English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Many members of minority groups clash violently with state agents. The case of the Israeli West-Bank Settlers’ Right-Wing Activists is particularly paradoxical. Unlike disempowered groups whose ability to bring about change is limited – the Settlers constitute a powerful sociopolitical force, and the security forces with which Settler Right-Wing Activists clash, also protect them in territories to which they claim sovereignty. Based on 20 semi-structured interviews, this article provides explanations Settler Right-Wing Activists give to violent clashes in which they were involved. The findings present two non-mutually exclusive possibilities: (1) violence is perceived as an acceptable sociopolitical change strategy. Interviewees agree to risk themselves as individuals (but not to risk their group) in exchange for potential benefits such as preventing settlement evacuation; (2) Violence indicates declining mainly four out of six different components of perceived state legitimacy: trust, distributive justice, procedural justice, and legality, but primarily not identification and effectiveness.

Like a chess game: radical right-wing activists explain their part in violent clashes with the state