Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2008, volume 26, pages 1115 ^ 1130 doi:10.1068/d6307 Abusing multiculturalism: the politics of recognition and land allocation in Israel À Erez Tzfadia Department of Public Policy and Administration, Sapir College, D N Hof Ashkelon 79165, Israel; e-mail: erezt@mail.sapir.ac.il Received 25 July 2007; in revised form 23 August 2008 Abstract. The logic behind land allocation for residential purposes has undergone a dramatic shift in many states with a colonial legacy in the recent decade, from an ethnonational logic that favors the ethnonational majority to a more liberal-democratic, market-based logic that disregards ethnicity. In Israel, following this shift, a new claim for biased allocation has been voiced by the ethnonational majority, politicians, and administrators, which is based on multiculturalism and recognition. According to this claim, land allocation should serve the communal needs of the majority by limiting the access of minority groups to the majority group's residential areas. In this paper I argue that, despite the decline of ethnonationalism, the discourse of multiculturalism remains a substitute discourse that rationalizes the interests of the majority group, hence contributing to the stratification of societies on the basis of ethnicity. Through an analysis of three case studies of land allocation in Israel, the paper explores the material and cultural weaknesses of a multiculturalism that has been imported from societies with a strong liberal-democratic tradition into societies with a profound ethnonational legacy. Introduction ``(a) State land shall remain under state ownership. (b) Land shall be allocated by the state according to the law. (c) Land shall be expropriated in keeping with the law, in exchange for adequate compensation. (d) The state shall develop its resources for the good of all its citizens. Land allocation shall respect the lifestyle of distinct communities.'' In June of 2005, in the framework of discussions on a `consensual constitution', the Israeli Parliament's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee debated impending land legislation, focusing on the above reference, which was proposed as the paragraph pertaining to land in a future Israeli constitution. (1) Israeli legal authority Professor Ruth Gavison labeled it a ``neutral paragraph ... because it does not indicate that Israel is the state in which the Jewish nation realizes its sovereignty'' (Gavison and Greidi-Schwartz, 2005). (2) Her claim is relevant to section (d), which promises to ``respect the lifestyle of distinct communities'' associatively related to multiculturalism ö that is, to grant all communities recognition, supported by land allocation. The above passage and Gavison's remark serve as a preface to this paper, which focuses on the current discourse of recognition and public land allocation À Early versions of this paper were presented at the Humphrey seminar at Ben-Gurion University, Israel (2006) and at `Beyond the Nation' ö a conference held at Queen's University, Belfast (2007). (1) In recent years the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee has endeavored to adopt a `Broad-based Consensual Constitution'. This attempt is based on a deliberation process that includes think tanks and scholars (see Gavison, 2003). (2) All the quotations in this paper are translated from Hebrew by myself. 1116 E Tzfadia for housing in Israel.(3) I do not focus here on land in the occupied territories, where the logic of ethnonationalism has never been challenged. Through the prism of these two passages, the paper contributes to the debate about multiculturalism by examining what happens in the field of land allocation when multiculturalist theory is put into practice in societies that are founded on substantial ethnonational logic. Over the past three decades the legitimacy of allocating land inequitably according to ethnonational logic has declined in many states with a colonial legacy, such as Australia and Canada. This legitimacy has been replaced by a liberal-democratic agenda, and most recently by the substitute agenda of multiculturalism. One particular arena in which these changes have taken place is that of recognizing the land rights of indigenous peoples after hundreds of years of white ethnicization, which itself was based upon the concept of terra nullius (Anderson, 2000; Harris, 2004). The concentration of aborigines into reserves or specific neighborhoods drove them off their land and away from their traditional ways of life, yet it assisted in the preservation of their identities and provided a platform for mobilization. Following a series of broken promises, many states with a colonial legacy have adopted some symbolic and concrete policies of contrition during the past three decades, which are encapsulated in the agenda of multiculturalism. These include `native land' rights (Colin, 1993; Moran, 2002), which in Canada have provided self-control over the First Nation's territory and its natural resources as part of the policy of self-government over its religious, cultural, economic, and political life (Colin, 1993). In Australia, the Aborigines are given the title of `native', through developing, participating in, and promoting the statewide indigenous land-use agreement process (Agius et al, 2007). Since the mid-1990s Israeli scholars have argued that the ethnonational legitimacy of allocating land inequitably has declined in Israel as well (Shafir and Peled, 1998).(4) This decline is evidenced in the emerging of multicultural discourse and nonofficial practices in education (Al-Haj, 2002), in local authorities (Tzfadia and Yacobi, 2007), and partly in immigration policy (Kimmerling, 2001). The above-quoted land passage is another expression in the field of land and planning. It recognizes the right of minorities, who are citizens of the state of Israel, to enjoy separate areas of residency of their own will, even if this means selecting residents on the basis of ethnicity (Imbroscio, 2004) rather than according to the liberal-democratic agenda. In this paper (3) Public land in Israel is usually referred to as the `Land of Israel', and comprises 93% of all land in the country. It is property of either the state, the Jewish National Fund (JNF, which was founded in 1901 by the Zionist Congress to buy and develop land in Palestine for Jewish settlement), or the Development Authority (which holds the land of all Palestinian refugees registered as `absent'). In 1961, the state of Israel and the JNF agreed that the 2.5 million dunams (1 dunam ˆ 0.25 acre) of land owned by the JNF (which is 14% of the land in Israel) would serve only Jews, as part of the ethnonational Jewish settlement project. All public land in Israel, including that owned by the JNF, is administered by the Israel Land Authority (ILA) and the Israel Land Council (ILC), which determines the policy of the ILA. This large share of public land is important for new housing projects, as most of the development takes place on public land. (4) It should be clear that this change has been limited to land allocation within Israel and has been limited only to Israeli citizens ö both Jews and Palestinians. Thus it seems to go against the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, the transformation of East Jerusalem, and the Separation Wall. Palestinians in the occupied territories have not been granted Israeli citizenship, thus preventing any resource allocation rights. Furthermore, the occupied territories and the Palestinians are subject to a military regime and are not under Israeli jurisdiction. This fact gives space for some Jewish settlement movements such as Gush Emunim to advance Palestinianowned land expropriation and to build new settlements outside the Israeli legal framework (see Newman, 2005). For these reasons, the paper avoids discussion on the occupied territories. Nevertheless, the occupation cannot be disregarded when ethnonationalism is confronted (see Yiftachel, 2006). Abusing multiculturalism: the politics of land allocation in Israel 1117 I argue that, despite the apparent decline of ethnonationalism, multiculturalism is combined with an enduring ethnonational project of nation building and state formation. Multicultural rhetoric is used to secure the hegemonic position of the majority, instead of protecting minorities from assimilation in a melting pot. Thus, multiculturalism does not offer an alternative project that needs ``to be articulated in political terms in relation to other axes of social stratification having to do with race, class, gender, sexuality and nation'' (Shohat and Stam, 2003, page 7). My research shows that, in societies founded on substantial ethnonational logic, multicultural terminologyömainly the discourse of recognition öactually rationalizes the interests of the ethnonational majority. In Israel this majority refers first and foremost to its secular-European sector (Kimmerling, 2001). In the field of land allocation, this sector demands the recognition that multiculturalism attempts to grant to minorities, thus preventing members of minority communities from attaining equal access to newly established gated communities. In general, dominant majorities abuse the discourse of recognition and communality in order to limit the freedom of minorities in the housing market. And the sociospatial practice of separateness creates another barrier to tolerance of diverse cultural/ethnic/social groups. Here lies the weakness of the discourse of recognition embedded in multiculturalism when it is imported from societies with strong liberal-democratic bases to those with strong ethnonational bases: the discourse of recognition in these societies maintains a stratified social structure, but without the antagonism stimulated by ethnonationalism. Thus, in contrast to Anderson's (1998) `sites of difference' or Fincher and Jacobs's (1998) `cities of difference', which endorse cultural differences, this paper explores how claims to recognition become a practice of exclusion when made by a dominant group. In other words, my paper seeks to challenge the moral grounds of multiculturalism and to portray the discourse of multiculturalism as a new politics that privileges dominant ethnonational communities. Other researchers have already explored the links between the ethnonational past and multiculturalism. Anderson (1991) examines the way in which orientalist conceptions of the Chinese minority in Canada and Australia have structured the responses of those countries' Anglo elite. Anderson (1998) claims that there is continuity between the 19th-century ideologies of white ethnonationalism and the late-20th-century ideologies of state multiculturalism. Although they are superficially quite different, they both embody an essentialist attitude toward the Chinese minority. In earlier times, this was a racial essentialism; in more modern times, it is cultural. Yuval-Davis (1997) also explains that multiculturalism in contemporary liberal democracies is subject to limits, such as the predominance of existing nation-state languages, the legitimating of ruling cultural practices, and the hegemony of official political cultures. My research also reveals the connections between ethnonationalism and multiculturalism, and in this sense it further develops Yiftachel's (2006) ethnocratic model. In contrast to Anderson (1991; 1998) and Yuval-Davis (1997), I emphasize materialistic rather than cultural aspects of multiculturalism, and analyze the upper (and `white') strata of society (5) rather than lower strata ö that is, how the (ab)use of multiculturalism maintains the materialistic interests of groups who have been privileged by ethnonationalism. In this sense, my research continues the debate about the links between multiculturalism and material inequality, regarding the old question of politics as `who gets what?'. (5) Reitman (2006) makes a similar connection between multiculturalism and whiteness in high-tech workplaces. 1118 E Tzfadia Supporters of the multicultural project regard multiculturalism as a device for decreasing inequality. Banting and Kymlicka (2004), for example, find that, in the OECD countries, multicultural policy and social redistribution are integrated: as countries intensify their multicultural policies, social inequality is mitigated. Many other researchers agree that there is a positive link between multiculturalism and equality, mainly in terms of recognition and distribution because ``the achievement of recognition itself redistributes the opportunity of citizens to gain economic and political power'' (Tully, 2000, page 470). The followers of the traditional Marxist approach, on the other hand, claim that the struggle to achieve recognition disrupts the classbased struggle for equal distribution (Wilensky, 1975 in Banting, 2005). This criticism is inspired by Jameson's `cultural logic of late capitalism' (1984), and views multiculturalism as the new politics of dominant groups to reduce the effect of claims for redistribution made by racial and ethnic groups. However, I argue that this politics should not be seen as class-based conflict, but, rather, as ethnonational-based conflict. Following the criticism of multiculturalism and redistribution, and Anderson's (1991) critique on the relations between ethnonationalism and multiculturalism, my research proposes a new dimension of criticism on multiculturalism. It examines how Fraser's (2003) `perspectival dualism', a common framework for redistribution and recognition, is practiced at the top of the social hierarchy in order to maintain the kind of biased allocation of land resources that was typical of the ethnonational past. To this aim, the paper will briefly present the decline in the legitimacy of ethnonational-based biased allocation in Israel, and the emergence of characteristics of liberal-democratic and multicultural models, mainly in relation to land allocation policy. Three case studies on communality and land allocation will be subsequently analyzed. Models of citizenship and land allocation: Israel in context Since the early days of statehood, ethnonationalism has served as the leading model for citizenship in Israel.(6) Every citizen possesses democratic rights, including the right to vote and organize political parties. However, one ethnonational community is in a dominant position and is clearly privileged over the other(s). This community can maintain exclusive control of the state within formally democratic institutions and monopolize political power for its own interests. The sense of belonging to a particular territory, into which the ethnonational community is socialized, produces and reproduces exclusiveness, which is the core of social interactions (Murphy, 2002; Penrose, 2002; Storey, 2001). Ethnonational communities appropriate land resources, because the instrumental power of land establishes sovereignty, property rights, and jurisdiction. Spatial nationalization, usually realized by land expropriation and allocation for settling members of the ethnonational community, is a key practice in `territorial accumulation' at all geographical levels: urban, regional, and national (Yiftachel, 2006). This accumulation rests primarily on physical power and the supporting infrastructure of the state (Harris, 2004). At the same time, it is a fundamental basis for social stratification according to ethnicity, as the allocation of land for settlement is translated into private property belonging to the members of the ethnonational community. As Forman and Kedar (2004) described, since 1948, Israel has constructed a property regime by which the state gained control over 90% of the land in the country through land acquisition and the dispossession of Palestinian refugees and Palestinians (6) This is a typical description of the Israeli society and space (see Yiftachel and Yacobi, 2003). In recent years, Israeli scholars have analyzed the roots behind ethnonationalism (see, for example, Kimmerling, 2001; Shafir and Peled, 2002; Yiftachel, 2006). Abusing multiculturalism: the politics of land allocation in Israel 1119 who remained and became Israeli citizens. A parallel effort was made to establish new settlements for Jews, mainly in regions where Palestinians made up the majority, such as the Galilee, the Negev, and, since 1967, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Jewish settlement was portrayed as part of the contribution to the `nation-building project', through the defense of the state's borders and control of `national land' (Shafir and Peled, 2002). Thus ethnonational discourse and practice formed `rigid' social and geographic boundaries between Jews and Palestinians, because only Jews could `contribute' to the settlement project, and hence benefit from biased land allocation for settlement. More `flexible' boundaries were created within Jewish society, corresponding with the extent to which `national' identity has been adopted (ie through the cultural norms of a particular community within the Jewish society öthe Europeansecular group, usually identified as Ashkenazim. Ashkenazim have enjoyed control over most land resources, in preferred locations and with a higher standard of infrastructure. Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries (Mizrahim) and recently from the former Soviet Union (`Russians') rarely gained access to prestigious Ashkenazi settlements and suburbs. Thus, land allocation, mainly for settlements in frontier and internal frontier regions, contributed greatly to ethnoclass stratification between Jews and Arabs and within Jewish society, correlating with ethnicity (Shafir and Peled, 2002; Yiftachel, 2006). In recent years, ethnonational land allocation has been limited in Israel, as well as in other states with colonial legacy, because of a reconceptualization of the preferred spatial development. There is now a shift from territorial control to economic globalization and growth, from `frontier settlement' to `urbanization'. New regulations and policies and a new planning approach have been launched, restricting the allocation of land for new settlements, limiting suburbanization or residential expansion of rural settlements, and fostering entrepreneurial spatial development (Shachar, 1998). Many Israeli planners and social scientists argue that these modifications, which are evidenced in Israel but not in the occupied territories, go hand-in-hand with the gradual weakening of Israeli national and territorial collectivist ideology, as well as with an atmosphere of peace in the Middle East (Ram, 2004). They also present Israeli society with a new model of citizenship: liberal democracy (Shafir and Peled, 1998). A liberal democracy upholds the ideal of equal and undifferentiated citizenship, in which individuals are free to practice their culture or religion privately or communally. The liberal-democratic state's key institutional device is a bill of rights that outlaws discrimination against individuals, including discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race. Accordingly, states are to treat all citizens equally, including in the provision of equal economic assistance (Barry, 2002). In terms of housing, many countries have implemented the legislation of fair housing laws and antidiscrimination, civil rights provisions that prohibit the denial of access to housing to persons of color or to single women, for example, because of who they are. Undoubtedly, residential segregation continues to thrive in cities and suburbs, but now, it is argued, largely driven by market forces and marked by class division rather than by race or ethnicity. The symbolic moment of decline of ethnonationalism in Israel in the field of land allocation was in 2000, when the Israeli High Court announced its ruling in Case 6695/95, known as the `Qa'adan ^ Katzir ruling'. Husband and wife Adel and Iman Qa'adan, Palestinian citizens of Israel, made a request to purchase a plot of land in the new Jewish communal settlement of Katzir in order to build a home (Barry, 2002). They were refused by the admissions committee based on an official policy prohibiting the sale of plots in the newly established Jewish settlement to non-Jews. The High Court recommended that the state of Israel reconsider the institutional procedures that deny Arabs equal land allocation in newly established `Jewish' settlements (Shamir and Ziv, 2001). 1120 E Tzfadia Israeli scholars suggested that the ruling called upon the state to replace ethnonational criteria for land allocation with liberal-democratic criteria. In effect, the ruling created a clear distinction between the private sphere and the national sphere, in which the state must assure equality in land allocation to all citizens (Kedar, 2000). The ruling has been criticized by people on both ends of the academic and political spectrum. On the one hand, many loyalists of the ethnonational model, scholars, and parliament members have maintained that, because the Jews are a minority in the Middle East, the Jewish State must protect its own interestsöto be precise, those of its dominant ethnonational community öeven if this contradicts norms of equality.(7) On the other hand, devotees of the multicultural model have argued that the High Court did not concern itself with the communal needs of the Palestinian minority in Israel. Instead of instructing the state to allocate land for building Palestinian communal settlements in which the Palestinians may maintain their culture and nationality, the High Court proposed integrating Palestinian individuals within Jewish communities. Thus Palestinians who choose to improve their standard of living by moving to new suburbs become a minority in Jewish communities, abandoning their Palestinian culture (Jabareen, 2000). The difference between liberal-democratic jurisprudence and the multicultural critique should be highlighted in relation to land allocation. While standard liberal democracy is founded on the notion of individual equality, multicultural liberal democracy is based on individual equality, along with moderate protection for cultural communities. While a liberal democracy takes steps to protect individual rights, a multicultural liberal democracy takes additional steps to protect the culture of minority communities and to shield at least some aspects of their culture from assimilation. Such steps may express empathy with minority rightsöif they so desireöto create geographical enclaves where they can preserve and practice their unique cultures (Qadeer, 2003). Indeed, there is a debate in the field of multiculturalism and planning about whether homogenous enclaves serve the ideal of multiculturalism. The roots of the debate lie in the fertile literature on residential segregation, the reasons behind it, and its effects (Van Kempen and Ozuekren, 1998). The debate in the field of multiculturalism examines the costs and benefits of ethnic residential segregation, where the costs are that it impedes social equity and fair access to wealth, and the benefits are that it supports group rights concerning the preservation of their heritage and identity, as well as economic advantages that result from the strength of the area's social, cultural, and economic networks (Qadeer, 2003; 2005). In Canada, for example, the group rights of ethnic communities give a new meaning to their residential concentration. Yet, Canadian law prevents any expression of discrimination in the housing market, thus avoiding allocation of land for ethnic clustering (Qadeer, 2003). In other places, such as Australia, the planning authorities exploit the antidiscrimination legislation to prevent ethnic enclaves in central cities of less-desired communities such as Buddhists and Muslims (Sandercock, 2000). Yonah (2005) questions when segregation should be encouraged in multicultural societies: when there is a high level of cultural openness between groups as well as a high level of mutual closeness, this reflects a social reality where the uniqueness of the groups' cultures and lifestyles is not that deep, so they are able to find a broad common cultural denominator that is given expression in their ability to share joint residential spaces. Conversely, the higher the level of cultural introversion in the groups and the higher the mutual distancing, the more the multicultural project will be (7) See, for example, Shetreet (2003), who represents a moderate voice among the ethnonational critique on the Qaadan ^ Ketzir ruling. Abusing multiculturalism: the politics of land allocation in Israel 1121 expressed by enclaves. Unlike Yonah, Jabareen (2000) avoids the question of the level of openness/introversion. Rather he suggests that indigenous people should enjoy public land allocation to maintain ethnic enclaves, while immigrant communities should not. Jabareen's (2000) sociolegal critiqueöassociated with the multicultural model, offers a substitute operative proposal to the `Qa'adan ^ Katzir ruling', which calls for the separate allocation of land to Jews and Arabs for new settlements, thereby enabling each community to preserve its own culture within a communal setting. A more radical version of this critique, which is based on the idea that multiculturalism aims to protect minorities' cultural rights, maintains that the dominant group öthat is, uppermiddle-class secular Jewsöshould not benefit from this arrangement. This group, it is argued, does not need communal spaces such as gated communities in order to preserve its culture, because Israel is already defined by secular Jews' cultural preferences. This ethnonational group has benefited from generous land allocation, with a range of housing options available to its members. In other words, the radical version of multiculturalism undermines both the ethnonational and the liberal-democratic logics, proposing instead to resolve historical injustices, both distributional and cultural, by employing a new spatial and communal policy (Benvenisti, 1998). The High Court's challenge to the ethnonational model has symbolic significance. When it was published, the ruling's implications were not clear. It was assumed that the court ruling would bring about change in a complex sociopolitical reality. Following the ruling, however, usage of multicultural discourse has, indeed, become more prevalent in Israel. The `catch' is that this discourse has been employed not only by minorities, but also by the Jewish-secular majority in order to ensure biased resource allocation, as was common in the pre-Qa'adan ^ Katzir period. Following the ruling, several petitions were made by Jews and Arabs who were rejected by admission committees of suburbs, but most of them were resolved before the court made a decision because the admission committees were concerned that the court would reconfirm the Qa'adan ^ Katzir ruling. In the years 2004 ^ 07, a dozen articles were published on this matter in the daily newspaper Ha'aretz öall of which seem to be biased against the idea of communality. A new NGO was established in the Galilee, calling to halt the process of biased land allocation for housing. (8) It seems that land allocation and communality are being debated seriously in Israel. (9) The three cases presented and analyzed hereafter illustrate different aspects of the abuse of multiculturalism: the first illustrating the ethnonational argument against Arabs, the second focusing on the abuse within the Jewish society, and the third illustrating the abuse directed against all `Others' (see figure 1). These are not representative cases: these cases were debated in court and in the media, and, in this sense, selection of these three cases is biased. Use of juridical documents and news reports does, however, simplify the attempt to conduct a profound analysis. Methodologically, the analysis of the cases brings together data from three major sources: (a) official planning instructions, as published on the website of the ILA (http://www.mmi.gov.il); (b) documentation of juridical processes, primarily petitions by individuals offended by land allocation; and (c) all the reports on these cases that have been published in the national newspaper Ha'aretz. All the documents were analyzed thematically. The themes that served the document analysis were: ethnonationalism, liberalism, and multiculturalism. (8) The NGO's name is `Alternative Voice in the Galilee' (see http://alternative-voice.org). addition, a new documentary film in Hebrew on this issue Perfect Family, was presented on television (see http://yes.walla.co.il/?w=2/7801/1156824). Several conferences in law schools have focused on this issue as well. (9) In 1122 E Tzfadia N Major city Case study 0 10 20 km Figure 1. Location of case studies. Abusing multiculturalism: the politics of land allocation in Israel 1123 Givat-Makosh in Carmiel In March of 1997 the official planning institutions approved a plan for the Givat Makosh neighborhood (section b) to be built in the town of Carmiel.(10) The plan facilitated construction of the new neighborhood on 594 dunams, with a total of 677 housing units, mostly single-family units. In April of 2004 the ILA issued a public tender for marketing 43 lots for self-construction of single housing in the neighborhood.(11) Six Arab families won the tender, which upset the Jewish buyers: many of the Jewish buyers were longtime Carmiel residents who saw the new neighborhood as an opportunity to improve their standard of living in an attractive communal area surrounded by the beautiful Galilee mountains, and they were concerned about the significance of their new neighbors. Carmiel Mayor Adi Eldar joined the voices of the opposition, claiming that, if Arab families lived in Givat-Makosh, ``Jewish ^ Arab relations in the region might suffer'' (quoted in Khoury, 2004a). Carmiel is a Jewish town located in the mixed Jewish ^ Arab Galilee region, with 41 000 residents (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2003, pages 180 ^ 181). Since 1948, and as part of the ethnonational logic, the Galilee has been a target for the Judaization policy aimed at achieving a demographic balance in favor of Jews (Khamaissi, 2003). As part of this project, Carmiel was established in the 1960s on expropriated Palestinian-owned land, in a dense Arab area, bordering four Arab towns, yet kept segregated from them. As a result of the protest of the Jewish families in Givat-Makosh and Mayor Eldar's opposition, the ILA froze the tender on the grounds that the land belonged to the JNF and thus could be leased only to Jews (see footnote 3). Three months later, the ILA announced a new tender for marketing the lots in the neighborhood, this time adding that ``the land is owned by the JNF, hence subject to the contract between the state and the JNF'',(12) meaning the land was available to Jews only. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) and the Arab Alternative Planning Center (AAPC) petitioned the District Court, demanding Arab citizens be allowed to participate in the ILA tender.(13) The ILA chose to cancel the entire tender, forcing the court to withdraw the petition (Khoury, 2004b). In October of 2004, ACRI, AAPC and Adalah (14) petitioned the High Court of Justice,(15) arguing that cancellation of the tender was the ILA's way of avoiding an in-depth discussion of discrimination in land allocation on the basis of nationality. Thus, the petition was not about a specific tender, but about land allocation in general. The JNF's statement of defense, presented in court on December 2004, argued that Israel is bound by liberal-democratic principles of justice, and that all its citizens are to be treated equally. However, it argued, since the JNF is a private organization that owns 14% of Israel's total land, and since it is dedicated to the Zionist project of settling Jews in Israel, the JNF has the right to decide who leases the land, even if such a policy is incompatible with the principle of equality. Moreover, it was argued, by allocating land to Jews, the JNF maintains its role in protecting and continuing Jewish communal life, similar to the manner of land allocation for communal and religious purposes made by the Waqf.(16) Such claims are awkward because, first, (10) The plan was initiated by the governmental company ArimöUrban Development Co Ltd. public tender number ZF/59/2004. (12) ILA's public tender number ZF/198/2004. (13) Administrative Petition 2282/04. (14) A human rights organization working to achieve equal rights for the Arab minority in Israel. (15) HCJ 9010/04; HCJ 7452/04. (16) The Waqf is responsible for Muslim religious endowment and typically designates buildings or plots of land for religious or charitable purposes. The Waqf does not allocate land for housing. Its income mostly supports the upkeep of mosques (Dumper, 1994). (11) ILA's 1124 E Tzfadia discrimination on ethnic or national grounds is illegal in both the public and private domains. Second, the JNF is not a private body. Contrary to the Waqf in Israel, the JNF has a special status firmly grounded in Israeli law, and its land is administrated by the state through the ILA. Following the petition, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz recommended that all ILA-administered land, including JNF-owned land, be marketed to all citizens, including Israeli Arabs. Seemingly, the attorney general adopted liberal-democratic ideals; however, Mazuz also recommended that in cases where a non-Jewish citizen won the tender for JNF-owned land the ILA would record the land as if it were state owned and assign alternative land to the JNF. Mazuz's recommendation, which has yet to be validated by the High Court, bridges the liberal-democratic and ethnonational logics: ``to uphold the principle of equality without harming the aims of the JNF as set down in its mandate to settle Jews on the land it owns'' (Ministry of Justice, 2005). The attorney general's decision followed a meeting of the heads of the JNF, ILA, ILC, Ministry of Finance, and the State Attorney on 22 September, 2004. The rationale behind the meeting was the concern that the High Court might reject the tender's cancellation and instigate a public debate on JNF's land allocation policy. Jewish communal rights and spatial Judaization were at the core of the meeting's debate. Jacob Efrati, Director General of the ILA, argued that ``a solution for these kinds of [communal] settlements should be found in order to preserve their [Jewish] character. If the JNF's land cannot contribute to the Jewish character, than it shall be the structure of the settlement-admissions committees [sic]''.(17) Efrati's proposal to employ admissions committees in order to preserve Jewish character warrants clarification. Admissions committees are legally based on ILC decision 443 from 1989, which approved the authority of committees to select candidates for suburban and rural settlements, based on the candidates' suitability for communal lifestyle as well as their approval by an external psychological diagnostic session. The pseudo-multicultural rationale behind the admissions committees is the concern of losing the settlement's communal spirit.(18) According to the ILC decision, committee representatives would be appointed from among `founders' of the settlement, regional authorities, and the Jewish Agency.(19) The committee would operate until the settlement reaches a quota of 150 families, thus ensuring that ``in the settlement there will be only settlers who have been approved by the Jewish Agency as suitable for settling and who fulfill the obligations of the Jewish Agency'' (State Comptroller, 2001, page 759). This means that non-Jews could not succeed in passing the admissions process. Following the Carmiel affair, the ILC authorized the admissions committees to operate in settlements of up to 500 families (ILC decision 1015). In other words, only after the minimum quota of 500 Jewish families was met could Arabs take part in the free market and buy a lot in these new settlements. Efrati's proposal is based on the idea that a settlement inhabited by 500 Jewish families cannot be de-Judaized, corresponding with ethnonational logic. Efrati's proposal was approved in the meeting. The attorney general's decision can be judged in a new light: it did not put an end to ethnonationalismöthat is, the Judaization processes and territorial accumulationönor did it advance principles of liberal democracy. It did, however, create a new rationalization for biased land allocation, which is seemingly based on the logic of multiculturalism. (17) ILA protocol, 897, which was not published. claim is presented also in academic journals (see Lehavi, 2005). (19) The Jewish Agency is a global partnership of Jewish communities who support the immigration and settlement of Jews in Israel. (18) This Abusing multiculturalism: the politics of land allocation in Israel 1125 Shachar neighborhood in Bet Shemesh The town of Bet Shemesh was established in the 1950s near the border with Jordan, and was settled by poor Jewish immigrants. The occupation of the West Bank in 1967 pushed the Jordanian border further from Bet Shemesh. In the mid-1990s the Ministry of Housing planned a new neighborhood for the town, one that would include 2300 housing units. In July of 2000 the ILA issued a public tender for marketing 100 lots for self-construction single housing in the neighborhood.(20) The deadline for submitting proposals was September 2000. On 26 September, the ILA published the names of 72 families who had won the tender and asked them to come to the Ministry of Housing's offices by 29 September in order to sign purchasing contracts. A press release by the Ministry of Housing, which aimed to dissolve local rumors that the new neighborhood would serve ultra-orthodox Jews, asserted on 27 September that ``an attempt by Haredim [ultra-orthodox Jews] to occupy the Shachar neighborhood failed. The Ministry of Housing has targeted the neighborhood for secular Jews.'' When the winners arrived on 29 September to sign the contracts, it became apparent that all of them belonged to the Haredi community. On 15 November, the ILA and the Ministry of Housing froze the tender on the grounds that ``marketing difficulties are expected, based on the professional analysis of the Ministry of Housing''.(21) The 72 ultra-orthodox families who had won the tender petitioned the District Court,(22) demanding to examine the legality of freezing the tender, arguing that the ground for the freezing was discrimination against the Haredi community. The Ministry of Housing's statement of defense gave the following three explanations behind the freezing: (a) the arrival of Haredim might prevent others from moving to the new neighborhood; (b) the neighborhood had been targeted for `general' residents (implying that Haredim are not part of the `general' population in Israel. Indeed, in the press release mentioned above `general population' referred to secular Jews); and (c) as a Haredi neighborhood already exists in Bet Shemesh, Haredim have no reason to live in other neighborhoods. Therefore, it was argued, this was a case of `equal separation'. The court rejected the Ministry of Housing's argument and accepted the Haredim's petition, thereby cancelling the freezing of the tender. The court even adopted a multicultural discourse protecting communal rights of minorities through land allocation: ``Obviously, this project should be open to everyone, and it is impossible to prevent someone from living there based on his religion. The `equal separation' argument cannot be voiced by the majority that requests to block the right of the other community... . However, when the argument for separation is voiced by the [minority] community that wishes to preserve its culture and to protect it from strangers, it seems that `color blindness' should back down because of the damage that might be caused to the unique community.''(23) The Bet Shemesh case explores another dimension of abusing multicultural discourse, this time by a government authority. The motivation behind it is different from that in the Carmiel case: in Carmiel, the multicultural discourse served an ethnonational project, while in Bet Shemesh it served a neoliberal project, in which the Ministry of Housing adopted a business-oriented role and attempted to market the lots in the new neighborhood as if it were a private business. Nevertheless, in both cases the beneficiary of multicultural discourse is the majority group. (20) ILA's public tender number YM/2000/145. 1 of petition 209/01: Fintz vs the Minister of Housing. (22) Jerusalem district court, 209/01: Fintz vs the Minister of Housing. (23) Judge Judith Tzur, Jerusalem district court decision 209/01, article 58, 14 November, 2004. (21) Appendix 1126 E Tzfadia New suburbs and student villages in the Negev ``There is a lot of talk about the dangerous transformation in the Negev's demographic balance between the Jewish and Arab settlement. In my opinion this is not the real problem, because demographic balance can easily be changed: it is possible to build a big [Jewish] city and immediately there will be a revolution in the demographic balance for our own good. But, a positive demographic balance does not assign control over space. In order to control the space it is necessary to settle in many places.'' Sharon (2000, page 14) The words of Ariel Sharon, several months before he was elected prime minister, represent the centrality of ethnonational discourse in establishing new Jewish communal settlements in the Negev Desert. On 14 July, 2002, Sharon's government declared that Jewish settlement in Israel is a fulfillment of the Zionist vision, and essential to the security of the state. The State Comptroller enumerated 150 initiatives for establishing new Jewish settlements during 1997 ^ 2002 (not including in the occupied territories), many of them in the Negev (State Comptroller, 2005). However, the planning authorities, human rights groups, and environmental organizations all argue that the trend of new settlements contradicts the current planning approach (as was detailed above), causes environmental damage, and increases social inequality at a time when tens of thousands of Palestinian Bedouins live in unrecognized settlements in the Negev, and dozens of Jewish towns are crying out for new residents (State Comptroller, 2005). Therefore, many projects have faced difficulties, and some of them have been cancelled. This should be regarded as another challenge to ethnonationalism in Israel. Politicians, civil servants, and Jewish organizations that promote the continuation of Jewish settlement support NGOs that are known for their activism in the field of settlement. Two such groups are Or National Missions (`Or' means `light'), which advances communal suburbs, and Ayalim (`Deer'), which advances student villages. Both are active in the Negev.(24) Or National Missions designates new settlements for specific populations: suburbs for secular Jews, religious Jews, police personnel and their families, employees of the security services, and wealthy American Jews. It also promotes ecological villages for environmentalists. None of the suburbs are designated for minorities, certainly not for Arabs. Ayalim calls upon students to ``Live among people like you.'' The two NGOs operate admissions committees that are guided by the principle of `communal suitability'. This principle is supported by the residents as well. Azriel Levy, one of the initiators of a new suburb near Yeruham, a relatively poor Jewish town in the Negev, claimed: ``We don't want it to be another neighborhood named `Yeruham B', and we do have an interest in separating the education systems. Not because we are against partnership with Yeruham, but because we want something that suits the people that want to live in the settlement'' (quoted in Rinat, 2002). However, these NGOs' communal intentions and discourse of recognition conceal their support for ethnonationalism. Both attribute ethnonational territorial value to the settlement venture. Or National Missions regards itself as a branch of Gush Emunim, an organization that advances colonization of the West Bank (Newman, 2005). The leaders of Or National Missions justify settlement as an answer to the demographical and territorial threat posed by Palestinian Bedouins in the Negev. Thus, they argue, ``settlement is the most important national mission ... it is necessary to bring 20,000 Jews to the Negev every year'' (quoted in Abramson, 2004). (24) All new settlements in the Negev since 2000 have been established by `Or' and `Ayalim'. `Or' has already established three new settlements in the Negev, and 15 others are planned. `Ayalim' has established two new settlements in the Negev. Abusing multiculturalism: the politics of land allocation in Israel 1127 Ayalim makes residence in the student villages conditional upon military service, which is conducted mainly by Israeli Jews. Among the 250 students living in the village, only one is not Jewish. Ayalim links itself to Zionism's pioneer past. Its Internet site states that ``Ayalim Association believes that bringing students to settle in the Negev and the Galilee is a national undertaking of supreme importance'' and that ``The village offers its young residents opportunities to experience a lifestyle that is rich with Zionist content.'' (25) In an interview with a daily newspaper, one of the founders voiced a lucid ethnonational position: ``Unless the population in the Negev grows, Israel will be in danger. The state is headed toward territorial compromise, so in places that we know belong to us we must settle. We are definitely a Zionist settlement movement. The motivation of the project is to bring Jews to the Negev and Galilee'' (quoted in Traubman, 2005). The NGOs' dual toneö both communal and ethnonational ö enables politicians to support their activism in the field of settlement. These two groups enjoy land allocation for new settlements and public financing. They have representatives in administration meetings that deal with planning for the Negev, and their contribution to the ethnonational project is emphasized by Zionist organizations and politicians. At the initiation ceremony for a new student village, Prime Minister Sharon addressed the link between Zionist pioneers and the students: ``You, members of Ayalim, revive here not only the land of the Negev, but also the pioneer spirit of Ben-Gurion and the first pioneers. Many of them were students like you, who immigrated to Israel in order to reestablish by their own hands the link between the Jewish people and its land.'' This activism, Sharon said, carries material benefits as well: ``You have an initiative, you have an idea, an exceptional idea by the way. Push it ahead and you will get help, both from donors and from the government'' (Prime Ministry Office, 2004). Conclusion: misusing or abusing multiculturalism? The three cases presented above suggest a new direction in the politics of land allocation that seeks to link the multicultural protection of communality with the traditional cultural and material injustice of ethnonationalism. It endeavors to change the political discourse and to impart legitimacy to inequality and hierarchical social relations in the name of protecting communal rights. Nevertheless, the paper does not aim to undermine the moral grounds of multiculturalism, but rather to explore a sociopolitical dynamic and the results of importing multiculturalism to societies with a strong ethnonational background. Specifically, the cases focused on the use of multicultural discourse. In contrast to the ideal that minorities can employ this discourse in order to present claims for recognition and allocation, in the Israeli case, this discourse serves the interests of the group of secular European Jews that has enjoyed generous land allocation in the past and now seeks new alternatives to justify continued biased allocation. This process can be understood as a dialectic of the Israeli regime, in which the contradiction between ethnonationalism and liberalism is reconciled by a fusion of `cosmetic' multiculturalism. But `cosmetic' multiculturalism, as a general policy that advances recognition, is not a promising way to achieve fair allocation. The multiple interpretations of multiculturalism range from the liberal to the radical. While the liberal version facilitates recognition, the radical version regards multiculturalism as a political doctrine that aims to solve historical injustice of cultural and material types (Shohat and Stam, 2003; Young, 2005). The variety of interpretations of multiculturalism is one source of the abuse of multiculturalism. This kind of (25) Ayalim, ``For settlement'' (http://www.ayalim.org.il/index.php?page id=92). 1128 E Tzfadia abuse characterizes dominant groups as well as politicians and administrators who support the ethnonational logic and, subsequently, biased allocation. Yet, while `misuse' indicates wrong use, the moral legitimacy of multiculturalism, the delegitimization of ethnonationalism, and the fact that multiculturalism has allocational implications enable the abuse of multiculturalism ö that is, improper and unjust utilization of multiculturalism in order to benefit privileged sectors. It is fitting to conclude this paper with a quotation from the protocol of the 14 June 2005 meeting of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee of the Israeli Parliament, in its discussion on future land legislation for a `consensual constitution', the same meeting cited at the beginning of this paper. The words of Daniel Polisar, an expert invited to the meeting, explore the meaning behind abusing multiculturalism: ``The solution is simple. The role of the Knesset [Israeli Parliament] is to set the principles upon which the State's existence is to be based. And one of these principles is that there must be Jewish settlement here, either directly or through distinct communities'' (Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee, 2005, emphasis added). Acknowledgements. My thanks go to Daniel De-Malach, Pnina Mutzafi-Haller, and Adrian Guelke, who organized the meetings, and to Yishai Blank and Tovi Fenster for their useful comments. References Abramson A, 2004, ``The new Zionism'' Negev Time 2 April (in Hebrew) Agius P, Jenkin T, Jarvis S, Howitt R, Williams R, 2007, ``(Re)asserting indigenous rights and jurisdictions within a politics of place: transformative nature of native title negotiations in South Australia'' Geographical Research 45 194 ^ 202 Al-Haj M, 2002,``Multiculturalism in deeply divided societies: the Israeli case'' International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 169 ^ 183 Anderson K, 1991 Vancouver's Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1874 ^ 1980 (McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal) Anderson K, 1998, ``Sites of difference: beyond a cultural politics of race polarity'', in Cities of Difference Eds R Fincher, J M Jacobs (Guilford Press, New York) pp 201 ^ 225 Anderson K, 2000, ``Thinking `postnationality': dialogue across multicultural, indigenous, and settler spaces'' Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90 381 ^ 391 Banting K G, 2005, ``The multicultural welfare state: international experience and North American narratives'' Social Policy and Administration 39(2) 98 ^ 115 Banting K G, Kymlicka W, 2004, ``Do multiculturalism policies erode the welfare state?'', in Cultural Diversity versus Economic Solidarity (Proceedings of the Seventh Francqui Colloquium) Ed. P Van Parijs (De Boeck, Brussels) pp 227 ^ 284 Barry B, 2002 Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Benvenisti E, 1998, ``Separate but equal in allocating state land for housing'' Iyunei Mishpat (Tel-Aviv University Law Review) 21 769 ^ 798 (in Hebrew) Central Bureau of Statistics, 2003 Local Authorities in Israel (State of Israel, Jerusalem) Colin H S, 1993, ``Customs, traditions, and the politics of culture: aboriginal self-government in Canada'', in Anthropology, Public Policy, and Native Peoples in Canada Eds N Dyck, J B Waldram (McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal) pp 311 ^ 333 Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee, 2005, ``Consensual Constitution: Land and Settlement'', Protocol No. 501 (in Hebrew) Dumper M, 1994 Islam and Israel: Muslim and Religious Endowments and the Jewish State (Institute for Palestine Studies, Washington, DC) Fincher R, Jacobs J M (Eds), 1998 Cities of Difference (Guilford Press, New York) pp 1 ^ 25 Forman G, Kedar A, 2004, ``From Arab land to `Israel lands': the legal dispossession of the Palestinians displaced by Israel in the wake of 1948'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22 809 ^ 830 Fraser N, 2003, ``Social justice in the age of identity politics: redistribution, recognition, and participation'', in Redistribution or Recognition? A Political ^ Philosophical Exchange Eds N Fraser, A Honnet (Verso, London) pp 7 ^ 109 Abusing multiculturalism: the politics of land allocation in Israel 1129 Gavison R, 2003, ``Constitutions and political reconstruction? Israel's quest for a constitution'' International Sociology 18(1) 53 ^ 70 Gavison R, Greidi-Schwartz E, 2005,``Guidelines for discussion on the issue of land and settlement: background material for June 14, 2005 Meeting of Constitution, Law and Justice Committee'', Israeli Parliament, Jerusalem (in Hebrew), http://www.huka.gov.il/wiki/material/data/H02-102005 8-56-01 hityashvut.doc Harris C, 2004, ``How did colonialism dispossess? Comments from an edge of empire'' Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94 165 ^ 182 Imbroscio D L, 2004, ``Can we grant a right to place?'' Politics and Society 32 575 ^ 609 Jabareen H, 2000, ``Israeliness that predicts the future of the Arabs according to Jewish-Zionist time, in space that lacked Palestinian time'' Law and Regime 6 53 ^ 72 (in Hebrew) Jameson F, 1984, ``Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism'' New Left Review number 146, 53 ^ 92 Kedar A, 2000, ``First step in a difficult and sensitive road: preliminary observations on Qaadan v Ketzir'' Israel Studies Bulletin 16 4 ^ 11 Khamaissi R, 2003, ``Mechanism of land control and territorial Judaization in Israel'', in In the Name of Security: Studies in Peace and War in Israel in Changing Times Eds M Al-Haj, U Ben-Eliezer (University of Haifa Press, Haifa) pp 421 ^ 448 (in Hebrew) Khoury J, 2004a, ``New neighborhood in Carmiel for Jews only'' Haaretz 30 July (in Hebrew) Khoury J, 2004b, ``ILA's `Jews only' land sales challenged'' Haaretz 12 October (in Hebrew) Kimmerling B, 2001 The Invention and Decline of Israeliness: State, Society, and the Military (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA) Lehavi A, 2005, ``New residential communities in Israel: between privatization and separation'' Din-u-Devarim: Haifa Law Review 2 63 ^ 140 (in Hebrew) Ministry of Justice, 2005, ``Press release'', 27 January (in Hebrew) Moran A, 2002, ``As Australia decolonizes: indigenizing settler nationalism and the challenges of settler/indigenous relations'' Ethnic and Racial Studies 25 1013 ^ 1042 Murphy A B, 2002, ``National claims to territory in the modern state system: geographical considerations'' Geopolitics 7 193 ^ 214 Newman D, 2005, ``From `Hitnachalut' to `Hitnatkut': the impact of Gush Emunim, and the Settlement Movement on Israeli society'' Israel Studies 10(3) 192 ^ 224 Penrose J, 2002, ``Nations, states and homelands: territory and territoriality in nationalist thought'' Nations and Nationalism 8 277 ^ 297 Prime Ministry Office, 2004, ``Speech of Prime Minister in Adiel, November 21, 2004'', Archive of Speeches, http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMO/Archive/Speeches/2004/11/speech22111.htm (in Hebrew) Qadeer M A, 2003, ``Ethnic segregation in a multicultural city: the case of Toronto, Canada'', WP 28, CERIS, Toronto Qadeer M A, 2005, ``Ethnic segregation in a multicultural city'', in Desegregating the City: Ghettos, Enclaves, and Inequality Ed. P D Varady (SUNY Press, Albany, NY) pp 49 ^ 61 Ram U, 2004, ``The state of the nation: contemporary challenges to Zionism in Israel'', in Israelis in Conflict: Hegemonies, Identities and Challenges Eds A Kemp, D Newman, U Ram, O Yiftachel (Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, Sussex) pp 305 ^ 320 Reitman M, 2006, ``Uncovering the white place: whitewashing at work'' Social and Cultural Geography 7 267 ^ 282 Rinat Z, 2002, ``A settlement for policemen'' Ha'aretz 23 August (in Hebrew) Sandercock L, 2000, ``When strangers become neighbours: managing cities of difference'' Planning Theory and Practice 1(1) 13 ^ 30 Shachar A, 1998, ``Reshaping the map of Israel: a new national planning doctrine'' Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 555 209 ^ 218 Shafir G, Peled Y, 1998, ``Citizenship and stratification in an ethnic democracy'' Ethnic and Racial Studies 21 408 ^ 427 Shafir G, Peled Y, 2002 Being Israeli: The Dynamics of Multiple Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Shamir R, Ziv N, 2001, ``State-oriented and community-oriented lawyering for a cause: a tale of two strategies'', in Cause Lawyering and the State in a Global Era Eds A Sarat, S Scheingold (Oxford University Press, New York) pp 287 ^ 304 Sharon A, 2000, ``Land as an economic device to mold infrastructure and to reduce social inequalities'' Land 50 10 ^ 21 (in Hebrew) 1130 E Tzfadia Shetreet S, 2003, ``On the issue of equality of separate residence in rural and communal settlements: was the ruling in the Quadan case unavoidable?'' Land: Periodical on Land Issues 56 27 ^ 65 (in Hebrew) Shohat E, Stam R (Eds), 2003 Multiculturalism, Postcoloniality, and Transnational Media (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ) State Comptroller, 2001 Annual Report 51b (State of Israel, Jerusalem) (in Hebrew) State Comptroller, 2005 Annual Report 55b (State of Israel, Jerusalem) (in Hebrew) Storey D, 2001 Territory: The Claiming of Space (Prentice-Hall, Harlow, Essex) Traubman T, 2005, ``8 students fund-raised 38 millions shekels'' Ha'aretz 30 August (in Hebrew) Tully J, 2000, ``Struggles over recognition and distribution'' Constellations 7 469 ^ 482 Tzfadia E, Yacobi H, 2007, ``Multiculturalism, nationalism and urban politics: the case of Ashdod'' Israeli Sociology 9(1) 127 ^ 148 (in Hebrew) Van Kempen R, Ozuekren A S, 1998, ``Ethnic segregation in cities: new forms and explanations in a dynamic world'' Urban Studies 35 1631 ^ 1656 Wilensky H L, 1975 The Welfare State and Equality: Structural and Ideological Roots of Public Expenditure (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA) Yiftachel O, 2006 Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine (Penn State University Press, University Park, PA) Yiftachel O, Yacobi H, 2003, ``Urban ethnocracy: ethnicization and the production of space in an Israeli `mixed city' '' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21 673 ^ 693 Yonah Y, 2005, ``Toward multiculturalism in Israel: spatial aspects'', in Memory and Meaning: The Architectural Construction of Place Eds R Kallus, T Hatuka (Resling, Tel Aviv) pp 137 ^ 176 (in Hebrew) Young M I, 2005, ``Self-determination as non-domination: ideals applied to Palestine/Israel'' Ethnicities 5 139 ^ 159 Yuval-Davis N, 1997, ``Ethnicity, gender relations and multiculturalism'', in Debating Cultural Hybridity: Hybridity, Multi-cultural Identities, and the Politics of Anti-racism Eds P Webner, T Modood (Zed Books, London) pp 193 ^ 208 ß 2008 Pion Ltd and its Licensors Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the E&P website for personal research by members of subscribing organisations. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or other online distribution system) without permission of the publisher.