{"created":"2021-03-01T07:10:10.951684+00:00","id":49307,"links":{},"metadata":{"_buckets":{"deposit":"f1c924b2-bae3-4939-bd48-03b5254c3b9d"},"_deposit":{"id":"49307","owners":[],"pid":{"revision_id":0,"type":"depid","value":"49307"},"status":"published"},"_oai":{"id":"oai:repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp:00049307","sets":["46:2942:7744","9:504:2944:7745"]},"item_4_alternative_title_1":{"attribute_name":"その他のタイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_alternative_title":"An Introduction to and a Preliminary Review of the Proceedings of the Israeli Cabinet Meetings at the Time of the Establishment of the State of Israel (4), Part II : The Debates over Bernadotte’s Peace Suggestions and over the “Sovereignty” of the State of Israel in The Proceedings of the Provisional Government Meetings Vol.4 (30 June to 4 July 1948)"}]},"item_4_biblio_info_7":{"attribute_name":"書誌情報","attribute_value_mlt":[{"bibliographicIssueDates":{"bibliographicIssueDate":"2018-03","bibliographicIssueDateType":"Issued"},"bibliographicPageEnd":"300","bibliographicPageStart":"159","bibliographicVolumeNumber":"173","bibliographic_titles":[{"bibliographic_title":"東洋文化研究所紀要 = The memoirs of Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia"}]}]},"item_4_description_5":{"attribute_name":"抄録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"Due to limited space, this study, An Introduction to and a Preliminary Review of the Proceedings of the Israeli Cabinet Meetings at the Time of the Establishment of the State of Israel (4), is divided into two parts, Part I and Part II. Following Part I (including Introduction, Section 1, and part of Section 2), which appeared in this journal in the previous year, this study is Part II (including the rest of Section 2, Section 3, and Conclusion).\n This study as a whole gives an introduction to the first half of The Proceedings of the Provisional Government Meetings, Vol.4 (30 June to 4 July 1948) and gives a review of its main contents, the Arab question. As a follow-up to my previous papers published in this journal in March 2014, March 2015, and March 2016, it is also intended to be a preliminary step toward revisiting the formative years of Israel, this time focusing on the short but critical period from late June to early July 1948. It was during this period, with the First Truce nearing its end, that Count Bernadotte’s peace suggestions were presented to Shertok, the Foreign Minister of the Israeli Provisional Government, and to Nuqrashi, the Egyptian Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Arab League Committee on the Palestine question, and were seriously debated within the Provisional Government. The Provisional Government rejected these suggestions mainly because it thought that “sovereignty” of the State of Israel was not explicitly recognized in these suggestions. This study analyzes the process of this decision-making by focusing on the cabinet proceedings during this period.\n The main conclusion of this paper, Part II, is as follows:\n In the mind of the Provisional Government, the center of gravity had shifted from atzmaut, which in Hebrew means “independence,” to ribonut, which means “sovereignty” or “the country’s perfect right of decision in its own matters.” Since the cabinet members shared the view that sovereignty was a universal concept to be applied to independent Israel, they were seriously concerned about the lack of the word “sovereignty” in Bernadotte’s suggestions. I mentioned in Part II the influence of ideas of mandate and trusteeship as cause for the absence of the concept of Israeli or Arab sovereignty from Bernadotte’s suggestions. From a long-term perspective, the reason why the Provisional Government rejected Bernadotte’s suggestions may well be that it was hurt by the fact that these suggestions denied the sovereignty of the State of Israel on the basis of the logic of mandate or trusteeship, which in turn was based on the tacit idea that neither sovereignty nor freedom, as J.S. Mill argued in his essay “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” (1859), is to be applied to non-European, backward peoples.\n There also seem to be differences of understanding of the concept of sovereignty between the Provisional Government, on the one hand, and Bernadotte, the United Nations, Britain, and the United States, on the other. The word ribonut, a Hebrew equivalent for “sovereignty,” emphasizes a country’s domination over its population, while the word “sovereignty” in English is somewhat connected with the nineteenth-century type of ultimate freedom of individuals, as J.S. Mill’s usage of sovereignty or sovereign in his On Liberty indicates. It might be assumed that the two streams of Jewish tradition̶the monarchic tradition in pre-modern Judaism and the historical experiences of the Jewish people in gentile kingdoms or empires (such as the Lithuanian-Polish Kingdom, the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire)—joined to create the conceptual origin of ribonut, which implies sovereignty emphasizing the aspect of “domination.” In fact, the main members of the Provisional Government themselves had experienced political subjection to the Russian, Ottoman, and British Empires and consequently it would not have been unnatural for some of them to imagine the nation or state in terms of domination and subjection. However, the question regarding the formation of the concept of sovereignty as domination over a people is not limited to Israel, but can also be seen in many countries in Asia and Africa after their independence. Therefore, the question of ribonut may well be analyzed within a more comprehensive, cross-regional, and comparative framework of the legacy of colonial politics.\n In sum, in the present proceedings of the cabinet meetings, two aspects are noteworthy. First, Ben-Gurion’s demand for “Domination by Force” challenged Shertok’s policy of giving priority to diplomacy, thereby reviving during the debates an old confrontation between the two statesmen as to whether Israel based itself on the November 29 Resolution or not; thus the division between the activists and the moderates became conspicuously visible again. At the same time, the present proceedings show that it was the Provisional Government’s unanimous opposition to Bernadotte’s denial of Israeli sovereignty rather than the government’s intransigence toward the Arabs that led to the government’s rejection of Bernadotte’s suggestions; therefore, the rejection by the Provisional Government was a “rational” conclusion. That the Provisional Government rejected Bernadotte’s suggestions mainly because of its opposition to Bernadotte, the United Nations and Britain reveals a bias in the basic orientation of Israeli studies which emphasizes the bilateral nature of Arab-Israeli conflicts, a bias that calls for some reexamination. It also leads us to put Israel’s consciousness of sovereignty and its actions toward other countries in a broader, post-colonial, and cross-regional context which enables us to compare Israel’s consciousness of sovereignty and its actions with, for example, those of Egypt after the 1952 Revolution or with those of the People’s Republic of China.","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"}]},"item_4_full_name_3":{"attribute_name":"著者別名","attribute_value_mlt":[{"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"146296","nameIdentifierScheme":"WEKO"}],"names":[{"name":"Mori, Mariko"}]}]},"item_4_identifier_registration":{"attribute_name":"ID登録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_identifier_reg_text":"10.15083/00074431","subitem_identifier_reg_type":"JaLC"}]},"item_4_publisher_20":{"attribute_name":"出版者","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_publisher":"東京大学東洋文化研究所"}]},"item_4_select_14":{"attribute_name":"著者版フラグ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_select_item":"publisher"}]},"item_4_source_id_10":{"attribute_name":"書誌レコードID","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"AN00170926","subitem_source_identifier_type":"NCID"}]},"item_4_source_id_8":{"attribute_name":"ISSN","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"05638089 ","subitem_source_identifier_type":"ISSN"}]},"item_4_text_21":{"attribute_name":"出版者別名","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_text_value":"Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, The University of Tokyo"}]},"item_creator":{"attribute_name":"著者","attribute_type":"creator","attribute_value_mlt":[{"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"森, まり子"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"146295","nameIdentifierScheme":"WEKO"}]}]},"item_files":{"attribute_name":"ファイル情報","attribute_type":"file","attribute_value_mlt":[{"accessrole":"open_date","date":[{"dateType":"Available","dateValue":"2018-04-17"}],"displaytype":"detail","filename":"ioc173004.pdf","filesize":[{"value":"1.0 MB"}],"format":"application/pdf","licensetype":"license_note","mimetype":"application/pdf","url":{"label":"ioc173004.pdf","url":"https://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/record/49307/files/ioc173004.pdf"},"version_id":"c8d03124-7774-4d98-b724-4054552b3202"}]},"item_language":{"attribute_name":"言語","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_language":"jpn"}]},"item_resource_type":{"attribute_name":"資源タイプ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"resourcetype":"departmental bulletin paper","resourceuri":"http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501"}]},"item_title":"建国期のイスラエル内閣閣議議事録　史料紹介と予備的考察（4）＜後篇＞ : 『暫定政府会合議事録』第4巻前半（1948年6月30日～7月4日）に見るベルナドット和平提案とイスラエル国家の「主権」をめぐる論議","item_titles":{"attribute_name":"タイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_title":"建国期のイスラエル内閣閣議議事録　史料紹介と予備的考察（4）＜後篇＞ : 『暫定政府会合議事録』第4巻前半（1948年6月30日～7月4日）に見るベルナドット和平提案とイスラエル国家の「主権」をめぐる論議"}]},"item_type_id":"4","owner":"1","path":["7744","7745"],"pubdate":{"attribute_name":"公開日","attribute_value":"2018-04-17"},"publish_date":"2018-04-17","publish_status":"0","recid":"49307","relation_version_is_last":true,"title":["建国期のイスラエル内閣閣議議事録　史料紹介と予備的考察（4）＜後篇＞ : 『暫定政府会合議事録』第4巻前半（1948年6月30日～7月4日）に見るベルナドット和平提案とイスラエル国家の「主権」をめぐる論議"],"weko_creator_id":"1","weko_shared_id":null},"updated":"2022-12-19T04:24:09.574226+00:00"}