Echoes of the Present: S. Yizhar's Khirbet Khizeh and Israel TodayRaja ShehadehJournal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 38, no. 1 (Autumn 2008), p. 78Review Essay Khirbet Khizeh, by S. Yizhar. Translated by Nicholas de Lange and Yaacob Dweck. Afterword by David Schulman. Jerusalem: Ibis Editions, 2008. 134 pages. $16.95 paper.
Hochberg: In Spite of Partition: Jews, Arabs, and the Limits of Separatist Imagination Reviewed by Haim BresheethJournal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 38, no. 1 (Autumn 2008), p. 90Recent Books In Spite of Partition: Jews, Arabs, and the Limits of Separatist Imagination, by Gil Z. Hochberg. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007. xiii + 141 pages. Notes to p. 165. Bibliography to p. 183. Index to p. 192. $35.00 cloth. Haim Bresheeth, professor of media and cultural studies at the University of East London, is co-editor of "The Conflict and Contemporary Visual Culture in Palestine Israel," Third Text 20, nos. 3-4, Oct. 2006; Cinema and Memory: Dangerous Liaisons [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2004); and The Gulf War and the New World Order (London: Zed Books, 1992).
Bennis: Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer Reviewed by Adel Samara Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 38, no. 1 (Autumn 2008), p. 92Recent Books
Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, by Phyllis Bennis. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2007. ix + 185 pages. Index to p. 196. $10.00 paper.
Dr. Adel Samara is an economist living in Ramallah.
This section lists articles and reviews of books relevant to Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Entries are classified under the following headings: Reference and General; History (to 1948) and Geography; Palestinian Politics and Society; Jerusalem; Israeli Politics, Society, and Zionism; Arab and Middle Eastern Politics; International Relations; Law; Military; Economy, Society, and Education; Literature and Art; Book Reviews; and Reports Received.
UN Security Council Resolution 242 endorsed the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and called for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied" in the June 1967 war. Since then, a debate has raged over whether these provisions call for a complete Israeli withdrawal, a minor revision of borders, or license for Israel to retain sovereignty over some of the conquered lands. This article argues that the resolution must be read through the lens of international law. A principled legal interpretation clarifies 242's ambiguities on withdrawal and re-establishes the importance of universal rights to a just and durable peace in the Middle East.
This essay examines the consequences of the near-canonical status acquired over the years by UN Security Council Resolution 242. After tracing the evolution of the vision of peace seen to flow from 242, the essay explores the various ways in which the resolution has been read. In particular, the interpretation of Israel (backed by the United States) is examined, along with the balance of power factor. The essay concludes by suggesting that clinging to 242 as "canonical" inhibits clear-sighted thinking on new approaches that take cognizance of the greatly altered circumstances.
Israel takes the position that UN Security Council 242's call for a "just settlement of the refugee problem" does not require the repatriation of the Arabs displaced from Palestine in 1948. However, the background to the drafting of that phrase, reviewed in this article, suggests that this was in fact the intention of the resolution's drafters.
UN Security Council Resolution 242, drafted to deal with the consequences of the 1967 war, left the outstanding issues of 1948 unresolved. For the first time, new Israeli conflict-resolution proposals that are in principle based on 242 directly involve Palestinian citizens of Israel. This essay explores these proposals, which reflect Israel's preoccupation with maintaining a significant Jewish majority and center on population and territorial exchanges between Israeli settlements in the West Bank and heavily populated Arab areas inside the green line. After tracing the genesis of the proposals, the essay assesses them from the standpoint of international law.
Christians United for Israel, the Zionist lobby group that has grown by leaps and bounds since its founding two years ago, held its second annual conference in Washington, D.C., July 2007. Attended by political figures and rank-and-file members alike, the AIPAC-style conference showcased the group's formidable financial, organizational, and political strength, signaling that the group seems poised to set the agenda for future Christian Zionist work in the United States.