In Chapter 1, I outlined the main characteristics of Palestinian modernisation discourse in Israel during the first two decades after 1948. The modernisation of Palestinian citizens in Israel encompassed interrelated social, technological, economic and political components. As manifested in novels, Palestinian proponents of modernisation aimed both to reform their society and to promote peaceful coexistence of Palestinians with Jewish-Israelis. To achieve this goal, Palestinian modernists downplayed the political context of animosity and the inherent incompatibility of Palestinians and Zionism. In other words, because Palestinian modernisation in Israel was promoted by, or at least derived from and operated within, Zionist discourse (which is both modernist and exclusivist nationalist), Palestinian denationalisation and erasure were inherent to Palestinian modernisation. Another point that was highlighted in the preceding chapter relates to suppressing voices of criticism of modernisation during the first period (1948−67). Only in In a New Light by Atallah Mansour is modernisation within a Zionist context criticised. In this chapter, analysing Palestinian novels published between 1967 and 1987, we will see that such a tendency will continue. Palestinian novels in this period can be described as ‘postmodern’, since they provide a response and reassessment of Palestinian modernisation in Israel.

My use of the term ‘postmodernisation’ in this chapter aims to outline the reaction, or the response, of Palestinian citizens in Israel towards their modernisation in Israel, as described in Chapter 1. Such a formulation suggests that there is a discursive reaction (postmodernisation discourse) to an earlier process (modernisation). This is true to a certain extent, especially if we take postmodernisation to be a stage in the evolution of modernisation. This relationship will become clearer in the following general discussion on these terms.

Academic literature on modernism and postmodernism depicts the relationship between these two in terms of ‘continuity and change’. Andreas Huyssen summarises the debate over the nature of postmodernism: