Post-doctoral fellows research 2021-2022

This research project contends with a paradox that shapes the work of human rights non-governmental organizations (hereinafter, NGOs), and has significant bearings on contemporary struggles over liberalism and definitions of violence. The paradox is between the pervasive presence of human rights-talk in media and culture—general notions of “human rights” (hereinafter, HR) and related terms denoting legal protections and moral imperatives—and NGOs’ inability to achieve their stated goals of protecting and improving the lives of the populations they aim to assist.
This is an anthropological project based on a case study: The initial formations of Israeli NGOs, which occurred in two distinguishable historical time-frames – the first (1988-1991) and second Intifadas (2001-2005), Palestinians’ uprising against Israel’s occupation. Israel/Palestine is a paradigmatic geopolitical context in the histories of HR, where—as recent scholarship shows—HR projects fail to reach their objectives and NGOs (unwittingly) further perpetuate violence. Such studies of HR are useful, but problematically rely on philosophical critiques of liberalism, and overlook failure as a productive analytical category (and, for those failing, as important practice). In this project, Omri argues that the paradox of HR can be a rich source of critical insight if we analyze NGO failures as achieved: failure parallels the achievement of success, requiring production, adaption, and inter-systematic coordination.
Using interviews and archival research, he is collecting and analyzing discussions and communications within NGOs, and between them and outside actors (such as: state agencies, media, UN extensions, “parent” NGOs and donors). Through these materials, he traces HR terms – including abstract notions such as violence and rights, and more specific definitions (torture, administrative detention, and citizenship status). Mapping semiotic trajectories shows how HR language was shaped during NGOs’ formation phases: who introduced terms and based on what source, their adaptation and translation, circulation, and responses from significant outside actors. In turn, NGOs often form during, or in the wake-of, times of heightened violence and tension. Thus, this study contributes to our understanding of how state and non-state actors negotiate—within and between them–the legitimacy of violence in times of crises.

Currently, Omri is working on the first article based on this study, with Dr. Sarai Aharoni (Ben-Gurion University), focusing on a small, long-running Israeli NGO that deliberately counters the pervasive logic of other NGOs in two distinct manners: avoiding any public activity and recognition, and functioning without a central organizational archive.
Concurrently, in addition to this research, he also engaged in two other projects: adapting his doctoral dissertation (titled Writing Rights, Writing Violence: The Bureaucracy of Palestinian Testimonies in Israeli NGOs) as an ethnographic book, and a study carried with Dr. Yael Berda (Hebrew University and Harvard University) about the changes in Israel’s bureaucracy and practices regulating Palestinians’ permits to travel and work in Israel, due to COVID-19. Specifically, they are examining what these changes tell us about the history of Israel’s most persistent policy: disallowing West Bank and Gaza Palestinians from spending the night within Israel.

The Untalked-of Concentration Camps: Imprisonment of Civilians in Liberal States (Britain, USA, Canada, and Australia) during two World Wars

Assaf Mond  (2021-2022)

This research is focused on concentration camps for civilians of the enemy in liberal states during the two world wars. By studying this phenomenon, it argues, we can learn about the limits of liberalism, about the power of modern sovereignty and its ability to control the ‘legal order’ (as defined by Carl Schmitt), and about the implementation of the ‘state of exception’ (as defined by Giorgio Agamben). It enriches our understanding of the liberal spaces, where people expect their civil rights and human rights to be assured. The civilians who were imprisoned in Britain, the USA, Canada, and Australia during the world wars were not imprisoned in camps because they had broken the law, but because of their origin. Their experiences in the camps should be part of the history of the modern liberal state and the modern liberal spaces. The study of liberal states’ concentration camps during the two world wars sheds light on the ways in which physical boundaries between people in wartime represent the blurred boundaries of the state’s liberal heritage. That is why, apart from its contribution to the historiography of war and urban societies in the twentieth century, this is a crucial subject for understanding the burning political issues of the twenty-first century, chiefly how the western states cope with modern migration and movement of war refugees.