The aim of this article is to describe how Israeli non-military occupation policies cause problems among Palestinians and how the Palestinians tackle these problems through a case study of Palestinian merchants in the Old City of Jerusalem. Many studies of Israeli occupation and Palestinian resistance have focused on their military aspect. On the other hand, researches on East Jerusalem have generally examined Israeli occupation policies, particularly the policy of “Judaization,” and their impacts on “the Final Status” negotiation in the future, apart from the context of the occupation and the resistance.

Making use of fieldwork conducted in East Jerusalem by the author, this article will describe the following:

1. Judaization of Jerusalem has been promoted not only by making the population balance desirable for Jewish Israelis and undesirable for the Palestinians, and confiscating as much land belonging to the Palestinians as possible for Jewish citizens, but also by eliminating “non-Jewish” social, historical, economic, and cultural factors.

2. The problems of living under occupation are deeply connected to the daily lives of the Palestinians, such as tax problems and settlement activities by Jewish Israelis. These problems are caused by the legal and administrative systems of the occupier.

3. The reactions of the Palestinians to the problems are also expressed within the occupier’s legal and administrative systems. However, the Palestinians are not subordinate who just obey the occupier’s systems. They re-interpret and utilize the occupier’s legal and administrative systems in order to survive the occupation and keep living in East Jerusalem.

抄録全体を表示

　2020年7月パレスチナ占領地に関する国連特別報告者S. マイケル・リンク氏によって、イスラエルによるパレスチナ占領地域への連座刑犯罪についての報告書が4年ぶりに提出され、連座刑を国際法上の戦争犯罪として考えようとする議論が波紋を広げている。連座刑を用いたイスラエルの組織的な占領統治は、ユダヤ人、パレスチナ人の非共生な状態をより深刻化させている。連座刑は現行法上国際刑事裁判所で戦争犯罪として裁くことはできないものの、地域的な国際刑事法廷では戦争犯罪として認められ始めている。 　本稿では、私が携わった上記に関わる業務とフィールドワークの報告に加えて、それを基に国際人道法上の違反行為である、連座刑についての国際法的論点の現状整理を行う。本稿の目的は、連座刑を用いたパレスチナ占領政策の考察と、法的理論の欠缺の示唆にある。

抄録全体を表示

The aim of the article is to survey Jewish immigration to Palestine (Aliya) from Yemen, Yemenite settlement in Silwan near the old city of Jerusalem, and their separation from the Sephardi rabbinate in Jerusalem. The article relies upon recent studies on this subject written in Hebrew.
The first mass Aliya of Yemenites in 1882 (called 'Aliyat Tarmab according to the Jewish calendar), which was coincident with Bilu's Aliya, that is, the first Zionist Aliya, has been ignored in Zionist's historiography. Recently academic endeavors have been made to explore early history of Yemenites in Jerusalem before World War I, as well as Old Yishuv in general.
Yemenites immigrated to the Holy Land, motivated mainly by the messianic aspirations, but found themselves disappointed in difficult situations in Jerusalem. Most of them remained too poor to find their accommodations. Israel Frumkin (1850-1914), editor of ha-Vatzelet, the second Hebrew magazine in Palestine, gave assistance to poor Yemenite immigrants so as to settle them in an Arab village, Silwan (Shiloah in Jewish history), which had been the main community center of Yemenites until the Arab Revolt of 1936.
When Yemenites immigrated, they were under the patronage of the Sephardi rabbinate which was recognized as the sole Jewish representative, millet, in Jerusalem by the Ottoman authorities. But later they differed with the Sephardi rabbinate on problems such as Haluka (charitable funds from abroad to Palestine) and Balad Askari (Tax for exemption from conscription), finally to separate as de facto independent kolel (a Jewish community in Palestine from a particularcountry or town) from the Sephardi rabbinate in 1908.

抄録全体を表示

Since autumn of 2000 the circle of violence has derailed the Israel-Palestinian peace process. In order to prevent the resurgence of violence both parties had tried to promote security cooperation and form an effective security regime between them, but failed to do so.
It is reported that since 1988 till 1998 thirty-eight formal peace accords were signed, and of them thirty-one failed to last more than three years. Various factors, such as security dilemma, existence of spoilers, and intervention by external parties, cripple the implementation of the peace accords, including the Oslo peace agreement. In addition, the asymmetrical relations between Israel and Palestinians have heavily affected the peace process and resulted in its failure.
One of the most salient asymmetrical relations is the difference in the nature of both parties. Israel is an independent sovereign state with very powerful armed forces, and has occupied The west Bank and the Gaza Strip. As such, Israel uses its armed forces under the name of invoking the right of self-defense, and has an almost excusive power to determine a future of the occupied territories. On the other hand, despite the establishment of their own self government, Palestinians are still under occupation and struggling for establishing an independent sovereign state. The asymmetrical future also results in a very wide gap between both parties' perceptions of peace. From Israeli viewpoint, a peace should bring an end of any form of violence and eliminate the threat of military and terrorist attacks. For Palestinians, a peace should realize both an end of occupation and an establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Furthermore over the peace process both parties, i. e. the Israeli Government and the Palestine Authority/PLO, have taken even conciliatory attitudes and policies toward spoilers in their own constituencies with the intention to broaden their power basis.
A number of proposals and suggestions for a military intervention by a third party have been made, but no international presence in the occupied territories has been materialized. Taking into consideration the asymmetrical characteristics between the two parities, however, an international presence could make valuable contributions to restoring a peace process in the following two aspects. First, an international presence could ease to a certain extent an asymmetrical feature of the relations and reduce the feeling of vulnerability on both sides. And by doing so, an international presence could narrow the gap of perceptions concerning peace. Second Israel and Palestine are no exception that political leaders manipulate security concerns to solidify their positions and extract additional resources from their society and consequently they create and intensify the security dilemma. The introduction of an international presence could decrease the possibility of this kind of manipulations.

抄録全体を表示

The late Second Temple period was a time when Jews had to confront different cultures, especially Hellenism. Understanding the changes in their burial practices during this period will help to clarify their relationship with different cultures.

The origin of loculi tombs, a type of tomb which appeared during the second century BC, has been debated by various researchers, and in recent years the mainstream theory has been that although they originated in the surrounding area, they also inherited traditional elements from Iron Age II Israel. However, these studies are not quantitative, and research on the tombs’ internal structures that are taken to be ethnic markers is scarce. Therefore, in this paper, I clarify the changes in the internal form of the loculi tombs in Jerusalem in order to elucidate some aspects of the way Jews buried their dead in the face of different cultures.

The analysis reveals that most of the loculi tombs from the second to first centuries BCE have features in common with the earlier bench tombs, such as burial chambers with pits, especially U-shaped burial chambers, and collections of bones, indicating that it is likely that familial burial practices continued. On the other hand, in the first century CE, pit structures declined and flat types became the majority, with a slight increase in auxiliary structures. These trends may be related to the increased use of ossuaries. It is also clear that the form of the loculi had remained constant until the second century BCE, but then was changed to make it suitable for Jewish reburial. These results suggest that while the Jews were confronted with different cultures, there was little influence on burial, but rather that they developed their own burial system, incorporating the loculi structure into their reburials.

抄録全体を表示