AARDi supports research on Israeli apartheid and its impact through its Working Paper Series. Published research papers must respond to the key sub-topics identified by our editorial board and listed below. Submissions are also subject to refereeing: a double blind review by at least two referees, each with a higher degree by research and a minimum of 3 refereed publications in a cognate field.
The themes listed are not limited to current Israeli practices, and their detrimental effect on Palestinian rights and global peace and security. They also address the ideological and historical roots of the Israeli apartheid regime which is imperative for understanding impediments to dismantling the regime and charting a peaceful and just future.
Abstracts can be submitted relating to any of the 16 themes listed through firstname.lastname@example.org
Views expressed in publications are not necessarily those of AARDi. Copyright for all papers remains with the authors. When republishing original research papers, please acknowledge AARDi as first publisher.
In the aftermath of Trump’s announcement of the so called ‘deal’ in January 2020, we are faced with an unprecedented situation that resurrects from the dead a South African style apartheid system and aims to give it legitimacy on the international level. The announcement will have serious ramifications on Palestinian lives and rights, and on the global order. This paper will reveal the dehumanizing and unlawful aspects of the “deal”, including its implications for Palestinian sovereignty, the fate of the Palestinians in Israel in the area known as the Triangle, of Palestinian refugees, and those living in Gaza or in Jerusalem.
This paper should cogently answer what the deal says and what it doesn’t say, and act as a legal commentary for use by Palestinian movements, scholars, legal experts, policy makers, and human rights organizations.
This paper will mainly look at ways of how to dismantle Israeli Apartheid. Could a joint Israeli-Palestinian movement to combat Apartheid emerge? How realistic is such a proposition, especially in light of the fact that even left wing Israeli political parties believe in the basic tenets of Zionism.? How can the few Israelis who believe that Zionism is a racist doctrine, which must be dismantled, be engaged? This paper could be the basis for a workshop to specifically look into this issue to be attended by both non-Zionist Israeli and Palestinian academics and activists to explore various forms of resistance, and come up with imaginative and creative solutions towards a new one-state paradigm.
No one contests that Herzl’s Zionism is a Jewish ethno-nationalist movement. This paper will go back to the roots of Zionism at the end of the 19th century, and determine whether Israel is ‘just’ moving towards apartheid (both in Israel and in the oPT) as many believe, or has been designed to be an apartheid state from day one, based on the essential Zionist ideology as articulated by its founders. This paper will analyze the impact of race theories on Zionism, and will also track emerging views among Israeli liberal thinkers, to determine whether/how a post Zionism, future, one free of racism is possible.
This paper will consider the international politics of the apartheid analysis, addressing questions such as: Why is it possible for Israel to project itself in the west as ‘the only democracy in the middle east’? and why is it possible for it to effectively evade critical scrutiny, let alone prosecution before international war crimes tribunals, as Uri Davis put it in his book Apartheid Israel (2003)? Is Zionism above scrutiny? Or is it, like any other political movement, subject to a critical examination according to the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Also, in light of the Trump Executive order in December 2019 to ‘combat campus antisemitism’, what are the new challenges facing freedom of speech and academic research? What effective measures can be taken to put an end to this anomaly?
When Israel annexed Jerusalem in 1967 it made Jerusalemites permanent residents of Israel, but not citizens. In effect, they were deemed ‘resident aliens’ in their own city. They are not eligible for Palestinian passports. This was/still is, designed to pressure them to leave their city by all means. Residency can be annulled from any Jerusalemite, at any time. Discrimination against Palestinians continues. This paper will document and analyze discrimination against Palestinians in Jerusalem in Israeli laws, policies and practices. The paper will analyse such policies and practices from the perspective of international law. It will also assess whether such practices are in contravention of Zionist ideology or an integral part of it. Did Zionism foresee or seek to establish a system of ‘distinctions, exclusions, restrictions and preferences’, or was this system only an unfortunate result of an erroneous implementation of the Zionist dream? Jerusalem can be used as a case study where all these questions and more can be answered effectively in this microcosm of racial discrimination.
The policy of economic segregation has been a cornerstone of Zionist policy since the early days of the mandate. At the same time, after the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank including East Jerusalem in 1967, Israel adopted a policy of Arab economic dependence on Jewish economy. What does such a policy lead to? Two states or one? How does this system of control, dependency and segmentation affect the material well-being of Palestinians in the oPT? How is this policy linked to the Trump ‘vision’ presented in January?
Is there a moral crisis in Israeli society? How so and how was it expressed and portrayed in Israeli literature from 1948 to 1967, then following the 1967 war, and in the years after the construction of the wall? Does the wall itself create a ghetto mentality in the Israeli psyche? Does unabated settler violence against an unarmed civilian population cause any discomfort for the Israeli psyche? Incentives and social values be changed to conform with universal values? Will it happen in Israel, where those who feel that Israel has lost its moral high grounds prefer to leave Israel rather than fight back?
How has the law been used to dispossess Palestinians of their land? Since the early days, Herzl the lawyer stated in his Judenstaat that the Zionist movement can only be inaugurated “with absolute conformity to law” and with the “friendly co-operation of interested Governments, who would derive considerable benefits from it”. Once the Jewish state was established in 1948, how did the Israeli Government use the law to institutionalize the dispossession of Palestinians and turn their private lands to the ownership of the Jewish National Fund to be owned by all Jews in the world, everywhere, and ‘in perpetuity’ . This paper will explore the evolving process of Apartheid through the manipulation and use of law, and will consider whether this can be challenged in international tribunals and national courts with universal jurisdiction.
Is the discipline of biblical studies complicit in the appropriation of Palestinian land and the expulsion and dispossession of its inhabitants? Why did a ‘modern nationalist movement’ decide to use the bible as a ‘history book’ and derive its tenets from it, and how did it do it? Although the founding fathers of the Zionist movement were secular Jews, Israel has moved to the far right and fundamentalist religious parties sit in the Knesset. In Israel today, any attempt to question the historicity of the bible is perceived as an attempt to undermine not only Jewish nationalism, but the State of Israel itself, which they believe is a continuation and renewal of the ancient “kingdom of Israel”. This paper will look at where religious and secular Zionists met in their use of the Hebrew bible and will reveal the links between Zionist myth making, Zionist settler colonialism, and territorial expansion.
Trump’s vision dealt away with any remaining doubts that some sceptics clung to despite evidence to the contrary. It left us with only one scenario, that of a one state. Will that state be a state for all its citizens? is the key question. This paper will look into the psychological impediments to the one state solution on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, and will mull over ways to overcome such barriers. It will clearly identify and analyze those reservations and address questions such as: Can a new consensus be built to alleviate the worst fears, on both sides, and cultivate a new vision of a shared society and avert extreme reactions? If so how? On the Palestinian side, who is expected to resist it the most, and is this resistance correlated with geographical location (Israel, WB, Jerusalem, Gaza, diaspora), age, affiliation with official bodies, or other factors? Also , how would Hamas and other Islamic movements react? What would be the official stand of the PLO and the PA, and can this stand be changed and how? What about Israeli resistance? How can the one state solution be shaped to overcome fears of both Palestinians and Israeli, regardless of whether they are real or imagined?
To what extent are Israel’s political parties receptive to a Palestinian demand of ‘one state for all’ with equal rights and citizenship? To what extent could these parties be hostile? Is there a big difference between left and right in that respect? And how about extreme right? If Israeli public opinion moves in favor of this paradigm shift, would Israeli political parties accommodate? How much tension could that create between Israeli public opinion and the Israeli polity and government? How much tension could it cause among the political parties themselves? Is a coalition of Israeli liberals and progressives possible?
Moving from an apartheid state to a state for all its citizens is no easy task, particularly when the legacies of a settler colonialist enterprise are concerned. Since there are no easy precedents and models to lean on, and as Israel is a far more complex case than either South Africa or Algeria, creative answers to a whole set of complicated questions must be considered. The most important of these issues relates to rights. Who owns the right to a property, the person forcefully evicted from it, or the person who bought it in good faith from the evictor? Should there be any compensation schemes? Is international law of any help in this case? How easy or how difficult it is to change from the status of a “superior” citizen to merely a citizen, equal in rights and opportunities to all others? Are there any mechanisms to help in this shift in status and mental framework?
Laws and institutions in Israel have been developed over the past 70 years to empower one ethnic group and dispossess another. How can such laws and institutions be changed to serve a state of all its citizens? Can we benefit from other experience, for example the transition in South Africa, to affect a shift in these institutions from exclusion to inclusion? Other issues are equally important and may prove difficult to sort out. How will a multi ethic, multi religious state deal with matters such as marriage law, divorce, death, and other civil issues . How would a unified state impact existing cultural, religious and social institutions? Would a civil law applied to all citizens be the only workable formula? Or would it be rejected out of hand by all parties? would a millet style system work? Whatever the challenges, of highest importance is to come up with a solution that safeguards the civil, religious and political rights and dignity of all inhabitants in Israel/Palestine, which is the main focus of this paper.
If Israel’s de facto annexation becomes de jure, what would be the implications of such an act on international law and on the international community as a whole? What does this shift portend for the application of IHL and IHRL? What are the related responsibilities of third-party States, regional organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the international community? More importantly, will Israel’s annexation be allowed to set a precedent in international law? and how will this affect global peace and security?
Are there potential effects on global economy? Is there a role for external actors to reduce risks for regional stability and the global economy?