Suchergebnisse

Raef Zreik traces Kant's struggle to establish the concept of "autonomy" as an organizing principle in his practical philosophy. While describing the inherent tensions facing this project, this book offers a fresh way of understanding contemporary debates.

"Raef Zreik traces Kant's struggle to establish the concept of "autonomy" as an organizing principle in his practical philosophy. While describing the inherent tensions facing this project, this book offers a fresh way of understanding contemporary debates"--

Israel's raison d'être was as a Jewish state, yet for almost four decades after the 1948 declaration of its establishment its Jewishness was not inscribed in any law. This essay, a structural-historical discourse analysis, seeks to explore what led up to today's insistent assertion of the state's Jewish identity. To this end, the author traces Israel's gradual evolution from its purely ethnic roots (the Zionist revolution) to a more civic concept of statehood involving greater inclusiveness (accompanied in recent decades by a rise in Jewish religious discourse). The author finds that while the state's Jewishness was for decades an assumption so basic as to be self-evident to the Jewish majority, the need to declare it became more urgent as the possibility of becoming "normalized" (i.e., a state for all its citizens) became an option, however distant. The essay ends with an analysis of Israel's demand for recognition as a Jewish state, arguing why the Palestinian negotiators would benefit from deconstructing it rather than simply disregarding it.

The case of Israel generally, and specifically regarding the justifications put forth for the Law of Return by a wide range of liberal scholars, accents the main problems and weaknesses of liberal legality. Part one of the paper rethinks aspects of liberal legality and its artificial nature in light of debates surrounding the Law of Return. Debating both the case of Israel and the insistence of many Israeli scholars on justifying the Law using liberal terms, this part reveals certain aspects of liberalism that usually remain hidden.Part III comments on Israel and evaluates the Law of Return while comparing it to similar laws, arguing that even after revisiting liberal legality, the Law of Return scores badly according to the criteria of liberal legality. Thus, the first analysis places Israel within a paradigm, revealing that Israel may not be so exceptional. For those who view liberalism as a pure, ideal theory (both those who support the Law and think that it passes the test of liberalism and those who oppose the Law and think that it fails the test of liberalism) this paper points to the dark side of liberalism, and thereby suggests that Israel might not be the only "pariah" state, but even within the new paradigm (the second analysis), the Law of Return is at the extreme end of the spectrum and scores badly.

Since the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa, the oft-made analogy between the South African and Israeli cases has been extended to suggest the applicability to the Palestinian quest for justice through the rights discourse, arguably the most effective mobilizing tool in the anti-apartheid struggle. This essay explores the suitability of the rights approach by examining the South Africa––Israel analogy itself and the relevance of the anti-apartheid model to the three main components of the Palestinian situation: the refugees, the Palestinians of the occupied territories, and the Palestinian citizens of Israel. It concludes that while the rights discourse has many advantages, it cannot by its very nature——the focus on law at the expense of historical context——address the complexity of the Palestinian problem.

This second of a two-part essay explores how the tension between the imperatives of justice and the realities of the balance of power, which the author contends has shaped Palestinian politics since 1948, affects the Palestinians of Israel, particularly with regard to such issues as citizenship and identity, "Israelization" and "Palestinianization," and demands for equality and autonomy. While the oscillation between the poles of justice/history and power prevents them, like their brethren in the occupied territories (the subject of part 1 of the essay, in JPS 128) from developing a clear strategy, in their case it also undermines their ability to formulate a coherent vision of the requirements for a "historic compromise," without which there can be no true normalization with the Israeli state.