ABSTRACT
My argument is that persistence of the analytics governing the discourse of Palestinian-Israeli relations and Israeli practices vis-à-vis Palestinians, institutionalized in the Oslo Process, (re-)produced the conditions for direct violence between Palestinians and Israel. Three rules of formation govern the discourse of Palestinian-Israeli relations: 1) representing Israel as conciliatory and Arabs generally and Palestinians specifi cally as intransigent rejectionists; 2) positing as symmetrical the Palestinian-Israeli relationship or representing Israel as the victim in the relationship; and 3) assuming that Israel would or will permit the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in mandate Palestine. In this chapter I study these rules in the post-1993 period. I explain the rule’s institutionalization in the Oslo Process, evidence the manner in which it continues to govern the production of truthful knowledge and demonstrate that the Zionist ideas and practices related to the rule persist into the present. In the case of the third rule, I show that there is no grounding to assume that Zionism would permit the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in mandate Palestine.
