדיפה הפוליטית ולהשתקה – די לניצול הציני של האנטישמיות ושל השואה – די למשטרת המחשבות
בתגובות: הצהרת “בית הספר לאַנְלֶרְנִינג-ציונות” כפי שפורסמה אמש

School for Unlearning Zionism

School for Unlearning Zionism

11 October at 19;23

How does Germany like its Jews?
Last Thursday the Weissensee Kunsthochschule Berlin  retracted funding  from our October Program and has shut down the “Kunsthalle am Hamburger Platz” website which hosted our project and where we plan an exhibition that should open next weekend. Speakers already signed contracts and some already gave lectures, which the university now refuses to pay for.
The Weissensee Kunsthochschule Berlin’s decision to defund our program and shut down the website was taken after it had received a letter from a German journalist who accused some of the speakers we invited to participate in our October Program, all Jewish Israelis, of supporting the BDS movement. Accusing the project of antisemitism for inviting these speakers, he demanded that the university distance itself from the project. 
We see this attack as a direct continuation of recent developments in Germany: In May 2019, the Bundestag passed a resolution that defines the BDS movement as antisemitic and anyone doubting Israel’s right to be a Jewish-majority state, as anti-Semitic. Although this resolution is not a binding law it defines the parameters in which the conversation is being held, or cannot be held. At this point whoever is suspected of supporting BDS, becomes outcast and defamed as anti-Semitic, even if they themselves are Jewish. It is a resolution which harms both Jews and Palestinians, but benefits the reputation of Nazis, because the Bundestag equated the murderous National-Socialist Party with it’s slogan “don’t buy from Jews” with a human rights movement demanding equality in Israel/Palestine.  
So how does Germany like its Jews? Disciplined and obedient. “Good Jews” who participate in Germany’s self-indulgent guilt trip, and supporting Zionism – encouraging Jews to leave Europe and move to Israel. Our project “School for Unlearning Zionism” threatens the desire of far-right Germans to create a Germany clean of Jews. Today, German society has shown itself once again as racist, antisemitic and discriminatory. 
Please show your support by sharing this post!


School for Unlearning Zionism

10 October at 12:00مدرسة نبذ الصهيونيةمدرسة نبذ الصهيونية هي مساحة نتشارك بها معرفة لا تنتمي الى نمط الحوار المسيطر. ندعوكم للمشاركة ببرنامجنا لشهر أكتوبر.تم إنشاء مدرسة نبذ الصهيونية في برلين (كمكان بين تل أبيب ورام الله) على يد مجموعة من اليهود الإسرائيليين الذي يسعون الى أن يكونوا جزء من حركة من أجل المساواة الكاملة في فلسطين/أسرائيل وفي سبيل تفكيك ومقاومة النظام الصهيوني المبني على عدم المساواة، القهر والظلم والإستغلال.من خلال رغبتنا لأن نكون شركاء لصراعات بين علاقات قوى غير متساوية، نحن ندرك أهمية إجراء هذه النقاشات فيما بيننا كما وأهمية خلق مساحات تعليمية تمكنا من نشر وسماع معرفة غير مهيمنة من خلال سياقات واسعة.برنامج شهر أكتوبربرنامج شهر أكتوبر مكرس لأعمال (إعادة-) المفاوضة بوجه السرد الصهيوني (على معانيه المتعددة وعواقبه السياسية). نبذ الصهيونية يبدأ بالنسبة لنا بالإدراك أن المعرفة تخلق من خلال أنظمة من القوى وتستمر بالعمل من أجل خلق مساحات متأسسة على المساواة – بين النهر والبحر – وما بعدهما. خلال شهر أكتوبر سوف تفتح أبواب مدرستنا ونحن ندعوكم لينضموا الى ممارسة نبذ الصهيونية. سوف نستمع سويا لمحاضرات، نفكر ونتبادل أفكار، نشاهد أفلام ونشارك بورشات عمل مختلفة باللغة الإنجليزية والعبرية.الجلسات التعليمية سوف تتم عبر الأنترنت، بالإضافة الى معرض سوف يعرض في برلين.Zionist renunciation schoolZionist renunciation school is a space where we share knowledge that does not belong to the dominant dialogue pattern. We invite you to participate in our October program.A school of renunciation of Zionism in Berlin (as a place between Tel Aviv and Ramallah) was created by a group of Israeli Jews seeking to be part of a movement for full equality in Palestine / Israel and to dismantle and resist the Zionist regime Huni based on inequality, oppression, injustice and exploitation.Through our desire to be partners in conflicts between unequal power relationships, we recognize the importance of having these discussions among ourselves and the importance of creating educational spaces that enable us to spread and hear non-dominant knowledge through broad contexts.October programOctober program dedicated to the actions of (re-) negotiating against the Zionist narrative (on its multiple meanings and political consequences). The renunciation of Zionism begins for us with the realization that knowledge is created through systems of power and continues to work towards creating spaces based on equality – between river and sea – and beyond. During October our school will open doors and we invite you to join the practice of renouncing Zionism. Together we will listen to lectures, think and exchange ideas, watch movies and share different workshops in English and Hebrew.Educational sessions will take place online, plus a gallery that will be on display in Berlin.  · See original  · Rate this translation



School for Unlearning Zionism · 

25 September at 15:20The School for Unlearning Zionism is a space in which knowledge that does not belong to a hegemonic discourse is shared. We hereby invite you to participate in our October program.The School for Unlearning Zionism originated in Berlin (as a place between Tel Aviv and Ramallah), by a group of Jewish Israelis seeking to be part of a movement for equality in Palestine/Israel and of deconstruction of systems built on inequality, oppression, and exploitation.In our desire to be partners in struggles within unequal power relations, we recognize the importance of having these discussions amongst ourselves as well as the importance of creating learning spaces in which non hegemonic knowledge can be shared and heard in broader contexts. The October Program is dedicated to (re)negotiation work in the face of the Zionist narrative (with its many meanings and political consequences). Unlearning Zionism begins, for us, with the recognition that knowledge is created within systems of power and continues with working towards forming spaces based on visions of equality – between the river and the sea – and beyond.Throughout October our school doors will be open and we invite you to join in the practice of unlearning Zionism. Together we will listen to lectures, reflect and exchange thoughts, watch movies, and participate in various workshops in Hebrew and in English.The study sessions will take place online, in addition to an exhibition which will be presented in the ‘Kunsthalle am Hamburger Platz’, Berlin.The full program will be published in the following days.


Preparing myself to my lecture on the ´The Desert Effect – Palestine exists where it had always been’ in the series of lectures organized by ⁦ @samiahenni ⁩ #unlearningimperialism #potentialhistory 3:15 PM · Oct 3, 2020


Stop Antisemitism Now

12 October at 00:11  · 

URGENT ACTION ALERT: Brown U. professor portrays JEWS as APES on twitter and in lecture. Email the BIAS COMPLAINT (below) to Brown to insist they discipline or dismiss her. Note: You will have to fill in some of your details.
Email: [OIED-intake@brown.edu](mailto:OIED-intake@brown.edu)
Subject: BIAS COMPLAINT against Ariella Azoulay
Email Contents:
Dear Brown OIED-intake,
Below is a Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Form against Professor Ariella Azoulay.
Discrimination and Harassment
Complaint Form
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Discrimination
I. Name of Complainant (person filing the complaint)
Telephone (cell):
Campus Telephone:  N/A
Email Address:
II. Name and status of Respondent (person complaint is against)
Faculty X
III. Summary of allegations (attach additional sheets as necessary):
On October 3, 2020, Professor Azoulay tweeted photos of Israel Jews with their images cut out, dehumanizing them and making the look in some images like apes. She did this in preparation for an October 5 lecture she gave at Cornell University in which she shared these images with students.. She dehumanizes Jews in the same way that the Nazis did.
IV. What action, if any, does the reporting person request?
1. Discipline and if possible dismiss Professor Azoulay from her position. 2) Adopt and make use of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. 3) Create programs for faculty and students making them aware of and giving them the ability to identify anti-Israel anti-Semitism.
V. Does the reporting person request confidentiality? (please read acknowledgement statement below) Yes X No
VI. Acknowledgement of Person Filing Report
I understand that if I have requested confidentiality, Brown’s ability to thoroughly address my complaint of alleged discrimination or harassment may be limited. I understand that even though I may have requested confidentiality, my request may not be honored if my safety or the safety of others may be compromised. I understand that if I have any questions regarding any of this information, including the filing of this form and confidentiality, it is my responsibility to meet and discuss those questions with the appropriate staff member in Human Resources or in the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity.
Signature of person filing report  Date filed
Name of person receiving this report:
Name Title


Ariella Azoulay, “When the Body Politic Ceases To Be an Idea”, Manifesta Journal | The European Biennial of Contemporary Art, #16.

Caption: “Palestinians are the ones who will be arrested… they
force the Israeli soldiers to chase them as if they were chasing
(Jewish) prisoners under the Nazi regime.”

Homi K. Bhabha Succumbed to BDS: Canceled Israeli Sociological Society Conference Keynote Speech

Editorial Note
Homi K Bhabha is a renowned scholar of Humanities at Harvard University who explores colonial and postcolonial theory, cultural change and power, and cosmopolitanism, among other topics. Bhabha was invited by the Israeli Sociological Society (ISS) to give a keynote speech at the upcoming annual conference in February 2021.  Bhabha, a friend of Prof. Lev Grinberg, the ISS president, initially agreed to participate, but recently changed his mind after pressure coming from BDS advocates.  

 He explained his decision by noting his “respect for scholars who fight for what is right and just, and who invited me in a spirit of good faith and collegiality.”  He added that Grinberg is one of them since during Grinberg’s tenure as the president, ISS published in June 2020, a declaration committing itself “to reflect, expose and criticize the violence of security forces and the police against individuals and disadvantaged groups, due to their skin color or precarious civil status as often happens in the case of Palestinians, Ethiopian Jews, foreign workers and asylum seekers.” Also, in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, ISS explicitly argued for “Palestinian lives matter.” Grinberg specifically, according to Bhabha, “has a steadfast record of opposition to the Israeli State’s discrimination against Palestinians and Arab Israelis, amongst other minorities.”  

In other words, even though the ISS passed all the purity tests as the self-appointed guardians of the Palestinians, Bhabha declined to attend the conference because of a decision made by the Israeli government over which Grinberg and the ISS had no say whatsoever.  

Bhabha has withdrawn because “Diplomatic maneuvers between Israel, the US and the UAE, in the past weeks, are amongst several cynical arrangements being put in place to silence and subvert the Palestinian cause, and more significantly, to expunge the Palestinian people from a radical reconfiguration of the balance of power and profit in the region. Dealt out of the process from the very start, the Palestinian people are pawns in the post-pandemic politics of three ethno-nationalist authoritarians. In these circumstances, I made my decision.”

It should come as no surprise that Bhabha is a veteran activist who uses his academic perch to pontificate on political matters.  Most telling was his response to the 9/11 attacks, where he essentially blamed the “aggressive discourse” of the “conflict of civilizations” for the catastrophe.  As well known, the “conflict of civilizations” populated that the democratic West is engaged in a conflict with radical Islamists like Osama bin Laden who wanted to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate. Conveniently, Bhabha did not mention Osama bin Laden’s eschatological plans. 

Covid-19 gave Bhabha another platform for his politically correct postulates. On July 9, 2020, during an event at Tel Aviv University, titled “Culture and Society in the (post)-Coronavirus Age – The International Dean’s Series Lectures at the Faculty of the Arts Tel Aviv University.”  The Harvard professor talked about his most recent work, the “Governance of the Unprepared.” In essence, his new theme, which he also intended to present at the ISS annual conference, argues that “ethno-nationalist populist leaders like Trump, Netanyahu, Erdogan, Modi, Bolsonaro, and Orban, amongst others, employ an affectively charged political discourse of degradation to polarize populations and racialize social relations. They keep their citizens and residents in states of anxious ‘unpreparedness’ and fearful indeterminacy to restrict their political agency, while expediently executing policies of oppression, inequity, indignity and the quelling of dissent. The pandemic, which has been woefully, and at times intentionally, mismanaged by these very leaders has been deployed to further majoritarian agendas to the detriment of migrants, minorities and political dissidents.”  

Needless to say, Bhabha did not mention Iran, the Palestinian PA, and Hamas, or other autocratic regimes that left their populations unprepared.  Iran has one of the highest infection rates and mortality while brutally killing protestors and dissidents.  Such cherry-picking is widespread among the “politically correct” elites, who would not let facts stand in the way of their theories.  By creating such massive double standards, Bhabha and his cohorts undermine the legitimacy and morality of their arguments. 

In another double standard case, Bhabha participated at a Tel Aviv University conference but refused to participate in a conference by the ISS, a non-governmental organization. It indicates that Bhabha and his BDS cohorts cannot stick to their own rule, to target only Israeli governmentally supported institutions. 

As for Lev Grinberg and his peers, the withdrawal of Bhabha should serve as a moment of clarity.  No matter how much they beat their breasts and grovel before the masters of “political correctness,” they would be judged as Jews and Israelis who are held responsible for their government’s policies.   Nothing has changed in the anti-Semitism discourse.

האגודה הסוציולוגית הישראלית (עמותה רשומה 580016954)
האגודה הסוציולוגית הישראלית, המחלקה לסוציולוגיה ואנתרופולוגיה, הר הצופים, האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים, ירושלים 91905 Secretary@israel-sociology.com מזכירת האגודה: אליזה פרנקל

2020 15 ספטמבר

2020הודעה – ביטול השתתפותו של פרופ׳ הומי באבא בכנס הסוציולוגי השנתי לצערנו פרופ׳ הומי באבא הודיע על ביטול השתתפותו בכנס הסוציולוגי הקרוב. מלכתחילה הוא קיבל את ההזמנה מתוך הוקרה באגודה שלנו ופעולתה העקבית בעד שוויון ונגד גזענות. אבל הוא הגיע למסקנה שלא רק תוכן דבריו, אלא העיתוי והמקום חשובים. על כן הוא מבטל כעת, בעקבות היוזמה של טראמפ ונתניהו לדחוק את התביעות של העם הפלסטיני על ידי ההסכם שצפוי להיחתם היום עם האמירויות. הנה לשון הודעתו של פרופסור הומי באבא:

I received an invitation several months ago, from my colleague and friend Lev Grinberg, to speak byZoom at the Israeli Sociological Society Conference. Lev, the President of the ISS, has a steadfast recordof opposition to the Israeli State’s discrimination against Palestinians and Arab Israelis, amongst otherminorities. During Lev’s tenure, the ISS published a declaration in June 2020 committing itself “toreflect, expose and criticize the violence of security forces and the police against individuals anddisadvantaged groups, due to their skin color or precarious civil status as often happens in the case ofPalestinians, Ethiopian Jews, foreign workers and asylum seekers.” The ISS has also explicitly arguedfor “Palestinian lives matter” in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.To further this discussion Lev and his colleagues invited me to talk about my recent work on the“Governance of the Unprepared” where I argue that ethno-nationalist populist leaders like Trump,Netanyahu, Erdogan, Modi, Bolsonaro, and Orban, amongst others, employ an affectively chargedpolitical discourse of degradation to polarize populations and racialize social relations. They keep theircitizens and residents in states of anxious “unpreparedness” and fearful indeterminacy to restrict theirpolitical agency, while expediently executing policies of oppression, inequity, indignity and the quellingof dissent. The pandemic, which has been woefully, and at times intentionally, mismanaged by thesevery leaders has been deployed to further majoritarian agendas to the detriment of migrants,minorities and political dissidents.I have withdrawn from the ISS conference because I have decided that it is not only what you say that
matters, but also when and where you say it. Diplomatic maneuvers between Israel, the US and the UAE,in the past weeks, are amongst several cynical arrangements being put in place to silence and subvertthe Palestinian cause, and more significantly, to expunge the Palestinian people from a radicalreconfiguration of the balance of power and profit in the region. Dealt out of the process from the verystart, the Palestinian people are pawns in the post-pandemic politics of three ethno-nationalistauthoritarians. In these circumstances, I made my decision. None of this diminishes my respect forscholars who fight for what is right and just, and who invited me in a spirit of good faith and collegiality.

Homi K. Bhabha


האגודה הסוציולוגית הישראלית Israeli Sociological Society
@IsraelSociology  · Community
1,136 people like this
1,223 people follow this
Community · College & University
Department of Sociology and Anthropology Ben Gurion University 84105 Beersheba, Israel


האגודה הסוציולוגית הישראלית (אס”י) הינה עמותה ללא מטרות רווח, אשר נוסדה לפני ארבעים שנה (1967). למעלה מ-1000 איש רשומים בה, מתוכם כ- 300 חברים עם זכויות מלאות. מטרות האגודה הן: לקדם את הסוציולוגיה כדיסציפלינה מדעית וכפרופסיה; לקדם את הוראת הסוציולוגיה ומדעי ההתנהגות בישראל; לשרת את הסוציולוגים הישראלים; לעודד מחקר ודיון בסוציולוגיה של ישראל; לקדם את תרומותיה של הסוציולוגיה לחברה הישראלית; וגם: למצב את הסוציולוגיה כדיסציפלינת-אם ולקדם את השימוש בסוציולוגיה בתחומים הפרופסיונאליים המגוונים הניזונים ממנה, ביניהם: ניהול, יחסי עבודה, תכנון עירוני ואזורי, חינוך, בריאות בקהילה, עבודה סוציאלית וקהילתית, קרימינולוגיה ועוד. האגודה מנוהלת ע”י נשיא/ה והנהלה, הנבחרים ע”י חברי האגודה, ומזכיר/ת האגודה. הנשיא הנוכחי הוא פרופ’ אורי רם, פרופסור לסוציולוגיה באוניברסיטת בן גוריון. מזכירת האגודה היא גב’ ליאור סבח, מאסטרנטית במחלקה לסוציולוגיה ואנתרופולוגיה באוניברסיטת בן גוריון. 


Prof. Homi Bhabha withdraws from Israel Sociological Society conference  

The US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel thanks Prof. Homi Bhabha for his principled decision to withdraw from participation in the Israel Sociological Society (ISS) conference, where he had been invited to deliver the keynote address. As he noted in his withdrawal statement, “I have decided that it is not only what you say that matters, but also when and where you say it.”

Regardless of the positions they take on Israeli policy, Israel’s academic associations are structurally complicit in the ongoing occupation and colonization of Palestine and its apartheid regime and are therefore subject to the Palestinian and global call for academic boycott, a critical part of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign. By withdrawing from participation at the ISS conference, Prof. Bhabha is taking an important stand and refusing to allow his name to be used to promote and normalize Israeli academia.

Click here to endorse the academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

Prof. Bhabha’s statement:

I received an invitation several months ago, from my colleague and friend Lev Grinberg, to speak by Zoom at the Israeli Sociological Society  Conference . Lev, the President of the ISS, has a steadfast record of opposition to  the Israeli State’s discrimination against Palestinians and Arab Israelis, amongst other minorities. During Lev’s tenure, the ISS published a declaration in June 2020 committing itself “to reflect, expose and criticize the violence of security forces and the police against individuals and disadvantaged groups, due to their skin color or precarious civil status as often happens in the case of Palestinians, Ethiopian Jews, foreign workers and asylum seekers.” The ISS has also explicitly argued for “Palestinian lives matter” in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.

To further this discussion Lev and his colleagues invited me to talk about my recent work on the “Governance of the Unprepared” where I argue that ethno-nationalist populist leaders like Trump, Netanyahu, Erdogan, Modi, Bolsonaro, and Orban, amongst others, employ an affectively charged political discourse of degradation to polarize populations and racialize social relations. They  keep their citizens and residents in states of anxious “unpreparedness” and fearful indeterminacy to restrict their political agency, while expediently executing policies of oppression, inequity, indignity and the quelling of dissent. The pandemic, which  has been woefully, and at times intentionally, mismanaged by these very leaders has been  deployed to further majoritarian agendas to the detriment of migrants, minorities and political dissidents.

I have withdrawn from the ISS conference because I have decided that it is not only what you say that matters, but also when and where you say it. Diplomatic maneuvers between Israel, the US and the UAE, in the past weeks, are amongst several cynical arrangements being put in place to silence and subvert the Palestinian cause, and more significantly, to expunge the Palestinian people from a radical reconfiguration of the balance of power and profit in the region. Dealt out of the process from the very start, the Palestinian people are pawns in the post-pandemic politics of three ethno-nationalist authoritarians. In these circumstances I made my decision. None of this diminishes my respect for scholars who fight for what is right and just, and who invited me in a spirit of good faith and collegiality.

Homi K. Bhabha



Amid criticism, scholar Homi Bhahba pulls out of Israel conference Ali Abunimah Activism and BDS Beat 15 September 2020

Homi K. Bhabha, the renowned scholar of postcolonial studies, has confirmed his withdrawal from a conference in Israel amid criticism of his acceptance of the invitation.

Bhabha, a humanities professor at Harvard, had been scheduled to give the keynote address via Zoom at the annual conference of the Israeli Sociological Society (ISS) in February.

“I have withdrawn from the ISS conference because I have decided that it is not only what you say that matters, but also when and where you say it,” Bhabha stated in an email to The Electronic Intifada.

He cited as context for his decision the recent US-brokered normalization of ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.

Bhabha said these moves were “amongst several cynical arrangements being put in place to silence and subvert the Palestinian cause” and “to expunge the Palestinian people from a radical reconfiguration of the balance of power and profit in the region.”

“In these circumstances I made my decision,” Bhabha said.

He also expressed warmth towards his Israeli hosts, emphasizing that “None of this diminishes my respect for scholars who fight for what is right and just, and who invited me in a spirit of good faith and collegiality.”

Don’t cross picket line

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) told The Electronic Intifada that it “welcomes the withdrawal of Professor Homi Bhabha as keynote speaker in the Israeli Sociological Society Annual Conference.”

“PACBI has consistently called on international academics to do no harm and to respect our BDS – boycott, divestment and sanctions – picket line.”

Bhabha justified his initial decision to accept the invitation because the ISS published a statement in June committing itself to “reflect, expose and criticize the violence of security forces and the police against individuals and disadvantaged groups, due to their skin color or precarious civil status as often happens in the case of Palestinians, Ethiopian Jews, foreign workers and asylum seekers.”

He said he had intended to speak about how “ethnonationalist populist leaders” like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, India’s Narendra Modi, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, and Hungary’s Viktor Orban employ political discourses that “polarize populations and racialize social relations.”

Bhabha added that these leaders have exploited the pandemic to “further majoritarian agendas to the detriment of migrants, minorities and political dissidents.”

However Bhabha’s implication that he would have proceeded with the keynote but for the particular political moment drew a rebuke from PACBI: Not crossing the Palestinian BDS picket line is “a basic moral obligation that extends beyond the present moment of rule by ethnonationalist leaders,” the group said.

PACBI also rejected the notion that the Israeli Sociological Society has shown an adequate and genuine commitment to Palestinian rights.

“Aside from its sanitizing rhetoric about ‘police violence’ and its reduction of the Indigenous Palestinians into yet another ‘disadvantaged group,’ the ISS has failed to recognize, let alone work against, Israel’s decades-old regime of military occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid,” PACBI said.

“This makes the ISS complicit in whitewashing, justifying and perpetuating this system of oppression.”

According to PACBI, the Israeli Sociological Society “also fails to publicly recognize the comprehensive rights of the Palestinian people as stipulated in international law,” including the right of Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Zionists during the Nakba to return home.


Bhabha is best known for his explorations of the concept of hybridity – a way of talking about the cultural outcomes arising from the encounters between colonizers and those they colonized.

He has received the Padma Bhushan Award, one of India’s highest civilian honors.

Bhabha has however come in for strong criticism over his treatment of the question of Palestine.

In a tribute to the late Edward Said, Bhabha represents the “conflict” in Palestine as being “between competing nationalisms, not between colonialism and national liberation,” according to Columbia University professor Joseph Massad, writing in the 2010 anthology Edward Said: A Legacy of Emancipation and Representation.

“Bhabha, who as a ‘postcolonial’ critic is presumably also anticolonial, never relates the Zionist enterprise or Israeli occupation to colonialism, which leads him not to call for an end to Israel’s colonization and occupation but for a negotiated ‘just and lasting peace,’” Massad writes.

This language, Massad charges, is “borrowed from US State Department pronouncements that also never mention colonialism or occupation.”

That tendency is apparent in Bhabha’s statement regarding the ISS conference – where he lumps Israel together with various nation-states and makes no mention of the settler-colonial nature of the Zionist regime that controls Palestinian lives.

While Bhabha’s withdrawal is indeed welcome, he might have avoided this predicament had he been more attentive to Palestinians in the first place. (Though he did reveal he consulted with Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi prior to issuing his statement to The Electronic Intifada).

If the message was not clear earlier, PACBI certainly hopes it is now.

“We call on all international scholars to boycott complicit Israeli academic institutions and associations, like the ISS, in solidarity with the Palestinian nonviolent struggle for freedom, justice and equality,” the group said.

Update: 16 September

Following publication of this article, it emerged that in July, Bhahba participated in an online seminar organized as part of the “International Dean’s Series Lectures at the Faculty of the Arts, Tel Aviv University.”

PACBI has stated that Tel Aviv University is “deeply complicit in maintaining Israel’s regime of occupation, colonialism and apartheid,” including by hosting the Institute for National Security Studies “which boasts of having developed the so-called Dahiya Doctrine, or doctrine of disproportionate force.”

This Dahiya Doctrine involves the deliberate destruction of civilian areas and infliction of suffering on the population as Israel has perpetrated in Lebanon and Gaza.

Tel Aviv University, like all of its peer institutions, maintains deep ties with Israel’s military and intelligence establishment.


Padma Bhushan Awardee Prof Homi K Bhabha Withdraws From Israel Conference After CriticismSeptember 16, 2020

He said he had intended to speak about how “ethnonationalist populist leaders” like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, India’s Narendra Modi, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, and Hungary’s Viktor Orban employ political discourses that “polarise populations and racialise social relations”

Clarion India

RENOWNED Indian British scholar Homi K. Bhabha withdrew from a conference in Israel after facing criticism of his acceptance of the invitation, The electronic intifada reported.

“He cited as context for his decision the recent US-brokered normalisation of ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE),” the report said.

Bhabha, a Harvard University professor and one of the foremost experts on post-colonial studies, was scheduled to give the keynote address via Zoom at the annual conference of the Israeli Sociological Society (ISS) in February.

“I have withdrawn from the ISS conference because I have decided that it is not only what you say that matters, but also when and where you say it,” the 70-year-old Harvard scholar stated in an email to The Electronic Intifada.

Bhabha was honoured with Padma Bhushan in 2012 by the Indian government for his services in literature and education.

For Bhabha, the UAE-Israel deal was “amongst several cynical arrangements being put in place to silence and subvert the Palestinian cause” and “to expunge the Palestinian people from a radical reconfiguration of the balance of power and profit in the region.”

“In these circumstances, I made my decision,” Bhabha said.

He, however, expressed gratification towards the hosts of the conference. “None of this diminishes my respect for scholars who fight for what is right and just, and who invited me in a spirit of good faith and collegiality.”

The report said Bhabha justified his initial decision to accept the invitation because the ISS published a statement in June committing itself to “reflect, expose and criticise the violence of security forces and the police against individuals and disadvantaged groups, due to their skin colour or precarious civil status as often happens in the case of Palestinians, Ethiopian Jews, foreign workers and asylum seekers.”

He said he had intended to speak about how “ethnonationalist populist leaders” like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, India’s Narendra Modi, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, and Hungary’s Viktor Orban employ political discourses that “polarise populations and racialise social relations.”

Bhabha added that these leaders have exploited the pandemic to “further majoritarian agendas to the detriment of migrants, minorities and political dissidents.”

His acceptance of the invitation drew criticism from Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), a pro-Palestine group that seeks academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

Bhabha’s praise of hosts and argument for withdrawal has also come under criticism. “Aside from its sanitising rhetoric about ‘police violence’ and its reduction of the Indigenous Palestinians into yet another ‘disadvantaged group,’ the ISS has failed to recognise, let alone work against, Israel’s decades-old regime of military occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid,” PACBI said.

Bhabha has been criticised in the past for his views on the Palestinian conflict. According to him, it’s a case of competing nationalism. However critics say that the conflict is about “colonialism and national liberation”.==========================================================

הרצאה של כלל האוניברסיטה
אמנות, תרבות וחברה בעידן הפוסט קורונה
Dean’s International lecture series
08 ביולי 2020, 19:00 מפגש מקוון 

As the coronavirus pandemic grinds on, the role of the arts and culture as social instigators, sites of debates and modes of reflection is once again at stake.
How should the arts relate to current conditions, and what role should they play in the global and local arenas? While uncertainty abounds, it looks like the virus will be with us for the foreseeable future, transforming society and culture in ways we cannot predict. How, then, should art and culture prepare for the post-pandemic era?
Art, Culture and Society in the (post)-Coronavirus age presents a series of themed conversations between leading international scholars and staff members from the Yolanda and David Katz Faculty of the Arts.
Dr. Vered Maimon , Department of Art History, in conversation withProf. Homi Bhabha , Harvard University
Please Register here >
A Zoom invitation and password will be distributed via email and social media before each conversation.


A Narrative of Divided Civilizations

By Homi K. Bhabha
SEPTEMBER 28, 2001

In these past, dark days, it has been difficult to draw a line between the outrage and anxiety provoked by terrorist attacks, and the urgent need for some more-humane and
historical reflection on the tragedy itself.

After such knowledge, what forgiveness? The appalling images of death, destruction, and daring that invaded our homes on September 11 left us with no doubt that these unimaginable scenes belonged to a moral universe alien to ours, acts perpetrated by people foreign to the very fiber of our being.

But CNN had a sobering tale to tell. While the headline news staggered from one towering inferno to another, the ticker tape at the bottom of the screen interspersed its roll call of the brave and the dead with lists of Hollywood movies–films that had told a similar story many times before, and new, unreleased movies that were about to tell it again. What was only an action movie last month turned, this month, into acts of war. Same mise-en-scene, different movie.

I have chosen to start with the global genre of the terrorist action film in order to question the widely canvassed cultural assumptions that have come to frame the deadly events. This terrorism was a manifestation of a much deeper “clash of civilizations,” we were frequently told. One night during the week of the attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu developed this thesis and ended up, in effect, by placing Israel just off the East Coast of the United States. The next morning, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz affirmed wide international support for the United States from nations that he described as belonging to the “civilized world” and the “uncivilized world.” By returning to CNN’s ticker tape of terrorist movies and special effects, we see the futility of framing the event in such a divided and polarized civilizational narrative.

Each of the unimaginable actions we were subjected to on our television screens have been repeatedly imagined and applauded as plot devices in movie houses across the country by law-abiding Americans, and successfully exported to other ordinary film-loving folks across the world. The decision to carry out terror, whether it is done in the name of God or the state, is a political decision, not a civilizational or cultural practice.

Ironically, the “clash of civilizations” is an aggressive discourse often used by totalitarians and terrorists to justify their worst deeds, to induce holy terror and create a debilitating psychosis of persecution among oppressed, powerless peoples.

When we use the civilizational argument against them, we are, unwittingly perhaps, speaking in the divisive tongue of tyrants.

When American foreign and economic policy is conducted in terms of the civilizational divisions of “them and us,” the nation assumes that hawkish, imperialist aspect that provokes a widespread sense of injustice, indignation, and fear.

Once we see terrorism as an organized political action, rather than the expression of cultural or civilizational “difference,” we can both fight it and look toward the future — a future that makes common cause between the victims of terror, and those peoples around the world who are fated to live in countries governed by regimes or organizations that impose such unlawful and inhuman policies. Only those societies — whether they are in the north or the south, the east or the west — that insure the widest democratic participation and protection for their citizens are in a position to make the deadly, difficult decisions that “just” wars demand. To confront the politics of terror, out of a sense of democratic solidarity rather than retaliation, gives us some faint hope for the future: hope that we might be able to establish a vision of a global society, informed by civil liberties and human rights, that carries with it the shared obligations and responsibilities of common, collaborative citizenship.

Homi Bhabha is a professor of English and African-American studies at Harvard University.


In the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, The Chronicle asked scholars in a variety of disciplines to reflect on those events. Their comments were submitted in writing or transcribed from interviews.