This volume addresses a number of philosophical problems that arise in consideration of the century-old conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Consisting of essays by fifteen contributors (including both Israeli and Palestinian philosophers) and a lengthy introduction by the editor, it deals with rights to land, sovereignity, self-determination, the existence and legitimacy of states, cultural prejudice, national identity, intercommunal violence, and religious intransigence.
This volume addresses a number of philosophical problems that arise in consideration of the century-old conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Consisting of essays by fifteen contributors (including both Israeli and Palestinian philosophers) and a lengthy introduction by the editor, it deals with rights to land, sovereignity, self-determination, the existence and legitimacy of states, cultural prejudice, national identity, intercommunal violence, and religious intransigence.
A global journey showing how philosophy can transform our biggest disagreements Teaching Plato in Palestine is part intellectual travelogue, part plea for integrating philosophy into our personal and public life. Philosophical toolkit in tow, Carlos Fraenkel invites readers on a tour around the world as he meets students at Palestinian and Indonesian universities, lapsed Hasidic Jews in New York, teenagers from poor neighborhoods in Brazil, and the descendants of Iroquois warriors in Canada. They turn to Plato and Aristotle, al-Ghaz?l? and Maimonides, Spinoza and Nietzsche for help to tackle big questions: Does God exist? Is piety worth it? Can violence be justified? What is social justice and how can we get there? Who should rule? And how shall we deal with the legacy of colonialism? Fraenkel shows how useful the tools of philosophy can be—particularly in places fraught with conflict—to clarify such questions and explore answers to them. In the course of the discussions, different viewpoints often clash. That's a good thing, Fraenkel argues, as long as we turn our disagreements on moral, religious, and philosophical issues into what he calls a "culture of debate." Conceived as a joint search for the truth, a culture of debate gives us a chance to examine the beliefs and values we were brought up with and often take for granted. It won’t lead to easy answers, Fraenkel admits, but debate, if philosophically nuanced, is more attractive than either forcing our views on others or becoming mired in multicultural complacency—and behaving as if differences didn’t matter at all.
This volume in the Political Theory and Contemporary Philosophy series provides a political and philosophical critique of Zionism. While other nationalisms seem to have adapted to twenty-first century realities and shifting notions of state and nation, Zionism has largely remained tethered to a nineteenth century mentality, including the glorification of the state as the only means of expressing the spirit of the people. These essays, contributed by eminent international thinkers including Slavoj Zizek, Luce Irigaray, Judith Butler, Gianni Vattimo, Walter Mignolo, Marc Ellis, and others, deconstruct the political-metaphysical myths that are the framework for the existence of Israel.Collectively, they offer a multifaceted critique of the metaphysical, theological, and onto-political grounds of the Zionist project and the economic, geopolitical, and cultural outcomes of these foundations. A significant contribution to the debates surrounding the state of Israel today, this groundbreaking work will appeal to anyone interested in political theory, philosophy, Jewish thought, and the Middle East conflict.
For decades, Israeli Jews, Palestinians, and Israeli Arabs have been engaged in a debate about past history, present options, and future possibilities. Basic questions of citizenship, religion, political tactics, democracy, the rule of law, and a host of other matters are abandoned, revived and modified in an intellectual exchange between representatives of all three communities that is as old as the political conflicts that have marked the region. The high stakes, intense emotions—and meager results—of the “peace process” lend particular importance and salience to these discussions. The sophistication of these debates will come as a surprise to many observers who might have concluded that there is no escape from the present impasse and little possibility for a just settlement of the grievous divisions in the region. Given the pivotal role of the United States in the Middle East, it would be particularly helpful if Americans’ understanding of the issues went beyond the superficiality that often passes for political discussion and media coverage. Whatever the outcome of the discussions currently under way, the central commitment of the Oslo Accords to the two-state solution has long been the foundation of American diplomacy and is the starting-point of Washington’s most recent attempt to revive the moribund peace process. Important segments of public opinion in the three communities, however, have started to question the possibility—and, more importantly perhaps, the desirability—of a two-state solution. Their doubts have set in motion a lively and important debate, and this book is designed to introduce American readers to the terms of that discussion. It features essays by well-known Israeli academics, both Jewish and Palestinian, as well as contributions from non-Israeli citizen Palestinian, and American scholars. It is the first to bring together a wide range of views and perspectives by influential scholars from various disciplines as well as from activists to bear on a very topical subject with international ramifications.
This book examines the way in which peace is conceptualized in IR theory, a topic which has until now been largely overlooked. The volume explores the way peace has been implicitly conceptualized within the different strands of IR theory, and in the policy world as exemplified through practices in the peacebuilding efforts since the end of the Cold War. Issues addressed include the problem of how peace efforts become sustainable rather than merely inscribed in international and state-level diplomatic and military frameworks. The book also explores themes relating to culture, development, agency and structure. It explores in particular the current mantras associated with the 'liberal peace', which appears to have become a foundational assumption of much of mainstream IR and the policy world. Analyzing war has often led to the dominance of violence as a basic assumption in, and response to, the problems of international relations. This book aims to redress the balance by arguing that IR now in fact offers a rich basis for the study of peace.
A controversial examination of the internal Israeli debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a best-selling Israeli author Since the Six-Day War, Israelis have been entrenched in a national debate over whether to keep the land they conquered or to return some, if not all, of the territories to Palestinians. In a balanced and insightful analysis, Micah Goodman deftly sheds light on the ideas that have shaped Israelis' thinking on both sides of the debate, and among secular and religious Jews about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Contrary to opinions that dominate the discussion, he shows that the paradox of Israeli political discourse is that both sides are right in what they affirm—and wrong in what they deny. Although he concludes that the conflict cannot be solved, Goodman is far from a pessimist and explores how instead it can be reduced in scope and danger through limited, practical steps. Through philosophical critique and political analysis, Goodman builds a creative, compelling case for pragmatism in a dispute where a comprehensive solution seems impossible.
"Although George W. Bush memorably declared, “I'm the decider,” as president he was remarkably indecisive when it came to U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His administration's policymaking featured an ongoing clash between moderate realists and conservative hard-liners inspired by right-wing religious ideas and a vision of democracy as cure-all. Riven by these competing agendas, the Bush administration vacillated between recognizing the Palestinian right to self-determination and embracing Israeli leaders who often chose war over negotiations"--Front flap.
