The basic premise of Fearon and Laitin?s theory is that most ethnic conflicts are the result of ?state weakness,? as defined by several key indices, including poverty, weak bureaucracies, political instability, rough terrain, and large populations.
I argue that Fearon and Laitin?s theory is basically applicable to the early Arab-Jewish-British conflict; the British Mandatory government was weak, unstable, and not firmly in control of outlying terrain. However the role of ethnic entrepreneurs, especially on the Jewish side, should not be underestimated. In fact, it can be argued that without ethnic entrepreneurs, the indicies and conditions in Mandatory Palestine would not have inevitably led to ethnic violence.
In the first section of this paper I will briefly outline Fearon and Laitin?s theory and findings regarding the causes and correlates of ethnic conflict. In the second section I will offer a nuanced discussion of the application of their theory to the conflict in Mandatory Palestine in the early 20th century.
I argue that Fearon and Laitin?s theory is basically applicable to the early Arab-Jewish-British conflict; the British Mandatory government was weak, unstable, and not firmly in control of outlying terrain. However the role of ethnic entrepreneurs, especially on the Jewish side, should not be underestimated. In fact, it can be argued that without ethnic entrepreneurs, the indicies and conditions in Mandatory Palestine would not have inevitably led to ethnic violence.
In the first section of this paper I will briefly outline Fearon and Laitin?s theory and findings regarding the causes and correlates of ethnic conflict. In the second section I will offer a nuanced discussion of the application of their theory to the conflict in Mandatory Palestine in the early 20th century.
Facebook
Twitter