Settling a State—Settling for a State: Reinterpreting One Hundred Years of Zionist–Arab Relations

Abstract

Abstract In recent years, a more coherent, widespread critique of Zionism as a form of settler colonialism has developed in Western academia. Despite its critical assumptions regarding Zionism, this conversation has yet to influence one of the core images of the Zionist-Arab encounter, mainly that of Palestinian intransigence versus Zionist political flexibility. According to this stereotypical image, these contrasting political characteristics played a central role in allowing a Jewish state to be established in a large part of historical Palestine, while an Arab one did not materialize. By examining political encounters between Zionists and Palestinians over the course of more than a hundred years, this article shows that, in fact, Palestinian leadership and Palestinians generally were willing to settle for an internationally recognized Arab-Palestinian state at key points. By contrast, Zionists usually exhibited greater ambivalence toward the idea of a recognized state, preferring to settle for something else, mainly expansionism. By adopting a counterintuitive approach, this article seeks to contrast the colonial dimension of Zionism with the more flexible and ultimately more state-and norm-oriented quality of Palestinian nationalism.