Being Palestinian in Israel: Identity, Protest, and Political Exclusion

I'm caught in the perfect paradox—I have to be a loyal citizen of a country that declares itself not to be my country but rather the country of the Jewish people.

—Azmi Bishara

The end of the Cold War has paradoxically unleashed a worldwide orgy of ethnic violence, despite—or perhaps because of—increased political and economic freedom. One need look only as far as Africa, to the bloodbath of the Rwandan civil war, or to Eastern Europe, where the violent breakup of the former Yugoslavia coined a new term, ethnic cleansing, to witness the intensity and even savagery of ethnic competition. The renewal of violence between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East aptly illustrates the persistence of some ethnic conflicts.

Nationalists in many ethnically oriented states often advocate the marginalization of minorities, which lends credence to the battlecries of ethnic entrepreneurs who hope to mobilize minorities through political or military action. Despite the potential for ethnic conflict, nationalists often press for policies that favor the dominant ethnic group and marginalize minorities, claiming that such policies reflect the natural order or that majority groups have the right to make policies that favor them. In fact, some argue that the dominance of a single ethnic group is in fact preferable in divided societies, since it may lead to more stable ethnic relations. Some academic research backs up these claims with evidence that ethnic dominance can enhance stability.¹

Oppressed minorities and their liberal allies, however, argue that marginalizing ethnic minorities will only exacerbate tensions. Instead, minorities should be incorporated into the body politic in order to encourage peaceful ethnic relations. Ted Gurr has offered global-level empirical evidence that inclusion is associated with reduced ethnic violence.²

This article presents evidence supporting Gurr's claims of a link between ethnic inclusion and stability. I argue that identification with the state among minorities facilitates more stable ethnic relations; however, identification with the state is difficult when the state's institutions are used to marginalize minority groups. Inclusion, therefore, remains an important factor supporting ethnic stability.

The case of Israel is used to support this argument. Israel is an ethnically oriented state that uses state institutions to favor the Jewish majority over the indigenous Israeli Palestinian population.³ The Israeli Palestinian minority therefore suffers from discrimination, deprivation, and dilemmas in identity that have been the subject of some interest in recent years.⁴ It is among this minority that displays varying levels of identification with the state that we may find evidence to support or refute the claims of this article.

Briefly, the results of my study suggest that the political, economic, and social exclusion of Israeli Palestinians hinders the development of an authentic "Israeli" identity among this minority. Policies implied by the state's Jewish character distance Israeli Palestinians from affective attachment to the state. Furthermore, the main alternative to this underdeveloped Israeli identity—the Palestinian identity—provides a much-needed affective attachment to people (although not state) and acts as a form of symbolic resistance. This Palestinian identity is associated with political action—including vote boycotting and political protest—at the individual level.

The implications of these findings are clear: state repression may not decrease minority resistance. Repression may, in fact, increase political resistance, potentially leading to ethnic instability. "Control" strategies, then, are not the most effective in achieving tranquility.

The analysis of the article is informed by the theoretical influences of constructivism. Under constructivist assumptions, one's identity is not eternally fixed, but can be shaped by external events and the attempts of ethnic entrepreneurs to mobilize constituencies. This is not to say that identity is completely malleable; identity is anchored by a number of factors such as cultural markers and collective memories. Within certain constraints, however, the interpretation of boundaries and meanings of cultural anchors can be influenced by...