with Dr. Limor Yehuda

Abstract 

There are mostly disagreements surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These include the right way to define and understand it. However, if there’s one thing Jews and Palestinians agree on, and highly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, it’s the fact that they are not of the same nation. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, like other group conflicts in other places around the world, are among the most prevalent violent conflicts. These conflicts exact tremendous human tolls from the populations involved, posing a significant challenge to the international community as tragically exemplified by recent event in and around Gaza.

The book “Collective Equality”, recently published in Cambridge Press, argues that the prevailing paradigm guiding the international community, also in its engagement with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and underpinning international law (with its assumptions of the territorial nation-state, liberal democracy, and human rights) offers a flawed understanding of the problem in places of group conflict and a misleading roadmap for its resolution. At the root of this deficiency lies an overly individualistic concept of justice and equality, and a lack of appropriate recognition of the collectives (the ethno-national groups) involved. One consequence is a mistaken assessment (in terms of political and legal legitimacy) of peace arrangements in these areas when they include constitutional arrangements based on power-sharing among the main population groups, which, for this purpose, utilize distinctions based also on group membership.

In response, the book contends that the international/liberal conventional paradigm should incorporate the concept of collective equality, and consequently extend political and legal recognition to the groups as entitled to equal national self-determination. The concept underpins the status of the groups as equals to each other, whether they are a national majority or a national minority. Since conflicts can’t just be solved by territorial partitions and liberal democracy, ‘Collective equality’ adds fair cooperation among the groups — based on mutual respect, non-domination, and interdependence — as an essential part of justice in such situations. Four dimensions are used to evaluate the construction of fair relations: equality in negotiations; political equality (often requiring bespoke power-sharing arrangements); social and economic equality; and equal recognition of culture, language, and national aspirations.

Adding the concept of collective equality to the human rights paradigm, provides a more suitable roadmap for promoting equality in places torn along ethno-national lines.

For PDF of the introduction and conclusions contact Michal at minervaxtreme@univ.haifa.ac.il