Does necessity know no bounds? The transnational human rights movement and the logic of the state in Israel/Palestine

This dissertation examines the dynamic between the global movement for human rights and the logic of the state in Israel/Palestine. The dissertation has a two-fold aim: (1) to consider, in sufficient cultural and historical specificity, what makes violations of human rights possible, even apparently 'necessary,' in particular cases; and (2) to examine the limits and potential of the human rights movement in the field in which it operates, both vis-a-vis the state and its logic and in relation to cultural or commonsense understandings of nationhood, national history, and community. The work analyzes in detail the actual processes involved in the growth and practice of human rights---legally and politically, but also socially, historically, and conceptually. The dissertation proceeds in two main sections, roughly mirroring its two principal aims.; The first major section broadly concerns the limits and potential of the human rights movement. Here I draw on the work of Bourdieu to propose a "field" model of human rights advocacy. Such an approach is better able to illuminate the limits of human rights activity. The second major section broadly concerns the rationalization of human rights violations. Here I argue principally that, unlike other aspects of state sovereignty, states' power to suspend human rights obligations when faced with exceptional threat (enshrined in international law in the derogation clause applicable in states of emergency) has undergone little pressure in the era of globalization. Turning to recent Israeli and international case law concerning the power of judicial discretion in states of emergency, the concluding section addresses the question of the transformation of the logic of the state. We recognize a movement between two poles, one in which the survival of the state trumps all other considerations (and "necessity knows no bounds") and the other in which the effect on human rights of measures taken in the name of self-defense are examined for their necessity and proportionality (and "the Wall" must be re-routed). While the future contours of this tension remain uncertain, the instances examined in this dissertation indicate that this double movement of state entrenchment and universalization will continue for some time.