Search

The manner in which scholars speak and write about Palestinian-Israeli relations is governed by unconscious rules, or analytics, of truthful knowledge production. These analytics, together with practices, constitute the discourse of Palestinian-Israeli relations. My paper answers two questions. First, how do truthful statements come to be made about Palestinian-Israeli relations? And second, what are the non-discursive effects of these analytics, and what should be expected of them?In answer to the first question, I identify six analytics that define the discourse of Palestinian-Israeli relations. More specifically, I identify three systematic silences and three rules of discursive formation by which authors must abide if they are to make truthful statements. The discourse silences discussion of 1) the Zionist idea and practice of transfer, 2) the territorial maximization inherent to Zionism and 3) Zionism?s denial of Palestinian nationhood and the Palestinian right to national self-determination. The three rules of formation are: 1) represent Arabs/Palestinians as intransigent rejectionists and Israel as peace-seeking; 2) posit the Palestinian-Israeli relationship as symmetrical or represent Israel as the victim in the relationship; and 3) assume that Zionism/Israel would permit the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in mandate Palestine. Discursive analytics are not strictly textual in nature. Given that power is implicit in the production of truthful knowledge, analytics are also connected to non-discursive practices. Discursive analytics are realized non-discursively. In answer to the second question, I argue that recent ?peace? initiatives (re-)produce discursive analytics (both silences and rules of formation) and perpetuate persistent Israeli practices. Initiatives such as the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the Geneva Accord and Israel?s Disengagement Plan (both redeployment around the Gaza Strip and construction of the ?security fence?) are articulations, and material realizations, of these analytics and practices. They are, in fact, institutionalizations of these analytics and practices and as such should not reasonably be expected to produce peace between Palestinians and Israelis. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Divides do not exist merely in the abstract. Divides are material realities; they are concrete barriers, barb wire, electronic sensors, watch towers. Divides can separate objects from different objects and can separate objects from each other. Israel is building a ?security fence?/?apartheid wall? in the West Bank. As a fence or a wall, this structure is conceived of as a divide. Furthermore, this divide is variously understood to be separating Israelis from Palestinians and Palestinians from Palestinians. My paper conducts a genealogy of Israel?s fence/wall and examines the implications of this structure for Palestinian-Israeli relations. It does so by asking two questions. First, what are the principles undergirding the idea of the fence/wall? And second, what are the political implications of these principles for Palestinian-Israeli relations?My thesis is that Israel?s fence/wall moves Israel and the Palestinians further away from a negotiated peace agreement. The structure is not a facilitator of peace, but rather a harbinger of future conflict. I develop my thesis in four stages. First, I briefly explain genealogical method. Genealogy enables me to identify ideational persistence where other analyses see discontinuity. Second, I show that analyses of the structure are abbreviated in their tracing of the ideational heritage of the fence/wall. I trace the idea to the 1923 work of Ze?ev Jabotinsky entitled ?The Iron Wall (we and the Arabs)?. In so doing, I establish that the principles undergirding the idea of the contemporary fence/wall include, inter alia, maintaining Jewish demographic dominance in Israel and a refusal to countenance any negotiated peace agreements in the contemporary period. Third, I demonstrate that the fence/wall assuages Israel?s demographic concerns; Palestinians, as a non-Jewish demographic, are imprisoned by Israel?s fence/wall. Conceiving of the structure as a divide occults this demographic imprisonment of Palestinians. Fourth, I find that the structure is, in accordance with Jabotinsky?s principles, an exercise in pragmatic Israeli colonialism that ensures Jewish demographic dominance in Israel while concomitantly foreclosing on the prospects of a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement in the short to medium term. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]