The factionalization of Palestinian customary justice: sulh politics in the Balata refugee camp

Abstract

ABSTRACT Having played a leading role in two Palestinian uprisings, the Balata refugee camp remains a bastion of oppositional political currents in the West Bank. This article explores how competing political factions have adopted a form of arbitration called sulh, or communal conciliation, to mitigate conflicts. Based on fieldwork and interviews with leading actors from Balata and the city of Nablus, it offers an up-close account of how the local administration of customary justice has evolved from past days of anti-colonial struggle to the present era of contested state-building. Drawing on Faleh Jabar’s concepts social and etatist tribalism, the article asks: Do the conciliation committees of Nablus and its refugee camps constitute a semi-autonomous legal order fostering communal resilience or an instrument of power reflecting the dominance of the political elite? The study shows that the committees’ embeddedness in the proto-state structures of the Palestinian leadership has challenged their autonomy. Structurally, ‘tribal law’ has increasingly become synonymous with the rule of the Fatah faction – a matter that long has driven wedges between leading conciliation men. This article contributes to our understanding of how political movements take part in shaping what is considered customary and traditional and use it to further their rule.