In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 Territorialization and State Formation The Palestinian Experience in Comparative Perspective THE IMPERATIVE TO TERRITORIALIZE National movements engage in two tasks: nation building, which is the creation of an identity around a common set of symbols, and state building, which is the formation of institutions to govern the polity.' The first may originate in a people's homeland, but it can just as easily develop in diaspora, where members of an ethnic group are often unwanted or despised. By contrast , political independence-the fundamental goal of state-builders--can only be achieved in a homeland. National movements formed in diaspora must territorialize or risk withering away. Were one to compare the number of nation-builders and "inventors" of nations who never left their native lands to those with experience abroad, the share of the latter would be substantially higher. Frequently, in fact, it is alien intellectuals living in an imperial center or among nations more developed than their own who forge new national identities. This is hardly surprising, for those living in foreign lands are presented with intellectual opportunities to mimic the more advanced society that serves them as a cultural milieu. National ideologies and identities can thus emerge that are molded in the image of metropolitan cultures even though they are in opposition to both these cultures and the empires that foster them." These identities may then be adopted by the inhabitants of their homeland. This pattern of alienation and construction of national identity widened as the division of the world into territorial states enlarged the boundaries of diaspora beyond European settings to include neighboring postcolonial states. During the era of imperialism , extreme alienation might have been likely only in a European setting, but as new states nationalized, the scope for alienation of outsiders from neighboring areas correspondingly increased. In contrast, the principles governing state behavior and resolution of international political conflicts can explain why state building is limited to the 2 COUNTDOWN TO STATEHOOD geographic area the nation claims as its own. According to the principles of the state system, most political solutions in international affairs are territorial .3 In those few disputed territories where no past claim to sovereignty has been conclusively accepted by the international community-as in the Palestinian case-the right to independence must ultimately be advanced by the indigenous population, not by its representatives in diaspora. It is the territorial constituency that must voice its claim to sovereignty. At the same time, the state system contributes to the atrophy of national movements that remain in a diaspora.4 Over time, a jealous sovereignty renders what might have been the most welcome political guest unwanted. States are especially uncomfortable playing host to national movements. Their coercive potential, insistence on secrecy, and methods of building up support within the host state, are all troublesome matters that can only be offset by a perception that their presence brings clear benefits to the host state.' Meanwhile , the state whose territory the national movement contests will usually act to reduce these benefits considerably. Retribution can take many forms, from minor subversion to full-scale punitive raids against the host state. Frequently, even minor subversion is costly enough to make the host reconsider its role as a sanctuary state. For these reasons, diaspora movements must territorialize, either directly through transferring of leadership and resources from "outside" to "inside," or indirectly, by mobilizing the indigenous population to press a claim for independence on behalf of the national movement." A voice only in diaspora remains a voice in the wilderness. National movements that remain there are fated to political failure. This was the challenge confronted by two major diaspora national movements of the twentieth century-the Palestinian movement of the last three decades and Zionism, its earlier and closest parallel. Both movements initiated modem nation building in a diaspora and then territorialized. While Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, was writing The Jewish State at the end of the nineteenth century and founding the World Zionist Organization in Basle, Switzerland, most of the Jews living in Palestine were patiently awaiting the coming of the Messiah.? Similarly, when Yasser Arafat, in the early 1960s, set up the National Palestinian Liberation Movement-Fath-to liberate Palestine from the Zionists in the name of Palestinian nationalism, most politically aware Palestinians in former Palestine were avowed pan-Arabists and passively waiting for Arab armies to liberate them. Neither the Jews of Palestine in the old Yishuv, nor Arab state Palestinians living in Gaza and the...

Share