安全协调中的精英与民众矛盾:克服以色列殖民者与被殖民巴勒斯坦人的二元区分

IF 1.8 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Critical Studies on Security Pub Date : 2021-01-24 DOI:10.1080/21624887.2021.1875712
Nadia Naser-Najjab, Shir Hever
{"title":"安全协调中的精英与民众矛盾:克服以色列殖民者与被殖民巴勒斯坦人的二元区分","authors":"Nadia Naser-Najjab, Shir Hever","doi":"10.1080/21624887.2021.1875712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Settler colonial theory has made a hugely significant contribution to the theorisation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but there is a danger that its application to the specific practice of security coordination could simply render the practice as an instrument of settler colonial rule. In this article, we would like to propose the important qualification that Coordination is, in practice, deeply conflicted and subject to multiple internal pressures, which extend from elites to public opinion. In accepting that Coordination can be appropriately viewed through a settler colonial lens, we would like to argue that it can also be viewed from ‘below’, and as an object of domestic political struggle that is implicated in legitimisation processes. Coordination is therefore simultaneously renounced and retained as part of the survival strategy of assorted elite groups. In order to demonstrate this, we reference Elite theory, interviews and online materials. Moreover, internal Palestinian divides suggest that opposition is more incomplete, partial and reactive within the neoliberal and settler colonial context.","PeriodicalId":29930,"journal":{"name":"Critical Studies on Security","volume":"9 1","pages":"112 - 125"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21624887.2021.1875712","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Elite and popular contradictions in security coordination: overcoming the binary distinction of the Israeli coloniser and the colonised Palestinian\",\"authors\":\"Nadia Naser-Najjab, Shir Hever\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21624887.2021.1875712\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Settler colonial theory has made a hugely significant contribution to the theorisation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but there is a danger that its application to the specific practice of security coordination could simply render the practice as an instrument of settler colonial rule. In this article, we would like to propose the important qualification that Coordination is, in practice, deeply conflicted and subject to multiple internal pressures, which extend from elites to public opinion. In accepting that Coordination can be appropriately viewed through a settler colonial lens, we would like to argue that it can also be viewed from ‘below’, and as an object of domestic political struggle that is implicated in legitimisation processes. Coordination is therefore simultaneously renounced and retained as part of the survival strategy of assorted elite groups. In order to demonstrate this, we reference Elite theory, interviews and online materials. Moreover, internal Palestinian divides suggest that opposition is more incomplete, partial and reactive within the neoliberal and settler colonial context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29930,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Studies on Security\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"112 - 125\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21624887.2021.1875712\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Studies on Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2021.1875712\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Studies on Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2021.1875712","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要定居者殖民理论为巴以冲突的理论化做出了巨大贡献,但将其应用于安全协调的具体实践可能会使其成为定居者殖民统治的工具。在这篇文章中,我们想提出一个重要的条件,即协调在实践中是深度冲突的,并受到从精英到舆论的多重内部压力。在接受协调可以通过定居者殖民主义的视角来适当看待时,我们想说,它也可以从“下面”来看待,并被视为与合法化进程有关的国内政治斗争的对象。因此,协调作为各类精英群体生存战略的一部分同时被放弃和保留。为了证明这一点,我们参考了精英理论、访谈和在线材料。此外,巴勒斯坦内部的分歧表明,在新自由主义和定居者殖民背景下,反对派更加不完整、片面和被动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Elite and popular contradictions in security coordination: overcoming the binary distinction of the Israeli coloniser and the colonised Palestinian
ABSTRACT Settler colonial theory has made a hugely significant contribution to the theorisation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but there is a danger that its application to the specific practice of security coordination could simply render the practice as an instrument of settler colonial rule. In this article, we would like to propose the important qualification that Coordination is, in practice, deeply conflicted and subject to multiple internal pressures, which extend from elites to public opinion. In accepting that Coordination can be appropriately viewed through a settler colonial lens, we would like to argue that it can also be viewed from ‘below’, and as an object of domestic political struggle that is implicated in legitimisation processes. Coordination is therefore simultaneously renounced and retained as part of the survival strategy of assorted elite groups. In order to demonstrate this, we reference Elite theory, interviews and online materials. Moreover, internal Palestinian divides suggest that opposition is more incomplete, partial and reactive within the neoliberal and settler colonial context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Chair in Entebbe Things never remain the same Poetics of silence Not just a hashtag Your security, our territories
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1