Between Imaginary Lines: Violence and its Justifications at the Military Checkpoints in Occupied Palestine

Looking at one site, the Israeli checkpoints in the occupied Palestinian territory, this article seeks to understand the mechanisms by which violence can present itself as justifiable (or justified), even when it materializes within frames presumably set to annul it. We look at the checkpoints as a condensed microcosmos operating within two such frames. One is the prolonged IsraeliPalestinian ‘peace process’ (the checkpoints became a primary technology of control in the period following the beginning of the peace process), and the other is regulatory power (disciplinary and biopower), which in the Foucauldian framework presumably sidelines the violent form which sovereign power takes. We argue that the checkpoints, which dissect the Palestinian occupied territories into dozens of enclaves and which are one of the most effective and destructive means of control within the current stage of occupation, can be seen as more than obstacles in the way of Palestinian movement; we suggest that they also function as corrective technologies that are meant to fail. It is with this failure that violence can appear as justified. In order to show the operation of this embedded failure, we examine one mechanism operating within the checkpoints: ‘the imaginary line’. The imaginary line is both a component within, and an emblem of a mode of control that constantly undoes itself in order to summon violence. Since it is never visibly marked in the physical space, the imaginary line is bound to be unintentionally crossed, thereby randomly rendering Palestinians as ‘transgressors’ of the rule and thus facilitating eruptions of violence by the soldiers stationed at the checkpoints. This article proposes an analysis of this hidden demarcation of space in order to question the different relations between subjects and power which it both assumes and constitutes.

Contribution of primary motor cortex to compensatory balance reactions

Background: Rapid compensatory arm reactions represent important response strategies following an unexpected loss of balance. While it has been assumed that early corrective actions arise largely from sub-cortical networks, recent findings have prompted speculation about the potential role of cortical involvement. To test the idea that cortical motor regions are involved in early compensatory arm reactions, we used continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) to temporarily suppress the hand area of primary motor cortex (M1) in participants prior to evoking upper limb balance reactions in response to whole body perturbation. We hypothesized that following cTBS to the M1 hand area evoked EMG responses in the stimulated hand would be diminished. To isolate balance reactions to the upper limb participants were seated in an elevated tilt-chair while holding a stable handle with both hands. The chair was held vertical by a magnet and was triggered to fall backward unpredictably. To regain balance, participants used the handle to restore upright stability as quickly as possible with both hands. Muscle activity was recorded from proximal and distal muscles of both upper limbs.

Results: Our results revealed an impact of cTBS on the amplitude of the EMG responses in the stimulated hand muscles often manifest as inhibition in the stimulated hand. The change in EMG amplitude was specific to the target hand muscles and occasionally their homologous pairs on the non-stimulated hand with no consistent effects on the remaining more proximal arm muscles.

Conclusions: Present findings offer support for cortical contributions to the control of early compensatory arm reactions following whole-body perturbation.

Victims, Violence and Voice: Transitional Justice, Oral History and Dealing with the Past

Transitional justice is concerned with the legal and social processes established to deal with the legacy of violence in post-conflict and post-authoritarian contexts. These processes are essentially “creatures of law” – they are established by statute, their work is molded and shaped by lawyers, and their outcomes are benchmarked against what is or is not acceptable in domestic and international law. Concerns have mounted in recent years about the dominance of legalism within the field and the instrumentalization of those most directly affected by past violence. A commonly prescribed – but as yet largely empirically untested – corrective is that transitional justice theory and practice must become more open to interdisciplinary insights and perspectives. The interview – in different guises, contexts and settings – is at the heart of most transitional justice processes. As a historian now working in a School of Law I reflect in this article on the theoretical and practical intersections between law, history, and the interview. Drawing on more than 200 interviews concerning the Northern Ireland conflict and six other international case studies I concentrate in particular on interview-based initiatives that purport to be “victim-centered”. Having identified three interrelated risks - the manipulation of victim voice by vested interests, the affording of authority to particular voices, and the reification or “freezing” of identity - and having related these to the constraints of legal mechanisms and a wider failure to manage victims’ expectations, I argue that a greater familiarity with oral history theory and praxis can usefully illuminate the tensions between legal and historical approaches to engaging voice, and ultimately offer guidance to the shared challenge of victim-centered transitional justice.