This article argues that Israel's non-assimilationist policy toward Palestinians-what I term Israel's 'rule of difference'-is embedded in the state's security conception. Under the guise of protecting the state and its people, Israel has successfully achieved two essential prongs of this political objective. Dating from the 1948 War, the state has created a series of legal mechanisms that have enabled it to expropriate Palestinian land. Similarly, it has refused to allow Palestinian political associations that espouse nationalist views or challenge the Jewish character of the state to organize or run candidates, even if their programs are clearly non-violent. Ultimately, the state has effectively blocked Palestinians' ability to participate in shaping policy. Ensuring security has thus aided the state in preventing the assimilation of this group into society.
Search Results
The “Moral Effect” of Legalized Lawlessness
Violence in Britain’s Twentieth-Century Empire
Caroline Elkins
martial law into emergency regulations, or statutory martial law, as well as the parallel consolidation of military doctrine and law around the issues of force. These reinforcing processes unfolded from the turn of the nineteenth century and continued
In Historical Reflections/Réflexions Historiques
- Published (Print):
- 01 Mar 2018
- Article Type:
- Research Article
- Pages:
- 78–90
Quarantine and Its Malcontents
How Liberians Responded to the Ebola Epidemic Containment Measures
Umberto Pellecchia
blame, and the social fear that occurred, created a divide between the Government-led task force and its constituencies. The Liberian Ministry of Health (MoH) emergency regulations believed that the isolation of persons suspected of exposure was an
Paula Kabalo
Administration based itself on the British Mandate’s 1945 Defence (Emergency) Regulations, which invested the executive authority with vast powers that infringed on personal rights, chiefly by restricting movement and imposing curfews. Over time, the policy