Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-8bbf57454-s7xmh Total loading time: 0.237 Render date: 2022-01-25T13:34:27.513Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Contested Ground: Disentangling Material and Symbolic Attachment to Disputed Territory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2018

Abstract

Territorial disputes are prone to conflict because of the value of territory to publics, whether due to its strategic and material worth, or to its intangible, symbolic value. Yet despite the implications of the distinction for both theory and policy, empirically disentangling the material from the symbolic has posed formidable methodological challenges. We propose a set of tools for assessing the nature of individual territorial attachment, drawing on a series of survey experiments in Israel. Using these tools, we find that a substantial segment of the Jewish population is attached to the disputed West Bank territory for intangible reasons, consisting not only of far-right voters but also of voters of moderate-right and centrist parties. This distribution considerably narrows the bargaining space of leaders regardless of coalitional configurations. Our empirical analysis thus illustrates how the distribution of territorial preferences in the domestic population can have powerful implications for conflict and its resolution.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Devorah Manekin is an Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, 9190501 (dmanekin@mail.huji.ac.il). Guy Grossman is an Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania. 208 S. 37th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (ggros@sas.upenn.edu), and a member of the Evidence in Governance and Politics (EGAP) network. Tamar Mitts is an Assistant Professor at the School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University. 420 West 118th Street New York, NY 10027 (tm2630@columbia.edu). The authors thank Daniel Berliner, Alex Braithwaite, Allan Dafoe, Naoki Egami, James Fearon, Noam Gidron, Stacie Goddard, Shanker Satyanath, Jacob Shapiro, Raanan Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Jakana Thomas, and two anonynmous reviewers for valuable feedback on earlier drafts. Guy Grossman wishes to thank The Christopher H. Brown Center for International Politics at the University of Pennsylvania and the Israel Institute for their generous support of this study. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.22

References

Braithwaite, Alex, and Lemke, Douglas. 2011. ‘Unpacking Escalation’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 28(2):111123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, David. 2010. ‘The Strategy of Territorial Conflict’. American Journal of Political Science 54(4):969987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, Francesco, Morelli, Massimo, and Rohner, Dominic. 2015. ‘The Geography of Interstate Resource Wars’. Quarterly Journal of Economics 130(1):267315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, Citrin, Jack, and Conley, Patricia. 2001. ‘When Self-Interest Matters’. Political Psychology 22(3):541570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, Paul. 1999. A Road Map to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
Fearon, James. 1995. ‘Rationalist Explanations for War’. International Organization 49(3):379414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James. 2004. ‘Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Much Longer than Others?’. Journal of Peace Research 41(3):275301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsberg, Tuomas. 1996. ‘Explaining Territorial Disputes: From Power Politics to Normative Reasons’. Journal of Peace Research 33(4):433449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrmann, Matthew, and Tir, Jaroslav. 2009. ‘Territorial Dimensions of Enduring Internal Rivalries’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 26(4):307329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gent, Stephen, and Shannon, Megan. 2010. ‘The Effectiveness of International Arbitration and Adjudication: Getting Into a Bind’. The Journal of Politics 72(02):366380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M. 2012. The Territorial Peace: Borders, State Development, and International Conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginges, Jeremy, Scott, Atran, Medin, Douglas, and Shikaki, Khalil. 2007. ‘Sacred Bounds on Rational Resolution of Violent Political Conflict’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(18):73577360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, Stacie. 2006. ‘Uncommon Ground: Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy’. International Organization 60(1):3568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goemans, Hein, and Schultz, Kenneth. 2017. ‘The Politics of Territorial Claims: A Geospatial Approach Applied to Africa’. International Organization 71(1):3164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, Gary, and Diehl, Paul. 1992. Territorial Changes and International Conflict. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. ‘Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments’. Political Analysis 22(1):130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzell, Caroline, and Hoddie, Matthew. 2003. ‘Institutionalizing Peace: Power Sharing and Post-civil War Conflict Management’. American Journal of Political Science 47(2):318332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassner, Ron. 2003. ‘To Halve and to Hold: Conflicts over Sacred Space and the Problem of Indivisibility’. Security Studies 12(4):133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensel, Paul. 2012. ‘Territory: Geography, Contentious Issues, and World Politics’. In John A., Vasquez (eds), What Do We Know About War 2nd ed., 326. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Hensel, Paul, and Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin. 2005. ‘Issue Indivisibility and Territorial Claims’. GeoJournal 64(4):275285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, Paul. 1996. Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kydd, Andrew. 2006. ‘When Can Mediators Build Trust?’. American Political Science Review 100(3):449462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lustick, Ian. 1993. Unsettled States Disputed Lands: Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, David. 1999. ‘Real Spaces, Symbolic Spaces: Interrelated Notions of Territory in the Arab-Israeli Conflict’. In Paul F., Diehl (eds), A Road Map to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict, 334. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
Pedahzur, Ami. 2012. The Triumph of Israel’s Radical Right. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 2006. ‘War as a Commitment Problem’. International Organization 60(1):169203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynhold, Jonathan, and Waxman, Dov. 2008. ‘Ideological Change and Israel’s Disengagement from Gaza’. Political Science Quarterly 123(1):1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David, and Funk, Carolyn. 1991. ‘The Role of Self-Interest in Social and Political Attitudes’. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24(1):191.Google Scholar
Senese, Paul. 2005. ‘Territory, Contiguity, and International Conflict: Assessing a New Joint Explanation’. American Journal of Political Science 49(4):769779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelef, Nadav. 2016. ‘Unequal Ground: Homelands and Conflict’. International Organization 70(1):3363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tir, Jaroslav. 2010. ‘Territorial Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial Conflict’. The Journal of Politics 72(2):413425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toft, Monica Duffy. 2003. The Geography of Ethnic Violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Toft, Monica Duffy. 2014. ‘Territory and War’. Journal of Peace Research 51(2):185198.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Weeks, Jessica. 2013. ‘Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace’. American Political Science Review 107(4):849865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasquez, John. 1993. The War Puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, Barbara. 1997. ‘The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement’. International organization 51(3):335364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zellman, Ariel. 2015. ‘Framing Consensus: Evaluating the Narrative Specificity of Territorial Indivisibility’. Journal of Peace Research 52(4):492507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Manekin et al. Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Manekin et al. supplementary material

Manekin et al. supplementary material 1

Download Manekin et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 697 KB
8
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Contested Ground: Disentangling Material and Symbolic Attachment to Disputed Territory
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Contested Ground: Disentangling Material and Symbolic Attachment to Disputed Territory
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Contested Ground: Disentangling Material and Symbolic Attachment to Disputed Territory
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *