A Curious Case of Exceptionalism: Non-partitionist Approaches to Ethnic Conflict Regulation and the Question of Palestine

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

The article by Chapman and Roeder (two American political scientists) begins with the statement ‘In the midst of civil wars in such diverse countries as Serbia, Somalia, Iraq, and Indonesia analysts have asked whether peace would be more secure and democracy would be more likely to flourish if we partitioned those countries rather than attempted to keep them whole’ (Chapman & Roeder, 2007, p. 677; emphasis added). Muller argues that ‘Partition may be the most humane lasting solution to such intense communal conflict. It inevitably creates new flows of refugees, but at least it deals with the problem at issue. The challenge for the international community in such cases is to separate communities in the most humane manner possible: by aiding in transport, assuring citizenship rights in the new homeland, and providing financial aid for resettlements and economic absorption’ (Muller, 2008, p. 34). Downes advocates ‘organized population transfers’ to ‘reduce the incentive’ for ethnic cleansing (Downes, 2001, p. 63).

The London Conference, entitled ‘Challenging the Boundaries: A Single State in Israel/Palestine’, was held on 17–18 November 2007 at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (see http://www.onestate.net/programme.htm). The Toronto Conference, entitled ‘Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace’, was held on 22–24 June 2009 at York University (see http://www.yorku.ca/ipconf/). The Boston Conference, entitled ‘One State for Palestine/Israel: A Country for All Its Citizens?’, was held at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, 28–29 March 2009 (see http://onestateforpalestineisrael.com).