If one could measure scholarly interest in given regions by ratio of number of texts produced per capita in researched region, and if competition would be limited to last three decades, I bet Israel/Palestine would rip first prize. Elia Zureik is a great surveyor of this academic production (in English only, however). He covers scholarship in numerous domains, written by Palestinians, Israelis, and international scholars alike. Although he is clearly-and rightfully- biased toward postcolonial and Foucauldian theoretical perspectives, he is open to learn from anyone, even from most conservative, positivist, and ideologically driven Zionist scholars, and he knows how to integrate their works to form a coherent synthesis. He reads latter straightforwardly, for their findings, but also symptomatically, because knowledge and blindness they produce is part of phenomenon to be explained-Israel's distinct form of settler colonialism. Noting carefully important theoretical and ideological shifts in history of this vast field of knowledge, Zureik manages to work his way through numerous studies and to weave them into his account of ongoing Zionist settler-colonial project. Zureik focuses on five aspects of history and present of Zionist enterprise and its State apparatuses: colonization, surveillance and biopolitical apparatuses, economy of violence and catastrophization, and Internet as a new ground for oppression and resistance. Together these form a sophisticated and certainly most comprehensive account of Israeli rule of Palestinian people and territories.One of many things Zureik's great synthesis helps us understand, but which author does not spell out explicitly, is structural function of the occupation within present formation of Israeli regime. This is question I would like to address below, looking at way this discursive-military-legal construct governs deployment of State apparatuses and technologies of power Zureik describes and analyzes, and determines division of labor and coordination among them.1Israel's policies with respect to Palestine and Palestinians seem to be plagued by a contradiction or at least a real tension between two divergent projects: on one hand, a project of expansion that brings relatively small groups of settlers in contact and conflict with a much larger native population; on other hand, a majoritarian project, struggle to secure a clear Jewish majority in colonized land, without which claim for Jewish sovereignty and a Jewish State could be jeopardized. Expansion risks Jewish majority; short of large-scale transfer of Palestinians, securing this majority can be achieved only by curbing colonial project itself. This tension goes back to early days of Zionist movement and runs throughout its history. The tension shifts in terms of regions, sectors, and ideological justifications but has never been resolved. The tension has often been eased or exacerbated due to interests and interventions of other forces, coming mainly from civil society and Supreme Court, working to achieve economic and-to a lesser extent-political liberalization of Israeli regime. But neither kind of liberalization has ever truly affected structural contradiction between two major State projects or tipped balance between them. One may even say that from 1920s until today real difference between left-wing and right-wing Zionists concerns their response to questions where and how to strike right balance between two conflicting projects that seem to endanger each other.Before 1948, Zionist revisionists led by Jabotinski and other groups of middle-class Zionists preferred to invest efforts in massive Jewish immigration and growth of Jewish cities while socialists parties insisted for a long time on selective immigration and expanding colonization. …