THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT emerged in the early 1960s with the primary goal of “liberating the land and the people” from Zionist settler-colonialism. Today, with colonization accelerating throughout Palestine and with Palestinian refugees—mostly deprived of their national, civil, and human rights—still dispersed around the world, this aim sounds like an embarrassing echo of a distant past . The failure of the strategy of armed struggle to deliver its maximalist (pre-1967) or even more limited (post-1988) goals became patently clear with the quelling of the second intifada. Meanwhile, the alternate strategy of seeking to liberate a fraction of historical Palestine by negotiations and diplomacy has proven equally futile.
"emerged in the early 1960s"? "pre-1967 armed struggle"?
But we know this movement is ancient, old, no? And we know the "settlements" cause the terror.
That's what they tell us.
Who wrote that?
Raja Khalidi and Sobhi Samour.
Who is Raja?
He's Chief, Office of the Director, Division on Globalisationa and Developmen Strategies, Geneva.
He's a Ph.D. candidate in economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Oh. Arabs? "Palestinians"?
And where did they publish that?
The Journal of the Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS), an institute exclusively devoted to documentation, research, analysis, and publication on Palestinian affairs and the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is an academic organization dedicated to protecting the integrity of the historical record. IPS is looked upon as the major source of accurate information and analysis on Palestinian affairs and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
* There is, in literature, this:
Dr. Mezu’s theory is “Creative Inventivism”… The will and ability to make a way out of no way - the capability of taking a mess, a wall, a bottomless pit, and constructing a rope, a ladder, a bridge across the expanse of impossibility… a future out of hopelessness, oppression, and submission.
The term has been used in theological philosophy:
biblical absolutes, as opposed to modern worldviews, such as liberalism, modernism, humanism and inventivism.
and clearer, here:
For Simondon’s thought to resonate, constructivism has to make room for an integral inventivism (if such a word exists). An inventivism that is not afraid of nature and its [own] creativity.
And it's been used in reference to Nietzsche:
if you want to know why not identity or sameness can be found by Deleuze in these operation of the intellect...the problem so is to MAKE the connections when identity is seen as illusion of the 'megamachine'. between disparate differencial flowing elementary objects of desires, AND illusions of the intellect as blockers starting to run loose out of human mind origins. [inventivism of passions].
"Constructivism" is a term, actually, that has been applied to Jewish nationalism. But I'll get to that later.
Ilan Peleg uses the term as "Constructivist Realism" in his
"The Zionist Right and Constructivist Realism: Ideological Persistence and Tactical Readjustment", Israel Studies, Volume 10, Number 3, Fall 2005:
...the notion of "Constructivist Realism", which combines both the realist and constructivist* approachs. With regard to the Zionist Right, the argument would be that, while its core beleifs about the nature of the world could indeed be found in realism, the core beleifs could not be understood as objective, given or natural, but as constructed and invented, part and parcel ofd the identity of those who have held the se beleifs for generations...national power [is a ] belief system [that] in its entirety has been grounded in a broader identity construct...Jabotinsky's myth constuction...
Of course, the theory has little to do with the realism of what is and has been proven about the actual historical record of the Jewish people and its relationship with the Land of Israel.
Constructivism is a theory of knowledge (epistemology) that argues that humans generate knowledge and meaning from an interaction between their experiences and their ideas. During infancy, it was an interaction between human experiences and their reflexes or behavior-patterns.
Constructivists see such identities and interests as not objectively grounded in material forces (such as dictates of the human nature that underpins Classical Realism) but the result of ideas and the social construction of such ideas. In other words the meanings of ideas, objects, and actors are all given by social interaction. We give objects their meanings and can attach different meanings to different things.
And there is this claim:
within constructivist arguments, facts form part of the ground for affirming principles insofar as facts generate criteria for assessing principles.
But the most relevant expression of it essence is this:
...theories of the formation of ethnic groups are driven by the constructivist assumption that ethnic identities can change over time, theories of the effect of ethnicity on economic and political outcomes are driven by the primordialist assumption that these identities are fixed.
which, however, is tempered in a too fluid way here:
The idea that principles of justice should be reconstructed from existing social practices – and not treated as facts of reason, Platonic forms or divine commands – has a long and established pedigree in political theory, from G.W.F. Hegel to John Rawls. In recent years, the requirement that principles of justice be “practice-dependent” has received fresh attention from a young generation of political theorists, putting a methodological principle, along with the associated ideas of moral and political constructivism, at the top of the agenda of contemporary political theory.