Sunday, November 29, 2009

Politics – November 2009

The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the
 fundamental rights of every human being without distinction
 of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.
Constitution of the World Health Organization


Free Gilad Shalit. Veshavu banim legvulam.



Raphael Cohen-Almagor


Almost every week we hear that negotiations between Israel and the Hamas on prisoners exchange is just about to ripen, and Gilad will soon unite with his family. Until now, nada. Gilad is still in captivity, signalling the wrong message to new Israeli recruits. Young soldiers need to know that the country that sends them to fight stands behind them and does whatever it can do to bring them home. Nothing short of this promise is expected and accepted.



Gilad is still in captivity. Veshavu banim legvulam.



Obituary – Murray Smith

The Goldstone Report

Poverty and Social Gaps – Annual Report

Organ Trafficking in China

Reflections from Sapporo, Japan

Fourth International Conference on Applied Ethics

Debate with Andrew Silke

US Health Care Reform

American 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom

One day course on Europe's New Security Dilemma

My New Article

New Books

New Resource

The Sir Siegmund Warburg scholarship

Monthly Poem

Light Side


Free Gilad Shalit. The government should invest in his release. It should be one of its top priorities. Veshavu banim legvulam.










Ynet



Obituary – Murray Smith













I stared at my screen with complete disbelief. The words I read hit me like an axe. Murray Smith is dead. My dear Murray is gone from the planet. Not from my heart.


Murray and I met in 1995, after I moved to Haifa. He was the Deputy Secretary-General of the Bahá’í International Community whose world center is in Haifa. For Murray this was his third career. His first was an accountant. Later he was elected to the New Zealand Parliament, and upon his retirement from politics he took the Baha’i leadership position. We started to meet on a regular basis, once every few weeks, usually in a restaurant, spending a few hours together discussing everything: Our families, our countries, our jobs, our religions, and most of all – politics. This “addiction” attacked both of us and does not let go. Murray thought that Israeli politics is much more fascinating than New Zealand politics. I was the last person to disagree. So we discussed Israeli politics in depth.


Murray was one of the first people to subscribe to my politics Newsletter and every once in a while he contributed comments, always without attribution. As the senior diplomat of the world Baha’i movement, he did not wish to jeopardize or compromise his position. He met many of the Israeli politicians, and we shared our views about them. We would analyze processes, options, possibilities, risks, windows of opportunity to promote peace in the region. Murray would have liked to exhaust every shred of opportunity to promote peace. He became an ambassador for Israel, though a critical ambassador. I, who learned my fair share of the Baha’i religion thanks to Murray, became an ambassador for his religion. I grew to appreciate the Baha’i way of life, and would defend it against its critics. Thanks to Murray I met wonderful people all around the world. Whenever I travelled he used to ask me: And when are you going now? I would answer and he would say: Maybe you could say hello to my good friend there. I never refused. The more I knew Baha’i people, the more I wanted to meet people affiliated to this community.


Murray loved his job. He was passionate about all that he did. He would travel from Haifa, to Tel Aviv, to Jerusalem on a regular basis. Always in his Volvo, which he would not replace for any other car. He would negotiate terms with the Israeli bureaucracy about his community’s investments, workers, pilgrimages. He complained about the rough treatment his community sometimes received from the Israeli ministries but would smile and move on.


When I founded the Center of Democratic Studies and I told him of the difficulties in raising money for its activities, Murray listened and immediately tried to help. We saw eye to eye on so many things, and he certainly appreciated all efforts to promote peace, tolerance and understanding among different communities in Israel, especially but not only between Arabs and Jews.


When he finished his term I saw that he was saddened to leave. He did not say this explicitly but I could read between the lines. Murray was built for diplomacy and the job suited his many qualities. The Baha’i World Center organized a farewell dinner and many diplomats came to bid farewell to this great ambassador. The keynote speaker was Shimon Peres, then in government (it is strange to think that Shimon is no longer in the Knesset, but in a neighbouring house down the road), who praised Murray. It was heartening to see Murray blushing in his wonderful way.


We last met in Auckland, New Zealand in March 2006. Murray came with his wife and we spent a day together. After lunch he organized a party in my honour with the Baha’i community. I had no idea that this would be our last time together.


My dear Murray: Cancer has beaten you. Rest in peace, the peace that you so much aspired to. Your spirit will live in many hearts forever.
I will carry your smile with me wherever I go. Good Bye, my friend.


The Goldstone Report


I continue to receive messages from people who do not like my stance on the Goldstone Report. It is quite clear from their arguments that they did not bother to read the Report. They decided it is anti-Israel and that’s it. The world is black and white. Israel is pure white.


I am sorry but I have never believed that. I love my country with all my heart but I believe that it is not very prudent to see the world in such extreme colours. As a student of history I know that there are no angels in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, both sides made, and continue to make, terrible mistakes.


The Goldstone Report details incidents in which Israel had violated rules of war, in breach of the Geneva Convention. Nothing short of a similarly detailed explanation would help clear Israel's name, and banish away the dark cloud that hovers and blackens its reputation. Arguments of the sort of "They started", "They are to blame", "They are evil terrorists" will not suffice. I am afraid that if Israel will not resort to constructive means to clear its name, and if this is impossible, take measures against those who committed the atrocities, the Goldstone Report will continue to damage Israel in many ways.


Judge Goldstone gave Al Jazeera a calm and calculated interview. I listened closely. Again, he did not sound to me biased and extreme. He refused the manipulations of his interviewer who pressed him (as interviewers of Al Jazeera usually do when it comes to Israel) to criticize and attack Israel beyond what the report had said. Goldstone said that if Israel were to establish a committee to investigate the war in Gaza that will be acceptable to him. But if not, Israel will suffer severe repercussions; the first already is the right of its decision makers and army commanders to travel freely in the world.


Poverty and Social Gaps – Annual Report


In 1989, while living at Oxford, my wife and I invited a couple from Caracas Venezuela to dinner. Inter alia, we spoke of our respective societies. I mentioned poverty in Israel when our guest interrupted me and said: But that’s impossible. Puzzled I asked: What’s impossible? To which he said: You just said that there are poor people in Israel. I replied: Yes? Well, our guest said, that’s surely is impossible. There are no poor Jews. He never encountered a poor Jew in Caracas.
I am reminded of this exchange because the National Insurance Institute has just published its annual report. Here are the main findings:

• The incidence of impoverished families remained stable in 2008: the rate of families whose net income fell below the poverty line was 19.9% in 2008, compared with the same percentage in 2007 and 20.0% in 2006.

• The rate of persons living in poor families is 23.7%.

• The incidence of impoverished children, which soared in the past decade at a rate of

60%, showed a decrease for the second time: 34.0% of children lived in poor families in 2008 compared with 34.2% in 2007, and 35.8% in 2006.

• In 2008, there were 420,100 poor families in Israel, encompassing 1,651,300 persons, of whom 783,600 were children.

• The incidence of poverty among Arab families is 49.4%.

• The geographical distribution of the poverty findings shows that the scope of poverty among families in Jerusalem is high. This is true for both Jewish and Arab families residing in the Jerusalem area.


Organ Trafficking in China


On November 16, 2009 ABC News published a story about organ trafficking in China, arguing that it is more active than ever despite efforts to crack down on the trade, with kidneys being openly bought and sold online in a dozen cities across the country.

According to ABC News, the Chinese Government has tried to limit organ trafficking by launching a national organ donation system earlier this year. But the program is failing to attract donors, with China boasting one of the lowest organ donation rates in the world, and instead people are turning to organ trading websites.
One Chinese kidney trading website is packed with organ brokers' advertisements where contact numbers are openly on display. The ads ask potential sellers to contact them, promising a safe surgery and a quick cash payment. Official statistics estimate more than one million people in China need organ transplants each year, yet only 1 per cent of them will receive one. Experts say four out of five patients die while waiting for a suitable match.

Professor Zhai Xiaomei, a bioethicist from the Chinese Academy of Medical Science, says it is this huge discrepancy in supply and demand that has fuelled the illegal trade: "The simplest reason is human organs are rare health resources, their supply is far less than their demand," she said.


Corrupt doctors

She also points out that corrupt doctors have assisted the trafficking: "The brokers are connected to those doctors who only care about money... It's also possible that the brokers lied to the hospital, saying the buyers and the sellers are relatives or have a close bond with [them] as the law allows live organ donations between these people... But any doctors with a sense of social responsibility will be able to tell if it looks dodgy, but often they turn a blind eye."

The latest revelations are a blow to China, which has been trying to restore its reputation after being criticised for its use of executed prisoners' organs as a primary source of transplants. The claim was acknowledged only recently by vice Health Minister Huang Jiefu during an interview with state media.











Professor Zhai says the Government has realised it has to find other solutions: "The problem with using executed prisoners' organs is that there is always a question mark if the organs were really voluntarily donated - it's very hard to verify... And as the society moves on, and [fewer] death penalties are handed out, the Government has to find other ways ... to educate and encourage the public to register as organ donors."


Slow progress

Zhao Lizhen, head of the Red Cross in the southern city of Shenzhen, helped set up the country's first organ donation office a year ago. She says promoting organ donation is no easy task in a country where people still hold onto their traditional values: "It's been tough, we made some but slow progress... Our volunteers who tried to talk to people in hospitals' intensive care unit or emergency departments were often met with rejection and even abuse... You have to remember that this is a country where people only just started to accept cremation instead of burial."
Dr Daniel Wikler from the Harvard School of Public Health works on health issues with developing countries including China. He says a national system is needed to boost organ donation rates: "Building up a system of voluntary donation and a system of transplantation as just a part of a functioning and adequate healthcare system will certainly be a step forward."

It is a daunting task, but Zhai Xiaomei says the Government has to take on the challenges: "We can't allow organ trading, it will promote crime, even murder... It's not a fiction anymore, it's actually happening... It will also threaten human dignity and increase the gap between the rich and the poor. Because organ trading will always end up with the poor selling their organs and the rich buying. It's not a society we want to live in."

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/16/2744380.htm


Reflections from Sapporo, Japan


This month my academic career brought me to Lisboa, Portugal, and Sapporo, Japan. Prior departure I sought some advice. My friend Mike wrote: Never blow your nose in public. It is the equivalent of farting out loud (-:

No need to bow, they don’t expect it from a westerner. Or if you feel the need to bow, a little bow is perfectly acceptable. Ask permission to take off your jacket if you want to remove it (polite) when entering a formal meeting. Take care to take off your shoes when entering someone’s house. Never raise your voice or get angry (a sign of weakness, and lack of control). Be prepared to eat unusual foods (mostly seafood). Take care to leave a bit of food on your plate (especially at a sushi bar). Otherwise they might keep filling it up. If they make a toast to you, you should wait a bit and make a toast back to them.

My mentor wrote: Japanese retain (or used to retain) formality of address. The suffix '-san' is Japanese for Mr. (I was, and am still, always known as 'Knapp-san' but '-sensei' means doctor, professor, teacher and I was sometimes called 'Knapp-sensei'. I do not know what they, and you, will make of your crazy name but do not give a big grin and say 'Hi! I'm Rafi'.

My son Gilad, who usually does not care about my travels, became ecstatic once he heard that I am about to travel to Japan. Upon realising that he won’t fit into my largest suitcase nor the conference I am about to attend he prepared a list. The normally-speaking considerate lad made a two-page list of things I must bring with me, with 1-3 stars noting their priority and importance.

Service

Equipped with the wise advice and Gilad’s extensive shopping list I embarked on the long trip to Japan. In the hotel reception, in each and every shift there was one person, usually a lady, who spoke English. I pleaded for her help. Reading the list, she was impressed. I explained this was for my son (-:. She did not know where to get some items, promising me that she will make enquiries. Meanwhile I went on a mission to find what she did know.
I don't think I have ever spent so much time shopping (shopping is not among the top 100 ways of spending my time) with so little success. I entered a store and spoke to a clerk who rushed to call a co-worker who did “speak” English, usually “yes”, “no”, “thank you”. I asked whether they have x. A polite smile and a nod was the answer. “Do you?” Another nod. “Ok, so where is it?” A smile. “You don't have it?” I tried. Another nod.
One ingenious clerk corresponded with his computer. I wrote a question, which he then typed it onto his computer, translating it to Japanese; then he wrote his answer and translated it to English.
I told the kind hotel receptionist of my troubles and she smiled and showed me that she had already translated Gilad’s list to Japanese. She instructed me to take a taxi to Tokyo Store. What a store! A complete nightmare! I went to the first worker I saw and showed her the list. For some reason, she had trouble reading it. She called another co-worker for help, and a third one, and finally a manager. This guy walked (or rather ran) with me in that huge store, finding all Gilad’s wishes. What a relief!

For Dana and Roei I went to Toys R Us. Four people welcomed me in fluent Japanese. I grinned at them and said: “Arigato, English please”. They exchanged embarrassed smiles. After some hesitation, one brave man walked forward. He became my guide in the shop.
Everything is quick. I never waited for the hotel elevator more than ten seconds.
Japan is the only country in the world in which I saw workers run to fulfil their duties.
I went to the historic beer museum in Sapporo. The guide did a brilliant job speaking with a constant welcoming smile on her face. God knows how she does it. Try to speak for an hour with a constant smile on your face. Tell me if you succeed.
















Culture

Respect and dignity characterise human relationships. Japan is certainly the most courteous nation I have ever visited. No one raises his voice. There was not a single honking. Everyone is polite. Service is appreciated and given in the highest level. Usually two workers stand at the shop entrance and welcome customers. Two to five workers stand at the exit and bid them farewell.
As I was warned that I should not grin and say, as I usually do, “call me Rafi”, so I did not. One of my hosts called me Prof. Almagor, as my students sometimes do. Another asked: “How should I call you?” I answered “Raphael”. He thanked me for allowing him to call me by first name. “It is a great honour”, he said.
Japanese cultivate patience. You should see how people eat egg with chop sticks. Yet they respect your time. They are punctual, tidy, organised and well-behaved.
Aesthetics is a very important component of the culture. You see it manifested in many ways: Design, decoration, food, dress.
Japanese people are very courteous when they provide a service. Yet they do not hold the door for you. As I am spoiled in England, on the first day I got a door slammed in my face. Drivers do not stop for pedestrians in zebra crossing. You need to be very careful crossing the street.

I took a drink with me and upon emptying the bottle I looked for a bin. For many blocks none existed. Now the streets are clean. How can this be? The answer is simple: Japanese don't eat or drink on the street. The western habit of grabbing a coffee when going to work or wherever is unknown here. In Starbucks, the lady asks in English “here or to go”. You say “to go” and she puts your drink in a bag. Fine to drink it later but not on the street.

The children are well behaved yet happy. They don't seem repressed. They don't behave like kids in the western world. They behave like their parents.
















Religion is moderately important. The Japanese relaxed attitude to religion reminded me of Reform Judaism, in line with Aristotle’s principle of moderation.
















I saw one homeless person on the street.
Young girls walk in short pants or skirt, tights and boots to match. Some freeze to death in this outfit. If you love rain, you'll get your fair share in Sapporo. All youth hold cell phones. One was holding two cells in both hands, texting ferociously. I assumed one hand texted the other and the other was quick to respond. Another girl on a bike almost ran me over while texting.
One out of ten people wears a medical mask on their face, all in white. I was relieved the masks were not in black.
In my hotel there were twelve TV channels, all in fluent Japanese.

English

Even tourist guides in Sapporo speak fluent Japanese only.
An exchange between two Japanese in English may remind Israelis of the Arik Einstein- Uri Zohar exchange in the bible quiz competition “Gefen no Grooven”.

No one bothered me in an attempt to sell me things or invite me to restaurants. I assumed this lack of attention was due to communication deficiency. They all, young and old, speak Japanese. Only Japanese. They assumed I don't speak their language. Quite rightly so. I don't speak 99.9% of the world languages, including Japanese. Throughout my stay one guy approached me and I felt good for not being ignored as usual. His prepared note, in English, said: “please give emergency aid”.

Street Life

Sapporo municipality, like many municipalities around the world, enjoys destroying its main streets. Three men work in the trench while seven others watch them. I presume they lacked the necessary expertise as to how beat the hell out of the pipes.
People stop at red light. This is a prudent policy. In many crossings, cars may come running from three and even four directions.
















Streets look American until you see the signs. On the main street, there was even a running commercial showing American baseball with Japanese captions. Looking at the streets, I could easily mistake them to be streets of a large American city (with Japanese letters). American, definitely not European.
Taxi cars look like Japanese boxes. Taxi drivers control the back door, open and close it. Sometimes they leave the back door open, a clear indication of trust in their potential passengers. The taxis have a little sweet yellow or green flag on their roof with a Japanese caption.
















Japanese people are quiet. Yet their public spaces are the loudest that I have ever encountered. Loudspeakers everywhere, sometimes with overlapping noises. Many commercials are not only displayed but also heard. Hidden loudspeakers tell you all kind of things you wish or wish not to hear. Electronics shops offer a sure recipe for headache with a cacophony of noises, all blend and disturb one another.
In some places the same song is played continuously over and over again. I don't envy the clerks who are stationed there and need to listen all day, every day, to one and the same song that often sounds like a two-minute loud and fast-paced Eurovision song. Help!!

American companies are doing well in Japan, thank you. McDonald, KFC, Starbucks and 7/11 are everywhere.

Yes, Japan is expensive. At Starbucks, a very small latte costs like a large latte in the US. That's fine for the Japanese as they drink the small cup anyway. Taxi meter starts at 680 Yen (roughly 4.5 Pounds).
The toilet at the Sapporo central station was the cleanest I have ever seen for such a large terminal anywhere in the world.

Food

Seafood, fish, sushi, presented in so many attractive ways.
















Traditional dinner is accompanied by beer, sake and a Japanese spirit that is added to hot water.
Looking at photos of dishes is not an exact science. I told my host what dishes I like. He kindly wrote this on a piece of paper and armed with this note I went to restaurants. The urge for profit, however, does not stop in Japan. At the door I was told “yes, we have it” (in international language signs) and then the waitress will show me photos of other dishes as they don't have what I wished.

At dinner, live shrimps are served as a starter. One after the other they jumped off the plate in attempt to escape their lot. My host was not impressed. He broke each of them to two and served us the pieces, still moving.

At the market I went to a simple restaurant. Young executives in suits and ties were eating there while reading mangas that were available on the shelves. I thought it can't be bad. It was very good.
















Politics

President Obama visited Japan when I was there. He is well respected also in this part of the world.








Fourth International Conference on Applied Ethics


As for the conference. Like all conferences it was mixed, with some very good lectures and less good ones. I particularly enjoyed the lectures of Kristin Shrader-Frechette and Randall Curren. Shrader-Frechette explained why people have justice-based duties to the environment. In a fascinating and well-argued presentation, she argued that ninety-five percent of all cancer cases are induced by environmental causes and that only five percent of the cases are hereditary. She encouraged us to take action now so as to save many lives. Ruining the environment is very costly, both in human lives and money (in Hebrew, Damim).
For further deliberation, see Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Taking Action, Saving Lives (NY: Oxford University Press, 2007).








Randall Curren spoke of sustainability. The human population doubled to two billion between 1800 and 1950, tripled between 1950 and 2000 from two billion to over six billion, and is currently rising by more than 200,000 people per day. The global human population, currently 6.7 billion, is projected to reach 9.3 billion by mid-century, at which point human demands on nature might be more than double what is sustainable. On a finite planet, Curren argues, this cannot continue indefinitely. Furthermore, about one-quarter of land mammals, one-third of freshwater fishes, 50 to 75 percent of amphibians and insects, and 70 percent of all plants are presently at risk of extinction. As many as 300,000 species have become extinct since 1950, and the majority of the 10 million or so remaining will probably be destroyed in our lifetimes. Moreover, problems of water availability are already becoming acute in some parts of the world, and are getting worse as global warming contributes to drought conditions. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have already risen from the pre-industrial level of 275 ppm to 385 ppm. How much farther they could rise without eventuating in utter catastrophe is a matter of debate.
I thank Shunzo Majima and Masataka Muramatsu for their kind hospitality.


Debate with Andrew Silke


In Lisboa, Portugal, I was invited to contribute to a conference on “Terror and the Challenges to Nation-state”. Another participant, Professor Andrew Silke, gave a fascinating talk on “Understanding and responding to terrorism”. What did I learn from Silke?

First, there are many books on terrorism. Up until September 11, 2001, each year throughout the 1990s some 30-50 books (in English) were published. After September 11, one book on terrorism is published every day, more than 360 books a year. However, “most of it is rubbish” as they do not cover new grounds. These books do not interview terrorists or law-enforcement officers. All they do is interpret already existing literature.

Second, it is impossible to distinguish between “terrorists” and “freedom fighters” or “resistance movements”. Timothy McVeigh, Shoko Asahara (the Supreme Truth, Aum Shinrikyo, leader), Gerry Adams, Menachem Begin, Yassir Arafat, Nelson Mandela and Osama bin-Laden were all described at one time or another as terrorists. Some of them became leading statesmen of their peoples.

Third, why do governments pursue and kill terrorists? Because it is popular. Attacking terrorists increase their popularity. Bill Clinton’s attacks on targets in Afghanistan increased his popularity. Israel’s targeted assassination policy increases the government’s popularity. In addition, the death penalty is popular in the United States and so is Israel’s house demolishing policy. Furthermore, Israel had built the wall, in violation of international law, to combat suicide bombing. Was it successful? No. Suicide bombing indeed decreased from 60 successful attacks to one but the Palestinians increased their use of rockets. Israel said, “We’ll take rockets” as only three people died as a result of rocket attacks compared to dozens each year due to suicide attacks. Silke’s stops his analysis of the rocket attacks in 2007.

Moreover, Israel is a dubious democracy because it continuously violates international law and conventions. Israel is an ethnic democracy where Arabs under its control do not enjoy the vote.
As for justifications to fight terrorism, Silke said that Israel had dropped a one-tone bomb in order to kill one or two people it perceived as terrorists. But with them all other people in the building were killed, and this “happened a number of times”. He asked: Is this legitimate? In his opinion, such brutality only increases the victim’s demand for “justice” and “revenge”.

I found Silke’s analysis problematic, shallow and inaccurate. First, I think we can learn from research based on secondary sources. I encourage reliance on primary resources but not all researchers are able to gain access to terrorists and law-enforcement officers. I would certainly not collectively dismiss a massive body of literature with the single word “rubbish”. This sense of elitist dismissiveness (Silke conducted interviews with terrorists) does not promote knowledge, engagement, truth, understanding.

Second, people who blur the distinction between “terrorists” and “resistance fighters”, who resort to the cliché that one’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter only play to the hands of terrorists and contribute to their legitimacy. The list of names he threw into the pile was comprised of a mixture of people, some of them transformed from terrorists to statesmen (Mandela, Begin, Adams), some remained terrorists (McVeigh, Asahara, bin Laden), and one who acquired a facade of a statesman while remaining a terrorist (Arafat). A person who is engaged in violence to promote fear and create mayhem by indiscriminate targeting of civilians for religious, political or ideological purposes is a terrorist. No other name is suitable, certainly not freedom
fighter.

This lecture is one example of a British view of Israel, prevalent in Europe. Much of Silke’s criticisms of the wall could have been avoided if it were built inside Israeli territory. Instead, all of it is built in Palestinian territory. And the one incident in which Israel resorted to a one-ton bomb to kill an arch-terrorist multiplied when interpretations of the event start. Israel certainly helps its critics by making political mistakes that undermine its international standing.


US Health Care Reform


A substantive percentage of the US budget goes to health care. Yet, tens of millions of Americans do not have health insurance, and tens of millions have only partial insurance. Much of the budget has gone to the private health insurance companies that have made billions during the past thirty years or so. This is a sad phenomenon that needs to change. It is distressing to see that the economic giant of our time cannot cater to its own citizens. Cuba has a better health system than the USA, not to mention tiny Israel. The American healthcare system is too detached, too impersonal, too uncaring. This healthcare model exposes the fallacies of crude capitalism. There are better ways to strike a balance between societal concerns and individual needs. The present American model for health care is simply not a good model, especially when one considers how much money is spent and the fact that large parts of the American public still receive poor
treatment.

On November 7, 2009, the US House of Representatives backed a healthcare bill in a step towards reforms promised by President Obama, despite strong opposition. Passed by a narrow 220-215 vote, the bill aims to extend coverage to 36 million more Americans and provide affordable healthcare to 96%. The bill was supported by 219 Democrats and one Republican - Joseph Cao from New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

The plan would cost $1.1 trillion over 10 years. Democrats said the legislation would provide overdue relief to Americans struggling to buy or hold on to health insurance. Democrats say the House measure — paid for through new fees and taxes, along with cuts in Medicare — would extend coverage to 36 million people now without insurance while creating a government health insurance program. It would end insurance company practices like not covering pre-existing conditions or dropping people when they become ill.
The Senate now has to pass its own bill and the two must then be reconciled before the programme can become law.

President Obama described the vote in the House as "historic", saying he was "absolutely confident" the Senate would follow suit. The legislation could lead to the biggest changes in American healthcare in decades.

KEY BILL PROVISIONS

· Aims to provide affordable healthcare to 96% to redress 2008 figure of 47 million uninsured

· Individuals must obtain coverage and most firms must provide it to workers

· Creates an insurance market for purchase of coverage

· One product will be a government health insurance plan

· People with pre-existing health problems cannot be denied insurance

· Funded by raft of measures, including 5.4% surtax on those earning $500,000 a year or more

· Those who earn up to 150% of poverty level to qualify for Medicaid government programme for the poor

· Insurers must justify increases in premiums

Democratic Party representative John Dingell said: "[The bill] offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable healthcare when they need it."

After the vote, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said: "I thank the president for his tremendous leadership, because without President Obama in the White House, this victory would not have been possible."

One key concession to get the bill through was to anti-abortion legislators. An amendment was passed that prohibits coverage for abortion in the government-run programme except for rape, incest or if the mother's
life is threatened. Private plans can still offer the cover.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid said after the House vote: "We realise the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energised that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system."

Sources: “Sweeping Health Care Plan Passes House”, NY Times (November 8, 2009), http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08health.html?th&emc=th

BBC NEWS (November 8, 2009):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/8348941.stm


American 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom


The U.S. Department of State published its 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom in October 2009. The report identifies 30 countries as being specifically worthy of concern over their lack of tolerance for religious freedoms. During the period between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009, the Department of State has also found that at least 22 countries, including many countries that had been criticized for their low levels of tolerance, have taken steps toward the consolidation of religious freedoms.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hopes that the report “will encourage existing religious freedom movements around the world and promote dialogue among governments and within societies on how best to accommodate religious communities and protect each individual’s right to believe or not believe, as that individual sees fit.”

Israel and the occupied territories

Based on its pre-1967 borders, the country has an area of 7,685 square miles. The country has a population of 7.4 million (including settlers living in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem), of which 5.6 million are Jews, 1.5 million are Arab Muslims and Christians, and 320,000 are classified as "other"-- mostly persons from the former Soviet Union who immigrated under the Law of Return but who did not qualify as Jews according to the Orthodox Jewish definition used by the Government for civil procedures.
According to figures from the Central Bureau of Statistics for 2007, the latest year such information was available, 7 percent of the Jewish population is ultra-Orthodox, 10 percent is Orthodox, 39 percent describe themselves as "traditional religious" or "traditional non-religious," and 44 percent describe themselves as "non-religious/secular" Jews, most of whom observe some Jewish traditions. It also estimated that 30 percent of the country's Jewish population was born outside the country. A growing but still small number of traditional and secular Jews associate themselves with the Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist streams of Judaism. Although not officially recognized for purposes of civil and personal status matters, groups composed of adherents of these streams of Judaism received a small amount of government funding and were recognized by the courts. There is a small but growing community of approximately 10,000 Messianic Jews.

Slightly more than 20 percent of the population is non-Jewish, the vast majority of whom are ethnic Arabs. Of the total population, Muslims (nearly all Sunnis) constitute 16.5 percent, Christians 2.1 percent; Druze 1.7 percent; other religious groups 0.5 percent, including relatively small communities of, among others, Messianic Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Baha'is.

The Government reported that during 2008 it issued nearly 100,000 permits for foreigners to work in the country, and estimated that another 80,000 to 150,000 illegal foreign workers resided in the country. Foreign workers are members of many different religious groups, including Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and Islamic traditions.
The state does not recognize conversions to Judaism performed in the country by non-Orthodox rabbis. The Government provides funds for Orthodox conversion programs but does not provide support for non-Orthodox (i.e. Reform and Conservative) programs. The High Court ruled on May 18, 2009, that the Government must cease discriminating against non-Orthodox conversion institutes. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) sponsored Orthodox Jewish conversion courses for Jewish soldiers who received non-Orthodox (and therefore unrecognized) conversions and for soldiers not recognized as Jewish by the Orthodox rabbinical authorities. Residency rights were not granted to relatives of converts to Judaism, except for children of female converts who are born after the mother's conversion is complete.

Military service is compulsory only for Jews, Druze, and the 5,000 member Circassian community (Muslims from the northwestern Caucasus region who immigrated to various points in the Ottoman-controlled Middle East in the late nineteenth century). Ultra-Orthodox Jews who study Torah full-time and Israeli Arabs--both Muslim and Christian--are exempt. The majority of Israeli Arabs opt not to serve in the army; however, some Christian and Muslim Arab citizens, mainly Bedouin, serve as volunteers. As of June 2007, Israeli Arabs and ultra-Orthodox Jews can perform national service for one to two years as volunteers in health, education, or welfare sectors in lieu of military service. This service confers eligibility for similar national benefits accorded military veterans. Israeli-Arab advocacy groups, Knesset members, and local community leaders have charged that housing, educational, and other benefits, as well as employment preferences based on military experience, effectively discriminate in favor of the Jewish population, the majority of which serves in the military.

According to government figures, the 2008 budget for religious services and religious institutions for the Jewish population was approximately 1.6 billion shekels ($457 million). Religious minorities, which constituted slightly more than 20 percent of the population, received approximately 65 million shekels ($18.6 million), or just less than 4 percent of total funding.
The West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) has an area of 2,238 square miles and a population of 2.4 million persons, not including approximately 300,000 Israelis. East Jerusalem has an area of 27 square miles, and its population is 415,000, including approximately 180,000 Israelis. The Gaza Strip has an area of 143 square miles and a population of 1.5 million.

Approximately 98 percent of Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories are Sunni Muslims. While estimates vary in the absence of reliable census data, there are about 120,000 Christians in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and an estimated 1,500 to 2,500 Christians in the Gaza Strip. A majority of Christians are Greek Orthodox; the remainder consists of Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics, Protestants, Syrian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Copts, Maronites, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Protestant denominations. Christians are concentrated primarily in the areas of Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Bethlehem, but smaller communities exist elsewhere. According to local Christian leaders, Palestinian Christian emigration has accelerated since 2001, reducing the number of Christians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Most left for security and economic reasons, often related to the effects of the barrier; however, low birth rates among Palestinian Christians also contribute to their shrinking numbers. There is also a community of approximately 400 Samaritans located on Mount Gerazim near Nablus in the West Bank.

In East Jerusalem, the Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) contains the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque, among the holiest sites in Islam. Jews refer to the same place as the Temple Mount and consider it the location of the ancient Jewish temple. The location has been, as with all of East Jerusalem, under Israeli control since 1967, when Israel captured the city (East Jerusalem was formally annexed in 1980, and thus Israel applies its laws to East Jerusalem). The Haram al-Sharif--and all other Waqf institutions in Jerusalem--are administered, however, by the Jerusalem Waqf, a Jordanian-funded and administered Islamic trust and charitable organization with ties to the PA.

See Israel and the occupied territories at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2009/127349.htm


One day course on Europe's New Security Dilemma


I was asked to post the following:

On December 19 2009 the Department of Strategic Intelligence and Security of Link Campus University (Rome, Italy) will hold an advanced one-day course on "Europe's New Security Dilemma: Violent and Non-Violent Political Islamism in Europe and Counterterrorism Strategies" with Dr Lorenzo Vidino and Dr Patrick Sookhdeo.

The course will be held in Rome (Italy) and is designed for law enforcement, security and intelligence professionals as well as think tank and private sector experts and analysts.

For registration and information on the course program please go to the following website http://www.unilink.it/Dipartimenti/SISS/events.html or contact Cristina Palmieri c.palmieri@unilink.it


My New Article


“Critical Remarks on the Dutch Policy and Practice of Euthanasia and Proposed Guidelines for Physician-Assisted Suicide”, in Ante Covic, Nada Gosic and Luka Tomasevic (eds.), From New Medical Ethics to Integrative Bioethics (Zagreb: Pergamena, 2009), pp. 197-216.

This is a special volume dedicated to my good friend Ivan Segota, as he celebrates his 70th birthday. My essay opens with some personal words about my acquaintance with Ivan Segota. I proceed by explaining the methodology of my research on euthanasia in the Netherlands. I then detail the major findings and end with guidelines for physician-assisted suicide (PAS). My research in the Netherlands made me change my mind: from supporter of euthanasia I became an ardent opposer of this practice. I think, however, that physicians should not turn a deaf ear to patients at the end of life, who suffer miserably and request to die. Therefore, PAS is suggested. To prevent potential abuse, we need to devise very careful guidelines which, I believe, are suitable for democracies as we enter the 21st Century, an era of highly developed technology which brings a lot of good but, in the field of medicine, might prolong patient’s life unnecessarily. At the center of guidelines is the patient, and the underlying values of treatment are respect for the patient and her autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and compassion.
As ever, I’d be happy to circulate my new article to interested parties.


New Books


James Curran and Jean Seaton, Power Without Responsibility (London: Routledge, 2009).








Power Without Responsibility is the new edition of a classic, authoritative and engaged introduction to the history, sociology, theory and politics of media and communication studies. Written in a lively and accessible style, it is regarded as the standard book on the British media. This new edition has been substantially revised to bring it up-to-date with new developments in the media industry. Its three new chapters describe the battle for the soul of the internet, the impact of the internet on society and the rise of new media in Britain. In addition, it examines the recuperation of the BBC, how international and European regulation is changing the British media and why Britain has the least trusted press in Europe.
James Curran is one of the people I appreciate most in the field of media studies. I have been following his career for many years and will continue to do so.

See: http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/james-curran/power-without-responsibility/_/R-400000000000000064150


START-UP NATION: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle

By Dan Senor and Saul Singer Visit Amazon's Dan Senor Pagesearch resultsLearn about Author Central










This book addresses the trillion dollar question: How is it that Israel—a country of 7.6 million surrounded by enemies—produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful nations like Japan, China, India and the UK? How has Israel managed to become a leader in business innovation?


See http://www.startupnationbook.com/


New Resource


Mitchell G. Bard and David Nachmias. Eds. Israel Studies: An Anthology. 2009. Jewish Virtual Library.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/isdf/text/anthologycvr.html.


Congratulations to Mitch and Dave for this important resource.


The Sir Siegmund Warburg scholarship


The Sir Siegmund Warburg scholarship, launched in 2009, offers Palestinian and Israeli students the opportunity to undertake full-time postgraduate human rights study at LSE.

The MSc Human Rights programme offers a concentrated, twelve-month engagement with human rights. The core course ‘Approaches to Human Rights’ provides students with an overview of the various philosophical, sociological and legal approaches to the subject. The core course is designed to give a strong intellectual underpinning to the MSc, which is then built on further through the choice of optional courses and a dissertation subject which each student makes. More information about the MSc Human Rights is in the graduate prospectus.

The scholarship will cover the tuition fee (£1 4,904) and living expenses of £1000 per month (for up to 12 months). One scholarship will be awarded each year.
How to apply

============
1. Make a formal application to the LSE to the MSc Human Rights via the online LSE application form.

2. Once holding an offer of a place, eligible students will be invited to apply for the Sir Siegmund Warburg Scholarship.

3. Applications must be received by Friday 23 April 2010. Submission details will be sent directly to eligible applicants.

The criteria

============
Applicants must be resident in Israel, Palestine/ Occupied Territories or Palestinian camps in Syria, Jordan or Lebanon and in possession of a formal offer of a place on the MSc Human Rights at LSE.

They must be able to demonstrate both financial need and the potential to engage in, promote and set high standards for human rights work in the region. Eligible applicants will be required to submit a personal statement in which they should explain how they meet the criteria set out for the Scholarship and how they envisage putting their study programme to practical use.

As scholarship applications can only be accepted by those who have already been offered a place on the MSc Human Rights, candidates are urged to apply to the MSc Human Rights as early as possible.
The Sir Siegmund Warburg Scholarship has been made possible by the generosity of an anonymous donor.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/humanRights/teaching/MScScholarship.htm


Monthly Poem


A Woman Waits For Me/ Walt Whitman









A WOMAN waits for me--she contains all, nothing is lacking,

Yet all were lacking, if sex were lacking, or if the moisture of the

right man were lacking.

Sex contains all,

Bodies, Souls, meanings, proofs, purities, delicacies, results,

promulgations,

Songs, commands, health, pride, the maternal mystery, the seminal

milk;

All hopes, benefactions, bestowals,

All the passions, loves, beauties, delights of the earth,


All the governments, judges, gods, follow'd persons of the earth,

These are contain'd in sex, as parts of itself, and justifications of

itself.


Without shame the man I like knows and avows the deliciousness of his

sex,

Without shame the woman I like knows and avows hers.


Now I will dismiss myself from impassive women,

I will go stay with her who waits for me, and with those women that

are warm-blooded and sufficient for me;

I see that they understand me, and do not deny me;

I see that they are worthy of me--I will be the robust husband of

those women.


They are not one jot less than I am,

They are tann'd in the face by shining suns and blowing winds,

Their flesh has the old divine suppleness and strength,

They know how to swim, row, ride, wrestle, shoot, run, strike,

retreat, advance, resist, defend themselves,

They are ultimate in their own right--they are calm, clear, well-possess'd of themselves.


I draw you close to me, you women!

I cannot let you go, I would do you good,

I am for you, and you are for me, not only for our own sake, but for

others' sakes;

Envelop'd in you sleep greater heroes and bards,

They refuse to awake at the touch of any man but me.


It is I, you women--I make my way,

I am stern, acrid, large, undissuadable--but I love you,

I do not hurt you any more than is necessary for you,

I pour the stuff to start sons and daughters fit for These States--I

press with slow rude muscle,

I brace myself effectually--I listen to no entreaties,

I dare not withdraw till I deposit what has so long accumulated

within me.


Through you I drain the pent-up rivers of myself,

In you I wrap a thousand onward years,

On you I graft the grafts of the best-beloved of me and America,

The drops I distil upon you shall grow fierce and athletic girls, new

artists, musicians, and singers,

The babes I beget upon you are to beget babes in their turn,

I shall demand perfect men and women out of my love-spendings,

I shall expect them to interpenetrate with others, as I and you

interpenetrate now,

I shall count on the fruits of the gushing showers of them, as I

count on the fruits of the gushing showers I give now,

I shall look for loving crops from the birth, life, death,

immortality, I plant so lovingly now.


Light Side


One Sunday morning, the priest noticed that little Anthony was staring up at the large plaque that hung in the foyer of the church.

The plaque was covered with names, and small American flags were mounted on either side of it. The ten year old boy had been staring at the plaque for some time, so the priest walked up, stood beside the boy, and said quietly, "Good morning Anthony."
"Good morning father," replied the young man, still focused on the plaque.

"Father Murphy, what is this?" Anthony asked.


"Well, son, its a memorial to all the young men and women who died in the service."

Soberly they stood together, staring at the large plaque.
Little Anthony's voice was barely audible when he asked,

"Which service, the 9:00 or the 10:30?"

Peace and love.

Yours as ever,

Rafi


My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com/

Earlier posts at my home page: http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/


People wishing to subscribe to this Monthly Newsletter are welcome to e-mail me at r.cohen-almagor@hull.ac.uk

Monday, October 26, 2009

Politics – October 2009


Either war is finished or we are.

Herman Wouk

War and Remembrance


Free Gilad Shalit. Veshavu banim legvulam.
Raphael Cohen-Almagor


Reflections on September Newsletter

More on the Goldstone Report

President Obama’s Speech at the UN

President Obama Won the Nobel Peace Prize

Appeal to President Obama

Gilad Shalit

Iran

Direct Budget Assistance to the Palestinian Authority

Wave of Violence Erupts in Northern Lebanon

Professor Ada Yonath Wins 2009 Chemistry Nobel

Israeli High Education
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS FOR DANIEL PEARL AWARDS
My New Article

New Books

Poem of the Month

Light Side


Reflections and Exchanges on September Newsletter


My September Newsletter has generated some responses. Many are private, where my readers do not wish to be identified. Many of them voiced dissent regarding the Goldstone Report. None, however, related to the content of the Report. In my September Newsletter I made extensive references to the Report, citing directly from it. The critique of the report, publicly and privately, speaks of what is not included in the Report, not about what is included. This is a real shame.
On October 21, 2009, Minister Dan Meridor said that Israel should investigate the conduct of Cast Lead. This is the first reasonable and sensible response made by an Israeli official to the Goldstone Report. There is no other way but to investigate, by Israel and others.
Here are two authorized responses and an exchange.
From Dr. Yoav Tenembaum, Tel Aviv

Rafi,
I have read your comments on the Goldstone Report. I understand your point of view. I am fully aware that you are genuinely concerned about its contents.
I haven't read the report, so I would be reluctant to advance a clear-cut, categorical opinion about it.
However, based on everything I have read regarding the Goldstone Report, I must admit I feel rather uncomfortable, to say the least.
To begin with, the entity that asked for it is hardly a reflection of the most enlightened nations in the international system, let alone the least biased regarding the war in Gaza. The bias is additionally suspect in the mission that was entrusted to it.
The emphasis on Israeli criminal intentions, let alone criminal acts, seems to border on the imaginative conjecture and conveys a distorted impression about the role of victim and aggressor in the conflict.
The critical references to the Hamas seem to be an exercise in virtual equilibrium as these are apparently hardly given prominent place, certainly not in comparison with Israel's intentions and acts. Indeed, the dual violation of international law by the Hamas, in attacking intentionally civilians and then hiding behind them, ought to have been a central focus of the Report. By hiding behind civilians, by mingling among them, the Hamas wanted either to get immunity or to be seen as the victim of any Israeli retaliation. International Law ought to adapt itself to this new kind of "warfare." In the meantime, the Goldstone Report should have stressed this matter in a critical vein much more so than it actually seems to have done.
The critical references to the Israeli legal system, known for its integrity and its independence, are peculiar, to say the least.
Again, I haven't read the Report itself. My aforementioned comments are based on the many articles I have read about it. It is worth noting that neither the United States nor many of the European countries have, so far, endorsed the Report. Further, none of the Israeli political parties, except for the Arab parties, in the Israeli Knesset, has advanced any positive comment as regards its contents. All of this is not a legal proof that the Report is incorrect, but it is certainly an indication of the many questions marks that it seems to raise among many well-intentioned people in many parliamentary democracies.
Yoav


From Prof. Art Hobson, Arkansas

Hello my friend - I agree with you that Israel had to do something about the rocket firing from Gaza. But many Americans are getting fed up with Israel's continued "settlement" policy. Israel needs to stop all settlement expansion in the occupied territories immediately, and needs to begin pulling out of the settlements asap, regardless of negotiations. Obama needs to really pressure Netanyahu on this, by threatening to withhold aid and by actually withholding aid if the threat doesn't do the job. I've been arguing against the settlements for decades. They've been a major cause of the continued warfare, for decades. Cheers - Art


Exchange with Prof. John Kleinig, Canberra



Hi Rafi:



I always enjoy the Newsletter – find it very informative – and hope you and your family enjoy the holidays in the way you choose.
I must say, however, that I think you went completely overboard in your response to Neve Gordon’s Op-Ed, which was written in despair, not as a self-hating Israeli. I presume you read it (though the tone of your response suggests otherwise). And the boycott he was supporting – which I agree might not have been effective (people take too much heart from the South African boycotts) – was hardly a thoughtless one – it was a boycott of increasing intensity not an absolute one. Rivka Carmi’s letter was what one might have expected from a President concerned to mollify her donors and was hardly a ringing defense of academic freedom. Gideon Levy’s Haaretz Op-Ed said it best. As for Gordon, this was exactly a topic on which he has academic authority to speak. It was no abuse of academic freedom but an application of his scholarship to a current concern. This is what he writes about – you could hardly criticize him for being a public intellectual. Whatever the merits of his suggestion, that’s where the critique should have been directed – not the personal attack in which you among so many others have engaged. On many things you seen to be able to keep a fair perspective, but clearly this pushed a button somewhere – as your reference to Pappe suggests. I’d check that button.

Cheers

John


My Response

Hi John



Thank you for your comment. It is good to hear from you.
I disagree with almost all that you wrote. I perceive Gordon as self-hater Israeli. His public activity shows that quite clearly, including his documented visit to the Mukataha, to strengthen the hands of poor Arafat. The article he wrote did not qualify his call for boycott. Only after the public reaction did Gordon qualify his initial statements aiming to soften them. I don't know why you think Gordon has "academic authority" to speak on this subject, and I hardly regard him as a "public intellectual". For me, public intellectuals are able to reflect on a range of topics, not just one. You are right that he pushed a button in me. Gordon has been exploiting his position for years in a way that I do not appreciate. I have strong sentiments against blanket calls to boycott Israel. I presume you would have the same feelings if an Australian Gordon, God forbid, would call to boycott you and the entire Australian academia because of Australia's ill-treatment of its indigenous people.
Best wishes

Rafi



John’s Response

Hi Rafi:
First, I don’t think that you can say that “a Jew who has chosen to raise his children in Israel, who has been a member of the Israeli peace camp for almost 30 years and who is deeply anxious about the country's future” (from Gordon’s Op-Ed) is a “self hater Israeli.” That is such a demeaning description and because it is one thrown around by every right-wing bigot, I thought you might use something a bit more nuanced – like misguided? I agree that strengthening Arafat’s hand may have been unwise (and certainly, given what we know about Arafat) doomed as a way of advancing a two-state resolution of an occupation that has lasted 40 years (no brownie points for either side on that – not when you consider that prior to the first Intifada Arafat had little support among the broader Palestinian population: how many competent moderates were exiled by the Israeli government in the mid-80s?).
Second, what was qualified was the boycott he called for. These are the words he used in the original article, and he didn’t need to soften them: “In Bilbao, Spain, in 2008, a coalition of organizations from all over the world formulated the 10-point Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign meant to pressure Israel in a "gradual, sustainable manner that is sensitive to context and capacity." For example, the effort begins with sanctions on and divestment from Israeli firms operating in the occupied territories, followed by actions against those that help sustain and reinforce the occupation in a visible manner. Along similar lines, artists who come to Israel in order to draw attention to the occupation are welcome, while those who just want to perform are not.”
Third, I would have thought that a person who had published an academic book on Israel’s Occupation with the University of California Press, and chairs a department of politics in a respected university, whether you agree with what he says or not, is as qualified as you or Rivka Carmi to talk about responses to the current situation.
Fourth, we may disagree on what a public intellectual is, but I take it that it accommodates an academic who comes down from his ivory tower and communicates with a wider audience.
Fifth, to say that Gordon “exploits” his position suggests that he misuses it. He would misuse it if he used his authority as an academic political scientist to talk about biblical scholarship or microbiology. It is hardly exploitation of his position to talk about what, as an academic, he ordinarily investigates and publishes on in acknowledged academic venues. BGU hired him to teach in the politics department and respectable academic presses publish his work. What more do you want? Someone who agrees with you?
Sixth, I understand the sensitivity to boycotts – though, as you know, Israelis are always calling for people to boycott things they don’t like. And I happen to disagree with the British academics who tried to have Israelis boycotted. But it wasn’t a “blanket call” – it was a graduated one (I did take the trouble to download the boycott document).
Finally, as for Australia’s treatment of its Indigenous people, I have hardly anything good to say, and if I thought that a boycott would have improved their situation I would have supported it. Certainly Rudd’s belated apology was a huge relief to many Australians, and one can only hope that more will be done to repair or compensate for the horrible damage – it doesn’t come much short of slow genocide – that has been done. The difference between the current situation in both countries is that Indigenous lands are being gradually returned (too little, too late), but that the increasing push to populate the West Bank/Judea-Samaria and establish facts on the ground is making a two-state solution increasingly impossible. I say that without for a moment countenancing Palestinian terror – the Palestinians have been tools of corrupt and self-seeking leaders. However, I do think that the occupier has the primary responsibility for coming up with workable solutions, and the ever-expanding settlements with government-winking are not part of that.
Cheers

John


My Response

Hi John
It is important to distinguish between facts and opinions. I refrained from publishing Gordon's words, as I wished not to give him further undeserved publicity. But you leave me no choice. The following are direct quotes from Gordon's controversial article:
"It is indeed not a simple matter for me as an Israeli citizen to call on foreign governments, regional authorities, international social movements, faith-based organizations, unions and citizens to suspend cooperation with Israel. But today, as I watch my two boys playing in the yard, I am convinced that it is the only way that Israel can be saved from itself... It is therefore clear to me that the only way to counter the apartheid trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to withdraw from the occupied territories. I consequently have decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that was launched by Palestinian activists in July 2005 and has since garnered widespread support around the globe... Nothing else has worked. Putting massive international pressure on Israel is the only way to guarantee that the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians -- my two boys included -- does not grow up in an apartheid regime”.
I highlighted the words “massive international pressure” that appear twice in the article. It is clear what he means. Boycotting only settlements’ products would not yield the “right” result for Gordon, as it won’t be massive.
This is not the first time Gordon is expressing such opinions. People wrote to me when he was a visiting professor at Michigan that he had made such and similar opinions to the joy of many of his anti-Israeli students and the displeasure of others. Gordon does not even pretend to keep a facade of academic objectivity. His lectures were manifestly biased against Israel. Like Pappe, Gordon transformed from an academic to an ideologue. He is using his academic credentials to advance an anti-Israeli political agenda. Pappe and Gordon are not the first peace-loving people that started as peace activists and impatience in face of slow political processes pushed them to anti-Israeli extremism. Unfortunately, they won’t be the last either.
Furthermore, I never said that Gordon is not qualified to express opinions. Everyone can express opinions. And Gordon is a scholar in the field so of course he can. What I resent is the fact that he is using his academic credentials to admonish Israel in sweeping generalizations, that he is using his Ben-Gurion affiliation to call for boycotting his, and other, Israeli institutions. This I perceive as hypocrisy. Why only Israeli bashers should deserve a platform to speak, and all other should be banned? What does Gordon say to his colleagues, whom he calls to ban? How can he serve as Chairperson of his department, a role that by definition means to serve his fellow scholars, and at the same time call to ban them, unless of course they conform to his views and then could join him in the boycott campaign?
I am relieved to know that both of us oppose boycotting the State of Israel. On this one, at least, we agree. This would not advance the solution we both, and also Gordon, believe is right: Two states, living in security side by side, free from terrorism and occupation.
Gmar Chatima tova to you and yours,
Rafi


More on the Goldstone Report


Judge Goldstone is presently a Visiting Professor at Fordham University Law School. He commented on his Report to the Jewish respectable magazine, The Forward.

The report’s brief against Israel can be broken down into two broad categories. For the first, it uses satellite maps, eyewitness accounts and on-the-ground inspection to illustrate many instances in which large civilian infrastructure sites in Gaza were targeted and destroyed—food storage centers, water supply sources, agricultural land, sewage plants, as well as police stations and the legislative building in Gaza City. The only explanation for this kind of targeting, said Goldstone, is to collectively punish the population. Indeed, most legal experts agree that targeting such non-military sites is a war crime.

In its own published report on Cast Lead, issued in July, Israel openly acknowledges hitting these non-military targets, characterizing them instead as part of the “Hamas terrorist infrastructure,” and therefore legitimate objects for attack.

In the second category of charges, Goldstone asserts that the Israeli army, in a few detailed instances, specifically targeted unarmed, non-combatants on the ground in conditions where no fighting was taking place. If true, these would be serious breaches of Israel’s own “Law of Armed Conflict.” Unlike the destruction of infrastructure, Israel has repeatedly emphasized in public that under no circumstances does it condone shooting of civilians. While not disclosing details, the Israeli army has said that it is looking into 100 complaints related to the Gaza operation and is currently conducting 13 criminal investigations. In a section entitled, “Deliberate Attacks Against the Civilian Population,” Goldstone’s report examines 11 incidents, including the al-Samouni family deaths and the strike against the al-Maqadmah mosque in Jabaliyah. Both have also been cited repeatedly by Goldstone in his public comments as particularly egregious examples of what he termed Israel’s criminal conduct during the war.

Israel officials condemns this part of the Report, perceiving it as a kind of blood libel, contesting not only Goldstone’s legal conclusions about what happened, but also that the events in question happened at all. Goldstone maintains that the burden is on Israel to counter these findings through its own probe. “If I was advising Israel, I would say have open investigations,” he said. “In that way, you can put an end to this. It’s in the interest of all the people of Israel that if any of our allegations are established and if they’re criminal, there should be prosecutions. And if they’re false, that should be established. And I wouldn’t consider it in any way embarrassing if many of the allegations turn out to be disproved.”

Goldstone rejected the credibility of the army’s secret investigation of itself. He noted that none of the Palestinian witnesses he had met reported having been contacted by the army to hear their account. Instead, he offered the example of the Israeli investigation into the Sabra and Shatilla massacres, commissioned by Menachem Begin, as a model to emulate.


Source: http://www.forward.com/articles/116269/


President Obama’s Speech at the UN


September 23rd, 2009 – President Obama made an important speech at the UN. I endorse each and every word. Priceless time was wasted under Bush’s “friendly” administration that hugged us so tightly that we forgot what is truly needed to secure the region and advance Israel’s aspirations to become a normal country, free of terrorism and war. Here is what Obama said, without any filters of wishful thinkers of any persuasion:










I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts by both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.


The time has come to re-launch negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.


I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we only lend it lip-service. To break the old patterns – to break the cycle of insecurity and despair – all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security.


We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It is paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the night. It is paid by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are God's children. And after all of the politics and all of the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why – even though there will be setbacks, and false starts, and tough days – I will not waiver in my pursuit of peace.


These are solid, true and wise words. It is time to do. Enough with empty words, meaningless statements, and stalling for time. We all, Palestinians and Israelis, should embrace the Obama vision. Time will tell when this will happen.


Because of such speeches, the new spirit and direction in American foreign policy, the inspiration, the concern, the good will, the drive, the hope that Obama conveys for his country and the world at large, on October 9, 2009 Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.


President Obama Won the Nobel Peace Prize


The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee explained that awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.


They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.


"Some people say — and I understand it — 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," said Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us."








Jagland said the committee whittled down a record pool of 205 nominations and had "several candidates until the last minute," but it became more obvious that "we couldn't get around these deep changes that are taking place" under Obama.


Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in 1984, said the decision showed that great things are expected from Obama and "wonderful recognition" of his effort to reach out to the Arab world after years of hostility. "It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope," Tutu said.


Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the Nobel committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as "support and a commitment for Obama."


Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.


In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."


Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace


Appeal to President Obama


Many Israelis travel to the USA each and every year. Israelis love the USA. We like to travel and explore its beautiful landscape. We like to do business with Americans. We go to study in its universities. We participate in conferences and professional meetings. We find it staggering that our closest ally demands of us to obtain visas for this purpose. Anyone who did not see the long queues at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv did not see what a real, agonizing queue is like.








President Obama: With one order you could boost the relationship between the two countries and better the atmosphere between your administration and Israelis as you push hard for concrete steps to bring peace to the region. Please order to make the visa requirement null and void. The USA would continue to be strong without the money the visa generates. It would save you some manpower and bureaucracy, and it would be a HUGE relief for Israel. Many countries in Europe lifted the visa requirement. Japan modified it. It is now your turn as part of the new mode, the new hopes, that you bring. Anyone who has ever experienced the queue will be eternally grateful and appreciative.


Gilad Shalit


On October 2, 2009, after 1,195 days in captivity, the Shalit family received a sign of life from their son Gilad. In a short video clip of less than 3 minutes long, Gilad is shown reading a prepared note and holding a local Gaza newspaper. In return, Israel released twenty female prisoners and allowed them to unite with their families in Palestine.














All of Israel watched and re-watched the video, after the family had authorized the video release. The entire country was moved into tears watching this young soldier, helpless and hopeful.



This is the first step in the right direction. The second should be the unification of Gilad with his family. Free Gilad Shalit. The government should invest in his release. It should be on its top priorities. Veshavu banim legvulam.













A freed Palestinian prisoner greeting an elderly relative from inside a Red Cross bus that brought her to Ramallah from an Israeli prison (Image: Getty Images) Haaretz (October 2, 2009)


Iran


In the UN, President Obama met with President Medvedev; there might be a breakthrough in the Russian stance regarding Iran. I wrote time and again that the keys for successful and effective sanctions against Iran are Russia and China. As long as they keep pumping the Iranian economy, Iran won’t have strong incentives to comply with the western pressure. The pressure should be a whole-embracing, international effort. President Medvedev signalled for the first time that Russia would be amenable to longstanding American requests to toughen sanctions against Iran significantly if, as expected, nuclear talks failed to make progress.












BBC News (September 24, 2009)


“I told His Excellency Mr. President that we believe we need to help Iran to take a right decision,” Medvedev said, adding that “sanctions rarely lead to productive results, but in some cases, sanctions are inevitable.”



Unfortunately, the Chinese are still convinced that sanctions are not the right way to pursue. “Sanctions and exerting pressure are not the way to solve problems," said spokeswoman Jiang Yu. She said sanctions "are not conducive for the current diplomatic efforts on the Iran nuclear issue". I wonder what exactly she thinks might be conducive. Anyway, the world needs Chinese cooperation as well. I presume China will awaken when more Muslim riots occur in their territory. For them, it is all partisan interests. With China, the content of discussion should be very different from the lofty “international peace and morality” terms espoused by President Obama and other western leaders.


Prime Minister Gordon Brown said: ‘The level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the entire international community. The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand.'


Similarly, French President Nicolas Sarkozy asserted: ‘The six [world powers] will meet with the Iranian representatives in Geneva. Everything - everything - must be put on the table now. We cannot let the Iranian leaders gain time while the motors are running. If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken. This is for peace and stability.'


President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also graced the UN with his presence. In a 35-minute address, he levelled familiar attacks against the United States and delivered an oblique rant against Jews, saying it was unacceptable for a “small minority” to dominate the politics and economy of much of the world through “private networks.” The famous Holocaust-denier refrained this time from mentioning the Holocaust.













NY Times (September 23, 2009)


President Ahmadinejad gave a number of interviews in which he proclaimed that he won the elections in his country fair and square. Here is an interesting blog regarding recent events in Iran:


http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/blog-post_13.html


On October 1, 2009, Iran appeared to pull back from confrontation with the West over its nuclear programme, agreeing to admit inspectors to a newly revealed nuclear plant near the city of Qom and to surrender some of its enriched uranium to be processed abroad, a concession which could delay or at least complicate its efforts to acquire a nuclear bomb. We shall soon see whether this is just another round of cat-and-mouse game, or a candid effort to meet the demands of the international community.


The Qom nuclear plant













Source: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=qom,iran&sll=35.337604,50.951672&sspn=0.062105,0.137329&ie=UTF8&ll=34.925204,50.784243&spn=0.003901,0.008583&t=h&z=18


Direct Budget Assistance to the Palestinian Authority


Bureau of Public Affairs, Office of the Spokesman, Washington, DC, July 24, 2009

The United States is the leading provider of bilateral economic and development aid to the Palestinians, providing an estimated $2.5 billion through USAID since 1993. The $200 million in direct budget assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) that the Secretary announced July 24 represents the single largest transfer of budget support to the PA from any country since its inception. It is a part of the $900 million pledge for 2009 that the Secretary announced at the March 2 donors’ conference in Sharm al-Sheikh to address the immediate needs of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and support our longer-term approach of fostering the conditions in which a Palestinian state can be realized.


U.S. assistance helps to maintain the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and the continued stability of the Kingdom of Jordan, which signed its own peace treaty with Israel in 1994. U.S. funding also works to improve Palestinian civil society, and aid officials have worked to ensure that U.S. aid to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not diverted to terrorist groups. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has established new region-wide aid programs to promote democracy and encourage socio-economic reform in order to undercut the forces of radicalism in some Arab countries.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32260_20090717.pdf (28 pages)

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/126440.htm


Wave of Violence Erupts in Northern Lebanon


Israel is extremely cautious about our northern neighbour Lebanon. We say Evil erupts from the North. Our soldiers spent far too much time on Lebanese land for all kind of purposes. Therefore, recent events in Lebanon occupy our serious attention. Clashes erupted on October 7, 2009 in the northern port city of Tripoli between followers of Lebanon's parliamentary majority and others loyal to the Hezbollah-led opposition, leaving eight people wounded.


The violence started when a rocket-propelled grenade hit Al Ashkar cafe in the Jabal Mohsen neighborhood, followed by a hand grenade that was tossed near Al Nassri mosque in Tripoli's Bab al- Tabaneh.


The upsurge in fighting between Allawiites - who support the Hezbollah-led opposition and have ties to the Allawii ruling class in Syria - and Sunnis, who are backed by the Sunni-majority anti-Syrian March 14 coalition, began in July 2008.


Since the violence erupted last year, it has claimed the lives of more than 30 people, injured hundreds and displaced nearly 6,000 families, according to hospital sources in Tripoli.
Source: Oct 7, 2009, 20:06 GMT


Professor Ada Yonath Wins 2009 Chemistry Nobel


Israeli scientist Ada Yonath, 70, was awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry for showing how ribosomes function, work that has important implications for antibiotics. Yonath shares the prize amounting to 10 million Swedish crowns ($1.4 million) with Americans Venkatraman Ramakrishnan and Thomas Steitz.


"As ribosomes are crucial to life, they are also a major target for new antibiotics," the Nobel Committee for Chemistry at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said in a statement.










Nobel winners Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz and Ada Yonath (Photo: Reuters)


A renowned scientist, Yonath serves as the director of the Helen and Milton A. Kimmelman Center for Biomolecular Structure and Assembly at the Weizmann Institute of Science.


She was a co-recipient of the 2006 Wolf Prize in Chemistry, along George Feher, and in 2008, became the first Israeli to win a lifetime's achievement award from L'Oréal and UNESCO for her vital work identifying how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.


Now she has become the first Israeli woman to win a Nobel Prize.














Prof. Yonath celebrates with her daughter and granddaughter (Photo: AP)


Referring to her ground-breaking study Yonath said, "The topic was such that if a breakthrough could really be achieved, it would have Nobel-winning potential. It was considered difficult to the point of impossible."















Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3786746,00.html


Israeli High Education


Yonath is the fourth Israeli scientist to win this prestigious prize in recent years. This is testimony to the investment Israel made in the sciences from the 1960s until the 1990s. Unfortunately, with the present investment which is drastically lower, it will be difficult for any Israeli to make such ground-breaking achievements. The same politicians who rush to congratulate Yonath on her achievement should reinstall the funds they took from academic research in recent years. Israeli academia has lost significant portions of their budgets, not to mention many good scientists who chose to leave the country, or have no possibility to return as there are no openings.


In a new, very sad article, Itzhak Galnoor provides data about the crisis in Israel’s high education. In the years between 2001 and 2007, the real budget decreased in real terms by over 10 percent, while the per student budget decreased by some 20 percent. This affected especially universities whose budget is based on student tuition, like the University of Haifa. The budget cuts initiated by Minister of Education Limor Livnat (2001-2006) and Minister of Finance Benjamin Netanyahu (2003-2005), both from the Likud Party, had a devastating effect on higher education in Israel. Direct government participation per university student decreased from 34,000 New Israeli Shekels (NIS) in 2000 to NIS 26,000 in 2007 and the student per faculty ratio increased from 16.2 in the 1990s to 23.9 in 2007. Total academic faculty size fell by 20 percent. Further consequences were increased faculty brain drain, inability to provide adequate research facilities, great difficulties in retaining top-rated doctoral students, danger of disappearance of entire academic disciplines, particularly in the humanities, and inability to compete with top universities abroad.


Source: Itzhak Galnoor, “Academic Freedom under Political Duress: Israel”, Social Research, Vol. 767, No. 2 (Summer 2009): 541-560.


CALL FOR NOMINATIONS FOR DANIEL PEARL AWARDS


The 2010 Daniel Pearl Awards competition is now accepting entries to honour cross-border investigative reporting on a topic of world significance. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) renamed the

prizes in 2008 in honour of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl who was killed by militants in Pakistan in 2002.











The competition is open to any professional journalist or team of

journalists of any nationality working in any medium. The reporting must

involve at least two countries. A five-member jury of international

journalists selects the winners. Past winners have reported about abuses

faced by immigrants in American workplaces; the involvement of Sweden in

the CIA secret renditions program; and allegations of sexual exploitation

of Congolese women and children by United Nations peacekeepers.


Two US$5,000 first prizes are awarded: one to a U.S.-based reporter or news

organisation and the other to a non-U.S.-based journalist or news

organisation. Five US$1,000 finalist awards are also given.


Submissions from Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East are

especially encouraged. Deadline: 15 January 2010.


More on the web:

- The Daniel Pearl Awards:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/icij/awards/


My New Article


“Belgian Euthanasia Law - Critical Analysis”, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 35, Issue 7 (2009), pp. 436 – 439.



The essay opens with some background information about the context of euthanasia in Belgium. It proceeds by discussing the Belgian law on euthanasia and concerns about the law. Finally, suggestions as to how to improve the Belgian law and practice of euthanasia are made, urging the Belgian legislators and medical establishment to reflect and ponder so as to prevent potential abuse.


Keywords: autonomy, Belgium, Caritas Flanders, euthanasia, palliative care, terminal sedation


The article is posted on my website, http://www.hull.ac.uk/rca.


New Books


Leslie Stein, The Making of Modern Israel 1948-1967. Cambridge: Polity, 2009.



Leslie Stein’s book provides a detailed, comprehensive analysis of Israel’s history from 1948 to 1967. Stein writes clearly, with a sharp eye for significant details. He makes invaluable contribution to our understanding of the events that shaped Israel in the first two decades of its establishment.










Stein takes us on a fascinating tour, highlighting major and lesser events in the history of young Israel. In this rich discussion, readers learn about wars and terrorism that have been inseparable parts of Israeli life, the discrimination against Israeli Arabs (p. 239), how and why Israel developed its nuclear capacity (p. 247), the Eichman trial (p. 231), the economy (p. 229), the kibbutz (p. 136), the Wadi Salib riots (p. 237), the Elie Cohen extraordinary espionage success in Syria (p. 251), the Samu vengeance operation (p. 259), and Israel’s foreign affairs with African as well as other countries (p. 260). Readers gain insights into decision-making processes that were often affected by internal rivalries and personal antipathies as well as by external powers. I highly recommend this fantastic and well-written book.


Alexandra Nocke, The Place of the Mediterranean in Modern Israeli Identity (Leiden: Brill, 2009)


This book is ethnography of modern Israel. Nocke explores the Middle Eastern elements of Israeli society, its music, food, literature, visual arts, architecture. She is able to capture Israeli identity in its genuine sense. The book is full of with warm feelings for my beloved Tel Aviv, where Nocke made many of her interviews with leading Tel Aviv personalities. She deserves kudos for her deep insights and penetrating observations of what makes Israel the state and culture it now is.











From the publisher: While early Zionists envisioned the Jewish state as an outpost of Europe in the Middle East, modern Israel is—geographically speaking—located in Asia and incorporates elements from both “Orient and Occident.” This book sheds light on how the Mediterranean region, its history, traditions, climate, and attitudes have shaped Israeli lived experience and consciousness. It offers new perspectives on the evolving phenomenon of Yam Tikhoniut (hebr. Mediterraneanism), which centers around the longing to find a "natural" place in order that Israel be accommodated in the region, both culturally and politically. This book explores Mediterraneanism as reflected in art, architecture, and daily life and analyzes the ways in which the notion comprises cultural identity, societal concepts, and political realities.


"Alexandra Nocke has done an exemplary job in her encounter with the question of Israel’s Mediterranean identity. This profound and wide-reaching research explores the question from every possible angle. Israel’s Mediterranean identity is, to my mind, the key to its future in the region. [...] This excellent book is highly recommended to anyone who is anxious about the fate of Israel." -- A. B. Yehoshua


Shmuel Greenbaum, A Daily Dose of Kindness (NY: Partners in Kindness, 2009).


Shmuel Greenbaum suffered a terrible tragedy. In 2000, he married Shoshana. In 2001, when his wife was pregnant, they went on a trip to Israel. There, on August 9, 2001, Shoshana was murdered by a terrorist bomber in a Jerusalem restaurant.











...

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Politics – September 2009

Israel was justified to open a military operation in Gaza to stop the extensive rocket firing at its citizens. No sovereign state should tolerate such terror. Indeed, the primary role of any state is to guarantee its citizens’ safety. But I cannot justify Cast Lead’s conduct as it did not take ample consideration of the Gaza citizens, perceiving all as combatants or accessories at fault just by being residents of the Hamas territory (“Hamastan”). Far too many innocent lives were lost during the bloody operation which was conducted in such a way that would provide maximum security to Israeli soldiers, often at the expense of Gaza citizens who happened to be in harm’s way.

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

This month Katyusha rockets, yet again, were fired on Israel from Lebanon. Evil tends to erupt from the north. We monitor our border closely and argue that the Lebanese government should take responsibility. One more month with the unmitigated Iranian threat. President Shimon Peres fainted on a stage as he was about to make a speech. Violence in disco clubs. Men kill their wives. Somehow it is always men who kill their partners. Almost every day we awake to yet another violent incident. The weekends always have their tolls on the roads, when young and drunken people go back to their homes after a Friday night out. As you know, Israel has a short weekend of only one day, Shabbat. Friday is the big party night.
President Obama made an important speech yesterday, saying what should have been said by an American president long time ago. Time will tell whether he has the ability to push things forward towards a viable solution. It will be very difficult (see my reflections on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s frame of mind). And, there is Hamas. We need two to tango. I am uncertain whether there are any partners.


Hamas-Israel War

Iran

Prime Minister Netanyahu

Academic Boycott

Gene Therapy for the Unborn

Physician-assisted Suicide

My New Article

New Books

Novels

“Lebanon” Won the Golden Lion

Recent Movies

Light Side

Free Gilad Shalit.
We have seen some movement in Egypt but nothing concrete has yet to happen. Prime Minister Netanyahu says that he wishes to put an end to this ordeal and to bring Gilad home. We should see intensified negotiations between Israel, Egypt and the Hamas. I hope a deal will be confirmed soon, as we begin a new year.









Ynet


Hamas-Israel War

As could have been expected, the war is not forgotten, and more fact-finding commissions release their findings. The latest out of a UN investigation mission is, as expected, quite damaging for Israel. The mission found extensive evidence that both Israel and the Palestinian terrorists (the Mission calls them “militant groups”) took actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.
While the comprehensive 575-page Report condemned rocket attacks by “Palestinian armed groups” against Israeli civilians, it reserved its harshest language for Israel’s treatment of the civilian Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, both during the war and through the longer-term blockade of the territory. The Report is not balanced. It cannot be as it primarily analyses the weeks of fighting during December 2008-January 2009 when Israel launched a massive attack on the Hamas.
The Report called Israel’s military assault on Gaza “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability” (Report, p. 525).

The Mission, led by Judge Richard Goldstone from South Africa, once the lead war crimes prosecutor for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, did not attempt an exhaustive look at the war, instead focusing on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample. In 11 of these episodes, it said the Israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot “while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and, in some of the cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so” (Report, p. 15).







In all but one of these civilian attacks, the report said, “the facts indicate no justifiable military objective” for them (Report, p. 15).

Both Palestinians and Israelis met by the Mission repeatedly stressed that the military operations carried out by Israel in Gaza from 27 December 2008 until 18 January 2009 were qualitatively different from any previous military action by Israel in the occupied territories. Despite the hard conditions that have long been prevailing in the Gaza Strip, victims and long time observers stated that the operations were unprecedented in their severity and that their consequences would be long-lasting (Report, pp. 522- 523).

Goldstone argues that in many cases Israel could have done much more to spare civilians without sacrificing its stated and legitimate military aims. It should have refrained from attacking clearly marked civilian buildings, and from actions that might have resulted in a military advantage but at the cost of too many civilian lives. In these cases, Israel must investigate, and Hamas is obliged to do the same. They must examine what happened and appropriately punish any soldier or commander found to have violated the law.

The Mission recognizes fully that the Israeli armed forces, like any army attempting to act within the parameters of international law, must avoid taking undue risks with their soldiers’ lives, but neither can they transfer that risk onto the lives of civilian men, women and children. The fundamental principles of distinction and proportionality apply on the battlefield, whether that battlefield is a built up urban area or an open field (Report, p. 524).

Unfortunately, both Israel and Hamas have dismal records of investigating their own forces. Goldstone writes in the NY Times that he is unaware of any case where a Hamas fighter was punished for deliberately shooting a rocket into a civilian area in Israel — on the contrary, Hamas leaders repeatedly praise such acts. While Israel has begun investigations into alleged violations by its forces in the Gaza conflict, they are unlikely to be serious and objective.
The report cited other possible crimes by the Israelis, including “wantonly” destroying food production, water and sewerage facilities; striking areas, in an effort to kill a small number of combatants, where significant numbers of civilians were gathered; using Palestinians as human shields; and detaining men, women and children in sand pits. It also called Israel’s use of weapons like white phosphorus “systematically reckless,” and called for banning it in urban areas.

The Mission is concerned not only with the inordinate risks the Israeli armed forces took in using white phosphorus, but also the damage it caused in fact. In speaking with medical experts and practitioners, it was impressed by the severity and sometimes untreatable nature of the burns caused by the substance (Report, p. 249).

Israel is correct that identifying combatants in a heavily populated area is difficult, and that Hamas fighters at times mixed and mingled with civilians. But, Goldstone is right in arguing that that reality did not lift Israel’s obligation to take all feasible measures to minimize harm to civilians.

The Mission acknowledges the significant efforts made by Israel to issue warnings through telephone calls, leaflets and radio broadcasts and accepts that in some cases, particularly when the warnings were sufficiently specific, they encouraged residents to leave an area and get out of harm's way. However, the Mission also notes factors that significantly undermined the effectiveness of the warnings issued. These include the lack of specificity and thus credibility of many pre-recorded phone messages and leaflets. The credibility of instructions to move to city centres for safety was also diminished by the fact that the city centres themselves had been the subject of intense attacks during the air phase of the military operations. The Mission also examined the practice of dropping lighter explosives on roofs (so-called “roof knocking”). It concludes that this technique is not effective as a warning and constitutes a form of attack against the civilians inhabiting the building (Report, p. 13).

The tactics used by Israeli military armed forces in the Gaza offensive are consistent with previous practices, most recently during the Lebanon war in 2006. A concept known as the Dahiya doctrine emerged then, involving the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations. Statements by Israeli political and military leaders prior to and during the military operations in Gaza indicate that the Israeli military conception of what was necessary in a war with Hamas viewed disproportionate destruction and creating the maximum disruption in the lives of many people as a legitimate means to achieve not only military but also political goals (Report, p. 21).

The Mission rejects the analysis of present and former senior Israeli officials that, because of the alleged nature of the Hamas government in Gaza, the distinction between civilian and military parts of the government infrastructure is no longer relevant in relation to Israel’s conflict with Hamas. The Mission also rejects Israel’s argument that Israel should “put pressure” on Hamas by targeting civilian infrastructure to attain its war aims as this argument is incompatible with the cardinal principle of distinction (Report, p. 118).
The Mission studied a number of incidents in which the Israeli armed forces repeatedly opened fire on civilians who were not taking part in the hostilities and who posed no threat to them. These incidents indicate that the instructions given to the Israeli armed forces moving into Gaza provided for a low threshold for the use of lethal fire against the civilian population (Report, p. 228).

 In the incidents investigated the Israeli armed forces did not use their best efforts to provide humanitarian organizations access to the wounded. On the contrary, the facts indicate that, while the circumstances permitted giving access, the Israeli armed forces arbitrarily withheld it. The conduct of the Israeli armed forces amounted to violations of the right to life where it resulted in death, and to a violation of the right to physical integrity, and to cruel and inhuman treatment in other cases, which constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Report, p. 233).

On the Palestinian side, the report said that firing rockets that either deliberately were aimed at Israeli civilians or were so inaccurate as to risk hitting civilians (as if the Hamas and Islamic Jihad wanted to avoid hitting civilians) caused widespread trauma and constituted a war crime. It also singled out Palestinian actions within Gaza, including killings and other abuse of members of the rival Fatah political movement as a serious violation of human rights (Report, p. 26).

Palestinian armed groups have launched about 8,000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel since 2001. During the conflict, the report said, they killed 3 Israeli civilians and a soldier, and injured over 900 people (Report, p. 31). The report did not take a position on the number of Palestinian casualties, noting that they ranged from the Israeli government figure of 1,166 to the Hamas number of 1,444, without saying how many were civilians (Report, p. 10).

The Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities and that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes (Report, p. 148).

The Mission emphasizes the obligation of the Gaza authorities to respect international law and is of the view that this requires the prevention and prosecution of violations of international law occurring within its area of de facto governmental authority. International law attributes a duty to parties to hostilities to protect and respect civilians. Such a duty is part of customary international law and is codified in treaty law through article 27 of Geneva Convention IV. Furthermore, combatants have an obligation, under article 48 of Additional Protocol I, to distinguish between civilians and combatants and civilian objects and military objects during the conduct of hostilities. Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I explicitly prohibits indiscriminate attacks. Article 51 (6) of Additional Protocol I strictly prohibits reprisals against civilians (Report, p. 471).

The Mission is aware that Hamas continues to view all armed activities directed against Israel as resistance to occupation and practices of the occupation, and, therefore, a legitimate right of the Palestinian people. The Mission fully recognizes the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international human rights conventions. It also acknowledges that United Nations bodies and others have repeatedly pointed out practices of the Israeli occupation that deprive Palestinians of their human rights and fundamental freedoms. Nevertheless, the Mission forcefully reiterates that the peremptory norms of customary international law, both of human rights law and humanitarian law, apply to all actions that may be undertaken in response to, or to oppose, human rights violations (Report, p. 511).

The Mission concludes that the rocket and mortars attacks, launched by Palestinian armed groups operating from Gaza, have caused terror in the affected communities of southern Israel. The attacks have caused loss of life and physical and mental injury to civilians as well as damaging private houses, religious buildings and property and eroding the economic and cultural life of the affected communities and severely affected economic and social rights of the population (Report, p. 541).

Both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities are criticized for the treatment of their own civilians during the conflict. The Mission finds that security services under the control of the Gaza authorities carried out extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrest, detention and ill treatment of people, in particular political opponents, which constitute serious violations of the human rights to life, to liberty and security of the person, to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to be protected against arbitrary arrest and detention, to a fair and impartial legal proceeding; and to freedom of opinion and expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference (Report, p. 542).

The Mission also called for the immediate release of Gilad Shalit, seized in a Palestinian raid in 2006 and taken to Gaza. The Mission asked the Gaza authorities to confirm the status of Gilad Shalit. In their reply, which the Mission considered unsatisfactory, the Gaza authorities denied being involved in any way with the capture and detention of Gilad Shalit and stated that they are not in possession of any information regarding his current status (Report, p. 372).

The government of Israel reacted, rather hastily, with condemnation of the Report as discriminatory and anti-Semitic. I read and reread the Report and it is not my impression. Prime Minister Netanyahu wondered how come the Report speaks about occupation when Israel had evacuated every centimetre of Gaza. Netanyahu chose to ignore the blockade to which Israel has subjected Gaza. Blockade is not occupation but it is quite suffocating. Netanyahu further criticized the Report for ignoring the thousands of rockets that were fired on Israel. As you read from the excerpts above, this criticism is, to use an Oxonian understatement, not entirely correct or founded. Instead of dismissing the Report and accusing the Mission with ill-founded and rushed condemnations, Israel (especially its government and army) should study it carefully; deduce lessons and conclusions in order to avoid at least parts of the conduct we witnessed during the bloody weeks of December 2008-January 2009.

I will be happy to send the report to interested parties.

Sources: The Goldstone Report; Neil MacFarquhar, “Inquiry Finds Gaza War Crimes from Both Sides”, New York Times (September 16, 2009); “UN condemns 'war crimes' in Gaza”, BBC (September 16, 2009); Richard Goldstone, “Justice in Gaza”, NY Times (September 17, 2009).

Iran

I am sure you are following the events in Iran after the elections. Unsurprisingly, the Holocaust-denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reelected. Unclear to what extent the elections were kosher. In a recent article in ForeignPolicy.com (August 20, 2009) Mehdi Khalaji and Robert Pastor reflect on the substantial election irregularities. The president-controlled Interior Ministry conducts elections in Iran. It denies opposition observers access to polling stations and counts the votes. Only half of Mousavi's observers were permitted to observe polling stations in the capital city of Tehran; they had even less access in the rest of the country. None of the observers were permitted to see whether the ballot boxes were empty when the vote began. Nor were they permitted to accompany the mobile ballot boxes, which collected nearly one-third of the votes. And no Mousavi or impartial observers accompanied the ballot boxes from local wards to the provincial committees and finally to Tehran for the count.
Before the election, the reformists' Committee for Safeguarding the Votes expressed concern that 54 million ballots were printed -- millions more than for past elections and 8 million more than the number of eligible voters. Moreover, some ballots did not have serial numbers. About 40 million people voted, but no one accounted for the other 14 million ballots.








The Committee for Safeguarding the Votes also said it found a large number of Mousavi votes after the election, including some in the northern forests of Iran. It surmised that these votes were removed from the boxes and replaced with votes for Ahmadinejad. Mousavi himself claims he has evidence that the total number of votes exceeded the number of eligible voters by as much as 40 percent in more than 170 constituencies. Some of the party observers claim ballots for Ahmadinejad featured the same handwriting in the same ink.

These accusations of fraud are credible. Even the conservative Guardian Council has acknowledged that as many as 3 million votes might have been fraudulent. But, given the way the system operates, no one knows with certainty how many votes were legitimate and how much fraud occurred.
Khalaji and Pastor argue that the single most important step is to transfer election responsibilities from the Interior Ministry and the Guardian Council to a nonpartisan and independent national election commission. Iran should also create a nonpartisan elections court, composed of judges and lawyers. All the major political parties should have a veto on nominees so as to ensure that the judges are acceptable to all the parties.
Second, Khalaji and Pastor propose that the Election Commission should certify the candidates according to clear and fair criteria, and they should prevent any intimidation, and guarantee access to the entire electoral process by domestic and international election observers. Domestic observers are absolutely essential to assuring a free election and detecting fraud; and international observers help the process by magnifying the voice of the domestic observers.

Third, the ballot boxes should be opened for all to see before the election begins, and observers should accompany mobile and other ballot boxes through the day.
Finally, counting should occur at every polling site. Observers should watch the count, sign the declaration of results, and keep a copy. The final announcement should publicize the results of each of the polling stations, so that people can detect any vote discrepancy. Only with such reforms can Iranians know when their votes count, and when their voices are stolen.
It now appears that Ahmadinejad will try to consolidate a hard-line government and will ruthlessly suppress all legitimate protest movements. If he chooses this path, he will further undermine his efforts to win legitimacy.
See also

http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/blog-post_13.html


Prime Minister Netanyahu
People ask me whether the Israeli government will advance a peace motion. Hope is a very important component in life, but it should not lead to disillusion. The Israeli government does not wish peace with the Palestinians, does not wish to see the establishment of a Palestinian state, and is not willing to make the necessary concessions in order to make such a peace initiative viable.
People say: Leaders do surprise. They do change. Look at Begin. Sharon. Well, I fear Prime Minister Netanyahu is a different sort. If at all, he has hardened his position as years have passed. Netanyahu is not a pragmatist like Begin and Sharon; he is not driven by a sense of history, as Begin was, and his realpolitik is based on different principles than Sharon’s. Netanyahu’s philosophy is based on the following components:









• Israel should take care of itself. No other country will go out of its way for Israel. The world is busy. Countries have other priorities. We are the only people who understand our needs, appreciate our difficulties, and will be there for us in time of trouble.

• Therefore, Israel needs to be strong. Very strong. Our enemies will restrain themselves in the face of strong Israel.

• Strength is manifested also by a strong economy which is founded on capitalist interests, bringing wealth to the nation, and retaining it. This means keeping the economic elite happy, and bringing external investments.

• Israel is a very small country, surrounded by hostile neighbours. It should not be smaller than it already is. Therefore, we should retain our territory, build in it, settle it, and we need to help those pioneers, those wonderful people who are willing to conquer new lands, and establish facts in the land. These people truly care for Israel and its destiny.

• The Palestinians have severe problems. They should strive to solve them, possibly with the help of the Arab world, but not at the expense of Israel.

• Some of their problems are the result of Israel’s presence in the occupied territories. This is granted. But these problems are the result of their terrorist behavior. They should first prove to us that they had deserted terror. Once they do, Israel will be happy to relax the pressure. We don’t enjoy pressurizing the Palestinians. We do it out of necessity to retain our strength and secure our people.

• The UN is not to be trusted. It is biased toward the Muslim and Arab world, with dozens of representatives in the Mission, against one tiny Israel.

• The European Union is biased. It is driven by economic interests, by its own concern vis-a-vis the growing Muslim presence in the continent, by geopolitical interests in which Israel features as a problem. Some argue that Europe is anti-Semitic. Europe should prove otherwise.

• Israel should retain its special relationship with the USA. We should be attentive to any American administration’s demands, with reason, communication, and mutual understanding of the respective needs.
This set of principles allows very little scope for concessions and for pragmatism. The Palestinians will not be satisfied with what is offered. At best, the region is in a standstill as far as peace is concerned. At worse, things will escalate into yet another bloody confrontation. Iran, with its offshoots (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas closer to home), will make things messier and volatile.

Academic Boycott


This month, a significant part of the Israeli academia participated in a heated debate about academic privileges, protections and limitations. The debate was spurred by Dr. Niv Gordon, lecturer at Ben-Gurion University which became in recent years a hub for post-Zionists and Israel’s haters, who published an article on LA Times in which he described Israel as an apartheid state and called to boycott it.

There is nothing new in Gordon’s ideas. He and others have been saying the same things for some time. Their sympathy with the Palestinians outweighs their common sense. This time, however, there was a strong reaction by LA Jewry, who read the piece, did not like it, and wrote angry letters in protest to the President of Ben Gurion University, Rivka Carmi. She, in turn, published a response on September 1, 2009 on the pages of LA Times, saying:








Academic freedom exists to ensure that there is an unfettered and free discussion of ideas relating to research and teaching and to provide a forum for the debate of complicated ideas that may challenge accepted norms. Gordon, however, used his pulpit as a university faculty member to advocate a personal opinion, which is really demagoguery cloaked in academic theory.
Gordon argues that Israel is an "apartheid" state and that "a boycott would save Israel from itself." But the empirical facts show that it would destroy the very fabric of the society that he claims to want to protect. Instead of investing in activities that promote coexistence, this "call for a boycott" is already being used to isolate Israel.
This is particularly pernicious for our university, a proudly Zionist institution that embodies the dream of Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, to bring development and prosperity to all the residents of the Negev region. This work -- which includes community outreach and scientific innovation in Israel and around the world carried out by nearly 25,000 students, faculty and staff -- is being threatened by the egregious remarks of one person, under the guise of academic freedom.
A number of online campaigns have been launched calling for donors and other supporters of the university to "boycott BGU." We have heard the calls by those who demand that the university ignore Israeli law and fire Gordon, a tenured faculty member, on the basis of his statements. And we are also under attack by others who champion Gordon on the basis of freedom of speech.
Like it or not, Gordon cannot be readily dismissed. The law in Israel is very clear, and the university is a law-abiding institution. At the same time, by calling on other entities, including academic institutions, to boycott Israel -- and effectively, to boycott his own university -- Gordon has forfeited his ability to work effectively within the academic setting, with his colleagues in Israel and around the world. After his very public, personal soul-searching in his Op-Ed article, leading to his extreme description of Israel as an "apartheid" state, how can he, in good faith, create the collaborative atmosphere necessary for true academic research and teaching?


The primary effect of Gordon's Israel-bashing will be to detract from the work of his university. I am a doctor; my professional career has focused on preventing hereditary genetic diseases in the Bedouin Arab community. Today, the laboratory that I founded at Ben-Gurion University is working with Bedouin, Palestinian and Jordanian doctors and researchers to improve the health of Arab children across the region. This is but one of the many Israeli-Arab collaborations -- in fields that range from developing advanced water technologies to solar energy, environmental conservation and emergency medicine -- that will be compromised here if "collective punishment" for Gordon's actions or for my opposition to his views is imposed on BGU.


Carmi is absolutely right. Academic boycott of Israel will not end the occupation. Israel is far from being an “apartheid state”. Anyone who claims this either knows very little about apartheid states, like South Africa, know very little about Israel, or replace academic reasoning with demagogy. For me, all this is déjà vu as it reminds me of the heated exchange following a similar call by my former colleague, Ilan Pappe. It is appropriate to re-air some segments of the public letter I sent to Pappe back on April 28, 2005:


Ilan Pappe - Enough IS Enough


I recently returned from England, where I was invited to deliver a couple of lectures and to participate in a media ethics workshop. During my travels, including this one, many people have asked me what I think of Ilan Pappe, a person I used to appreciate. I always gave a polite and laconic answer, as I believed that I should be collegial to Ilan, and that dirty laundry should be washed internally. But enough is enough. This week Britain's umbrella academics' union, the Association of University Teachers (AUT) voted to boycott two Israeli universities, one of them is mine. In their decision they primarily relied on Pappe's testimony against his own university. Ilan is anything but collegial to us, members of the University of Haifa.


Ilan and I studied in the same university in England. We walked similar paths, and know the same people. In 1991 we both participated in a one-month research workshop in Oxford. You get to know people quite well when you spend one month with them, most of the time deliberating in a closed room. Ilan gained my respect and appreciation. Some years later I invited Ilan to contribute a chapter to an edited volume on Israeli democracy. His article was certainly solid and valuable. However, since then he passed the fine line between being a researcher to being an ideologue. I think the University of Haifa is most unfortunate to have Ilan among us... I am sorry that Ilan does not invest the incredible energies he has in prudent and productive ways but mostly in ways that provoke hatred, malice and bad blood. Just imagine what a fine researcher Ilan could have been were he to devote his time to research.


Ilan is motivated by negative emotions, by hatred, and he knows that this is a very bad judge. The crisis Ilan is generating is a test for all of us, including for him, whether he will be capable to free himself from these negative constraints, and to resume adherence to liberal thinking and values which he used to appreciate: liberty, equality and tolerance for all.


A few years have passed since then, and a new Pappe has emerged. Israel’s bashers are always on the lookout for Israelis who will do the job for them. They invite them, pamper them, provide them with forums and the safe-hating Israelis do the rest and, from time to time, get attention for their derogatory claims. If Gordon were true to himself he should leave his university. Why should he associate himself, a fine and decent man, to such an awful institution that exploits and discriminates against Arabs, that betrays academic freedom, and allows people like him to go around the world and smear its name and reputation? Why should Gordon continue to sit inside the well, which provides his livelihood, and piss into it? The result might be warm for him and his family but the smell, Oh the smell. Gordon feeds himself and his family by working in the institution that he makes infamous.


Gordon is using academic freedom, tolerance, and free speech to ask others to ban all other Israeli teachers who do not think like him. Only he and his likes deserve the right to enjoy this freedom and tolerance. In short, he is giving hypocrisy a bad name, and reaches new horizons in setting standards for comradeship, for honesty, for academic freedom, for free expression. We need people like him to test our capacity to endure.


My readers know full well that I oppose the Israeli occupation, support a two-state solution, and believe that the only way to achieve security is by a fair splitting of the land between Israelis and Palestinians. Direct measures to fight the occupation and bring its viable end are welcomed. They surely need to involve the Palestinians, as we have seen that unilateral steps are not welcomed by the Palestinians. Ending of the occupation should be done by direct negotiations to bring about a workable solution so as to secure decent and peaceful coexistence between all the people living on the west side of the Jordan River.

Gene Therapy for the Unborn

Two spheres that most likely will occupy our minds and affect our lives for many years to come are genetics and the Internet. On August 27, 2009, The Independent advised that scientists are on the verge of ridding inherited diseases from future generations with a new technique for swapping genes between unfertilised human eggs before the resulting IVF embryos are implanted into the womb.

The technique has been successfully tested on laboratory monkeys and researchers believe it is now safe enough to apply for clinical trials on the many thousands of women at risk of giving birth to babies with some of the most debilitating inherited disorders.

Such a procedure would break new ground and raise fresh ethical concerns over the direction of IVF research because it would lead to permanent changes to the genetic make-up of children that would be passed on to subsequent generations of the same families.






This form of gene therapy, known as germline gene therapy, alters the DNA of sperm or eggs and is banned in Britain because of fears over its safety as well as the prospect of it leading to the creation of "designer babies". However, a clause in the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which comes into force on 1 October, could permit a type of germline gene therapy involving mitochondrial DNA - which exists outside the chromosomes - without the need for changes to primary legislation and a parliamentary vote.








Mitochondria, the tiny "power houses" of cells and their DNA, which lies outside the nucleus, is inherited solely down the maternal line. It is estimated that 1 in every 200 babies are born with mitochondrial mutations, some of which can lead to serious, life-long illnesses, such as diseases of muscles and nerves, as well as diabetes and cancer. The study on monkeys involved "renewing" the mitochondria of their eggs by the wholesale transfer of the chromosomes of one of their eggs into the egg of a donor female that had its own chromosomes removed so that only her mitochondrial DNA was left.

The aim was to test the feasibility of taking eggs from women with one of the 150 known mitochondrial DNA disorders and using them to create healthy eggs by transferring their chromosomes into donor eggs with no chromosomes of their own. The resulting egg would have DNA from two females and, when fertilised with a sperm, would result in an embryo which has three genetic parents.

In the latest study, four healthy macaque monkeys have been born using the technique. The scientists involved said there is no evidence that the procedure is unsafe and that they were planning to apply for ethical approval to conduct clinical trials in humans within a few years. "In theory, this research has demonstrated it is possible to use this therapy in mothers carrying mitochondrial DNA diseases so that we can prevent those diseases from being passed on to their offspring," said Shoukhrat Mitalipov, of Oregon Health and Science University in Beaverton, Oregon.







"We believe with proper governmental approvals, our work can rapidly be translated into clinical trials for humans, and approved therapies," said Dr Mitalipov, `whose study with colleague Masahito Tachibana is published in the journal Nature.

Conventional gene therapy has been tried in humans for 20 years but changing the DNA of mitochrondria would raise new ethical concerns. "This is not a simple form of gene therapy. This type involves replacing genes in the germline which will of course transmit it to the next generation and there are concerns," Dr Mitalipov said. "We are talking of gene defects that cause terrible diseases. So the only way to prevent these genetic defects is to replace these genes whether we like it or not. We realise its gene therapy involving the germline."

Professor Peter Braude, a specialist in reproductive medicine at King's College London and director of the Centre for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis at Guy's Hospital, said: "The transfer of the normal genetic material from a mother who has defective mitochondria, to a clean donated oocyte [egg] with normal mitochondria would allow it to be fertilised with her partner's sperm and for them to have a child free of the mitochondrial disease with the genetic material of the couple."

Physician-assisted Suicide

Some 115 Britons who wanted to decide the time of their death had to leave their country, their home (which is their castle), travel to Switzerland where they were helped to die. The British authorities are embarrassed. They understand that this death-tourism is the result of insufficient legal instruments to enable sick people, at the end of their lives, to seek help at home. Polls consistently show that some seventy percent of the population support physician-assisted suicide but the British legislature is hesitant, also because the British Medical Association is opposed to such legislation.


On assisted suicide—the question of whether doctors should ever be allowed by law to end the life of someone with an incurable and painful illness from which they will not die, if the patient asked for it—3.5% of doctors and 18% of the public said it definitely should be allowed, while 48% of doctors and 30% of the public said it should definitely not be allowed.


I am a supporter of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). I believe that for some patients this is the preferred and the right option. Some sick people would like to decide the time of their death. Only they can say: “Enough is enough. Now it is time to say good bye, because I can no longer cope with my state, and because medicine does not have a cure for me”. Physician-assisted suicide can be the solution especially for suffering cancer patients, at the last stage of their lives. It is humane to cater for these people, enabling them to die at their own bed, in the company of their loved-ones. It is far more humane than seeing them flee to another, strange country, and find their solace in an estranged, simple apartment, in a company of a Swiss person whom they never met before. I am sure we can do better than that. Those patients deserve a better end to their life-journey.


Things should change also on the Swiss side. I never liked the idea that anyone can perform PAS in Switzerland. The assistant is not obliged to be a physician. The scrutiny mechanisms are lax. Recently the British conductor, Edward Downes, and his wife Joan travelled to Switzerland to end their lives with the help of the local end-of-life organization, Dignitas.






Unlike his wife, Sir Edward did not suffer from an intractable, deadly disease. For me, more should have done to highlight to him that life can still be meaningful and worthwhile. And no money should transfer hands for the conduct of PAS. Dignitas currently charges at least 6000 Euro. Not a bad business.


Another growing and troubling phenomenon recorded in many countries (USA, UK, Belgium, and The Netherlands, among others) is “terminal sedation”. Physicians prescribe high doses of morphine and other medications which put the patient to sleep from which s/he never awakes. Quite often, the patient and his/her beloved people did not give consent to this.


I have elaborated on the need for safeguard mechanisms in many of my writings, most comprehensively in The Right to Die with Dignity (2001), my best book so far.


My New Article


"The Right to Privacy v. Public’s Right to Know", in Asa Kasher (ed.), Studies in Ethics (Iyyunim BeEtica) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2009), pp. 223-267 (Hebrew).


As ever, I’d be happy to circulate my new article to interested parties.


New Books

Asa Kasher (ed.), Studies in Ethics (Iyyunim BeEtica) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2009) (Hebrew).









This is an excellent compilation, including articles on various ethical dilemmas: ethics in academia, related to the British academic ban of Israel; military ethics; medical ethics; bioethics; ethics in education; ethics in the media and on the Internet.

UNHEALTHY WORK: Causes, Consequences, Cures

Editors: Peter Schnall, Marnie Dobson, Ellen Rosskam

Baywood Publishing, 2009








Work, so fundamental to well-being, has its darker and more costly side. Work can adversely affect our health, well beyond the usual counts of injuries that we think of as “occupational health.” The ways in which work is organized, ¬its pace and intensity, degree of control over the work process, sense of justice, and employment security, among other things¬ can be as toxic to the health of workers as the chemicals in the air. These work characteristics can be detrimental not only to mental well-being but to physical health. Scientists refer to these features of work as “hazards” of the “psychosocial” work environment. One key pathway from the work environment to illness is through the mechanism of stress; thus we speak of “stressors” in the work environment, or “work stress.” This is in contrast to the popular psychological understandings of “stress,” which locate many of the problems with the individual rather than the environment. In this book we advance a social environmental understanding of the workplace and health. The book addresses this topic in three parts: the important changes taking place in the world of work in the context of the global economy (Part I); scientific findings on the effects of particular forms of work organization and work stressors on employees’ health, “unhealthy work” as a major public health problem, and estimates of costs to employers and society (Part II); and case studies and various approaches to improve working conditions, prevent disease, and improve health (Part III).


Novels

Linwood Barclay, No Time for Goodbye









A fourteen-year old girl misbehaves. She dates a seventeen year-old boy, a son of a known criminal, against the will of her parents. She lies to her parents, hiding the fact that she dates him. Her secret is revealed. Her father goes out to find her late at night. He grabs her from her boyfriend’s car, bringing her home. She is fast asleep, drunk, pissed and tired.
The following morning she wakes up. The usual morning sounds – kitchen, dishes, shower - are absent. The house is quiet. Very quiet. She goes downstairs to the kitchen. No one is there. The kitchen is clean, as if no one ate breakfast yet. She goes to her parents’ bedroom. It is empty. She goes to her brother’s room. Nobody is in the house. She looks for a note, explaining this emptiness. There is no note.
She goes to school, thinking that by the time she returns home, her family will be back. She does not know what to think. In the afternoon, she returns to an empty home. Now she is really worried. She goes to her neighbor, who saw or heard nothing. They call the police. An investigation starts.
Twenty-five years later, the girl who grew up to be a married woman and a mother, receives a voice from the past. She and her husband embark on a mission to discover what had happened on that tragic night.
The first 100 pages of this book are somewhat difficult to follow. But as you advance with the reading, the book does not let you go. It is captivating, interesting, and logical, despite the seemingly illogical happenings that unfold. An entertaining read for the last days of the summer.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/No-Time-Goodbye-Linwood-Barclay/dp/0752893688


Geoffrey Archer, A Prisoner of Birth









Danny Cartwright goes to a pub with his girlfriend and his closest friend. Here he goes down on his knees and asks his girlfriend to marry him. She agrees. A perfect night. Or not. A group of four young men are in the pub. Their leader likes the girl. He says some words he shouldn’t say. An argument erupts. It is an unfair challenge. Four against two. But they all go out to the alley to fight. Danny’s friend was stabbed by the leader, who implicates Danny. His three friends support his version of what had happened. Danny’s girlfriend was not right there when the stabbing occurred. It is the word of four young and successful men against the word of Danny, a mechanic from the London lower class. Danny goes to jail.

This book, like my former recommendation, does not let you go. The difference is that it is masterfully written from the first page, until the last. Every small detail is important. I was hooked into the story and fate of Danny Cartwright from the first chapter. The pace of A Prisoner of Birth is unstoppable, with gripping twist and turns. It is about love, friendship, betrayal, revenge, the highs and lows of life. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is looking for an entertaining read which provides insights into English class society and its prison life, information about stamp collection (another hobby of mine). I don’t recall when I last read an Archer book. I will look for his other more recent books.

Amir Gutfreund, When Heroes Fly (Zmora-Bitan, 2008, Hebrew) [Bishvila Giborim Afim]










This is the story of four boys who grew up in Haifa during the 1960s. Gutfreund describes their friendship, their adventures, their relationships with other people as they mature into men. At the same time, Gutfreund tells the story of Israel from the 1960s until Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination on November 4, 1995. The milestones in Israeli society are described through the eyes of one of the boys. The novel is witty, funny, touching, beautiful. It is long, but I was sad to finish it. I looked with gloomy eyes at the bookmark as it moved along the pages, telling me that I am about to complete the reading. I could not leave the former two books because I wanted to discover what had happened (in No Time for Goodbye) and what will happen (in A Prisoner of Birth). This book I simply did not want to end. I loved the book because the story of the four boys is, more or less, my own story. Many of the neighbourhood descriptions were similar to my own neighbourhood experiences. The period covered in the book is the same period when I grew up in Tel Aviv. I loved this book and hope it will be translated to other languages. It provides incisive insights into Israeli life and culture.

“Lebanon” Won the Golden Lion
 The soldiers of the 1982 Lebanon War grew and developed (as my own wrinkles testify). Some of them became directors and producers, acquire some standing, and the result is more films about that war. I presume that in twenty years time we will see films concerning the Israel-Hezbollah War and the Israel-Gaza War.







The last in the string of films is “Lebanon”. The film, by director Samuel Maoz, is shot almost entirely inside an Israeli tank. It won the top award at the Venice Film Festival, the Golden Lion.
“Lebanon” has been described by the leading US entertainment magazine Variety as "the boldest and best" of recent films from Israel about the country's wars in Lebanon.

Recent Movies








The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (2008) is based on the novel by John Boyne and set during World War 2. Eight-year-old Bruno lives a wealthy lifestyle in Nazi Germany along with his mother, elder sister, and army Commandant Father. One day, the father receives an order to command a camp in the countryside, many miles from Berlin. Bruno is on his own. He does not have any friends. He does not attend school. Bruno seeks freedom. He finds a way to exit the house without anyone noticing and runs until he faces an electric barbwire. Behind the fence, he befriends Shmuel, a boy of his age, strangely dressed in striped pyjamas. It is the first time for Bruno to meet a Jew. Shmuel does not look and sound like the horror stories Bruno has heard of the Jews. Shmuel does not seem to be a rat, or vermin. Astonishingly, he is quite human. Shmuel becomes Bruno’s only friend. What the innocent Bruno does not understand, until the very last day of his life, is Shmuel’s condition, and the role that his own father plays in the running of the “labour camp”.

This is a moving drama about friendship, about illusions, the breaking of innocence, the breaking of a family, atrocities of war, and human brutality: Brutality of the spirit, brutality of the mind, and gruesome physical brutality. In many respects, it is an educational movie for teenagers who wish to begin to understand the horrors of the Holocaust. Why an entire nation behaved like beasts, and how they could carry out their Fuhrer mission with such diligence.

Bottle Shock









Bottle Shock is about wine. Grapes. If you don’t like wine, don’t watch it. If you are a fan, you’d enjoy this one. It is about French arrogance, manifested by no other than a British gentleman. Is it possible? Not only is it possible. This is based on a true story.

In 1976, a small American winery bested the exalted French wines of the time and sent the wine industry into a tizzy--putting California wines on the map for good. The film chronicles the events leading up to the famous "Judgment of Paris" tastings, told through the lives of father and son, Jim and Bo Barrett. A former real estate attorney, Jim gave up his law partnership to pursue his dream of creating the perfect hand-crafted chardonnay. His business, Chateau Montelena Winery, however, is struggling, and he's not only trying to overcome differences with his slacker son, but is also fighting off the creditors.










Meanwhile in Paris, unwitting British wine shop owner, Steven Spurrier (played marvelously by Alan Rickman) hopes to revive his own failing business by sponsoring a competition which will pit the traditional French powerhouse against the California upstarts. Little did Steven and Jim realize that they were both on course to change the history of wine forever. Chateau Montelena became a brand name not only in Napa but in the entire world.

Unforgettable line: “Why don’t I like you?” the suspicious Jim Barrett (Bill Pullman) asks the snobbish Steven Spurrier.

“Because you think I’m an ass,” Spurrier replies haughtily. “And I’m not really. It’s just that I’m British and you’re not.”


Light Side







A person went with his family on a tour to a crocodile farm. When they passed near the water, his mother-in-law slipped and fell into the water. “Call immediately for help!!!” cried passerby tourists. “These are their crocodiles”, replied the man. “Let the farmers come and save them”.







This season is important for every Jew. First, Rosh Hashana when we welcome the New Year. Next, the holy Yom Kippur, a day of looking inward and asking forgiveness for all the deeds we committed the past year that we should not have done. A week later, Sukkoth, remembering our legendary past, when we were on our way to Eretz Yisrael; and finally all these High Holidays culminate with Simchat Torah, when we pay homage to the holy script which kept our Jewish nation together for generations upon generations, sometimes against all odds.
May I wish you all a happy season of celebration and hope, of love and achievement, of happiness and joy.

Yours as ever,

Rafi

My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com/

earlier posts at my home page: http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/


People wishing to subscribe to this Monthly Newsletter are welcome to e-mail me at r.cohen-almagor@hull.ac.uk

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Politics – July-August 2009


Great leaders are those who have the ability to assess complicated situations, consolidate efforts for addressing challenges, and fathom when words alone will not suffice.

Raphael Cohen-Almagor


The threat of Iran to world peace is looming. Time is running out. It is now the time for Obama to show from what material he is made. World leadership is required now to avert the unmistakble challenge, before it is too late. We cannot afford idleness.

A substantial part of this Newsletter is dedicated to Operation Cast Lead, as new evidence is appearing, disclosing details as to how the IDF conducted the operation. The findings do not add to Israel’s reputation, to say the least.

Free Gilad Shalit. Prime Minister Netanyahu says that he wishes to put an end to this ordeal and to bring Gilad home. Indeed, we see increased negotiations between Israel, Egypt and Hamas. I hope a deal will be confirmed soon. The government should invest in his release. It should be its top priority.









Ynet

Israeli embassies around the world are now showing people reading Gilad’s children story, which he wrote when he was 11 year-old. The story, “When the Shark and the Fish First Met” is about co-existence, about living together instead of being enemies.

See children around the world reading Gilad’s story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0rb_SmjUKc


Iran – A World Concern
Germany's Spies Refuted the 2007 NIE Report
Amnesty Details Gaza 'War Crimes'
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Report on Gaza
Soldiers’ Testimonials
Drop in Terror Attacks
Chaim Ramon Retires from Politics
Barack Obama’s Mistakes
Record Rise in UK anti-Semitism
Freedom of the Press 2009 Survey
Global Corruption Barometer 2009
Jerry Cohen (April 14, 1941 - August 5, 2009)
EUROPEAN JOURNALISM-FELLOWSHIPS in BERLIN
The IHRT Robert H. Jackson Prize for Human Rights
World Youth Movement Announces 2009 Global Essay Contest
KNIGHT FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMME SEEKS APPLICANTS
New Articles
My New Article
New Books
Israel in the Davis Cup Semi-Finals
Alfred Hitchcock
Gems of the Month
Lighter Side


Iran – A World Concern

On July 16, 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Iran it has only a limited time to accept the Obama administration's offer for engagement. She also urged Arab nations to take immediate steps to improve ties with Israel to bolster Mideast peace hopes.











In a wide-ranging policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said the administration was "appalled" by Iran's recent postelection crackdown on protesters. She said the hard-line regime would face new penalties and increasing isolation over its nuclear program and support for extremists unless it soon took up the U.S. overture."We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now," she said. "The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely."

Clinton did not set a deadline, but President Barack Obama said last week that the U.S. wants to see a positive response by the fall or it will press for additional bilateral and United Nations sanctions. "Neither the president nor I have any illusions that dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success of any kind and the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks since the election," Clinton said. "But we also understand the importance of trying to engage Iran and offering its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation."

Source: Associated Press, “Clinton warns Iran on engagement”, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_clinton_iran_3

Germany's Spies Refuted the 2007 NIE Report
The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, has amassed evidence of a sophisticated Iranian nuclear weapons program that continued beyond 2003. This usually classified information comes courtesy of Germany's highest state-security court.






A special national security panel of the Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe cites from a May 2008 BND report, saying the agency "showed comprehensively" that "development work on nuclear weapons can be observed in Iran even after 2003."









Barbara Kelley
According to the judges, the BND supplemented its findings on August 28, 2008, showing "the development of a new missile launcher and the similarities between Iran's acquisition efforts and those of countries with already known nuclear weapons programs, such as Pakistan and North Korea."
It's important to point out that this was no ordinary agency report, the kind that often consists just of open source material, hearsay and speculation. Rather, the BND submitted an "office testimony," which consists of factual statements about the Iranian program that can be proved in a court of law. This is why, in their March 26 opinion, the judges wrote that "a preliminary assessment of the available evidence suggests that at the time of the crime [April to November 2007] nuclear weapons were being developed in Iran." In their May press release, the judges come out even more clear, stating unequivocally that "Iran in 2007 worked on the development of nuclear weapons."
The judges had been asked to consider an appeal in the case of a German-Iranian businessman accused of brokering supplies for Iran's nuclear weapons program. The Federal Prosecutor had charged the defendant, identified by the authorities only as "Mohsen V.," with violating Germany's War Weapons Control Law and the Foreign Trade Act. A lower court in Frankfurt refused to try the case on the grounds that it was unlikely that Iran had a nuclear program at the time of the defendant's activities in 2007, citing the NIE report as evidence.
That's why the Supreme Court judges had to rule first on the question of whether that program exists at all. Having answered that question in the affirmative, the court had to rule next on the likelihood of the defendant to be found guilty in a trial. The supreme court's conclusions are unusually strong.
"The results of the investigation do in fact provide sufficient indications that the accused aided the development of nuclear weapons in Iran through business dealings."
The case sheds light on how these networks function. According to the supreme court judges, the businessman has brokered "industrial machines, equipment and raw materials primarily to Iranian customers," for Iran's nuclear weapons program.
The defendant's business partners in Tehran "dealt with acquiring military and nuclear-related goods for Iran and used various front companies, headquartered for example in Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, to circumvent existing trade restrictions." According to the judges, Mohsen V. also tried to supply to Tehran via front companies in Dubai "Geiger counters for radiation-resistant detectors constructed especially for protection against the effects of nuclear detonations."
Defendant Mohsen V.'s various business contacts in Iran, Russia, Germany, and the Near and Middle East are listed in the prosecutor's files and in the judges' decision. So is information related to the secret supply of "two high-speed cameras needed to develop nuclear warheads. The delivery of the cameras to the final customers in Iran occurred on November 1, 2007 at the latest." The Karlsruhe judges wrote that, by his own admission, Mohsen V. was "aware of the cameras' possible use in the military arena."
The court's decision and the BND's reports raise the question of how, or why, U.S. intelligence officials could have come to the conclusion that Iran suspended its program in 2003. German intelligence officials wonder themselves. BND sources have told me that they have shared their findings and documentation with their U.S. colleagues ahead of the 2007 NIE report -- as is customary between these two allies. It appears the Americans have simply ignored this evidence despite repeated warnings from the BND. This suggests not so much a failure of U.S. intelligence but its sabotage.
Source: The Wall Street Journal, July 20, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124803669414063037.html


Amnesty Details Gaza 'War Crimes'

Israel committed war crimes and carried out reckless attacks and acts of wanton destruction in its Gaza offensive, an independent human rights report says. Hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed using high-precision weapons, while others were shot at close range, the group Amnesty International says. Its report also calls rocket attacks by Palestinian militants war crimes and accuses Hamas of endangering civilians.

The Israeli military says its conduct was in line with international law. Israel has attributed some civilian deaths to "professional mistakes", but has dismissed wider criticism that its attacks were indiscriminate and disproportionate.

Amnesty says some 1,400 Palestinians were killed in the 22-day Israeli offensive between 27 December 2008 and 17 January 2009, which agrees broadly with Palestinian figures










More than 900 of these were civilians, including 300 children and 115 women, it says.
In March, Israel's military said the overall Palestinian death toll was 1,166, of whom 295 were "uninvolved" civilians.

Pattern
The 117-page report by Amnesty International says many of the hundreds of civilian deaths in the conflict "cannot simply be dismissed as 'collateral damage' incidental to otherwise lawful attacks - or as mistakes".

It says "disturbing questions" remain unanswered as to why children playing on roofs and medical staff attending the wounded were killed by "highly accurate missiles" whose operators had detailed views of their targets.

GAZA CIVILIAN DEATHS
• Children: 300
• Women: 115
• Men over 50: 85
• Civilian men under 50: 200
• Non-combatant police: 240
• Total: 940 Source: Amnesty International

Lives were lost because Israeli forces "frequently obstructed access to medical care," the report says. It also reiterates previous condemnations of the use of "imprecise" weapons such as white phosphorous and artillery shells.

The destruction of homes, businesses and public buildings was in many cases "wanton and deliberate" and "could not be justified on the grounds of military necessity", the report adds.

"All of those things occurred on a scale that constitutes pattern - and constitutes war crimes," Donatella Rovera, who headed the research, told the BBC.

The document also gives details of several cases where it says people - including women and children posing no threat to troops - were shot at close range as they were fleeing their homes in search of shelter.

Israeli officials responded saying the military targeted only areas where Palestinian militants were operating, and accused Hamas of turning civilian neighbourhoods into "war zones".

"We tried to be as surgical as is humanly possible in a difficult combat situation," Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev told the BBC.

Human shields
The Amnesty report says no evidence was found that Palestinian militants had forced civilians to stay in buildings being used for military purposes, contradicting Israeli claims that Hamas repeatedly used "human shields".

However, Amnesty says Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups had endangered Palestinian civilians by firing rockets from residential neighbourhoods and storing weapons in them.

It says local residents had in one case told researchers that Hamas fighters had fired a rocket from the yard of a government school.

The Israeli military has repeatedly blamed Hamas for causing civilian casualties, saying its fighters operated from buildings like schools, medical facilities, religious institutions, residential homes and commercial premises.

In the cases it had investigated, Amnesty said civilian deaths "could not be explained as resulting from the presence of fighters shielding among civilians, as the Israeli army generally contends".

However, Amnesty does accuse Israel of using civilians, including children, as human shields in Gaza, forcing them to remain in houses which its troops were using as military positions, and to inspect sites suspected of being booby trapped.
It also says Palestinian militants rocket fire from the Gaza Strip was "indiscriminate and hence unlawful under international law", although it only rarely caused civilian casualties.

Hamas leader in Gaza Ismail Haniya declined to comment on the Amnesty International criticism, but said: "We believe the leaders of the occupation state must be tried for these crimes."

Thirteen Israelis were killed, including three civilians, during the offensive, which Israel launched with the declared aim of curtailing cross-border rocket attacks.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/8128210.stm


The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Report on Gaza

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance. It directs and coordinates the international relief activities conducted by the Movement in situations of conflict. It also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles.








Established in 1863, the ICRC is at the origin of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The ICRC has recently published a report on life in Gaza. As you can read from the main findings infra, the life of Gazans is pretty miserable. I am not seeking people to blame, and it might not be that important for the Gazans at present, as they desperately need relief and concrete help. I sincerely hope that the Gaza leaders will put their priorities right: health, housing, education, infrastructure, welfare. That’s enough. If they will be preoccupied with these hefty tasks, their hands will be full for the foreseeable future, and resources will not find their way to other causes (terrorism). Israel, and the international community at large, could not provide the much-needed relief at the expense of the Gaza government. The responsibility lies, squarely and rightly, with Hamas. Here are the main, most troubling, findings:

Six months after Israel launched its three-week military operation in Gaza on December 27, 2008, Gazans still cannot rebuild their lives. Most people struggle to make ends meet. Seriously ill patients face great difficulty obtaining the treatment they need. Many children suffer from deep psychological problems. Civilians whose homes and belongings were destroyed during the conflict are unable to recover.

During the 22 days of the Israeli military operation, nowhere in Gaza was safe for civilians. Hospitals were overwhelmed with casualties, including small children, women and elderly people. Medical personnel showed incredible courage and determination, working around the clock to save lives in extremely difficult circumstances. Meanwhile, daily rocket attacks launched from Gaza put thousands of residents at risk in southern Israel. Medical workers in Israel provided care for the traumatized population and treated and evacuated casualties. Many people in Gaza lost a child, a parent, another relative or a friend. Israel's military operation left thousands of homes partly or totally destroyed. Whole neighbourhoods were turned into rubble. Schools, kindergartens, hospitals and fire and ambulance stations were damaged by shelling.

This small coastal strip is cut off from the outside world. Even before the latest hostilities, drastic restrictions on the movement of people and goods imposed by the Israeli authorities, particularly since October 2007, had led to worsening poverty, rising unemployment and deteriorating public services such as health care, water and sanitation. Insufficient cooperation between the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and the Hamas administration in Gaza had also hit the provision of essential services. As a result, the people of Gaza were already experiencing a major crisis affecting all aspects of daily life when hostilities intensified in late December. Six months later, restrictions on imports are making it impossible for Gazans to rebuild their lives. The quantities of goods now entering Gaza fall well short of what is required to meet the population's needs. In May 2009, only 2,662 truckloads of goods entered Gaza from Israel, a decrease of almost 80 per cent compared to the 11,392 truckloads allowed in during April 2007, before Hamas took over the territory.

Gaza neighbourhoods particularly hard hit by the Israeli strikes will continue to look like the epicentre of a massive earthquake unless vast quantities of cement, steel and other building materials are allowed into the territory for reconstruction. Until that happens, thousands of families who lost everything will be forced to live in cramped conditions with relatives. Others will continue to live in tents, as they have nowhere else to go. Emergency repairs carried out after the military operation have made it possible to restore water and sanitation services, but only to the already unsatisfactory level prevailing before December 2008. The infrastructure is overloaded and remains subject to breakdown. Although chlorine is used to disinfect the water, the risk of sewage and other waste matter seeping into the water supply network represents a major threat to public health.

Every day, 69 million litres of partially treated or completely untreated sewage – the equivalent of 28 Olympic-size swimming pools – are pumped directly into the Mediterranean because they cannot be treated.

One of the gravest consequences of the closure is soaring unemployment, which reached 44 per cent in April 2009, according to the Gaza Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on imports and exports of goods imposed since June 2007 have shut down 96% of industrial operations in Gaza, with the loss of about 70,000 jobs. This has also had a severe impact on the capacity to export products to Israel and the West Bank, which has become almost impossible. The tunnels under the Egypt-Gaza border do not present an alternative route to economic development and are not ensuring a sufficient supply of affordable goods for the population. The collapse of the Gaza economy has led to a dramatic increase in poverty. An ICRC household survey conducted in May 2008 showed that, even then, over 70 per cent of Gazans were living in poverty, with monthly incomes of less than 250 US dollars for a family of 7 to 9 members (1 dollar per household member per day, excluding the value of humanitarian assistance which they may receive). Up to 40 per cent of Gaza families are very poor; with a monthly income of under 120 dollars (0.5 dollar per household member per day). On average, each person who does work – whether as a paid employee or running their own business – has to support their immediate family of 6-7 people and a few members of their extended family. This increase in poverty has taken a heavy toll on the population's diet. Many families have been forced to cut household expenses to survival levels. Generally, people are getting the calories they need, but only a few can afford a healthy and balanced diet. Poor families often substitute cheaper alternatives such as cereals, sugar and oil for fruits, vegetables, meat and fish. For tens of thousands of children, this has resulted in deficiencies in iron, vitamin A and vitamin D. The likely consequences include stunted growth of bones and teeth, difficulty in fighting off infections, fatigue and a reduced capacity to learn. Most of the very poor have exhausted their coping mechanisms. Many have no savings left. They have sold private belongings such as jewellery and furniture and started to sell productive assets including farm animals, land, fishing boats or cars used as taxis. They are unable to reduce spending on food any further. The declining living standards will affect the health and well-being of the population in the long term. Those worst affected are likely to be children, who make up more than half of Gaza's population.

Source: ICRC, Gaza – 1.5 Million People Trapped in Despair (June 2009)


Soldiers’ Testimonials

A group of Israeli soldiers who took part in Cast Lead say widespread abuses were committed against civilians under "permissive" rules of engagement. The troops said they had been urged to fire on any building or person that seemed suspicious and said civilians were sometimes used as human shields. Breaking the Silence, a campaign group made up of Israeli soldiers, gathered anonymous accounts from 26 soldiers. "We were told soldiers were to be secured by fire-power. The soldiers were made to understand that their lives were the most important, and that there was no way our soldiers would get killed for the sake of leaving civilians the benefit of the doubt," said one soldier in the report. "People were not instructed to shoot at everyone they see, but they were told that from a certain distance when they approach a house, no matter who it is - even an old woman - take them down," said another.








According to testimonies from the 14 conscripts and 12 reserve soldiers:
• Rules of engagement were either unclear or encouraged soldiers to do their utmost to protect their own lives whether or not Palestinian civilians were harmed.
• Civilians were used as human shields, entering buildings ahead of soldiers
• Large swathes of homes and buildings were demolished. Accounts say that this was often done because the houses might be booby-trapped, or cover tunnels. Testimony mentioned a policy referred to as "the day after", whereby areas near the border were razed to make future military operations easier
• Some of the troops had a generally aggressive, ill-disciplined attitude
• There was incidents of vandalism of property of Palestinians
• Soldiers fired at water tanks because they were bored, at a time of severe water shortages for Gazans
• White phosphorus was used in civilian areas in a way some soldiers saw as gratuitous and reckless
• Many of the soldiers said there had been very little direct engagement with Palestinian militants

The report says Israeli troops and the people who justify their actions are "slid[ing] together down the moral slippery slope".

"This is an urgent call to Israeli society and its leaders to sober up and investigate anew the results of our actions," Breaking the Silence says.

Israel said the purpose of the 22-day operation that ended on 18 January 2009 had been to end rocket fire from Gaza aimed at its southern towns.

Palestinian rights groups say about 1,400 Palestinians died during the operation. Thirteen Israelis died in the conflict, including 10 soldiers serving in Gaza.

According to the UN, the campaign damaged or destroyed more than 50,000 homes, 800 industrial properties, 200 schools, 39 mosques and two churches.

Investigations
Reacting to the report, Israeli military spokeswoman Lt Col Avital Leibovich said:
"The IDF [Israel Defence Forces] regrets the fact that another human rights organisation has come out with a report based on anonymous and general testimony - without investigating their credibility." She dismissed the document as "hearsay and word of mouth".

"The IDF expects every soldier to turn to the appropriate authorities with any allegation," Lt Col Leibovich added. "This is even more important where the harm is to non-combatants. The IDF has uncompromising ethical values which continue to guide us in every mission."

There have been several investigations into the conduct of Israel's operation in Gaza, and both Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that runs the territory, have faced accusations of war crimes.

An internal investigations by the Israeli military said troops fought lawfully, although errors did take place, such as the deaths of 21 people in a house that had been wrongly targeted.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has requested more than $11m (£7m) in compensation from Israel for damage to UN property in Gaza. A limited UN inquiry blamed Israel in six out of nine attacks on UN facilities, resulting in casualties among civilians sheltering there.

Meanwhile, a fact-finding team commissioned by the Arab League concluded there was enough evidence to prosecute the Israeli military for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that "the Israeli political leadership was also responsible for such crimes". It also said Palestinian militants were guilty of war crimes in their use of indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians.

Source: BBC News (July 15, 2009)


Drop in Terror Attacks

Shin Bet figures indicate volume of attacks is continuing to drop in months after Operation Cast Lead. Ynet reported: “Not a single Israeli citizen was wounded in a terror attack within Israel or the territories over the course of June 2009, a first for 2009”. Now, compare this refreshing statement to whatever is the situation in your country and start fathoming the abnormality of living in Israel.

According to the figures, January (the month of the IDF's extensive operation against Hamas in Gaza) saw no less than 580 terror-related attacks. In February and March the numbers dropped to around 120 a month.








Most of the incidents in the West Bank were less elaborate than those on the Gaza border, youths hurling Molotov cocktails or rocks at vehicles rather than organized terror groups launching Qassam rockets and mortar shells, planting explosive devices near the border, anti-tank fire, and small-arms fire.

In April there were 69 terror-related incidents, and in May there were 51. During these months there was an average of 10-20 Qassam rocket attacks from Gaza.

In June the numbers dropped even further, with a record-low of 38 incidents – 22 in the West Bank and 16 in Gaza.


"We see this as an achievement," said a military official, "particularly the fact that there were no casualties on our side, but we must not succumb to complacency because the terror groups are still highly motivated to carry out attacks. So the troops' efforts must continue." The official said that terror groups in Gaza have an interest in only lowering the volume of attacks rather than stopping them completely. In the West Bank he attributed to the drop to the IDF's activity as well as the calm in Palestinian areas.

Source: Hanan Greenberg, “Drop in terror attacks continues, 38 in June from 580 in January”, YNET (July 6, 2009).


Chaim Ramon Retires from Politics

In July, Chaim Ramon announced his retirement from Israeli politics, and resigned from the Knesset. After so many years, serving as a mere MK is not appealing to him. Indeed, the change from serving as Deputy Prime Minister to a member of the opposition is nothing to report home.







In the early 1980s I was a member of the Young Labour Party in Tel Aviv. Elections were approaching and the Tel Aviv branch convened to decide its representatives on the party’s list. Some four hundred people gathered in the Beilinson House. I have never seen so many people there on one afternoon. Everyone wanted to have a voice; many wanted to have a chance to be on the list. I arrived some 30 minutes prior the start of the meeting and positioned myself strategically on the main floor. People who arrived on time had to find a spot on another floor. The house filled with energy, not all positive, with yearnings, with boiling desires. It was one big contest. A mess. I was thinking to myself: What a hell. How will it be possible to decide on anything in such heated atmosphere, where everyone is thinking only about his/her partisan interest? What a nightmare. I concluded it was mission impossible. I was wrong.

About fifteen minutes after the scheduled start of the meeting, the National Chairperson of Young Labour arrived. As usual, in his nonchalant way he wore blue shirt, blue jeans and sandals. At the front of the large room there was a table. He sat on it. He had one advantage over the 400 people: a microphone. Ramon, single-handedly, conducted the meeting in the usual democratic spirit of the Labour Party. He arrived with a note containing names of people. After some ninety minutes, he left with the same note, approved by 400 emotional people who were manipulated magnificently and skillfully by the Chairman. I learned one of most impressive lessons in politics. This was a conclusive show of an astute politician. I had no doubt Ramon would go far and high. I have been following his career ever since.

Ramon never hid his intentions to become prime minister of Israel. At a young age, he was confident of his abilities to do the job. I never underestimated his capabilities to serve the country. He is one of the most able politicians in the history of young Israel. Every contender in the past twenty years would have loved to have Chaim Ramon at his or her side. Many, indeed, had him for periods of time (Peres, Rabin, Sharon, Olmert, Livni). For complex reasons, he did not make it, yet. But if the future will give him a chance, Ramon will return. He will return only for a senior post, as he exhausted all minor and middle-of-the-road roles in Israeli politics. As he grows older, his main vice, women, will be tamed and Chaim will become more focused. I assume now he will going into business to make some money. Good Luck. Have fun. We will see you in due course.


Barack Obama’s Mistakes

Obama is not a mediocre person, hence nothing about his administration is mediocre. His term in office will go down in history as a glorious success, or a miserable failure. To avoid the latter, Obama needs to amend two aspects of his conduct.








First, people don’t have much appreciation for common things. Obama burns himself by his frequent media appearances. He should give people time to miss him. Quickly, Obama turns from gem into stone. We see far too much of him. We hear too much him. He is all over the place. It is rare to open the television and not see him speaking. Sometimes, we see him commenting on different subjects a few times in a day. Obama is becoming common commodity. Soon, we will cease to perceive him as president. He will become a common celebrity: An African American masculine version of Paris Hilton. I am surprised that Obama’s media experts allow him such frequent appearances. People may start asking: How does he find time for so many media appearances? Doesn’t he suppose to do, to create, to initiate, to respond instead of telling the public what he does? Why does he have spokespersons, if he prefers to do the job himself? My candid advice to you, Mr. President: Do your job and let others explain what you are doing. Make your media appearances a rare experience, something that the people should look for.

Second, Obama is facing hard challenges and he has to make hard choices. It seems he does not know how to make choices, hence does everything at the same time. This is not very prudent. Obama has more than three years in office. What’s the rush? Why opening so many fronts at the same time, evoking powerful oppositions that might stifle your work? GM, ecology, banking, health. Obama is going against strong lobbies in the Capitol. And I did not mention external challenges: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, North Korea, Al Qaeda, to mention a few. We say in Hebrew, “One cow after the other”. Do one thing, complete it to your satisfaction; then move on to the next item on the agenda. Presidency may resemble a marathon, not a collection of simultaneous short runs. The president should have long breath, and cultivates his patience. Otherwise, again, he might burn himself.


Record Rise in UK anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitic attacks in the UK doubled in the first half of this year compared with the same period in 2008. The Jewish Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Semitism, says it recorded 609 incidents between January and June - up from 276 last year. Most incidents were abusive behaviour, but there were also 77 violent acts.
The trust said the rise had been driven by anger over Israel's military campaign against Hamas in Gaza. That conflict, between December 2008 and January 2009, was followed by an almost immediate rise in anti-Semitic incidents in the UK.
According to the CST, the total number of incidents for the first six months of this year was worse than the previous record of 598 incidents for the whole of 2006. Some 286 incidents occurred in January alone - but the security body said that a disproportionately higher monthly number of attacks and abuse continued into the spring.










The attacks recorded so far include 77 acts of physical violence and two life-threatening assaults, one of which was an attempt to run somebody over with a car.
The CST says there have also been 400 incidents of general abuse, including hate mail to synagogues, along with 62 attacks on property that can be clearly defined as having a religious role.
Earlier this year, Muslim leaders issued a joint statement denouncing anti-Semitism, amid fears that violent elements from within their own communities were responsible for the increase in attacks. Cohesion minister Shahid Malik, one of two Muslims in government, said: "This rise in anti-Semitism is not just concerning for the British Jewish communities but for all those who see themselves as decent human beings.
"The fight against anti-Semitism is a fight that should engage us all. This country will not tolerate those who seek to direct hatred towards any part of our community.
"It may be legitimate for individuals to criticise or be angry at the actions of the Israel government but we must never allow this anger to be used to justify anti-Semitism."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8166173.stm

Published: 2009/07/23 23:04:08 GMT


Freedom of the Press 2009 Survey

Freedom of the Press 2009 identifies the greatest threats to independent media in 195 countries and territories. Released in advance of World Press Freedom Day May 3, the report shows a seventh straight year of decline in global media freedom, with twice as many losses than gains. There are particularly worrisome trends in East Asia, the former Soviet Union and the Middle East and North Africa. Given an economic climate that is certain to further strain media sustainability and diversity in rich and poor countries alike, pressures on media freedom are increasingly threatening the considerable gains of the past quarter century.








"The journalism profession today is up against the ropes and fighting to stay alive, as pressures from governments, other powerful actors and the global economic crisis take an enormous toll," said Jennifer Windsor, Freedom House executive director. "The press is democracy's first defense and its vulnerability has enormous implications for democracy if journalists are not able to carry out their traditional watchdog role."

There were some notable improvements. The Maldives made the study's largest jump, moving to the Partly Free category with the adoption of a new constitution protecting freedom of expression and the release of a prominent journalist from life imprisonment. Guyana regained its Free rating with fewer attacks on journalists and a government decision to lift a boycott on advertising in the main independent newspaper.

Out of the 195 countries and territories covered in the study, 70 (36 percent) are rated Free, 61 (31 percent) are rated Partly Free and 64 (33 percent) are rated Not Free. This represents a modest decline from the 2008 survey in which 72 countries and territories were Free, 59 Partly Free and 64 Not Free. The new survey found that only 17 percent of the world's population lives in countries that enjoy a Free press.
Key regional findings include:
• Asia Pacific: Cambodia dropped to Not Free status because of increased violence against journalists. Hong Kong slipped to Partly Free as Beijing exerted growing influence over media. China's media environment remained bleak. Media in Taiwan faced assault and growing government pressure. South Asia saw improvements in the Maldives, Bangladesh and Pakistan, while Sri Lanka and Afghanistan suffered setbacks.
• Central and Eastern Europe/Former Soviet Union: The region suffered the biggest drop in press freedom of any region, with journalists murdered in Bulgaria and Croatia and assaulted in Bosnia. Russia's score declined with the judiciary unwilling to protect journalists from attacks, as well as the frequent targeting of independent media by regulators.
• Middle East and North Africa: The region continues to have the world's lowest level of press freedom. Restrictions on journalists and official attempts to influence coverage during the Gaza conflict led to Israel's Partly Free status. The Israeli-Occupied Territories/Palestinian Authority saw declines with both Hamas and Fatah intimidating journalists. Iraq saw the security environment for journalists improve and new legal protections for media in the Kurdish areas.
• Sub-Saharan Africa: Press freedom suffered in Senegal with an increase in both legal and extralegal action taken against media. In Madagascar, media outlets critical of the government were targeted. Other declines were seen in Botswana, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Lesotho, Mauritania, South Africa and Tanzania. Comoros, Sierra Leone, Angola and Liberia improved.
• Americas: Guyana regained its Free rating, while Haiti and Uruguay saw significant improvement. However, Mexico’s score dropped again because of increased violence, the government’s unwillingness to make legal reforms, and pressure on media from local and state officials. Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Nicaragua registered major declines.
• Western Europe: The region continues to boast the world's highest level of press freedom. However, Italy slipped back into the Partly Free category with free speech limited by courts and libel laws, increased intimidation of journalists by organized crime and far-right groups, and concerns over the concentration of media ownership. Greece also suffered a significant decline.

Freedom House has assessed the degree of print, broadcast and internet freedom in every country in the world since 1980. The 2009 ratings are based on an assessment of the legal, political and economic environments in which journalists worked in 2008.

"The declines in East Asia are particularly disappointing, given the increased attention on the region because of the Beijing Olympics," said Karin Deutsch Karlekar, Freedom House senior researcher and managing editor of the study. "China should have had a better record in 2008 and upheld its promise to ensure press freedom during the Olympics, but instead it chose to remain the world's largest repressor of media freedom."

Key trends that led to numerical movements in the study include:
• Fragile Freedoms: Declines in Israel, Italy and Taiwan illustrate that established democracies with traditionally open media are not immune to restricting media freedom. Over the last five years, a number of emerging democracies have also suffered considerable declines in press freedom including: Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Thailand, the Philippines and Senegal.
• Consolidating Control: Authoritarian states are increasingly consolidating control of the media. In the last five years, space for independent media shrunk significantly in countries like Russia, Ethiopia and The Gambia.
• Violence and Impunity: The level of violence and physical harassment directed at the press by both government and non-state actors continues to rise in many countries. Many of these cases go unsolved and these attacks have a chilling effect on media, contributing to self-censorship.
• Punitive laws: Both governments and private individuals continue to restrict media freedom through laws that forbid "inciting hatred," commenting on sensitive topics such as religion or ethnicity, or "endangering national security." Libel and defamation laws remain a widespread way to punish the press.
• New media: Freedom House’s recently released internet freedom index finds that new media outlets are often freer than traditional media and have the potential to open repressive media environments such as China and Iran. However, as new media gains influence, governments are beginning to crack down on internet users by employing traditional means of repression.

The world’s worst-rated countries continue to include Burma, Cuba, Eritrea, Libya, North Korea and Turkmenistan. The study found that the level of media freedom in these countries remained stagnant in 2008, despite hope that the internet and new media might provide openings in the media environment.

The methodology and graphics from the survey are available by contacting Laura Ingalls at ingalls@freedomhouse.org or by calling +1-202-683-0909.
Sources: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=470
http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=811


Global Corruption Barometer 2009

Transparency International’s 2009 Global Corruption Barometer reveals a growing distrust of business, the daily struggle of the world’s poor with petty bribery and public unconvinced of governments’ anti-corruption efforts.










A global public opinion survey, the 2009 Barometer reflects the views of more than 73,000 people from 69 countries and territories around the world.

You can download the full report at http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2009/gcb2009#dnld


Jerry Cohen (April 14, 1941 - August 5, 2009)











I was saddened to hear of the sudden death of Jerry Cohen, Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at the University of Oxford. In 1984 Cohen was elected to the Chichele Professorship and took up the chair in early 1985. He was elected to the British Academy also that year. Cohen’s 24-year tenure gave a distinctive cast to Oxford political theory, emphasising its connections with contemporary moral philosophy, in contrast to the more historical and institutional style of the Cambridge of Quentin Skinner and John Dunn. Cohen was celebrated as the leading light of "Analytical Marxism," an attempt to examine Marx's own arguments and subject them to the rigour of the analytical philosophy developed in the 20th century.

When I arrived at Oxford in 1987, Jerry was one of the first to welcome me with his usual big smile and a tap on my back. He taught Hobbes in a way that I never knew before, highlighting his many contributions to philosophy at large and to liberalism in particular. But Marx, of course, was his hero. Jerry’s view of philosophy, politics and life was Marxist-egalitarian. In the late 1980s, “the” show in town was “star wars”. This is the term Oxford students coined to describe the post-graduate seminars at the All Souls Old Library. Usually, there were three people in the seminar: Jerry Cohen, Ronnie Dworkin, and a rotating philosopher who acted, in the main, as a mediator, peace-maker, mitigator between Jerry and Ronnie. The students were the audience. The relatively small room was packed with people, who often did not find empty seats, thus sat on the window benches, sometimes on the floor. For four years, I hardly missed the best show in town. I would attend each and every seminar, rain or shine, sometime when I was in poor health and should have stayed at home, recovering from the seasonal flu. I would drag myself up the stairs, trying to focus on the sophisticated arguments. Jerry hated to lose an argument to Ronnie. Later, he would continue to reflect on the debate, in private.

Jerry was shrewd, witty, knotty and funny. He could move bluntly and swiftly from a highly serious mode, to a joking mode. You needed to be alert and focus with him to follow his intentions. I remember thinking: God, I would not have liked to be his teacher when he was a boy.

Jerry and I kept in touch after I left Oxford. I enjoyed the lengthy luncheons at All Souls. First, his office, lunch at the small hall (the food is English – nothing to report home), followed by the spacious SCR, and back to Jerry’s office/room. In 1997, he kindly arranged for my family All Souls accommodation when we came on a British Council Fellowship. Jerry had keen interest in Israel. He was one of the first subscribers to my blog, back in 2000. He also loved to speak Yiddish, which to my shame I do not understand. He tried to teach me some phrases, to put me in the business, with little success. I recall a long conversation about India, a country which fascinated both of us, but both dreaded to visit. Jerry finally went, upon an invitation he could not decline, and then wrote a fairly substantive manuscript about his experience which he was happy to share with me. I don’t think he had ever published his Indian memoirs. Maybe now is the time.

Jerry received many invitations from the best universities in the world. He went on lecture tours, but did not wish to leave Oxford. He grew to like the old-fashioned city with the “funny” costumes that at first looked very strange to the middle-class Jew from Montreal. Slowly he bonded with the city, the university, and its people, and like his mentor Isaiah Berlin, saw Oxford as his home.
Jerry authored Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defense (1978, 2000); History, Labour, and Freedom (1988); Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (1995); If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? (2000); Rescuing Justice and Equality (2008); Why Not Socialism? (2009).
My sincere condolences to Jerry’s wife, Michèle. Shelo tedei od deava.
See Obituaries: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article6790514.ece
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/professor-jerry-cohen-maverick-philosopher-who-subjected-marxism-to-the-rigours-of-analytical-philosophy-1770667.html


EUROPEAN JOURNALISM-FELLOWSHIPS in BERLIN

Journalists from across Europe and the United States are invited to apply for the European Journalism-Fellowships, offered by the International Center for Journalism at Freie Universität Berlin. Participants are given the opportunity to take a two-semester leave from their professional positions and spend a sabbatical year of research at Freie Universität Berlin, widening their knowledge while pursuing a major research project. At the same time, the programme enables participants to network with professional colleagues from Eastern and Western Europe and the United States. The programme starts in October 2010 and ends in July 2011. Highly qualified journalists in either staff positions or freelance employment with several years of professional experience are eligible to apply.








The most important element of the fellowship application is an exposé for a scientific-journalistic research project to be pursued in Berlin. Applications can be submitted in German or in English. Written proof certifying good knowledge of the German language is required for participation (e.g. Goethe-Institut, German Academic Exchange Service).

The closing deadline for applications is November 1, 2009 for all scholarships.

Junior Fellowship: for journalists from Central and Eastern Europe with about five years of professional experience. Junior Fellows receive a monthly stipend of 800 up to 1,000 Euros for the duration of ten months.

Standard Fellowship: endowed with a monthly stipend of between 1,100 and 1,500 Euros − depending on the level of professional experience (at least 5 years) for the duration of ten months.

Superior Fellowship of the Berlin State Parliament Foundation:
One outstanding journalist with a PhD degree from one of the former Allied Nations of the Second World War (CIS-States, France, Great Britain, and USA) may be awarded an extraordinary scholarship from the Berlin State Parliament Foundation. The Scholarship includes a monthly stipend of 1,300 Euros plus accommodation for the duration of 12 months. Applicants must submit required documents in German: application form, CV and an exposé for the research project. In addition, applicants must submit a review of their exposé by an expert scientist or professor (in German or English).

About the European Journalism-Fellowships:
The European Journalism-Fellowships are funded by renowned media enterprises and foundations in cooperation with Freie Universität Berlin. Current sponsors include the Federal Foreign Office, the FAZIT-Foundation (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), Helsingin Sanomat Foundation and the Foundation Presse-Haus NRZ, as well as four major political foundations: Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation, Hanns-Seidel-Foundation, Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation, and Heinrich-Böll-Foundation.

Since 1999, 117 journalists from 30 nations have benefited from the opportunity to spend a sabbatical year of research in Berlin. Over the years, a close alumni network of journalists in Europe has emerged. So, the programme European Journalism-Fellowships of the International Center for Journalism at Freie Universität Berlin has established itself as an important institution for journalists at the European level. For the future of European integration, especially the convergence of Eastern and Western Europe, it will be increasingly important for journalists to have specific knowledge about their neighbouring countries, to have international contacts, and to become versed in different cultures. Our aim is to support the professional and personal development of journalists in this spirit.

For more detailed information and application form please contact:

Europäische Journalisten-Fellowships Internationales Journalisten-Kolleg
Freie Universität Berlin
Otto-von-Simson-Str. 3
14195 Berlin
Germany
Telephone: ++49 / (0)30 / 838 - 533 15
Telefax: ++49 / (0)30 / 838 - 533 05
Internet: www.ejf.fu-berlin.de
E-mail: ejf@zedat.fu-berlin.de


The IHRT Robert H. Jackson Prize for Human Rights








The IHRT Robert H. Jackson Prize for Human Rights will be awarded for human rights work from 2008-2009. The IHRT is now accepting open nominations to an organisation or individual who you think should be honored. The nominees with be presented in the fall session. Organisations or individuals directly connected to any commissioner will not be considered. You have until September 15th to submit your nominees. You may send your choice to mail@internationalhumanrightstribunal.ning.com.

See http://internationalhumanrightstribunal.org/robertjacksonprize.aspx

Visit International Human Rights Tribunal at: http://internationalhumanrightstribunal.ning.com


World Youth Movement Announces 2009 Global Essay Contest

The World Youth Movement for Democracy (World Youth Movement) is seeking submissions for its 6th annual Global Essay Contest, which focuses on young people’s perspectives on and engagement with democracy as a way to connect them to larger democracy movements. Through the contest, the World Youth Movement also hopes to demonstrate that there are fundamental characteristics of democracy that have the potential to cross cultures. There will be 15 regional winners on the regional level who will be awarded all-expenses paid opportunities to participate in the 6th Assembly of the World Movement for Democracy in Jakarta, Indonesia next year. Submissions are due September 15, 2009, and regional winners will be announced on World Youth Day for Democracy, October 18, 2009. The Global Essay Contest is generously sponsored by the Hurford Foundation based in New York City.








For more information, go to: www.wymd.org/contests.html

To see the World Youth Movement’s recently redesigned Web site, go to: www.wymd.org


KNIGHT FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMME SEEKS APPLICANTS

The International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) is now taking applications for its Knight International Journalism Fellowships programme, which recognises outstanding journalists who have demonstrated leadership qualities with at least 10 years experience in the profession. Successful fellows will be placed in Indonesia, Malaysia, Malawi, Senegal and Mozambique for a minimum of one year. In Indonesia, the fellow is expected to launch a digital media association and create a code of ethics for online journalists while in Malaysia, the fellow will integrate a citizen journalism network into a digital newsroom.





To apply for a Knight Fellowship, follow this link:
http://tinyurl.com/ly2sr6


New Articles

Amos Guiora has recently published two papers:
“International Law: Where Have we Been; Where are we Going” (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1428023) ;
abstract:
The need to operationalize international law from the perspective of the commander is, I suggest, an absolutely critical requirement of academics, policy-makers, human rights organizations, and military commanders (junior and senior alike). Otherwise, the commander will be stuck with yesterday’s rules in today's - and tomorrow's - conflict. The inherent unsuitability of these rules to the conflict will both make public international law increasingly irrelevant from the perspective of the single most important practitioners - the commanders - and will do a fundamental disservice to those who most critically need its protection - innocent civilians. The innocent civilian is entitled to international humanitarian law protections. That is obvious. If the individual is a combatant and therefore meets criteria to be defined as legitimate target then, all bets are off, with the caveat that the soldier must act when dealing with this combatant in accordance with the critical principles of international law: proportionality, alternatives, military necessity, and collateral damage. But what is the solider to do when the scenario is in the hazy, foggy middle that defies easy categorization and classification? The extremes are easy, the middle is complicated. Classic international law and international humanitarian principles are clear with respect to the former; I suggest they are unhelpful regarding the latter. Unfortunately, operational counterterrorism is most complicated in the haze that is all but inevitable when facts are unclear, how is the soldier to act? Relying on time-honored principles developed in different operational contexts may not provide sufficient guidelines.

“Religious Extremism: A Fundamental Danger” (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1427998);
abstract:
Terrorism constitutes one of the gravest threats against democratic societies in the 21st century; in particular, religiously motivated terrorism. Why is this the case? There are many reasons. Religion is a powerful motivator for both positive social change and mass violence. It is a force in society that is difficult for many in a secular society to truly understand. It is an institution that is protected in civil society, whether by a state's own Constitution or international agreements.

Given that religious violence constitutes such a grave threat to democracies, governments must begin to examine this institution more critically than they have in the past. Governments are charged not only with protecting civil liberties, like freedom of or from religion, but with protecting their citizens from internal and external threats. This Article discusses the framework modern democratic governments must begin to institute if they are to protect freedom of religion and effectively respond to a unique threat to safety. Five countries - the United States, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Israel and the Netherlands - will be examined. My primary thesis is that civil societies cannot afford to continue to treat religion as an "untouchable" subject - we must begin to understand what religion is in order to know when and how it may be appropriately limited for the benefit of society.


My New Article

“Regulating Hate and Racial Speech in Israel”, Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 17 (2009), pp. 101-110.

ABSTRACT
Israel is a Jewish democracy. It is founded on Halacha (Jewish law) and on liberal principles. While some segments of Jewish orthodoxy believe there is no room for freedom because all is dictated by the Almighty, liberal ideology is based on the tenets of freedom. While some segments of Jewish orthodoxy believe that all Jews are in the same boat, and must sink or swim together, liberalism believes in tolerance and in a “live and let live” attitude. The tension between the two basic foundations of Israel is noticeable and significant.
In this paper, I discuss the question whether the liberal State should prosecute people for preaching hate. After presenting both sides of argument, I argue that the State ought to weigh the costs of allowing hate speech as well as the risks involved, and balance these against the costs and risks to democracy and free speech censorship. Considering Israel’s special circumstances, its legal framework, and recent trends following Israel’s evacuation of the Gaza Strip I argue that in a perfect world we would respond to hate with education, not criminal laws. But our world is not perfect and history shows that hate speech might lead to horrible crimes. Therefore, legal intervention may be warranted to fight racism and bigotry. At the same time we should insist on satisfying some stringent requirements before we pursue the legal avenue. The law may be appropriate but only in significant rare circumstances.

As ever, I’d be happy to circulate my new article to interested parties.


New Books

Mercedes S. Hinton and Tim Newburn (eds.), Policing Developing Democracies (Abingdon: Routledge, 2009).







There are enormous challenges in establishing policing systems in young democracies. Such societies typically have a host of unresolved pressing social, economic and political questions that impinge on policing and the prospects for reform. There are a series of hugely important questions arising in this context, to do with the emergence of the new security agenda, the problems of transnational crime and international terrorism, the rule of law and the role of the police, security services and the military.

This is a field that is not only of growing academic interest but is now the focus of a very significant police reform ‘industry’. Development agencies and entrepreneurs are involved around the globe in attempts to establish democratic police reforms in countries with little or no history of such activity. Consequently, there is a growing literature in this field, but as yet no single volume that brings together the central developments.

This book gathers together scholars from political science, international relations and criminology to focus on the issues raised by policing within developing democracies examining countries in Eastern Europe, Asia, South America and Africa.


Gad Yackobi, Encounters in the Course of My Life (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2009).

The book appears after Gad’s premature death. In it, Gad tells his encounters and impressions of leaders he met and worked with, including David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, Henry Kissinger and Yigal Alon. As a poet, Gad had close contacts with some of Israel’s most notable poets. Here he speaks of Dalia Rabikovitz, Yair Horowitz, and Nathan Yonathan.








I have accompanied this book, as Gad was writing it, debating which people to include, and in what light to present them. It is an interesting book that manifests the complex personality of Gad Yackobi: Intelligent, sensitive, restrained, calculated, a person of measured words and sharp eye, one who is acutely aware of people qualities (including his own) and deficiencies (including his own). Gad liked to quote from Heraclitus, “Character is destiny”. By this he meant that he wished he could have behaved differently, but could not as his character did not allow him. With a more elastic conscience, and bolder elbows, Gad felt that he could have achieved higher than he did.

The book is dedicated to Gad’s wife and friend, Esther Bachrach. I thank Esther for her continued friendship.


Israel in the Davis Cup Semi-Finals

On July 11, 2009, Israel won a place in the Davis Cup semifinals for the first time in history after completing a stunning victory over tennis giant Russia 3:0 in Tel Aviv.

First, Harel Levy won his game against Andreev who is ranked far above him. Levy, ranked 210 in the world, set the tone for the series when he upset world number 24 Igor Andreev, 6-4, 6-2, 4-6, 6-2.

Then Dudi Sela led Israel to a 2:0 lead after the first day of tennis. Sela, ranked 33 in the world, came from one set down to beat former world number eight Mikhail Youzhny, 3-6, 6-1, 6-0, 7-5.

The following day, doubles pair Andy Ram and Yoni Erlich closed out a 3-0 series sweep for Israel in its quarterfinal against Russia, defeating Marat Safin (former No. 1 player in the world) and Igor Kunitsyn in five sets, 6-3, 6-4, 6-7 (3), 4-6, 6-4.

Ram and Erlich, the 2008 Australian Open doubles champions, said the Davis Cup win was the biggest moment of their careers. "This is something I will cherish for all of my life," said Erlich.







Two-time Davis Cup winner Russia had made it to the semifinals in each of the past five years. In contrast, Israel had only reached the quarterfinals once before, losing to India in New Delhi in 1987.

Israel will play Spain, with Rafael Nadal, No.2 player in the world, away in the semifinals, which will take place on September 18-20. This might prove to be a too-high barrier to pass.


Alfred Hitchcock










One of my favourite directors is Alfred Hitchcock. I recently watched some of his (mostly) earlier films. Juno and the Paycock (1930) did not go into oblivion only because of its director. There are hardly signs of the man who knew his audience so well, knew how to thrill them, to evoke suspense, to frighten them.








Secret Agent (1936) is a far better film. The acting is not to the standard that we are used today, but we begin to notice the Hitchcock touch. The plot is interesting, with some twists that Hitch will develop further and master better later in his career.








Young and Innocent (1937) is about seemingly docile situation that blows up in a young man's face. While wandering the beach, he comes across the dead body of a woman he knew. As he runs to go get help, two ladies think he is running away from the body. As his trial proceeds, he is able to duck out in a rather unconvincing way and go on the lam with the charming daughter of the chief of police. With her help, they go to prove his innocence. The acting is not very convincing. The man behaves like James Bond, not like a normal person whose misfortune brought on him this rather scary business. The policemen are pathetic, a theme that Hitch will build up later in his films.








At the age of 5, Hitch’s father called the police to teach him a lesson after he misbehaved. The policeman took his job rather seriously and locked young Hitch for a few minutes in a cell. This left quite an impression on Hitchcock and may explain the love/hate relationships he had with the police, evident in his films.

The main reason to watch this rather forgotten (for good reasons) film is Nova Pilbeam. She is simply delightful, captivating, a joy to watch.

Hitch returns to this theme of wrongly-accused person fighting for his innocence in The Wrong Man (1956) about a man is tried for crimes committed by a look-alike robber. This is a far better movie, with the legendary Henry Fonda who was, as ever, superb.

The Wrong Man is a serious film. You will notice that from the first moment, as Hitch presents the film in his own particular way. He stands in the dark, we don’t see his face, only hear him saying that this is a true story, based on real facts that are hard to imagine, but yet true. From then on, the focus is on Fonda who carries the majority of the film on his shoulders. Hitch even avoided his usual cameo appearances as he did not wish us to distract even for a minute from the misfortunes of the wrongly-accused man.









Henry Fonda, one of Hollywood all-time greatest actors, plays musician Manny Balestrero, a man who leads a quiet life with his wife and two boys, when one day he is believed to be a serial armed robber. Manny is arrested and charged with the crimes. He is identified by several witnesses, and his life break apart. Fonda is quiet, contained, submissive, in a place where he does not belong, playing in accordance to rules he does not understand. When he is able to somehow collect himself, his wife Rose (Vera Miles), so terribly distraught by the ordeal, losses her sanity.

Jamaica Inn (1939) is a pirate adventure based on a soapy gothic tale by Daphne du Maurier. It is about a beautiful young woman who arrived at the evil Jamaica Inn. The inn is the hiding place for a band of pirates who lure ships unto the rocks, murder the crew, and pillage. The head of the organization is Charles Laughton at his pompous, dark best. He is in control of every scene, overacting and winking at the audience. The young woman is caught up in her trust for this man, and finds herself in his clutches by the end of the movie. The dark side of Hitchcock is very apparent.







Charles Laughton and Maureen O'Hara star is this film. Indeed, it was the first O’Hara film (she was eighteen year-old at the time) and here already we notice her acting qualities. Laughton was never one of my favourite actors. He marveled in playing loathsome characters. No reason to like him in this film where he plays an especially ugly, ostentatious, and evil character.

Jamaica Inn was Hitch’s last British picture before he moved to Los Angeles, and one of his most successful. In March 1939, Hitchcock moved to Hollywood to begin his contract with the powerful David O. Selznick.

Notorious (1946) is a brilliant allegory of love and betrayal, where Hitchcock fuses two of his favorite themes: suspense and romance. A beautiful woman with a tainted past (Ingrid Bergman) is enlisted by American agent Devlin (Cary Grant) to spy on a ring of Nazis in post-war Rio. Her espionage work becomes life-threatening after events force her to marry one of the leaders of the Nazi ring, Alex (Claude Rains). Only Devlin can rescue her, but to do so he must face his role in her desperate situation and acknowledge that he has loved her all this time, something that the macho Grant was reluctant to do. But the knight on the white horse finally arrives in the last moment to rescue the poor and stunningly beautiful Bergman from the Nazi poisonous husband. As we say in Hebrew, Ba LeZion Goel.









The main reason to watch this film is undoubtedly Bergman. Every moment of her on the screen is a joy to watch. Her performance is unforgettable, conveying much more with her eyes and subtle facial expressions than with words. Hitchcock enjoyed such a privileged position that he could choose almost any actor for any role in his films, and he chose the best.

The Paradine Case (1947) stands as a rare Hitchcock courtroom drama. It is one of the Hitch-Selznick films, where Selznick also wrote the script. A beautiful woman Maddalena Anna Paradine (played by Alida Valli) stands accused of murdering her wealthy, blind husband. She enlists the aid of renowned lawyer Anthony Keane (Gregory Peck). As they prepare her defense, the chemistry between the two begins to heat up. And as his emotions for Mrs. Paradine grow stronger, Keane grows more convinced of her innocence. The case will be a difficult one, however, as the judge (Charles Laughton, again) is no friend of Keane's; the Queen's prosecutor, played by the excellent Leo G. Carroll, is a serious foe; and only an inspired defense will have any chance of clearing Mrs. Paradine. Only after a series of stunning upsets does Keane realize that, for the first time in his career, he has allowed his heart to rule his head. In a typically perverse Hitchcockian development, the film's most unpleasant character (as usual), an autocratic, vindictive judge played by Laughton, is one of the few who can see through Anna's facade. A small fortune was invested to construct an exact replica of the Old Bailey courtroom for the court scenes.









Peck is one of my all-time favourites. I regard him as one of the very greatest but his American accent sometimes seemed odd, misfit in the Old Bailey courtroom. Yet Peck is still a great actor, and I LOVE court room dramas.

The film was a box-office disappointment, spelling the end of the always-rocky association between Hitch and the mighty Selznick. Hitch wanted Greta Garbo to play Anna Paradine, and indeed a screen test was filmed, but Garbo ultimately declined. Hitch also wanted to cast Laurence Olivier or Ronald Colman as Anthony Keane, but Selznick asserted his power as studio head to insist that Hitchcock use Peck.
Stage Fright (1950) is another crime film, revolving around theatre (a special venue for Hitchcock), with a very strong cast, including Jane Wyman, Marlene Dietrich, Michael Wilding and Richard Todd. Hitchcock's daughter Patricia made her movie debut in this film.
Though Hitchcock had lived and worked in Hollywood since 1939, this thriller was filmed on location in London, and all the cast, with the exception of Wyman and Dietrich, were British.








The film is about a murder, police investigation of the murder, while the two murderers trying to evade punishment, and one of them (Dietrich) tries to implicate the other (Todd), who is terribly in love with Dietrich thus incapable to see what is going on. To his help comes Wyman, who loves him and is determined to help. She does more than her fare share trying to save Todd, and in the process falls in love with the charming police detective (Wilding). The plot includes many Hitch humorous hints so as to tell the viewers not to take the story very seriously. Hitch is showing in this film yet again his ingenuity, starting the film with a false flashback, which leads the spectator to think that Dietrich was the sole murderer.
Topaz (1969) Adapting from his own bestseller, Leon Uris wrote the original screenplay for this cold war spy story. Alfred Hitchcock asked for a rewrite by Samuel Taylor, who had proven experience in writing complex plots; he worked with him on Vertigo, but this long and sometimes tiring movie still contains far too much plot, too many explanations, and not enough character depth to bring this lukewarm thriller to life. Shot around the globe with a cosmopolitan, if not particularly starry, cast (Frederick Stafford, John Vernon, Michel Piccoli, Philippe Noiret, John Forsythe, Dany Robin, Karin Dor, Roscoe Lee Browne), the action centres on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the presence of double agents in the French secret service, one collaborates closely with the USA, and two others with the Russians.


Some of the scenes are hard to believe. I sincerely hope that the secret agencies around the world conduct their affairs more professionally. Hitch preferred to shoot many of the street scenes in the studio and this is noticeable. Everyone speaks very good English, including the French and the Cubans; this hardly helps the film’s credibility. When the film was done, prescreening were held and the audience was very negative in its reaction, saying that the film was dull, poor, bad, hardly a Hitch movie, asking to shorten the film (the film was shortened by some 30 minutes but it is still far too long) and to change the ending scene! Hitchcock eventually shot three different endings for an average film of his Hollywood career. The DVD contains all three final scenes, one of them made it to the film.


Gems of the Month

David Broza

In a special concert in Tel Aviv, Broza celebrated 25 years to his smash mid-Eighties record HaIsha She'Etee (The Woman by My Side), inviting artists (Yehonathan Gefen, Yael Levy, Yasmin Levy and others) who accompanied his career. For two hours, Broza sang his best songs while communicating with the full-house audience. At the end of the concert, before the encores, a representative of the Spanish Embassy came on stage and honoured Broza with an Order of Merit Medal, for his continued work in bringing together the Spanish and Israeli music cultures, and furthering Spanish music in Israel. It was a moving evening, with many magical moments.










See http://www.davidbroza.net/hp/



Havdala









Shmuel Hasfari is my beloved Israeli playwright. He has the ability to reflect on fascinating facets of the Israeli society with sensitivity and humour and his last play, Havdalah (“Separation”, a ceremony that marks the symbolic end of Shabbat and holidays, and ushers in the new week) is the best play I have seen this year.









Hasfari also wrote "Kiddush", "Shivaa", "Hamets", "Acordionim", "Tashmad" and "Milano". His play "The Master of the House" (In Hebrew: "Eeshah. Ba-al. Bayit.") 2003 Award-winner for Best Play in Israel, received its American Premiere at the Laguna Playhouse in March 2007, directed by Richard Stein. Slowly but surely, Hasfari has established himself as one of the most talented playwrights in our history.


Tel Aviv Promenade








Beautiful as ever, busy and lively. French is spoken as frequently as Hebrew. This year I noticed other languages as well: Italian, French, Portuguese, English, American, German, Spanish. The bustling promenade is my favourite place on earth. Thanks to Glia and Assaf Ofek, who welcomed us into their home, perfectly situated 7 minutes walk from the Frishman Beach, I was able to start many of my days swimming, reading, relaxing and walking on the beach. Saturday morning, 8 a.m., the stunning promenade is livelier than the peak hours of the busiest streets of Hull and Beverley, combined.

Lighter Side

A person comes to his rabbi, excited and most troubled.
“What happened?” Asked the rabbi.
“My wife is poisoning me”, answered the man.
“That’s terrible”, said the rabbi. “How do you know?”
“I am telling you”, answered the man. “I know. She is poisoning me”.
The rabbi put his hand on the man’s shoulder, trying to calm him. “Let me talk to her, and we shall see what I find”.








After one week, the rabbi calls the man: “I want to see you”.
The man rushes to his rabbi, anxious to hear what the wise rabbi has to say.
The rabbi: “I spoke with your wife; for four hours. Do you wish to hear my advice?”
“Yes”, said the man.
“Take the poison”.


Enjoy the rest of the summer, peace and love.

Yours as ever,

Rafi


My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com/
Earlier posts at my home page: http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/

People wishing to subscribe to this Monthly Newsletter are welcome to e-mail me at r.cohen-almagor@hull.ac.uk

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Politics – June 2009


If only all year could be summer. A wonderful season indeed.

This month was a month of speeches. First Obama’s speech in Cairo, and then Netanyahu’s speech at Bar-Ilan University (Bibi continues to copy Obama, suddenly making a significant speech at a local university). There was nothing significantly new in both speeches. New was the tone of Obama’s speech. Obama is extending a hand to the Muslim world, clearly wishing to open a new chapter of understanding and cooperation between the leader of the free world, and the mighty Muslim world.







Netanyhau, apparently, had to say something. There is no vision in his speech and no horizon for peace between Israel and Palestine during the Netanyahu administration. Everything will remain stalled, as the Israeli government is more interested in enlarging settlements and expanding Jewish territory at the expense of the Palestinians, rather than make significant concessions in order to come close to the reality of a two-state solution. Each day of the present government makes this reality a foggy, far-fetched dream. The result: more bloodshed, hostilities, nightmares.





This month is also a month of momentous events in Iran. I have yet to read a well-informed article about Iran, one that could actually explain what is going on there, and what are the likely results. There are many “wishful-thinking experts”. None actually envisaged the elections results that apparently were much closer than what people said, and the eruption of mass demonstrations. We all will continue to monitor the events closely.

Gilad Shalit is still in captivity. The government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority should invest in Gilad’s release for Palestinian prisoners’ exchange. It should be one of their top priorities. Veshavu banim legvulam.


Obama-Netanyahu; Iran; USA Resumes Relationships with Syria; Peace and War Index – May 2009; Yet Another Missed Opportunity; Facebook Disables 'Hate Muslims' Group; Holocaust Denial Is Hateful per se; Net Responsibility in Democracies; Salutation – Libby and Len Traubman; In Memory - Sheila Finestone (1927-2009); 2009 LORENZO PRIZE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY; Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA) and Luis Alfonso De Alba Win Press Emblem Campaign Award; Freedom to Create Prize; My Visit to Israel; My New Article; New Books; Note on the New Books Section; Novel – Q & A; English Football; Euro Economics; July Vacation


Obama-Netanyahu

The 25th Association for Israel Studies Conference was recently hosted by Sapir College, Sderot. Sadly, Sapir did not wish to take any risks and held the conference in the nearby city of Beer-Sheva. Sapir Academic College was a target for terrorist rocket attacks from Gaza. Sad reality. Israel. 2009.

The conference was attended by many leading scholars of Israel studies. The shared belief of my American colleagues was that the bond between Israel and the USA will remain unshaken. This is the result of common interests, shared beliefs, mutual warm sentiments, and friendly history. However, Obama and Netanyahu remain on a clashing course. The relationship in the near future will be tenuous.

I don’t think Obama is hostile to Israel, or neutral in his attitude to Israel. He reiterates the administration's unreserved commitment to Israel. He wishes to promote security and stability in the Middle East (I realistically refrain from writing “peace”), and put pressure on both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to take concrete steps in the right direction. Here are the issues:

Iran – the USA does not wish Israel do something that is not coordinated with the Obama administration. Talks about Israel’s pre-emptive attack on Iran are unsettling and unwelcomed.

Two-state solution – the Israeli cabinet is unified in its willingness to push forward such a solution. I suspect that at least some of its members are not sincere when they say that the issue is on the table. In any event, words alone will not suffice. The concrete steps on the ground are contrary to such a solution.

Settlements – The Obama administration is concentrating its efforts to halt the expansion of settlements. Israel remains adamant, speaking of the settlements’ “natural growth”. More than 300,000 Israelis reside in the West Bank, and the number is growing. Immigrants are sent to the West Bank. Concretely, what Israel does is creating facts on the ground that establishes a “Greater Israel” at the expense of a future Palestine.

Aid to the Palestinian Authority – USA does not need Israel’s consent and will provide such assistance whatever Israel may say. Such assistance will be provided when the Obama administration thinks that this will serve American interests in the region. The scale will be decided as events unfold and the PA’s ability to sustain quiet is proven.

Arab Peace Plan – the Obama administration is eager to see many Arab countries participating in the peace talks. The larger the involvement, the greater likelihood that the hopeful agreement will hold water and be sustainable. Israel’s interests are different as it is one state against many countries, and the power of its voice might be reduced when the number of potentially hostile participants is large. Israel needs the USA's constant reassurance that Israel’s best interests will not be sacrificed.

Security checkpoints – The Palestinians emphasize time and again that Israel’s security needs do not require the excessive number of checkpoints presently installed in the West Bank. Israel thinks differently. What is required is good will and trust between the two sides. These precious commodities are scarce at the moment. For the USA to intervene, a meticulous military inspection is required. This will not be welcomed by Israel.

Gaza blockade, and the passage of construction and other necessary material to the Strip – Obama wishes to see more positive steps to provide relief to the Gazans. Israel is not happy to cooperate, as Hamas continues to engage in terrorism and shows no intention of even recognizing Israel, let alone living side by side with the Zionist state. This is another bone of contention between Obama and Netanyahu.


Iran

I am sure you are following the events in Iran after the elections. Unsurprisingly, the Holocaust-denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reelected. Unclear to what extent the elections were kosher. Here is one blog that followed the events in Iran: http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/blog-post_13.html

Photos
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html

While I was in Beer Sheva, Israel conducted a large-scale civil defense exercise in the face of missile attack. A siren went off all over Israel and citizens were asked to enter nearby shelters. The country is divided into small units, and administrators of each unit were asked to verify that shelters in their area are prepared to take large number of citizens for a prolonged period of time, in the event of an Iranian attack. Scary business; I hope this was a one-time exercise that will not be repeated.

However, note that the head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency recently told Congress that Iran and North Korea are cooperating on ballistic missiles. Diplomats in Vienna told the press that Iran had denied an IAEA request to install additional monitoring cameras at the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, and IAEA director-general Mohammad ElBaradei asserted that Iran desires nuclear weapons. In addition, two Hezbollah operatives were reportedly arrested in Azerbaijan, bearing Iranian passports. Iran does not cease for a moment its activities in the global web of terror.


USA Resumes Relationships with Syria

President Obama has decided to send an ambassador to Syria after a four-year hiatus, in a positive sign of the deepening engagement between the Obama administration and the Syrian government. The right way is to talk, not to ban.

The State Department informed Syria’s ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, of the decision. Mr. Obama has not yet chosen a person for the post.

“It’s a reflection of Syria being a pivotal country in terms of achieving a comprehensive peace in the region,” one senior official said. “There is a lot of work to do in the region for which Syria can play a role. For that, it helps to have a fully staffed embassy.”

The State Department has twice dispatched Jeffrey D. Feltman, the assistant secretary for the Near East, and Daniel Shapiro, a National Security Council official, to Damascus for exploratory meetings. Two weeks ago, the administration’s special envoy for the Middle East, George J. Mitchell, met with Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, for what Mr. Mitchell later said were “serious and productive discussions.”

Just before Mr. Mitchell’s visit, an American military delegation visited Damascus for talks about how Syria could contribute to the stabilization of its neighbor Iraq. American officials are worried about foreign insurgents flowing into Iraq from Syria.

The Bush administration withdrew the ambassador to Syria in 2005 to protest the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon. Washington suspects Syria of being involved in the attack, which it denies.
Since then, a chargé d’affaires has been the highest-ranking American diplomat in Damascus. The new ambassador would have to be confirmed by the Senate.

Meanwhile, the meeting between George J. Mitchell and Prime Minister Netanyahu was cancelled. The tension between the American and Israeli administrations is noticeable. Defence Minister Barak, who becomes the official/unofficial Israeli envoy to iron the differences, will come to Washington soon for discussions.

Source: Mark Landler, “Obama Will Send Envoy to Syria, Officials Say”, The New York Times (June 24, 2009).


Peace and War Index – May 2009

On the eve of President Obama’s address in Cairo, only about one-third (31%) of the Israeli Jewish public saw his position on solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as neutral. A majority of 55% think he leans more to the Palestinian side, and only 5% say he favours the Israeli side. Moreover, 60% do not trust the president to take into account and uphold Israel’s interests in his efforts to improve America’s relations with the Arab world.

One can perhaps understand, then, the view of the majority—65%—that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington was not successful (19% think that it was), even though 56% think the positions he presented there were appropriate, neither too tough nor too compliant (13% think he presented overly tough positions, 9% that they were too compliant, and the rest do not know).

Yet, despite the views Netanyahu has recently voiced on a solution to the conflict, and particularly his refusal to declare his support for a Palestinian state, an overwhelming majority of the Jewish public still thinks a settlement with the Palestinians is impossible outside of the two-states-for-two-peoples formula (67%), with only 18% saying it would be possible. A segmentation of the answers by party vote in the latest elections shows that, with the exception of the National Union, voters for all the parties see it as impossible to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians outside of the two-states-for-two-peoples solution. At the same time, the majority, 52%, opposes a two-state solution if it requires substantial concessions by Israel, compared to 41% who are prepared for an agreement entailing such concessions.

As for the settlements, the Jewish public appears to be divided on whether they contribute to or weaken the Israeli national interest, with a small majority (48%) saying they weaken it and 43% that they contribute to it. At the same time, the majority—53%—think Israel should not agree to an inclusive settlement evacuation even if reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement were to hinge on this alone, while 41% would support such an evacuation. In a cross-section by political party, only Meretz, Labour, and Kadima voters favour an evacuation of all the settlements under these circumstances; voters for all other parties oppose it.

The picture on a settlement evacuation, however, changes when it comes to isolated settlements in the heart of the Palestinian population and to the illegal outposts, as distinct from the large settlement blocs. In this case, 53% of the Jewish public think Israel should agree to an evacuation and only 29% say otherwise. Not surprisingly, there is a close connection between views on the benefit or cost of settlements and willingness to dismantle them for a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Among those who think the settlements contribute to the national interest, 74% oppose evacuating them and 23% favour it; among those who think they harm the national interest, 57% support an evacuation and 37% oppose it.

I thank Eppie Yaar for this information.


Yet Another Missed Opportunity

In a recent interview to Newsweek, Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert revealed that he suggested to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas that the Holy Basin area of Jerusalem be under no sovereignty at all and administered by a joint committee of Saudis, Jordanians, Israelis, Palestinians and Americans.
The proposal to internationalize the Holy Basin was intended to achieve a breakthrough in the negotiations around the issues of sovereignty over holy sites in Jerusalem, the issue which had reportedly caused the breakdown of the Camp David talks in July 2000. Olmert's proposal manifested his willingness to give up sovereignty over the Temple Mount, the Old City and the Mount of Olives.

Olmert also suggested to Abbas Israel withdrawal from 93.5 to 93.7 per cent of the West Bank, compensating the Palestinians with territory equivalent to 5.8 per cent of the West Bank, and allow for direct crossing between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Olmert stressed he rejected Palestinian demands to realize the right of return, and instead offered a "humanitarian gesture" of accepting a small number of Palestinian refugees, "smaller than the Palestinians wanted, a very, very limited number."
What a difference between Olmert’s good will and welcomed suggestions and his conduct in practice. The man who was elected on a two-state solution platform, who genuinely wished to bring peace, brought about two wars during three years in office. I hope that present and future prime ministers and Palestinian leaders will use the Olmert initiative as a starting point for future negotiations.

Source: Aluf Ben and Barak David, “Olmert offered to withdraw from 93% of West Bank”, Haaretz (June 23, 2009), http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1094882.html

Facebook Disables 'Hate Muslims' Group

Facebook has confirmed that it has disabled a group called "I Hate Muslims in Oz." Barry Schnitt explained: "We disabled the 'I Hate Muslims in Oz' group… because it contained an explicit statement of hate. Where Holocaust-denial groups have done this and been reported, we've taken the same action".

Facebook distinguishes between “explicit statement of hate” and Holocaust denial. Its directors believe that Holocaust denial is not hateful per se and does not therefore contravene the company's terms of service. Schnitt said: "We're always discussing and evaluating our policies on reported content, but have no plans to change this policy at this time. In addition to discussing it internally, we continue to engage with third-party experts on the issue".


Holocaust Denial Is Hateful per se

Holocaust denial constitutes a special and problematic category of speech. It is far from being innocent. Holocaust denial is a form of hate speech because it willfully promotes enmity against an identifiable group based on ethnicity and religion. It is designed to underestimate and justify murder, genocide, xenophobia and evil. Holocaust denial assumes a form of legitimacy to racism in its most evil manifestation to date, under the guise of pursuit of "truth". It speaks of an international Jewish conspiracy to blackmail Germany and other nations, to exploit others and to create Israel. It depicts a picture by which Jews conspired to create a hoax, the greatest fabrication of all time. Adolf Hitler did not plan a genocide for the Jews but wished instead to move them out of Europe. No gas chambers ever existed. This is an invention of the Jews to dramatize the mere "fact" that in every war there are casualties; WWII was no different. People from many countries were killed. Many of them were Germans. And yes, Jews were killed. And also people from other religions.

According to the deniers, the Holocaust is the product of partisan Jewish interests, serving Jewish greed and hunger for power. Some Jews disguised themselves as survivors, carved numbers on their arms and spread atrocious false stories about gas chambers and extermination machinery. It was not Germany that acted in a criminal way. Instead, the greatest criminals are the Jews. The Jews were so evil that they invented this horrific story to gain support around the world and to extort money from Germany. For their extortion and fabrication, for creating the greatest conspiracy of all times, they deserve punishment, possibly even death. Jews are demonic and crooked people who deserve to die for making up this unbelievable tragedy. In effect, the ultimate purpose of Holocaust denial is to legitimize another Holocaust against Jews.

Thus, those who deny the Holocaust are anti-Jewish. It is demeaning to deny the Holocaust for it is to deny history, reality, and suffering. Holocaust denial might create a climate of xenophobia that is detrimental to democracy. It generates hate through the rewriting of history in a vicious way that portrays Jews as the anti-Christ, as destructive forces that work against civilization. Hateful messages desensitize members of the public on very important issues. They build a sense of possible acceptability of hate and resentment of the other which might be more costly than the cost of curtailing speech. Hate speech, in its various forms, is harmful not only because it offends but because it potentially silences the members of target groups and interferes with their right to equal respect and treatment. Hateful remarks are so hurtful that they might reduce the target group member to speechlessness or shock him/her into silence. The notion of silencing and inequality suggests great injury, emotional upset, fear and insecurity that target group members might experience. Hate undermines the individual’s self-esteem and standing in the community.

People, especially young people, are open to challenge truisms, ask questions, raise concerns, refute and debate. The next generation may hold debates on the Holocaust as today we hold debates on the Armenian genocide/massacre, bringing different voices; some of which will confirm there was a Holocaust, other refute this statement. Young people may grow to think critically about the Holocaust: As some say there was Holocaust while others say there was not, possibly, so they might be inclined to think, the truth is in the middle. Meaning, there were episodes of mass killings of Jews, but there was no systematic plan to execute all the Jews of the world. Downsizing the Holocaust is most probable. It is also most troubling. Of course, on this issue, the natural logical tendency of seeking the middle ground is fundamentally mistaken.

Facebook and other Internet Service Providers should reconsider their position on Holocaust denial as it often does violate their general terms of service. Don’t keep silent in the face of hate. We learned that silence is conducive to the spread of hatred and bigotry, and that harmful words might lead to harmful action. There is a direct link between hate speech and hate crimes. Hate messages deserve our full attention. They should be condemned and delegitimized before they create ripe circumstances for murdering the targets of hate.


Net Responsibility in Democracies

I am now writing a book about social and moral responsibility on the Internet. Recently I was invited to present the first part of the research at the Second Annual Berkeley-GW Privacy Law Scholars Conference in Berkeley. Abstract infra. I’d be happy to send my (rather lengthy) paper to interested parties for comments and criticisms.

I thank the conference organizers, Chris Hoofnagle and Daniel Solove for their kind invitation.

Abstract
The Internet's design and raison d'être are complete freedom, but soon enough people began to exploit the Net's massive potential to enhance partisan interests, some of which are harmful and anti-social. Given that the Internet has been a part of our lives for a relatively short time, the discussions about the costs and harms of the Internet, and how to address them, are in their infancy. The transnational nature of the World-Wide-Web makes regulation very difficult, if not impossible.
In this paper I wish to address the ethical, social and legal problems rooted in technology in response to potential risks on the Internet. The Internet is not the problem. The problem arises where it is utilized to undermine our well-being. This study provides a theoretical framework within which global problems such as racism, child pornography, terrorism and suicide promotion can be addressed and resolved. Informed by the different experiences of a number of democracies, this study harnesses the capacities of the public and private sectors in reaching viable, practical solutions.
In the focus of my discussion are the neglected concepts of moral responsibility and of social responsibility, adopting them to the Internet realm. I will discuss and explain the concepts and their implications on people and society. I then address the issue of moral and social responsibilities of Net users (agents), focusing, inter alia, on the tragic story of Megan Meier. Next I move on to discuss the responsibilities of ISPs and web-host companies. Should they take effort to monitor their sites for such information or are they relieved of any responsibility? This is arguably the most intriguing and complex issue of Net responsibility. I argue that ISPs and web-hosting companies should aspire to take responsibility for content, and that they should respect and abide by the laws of the countries in which they operate. The dream of a medium that transcends geographical borders and facilitates unlimited and inexpensive access to consumers without any regulatory restrictions is over. A case in point is LICRA v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo! France (2000). Next I turn to the issue of readers’ moral and social responsibilities: Responsibility of people who encounter malicious postings on the Internet, some of which might be damaging and harmful. Should they simply read the postings and move on or do something about it? Then I discuss state responsibility and finally reflect on the responsibility of the international community. I argue for international cooperation to address international concerns.


Salutation – Libby and Len Traubman

While in San Francisco I took part in a dialogue meeting, organized by Libby and Len Traubman. For the past two years, the retired couple are devoting their lives to promote peace and understanding between Jews and Palestinians. They have organized dialogue groups in the Bay area, designed to provide a listening platform and exchange between people who are concerned about the Israeli-Palestinians conflict, and wish to understand the other. Dialogue is about telling personal stories, understanding the other via his/her thoughts, feelings, fears, aspirations. Dialogue believes in the human dimension, in connecting between people qua people, through the humane qualities we possess. No need for great words, for the wide picture, for ideological, tendentious talk. Let’s speak instead about ourselves, trying to connect as human beings.

In the meeting in which I participated there were two Palestinians, two Israelis, and some concerned Americans. They all talked without bursting into each others’ words. They all listened. There was an exchange. This is the way to conduct conversations, and to understand one another, beyond fears, suspicion, hostility, bias, prejudice.

After the meeting, Libby and Len took me to their home in St. Mateo to continue the exchange. We have been in touch for some years, but this was our first meeting. We talked till 1 a.m., and continued talking in the morning till noon. I wish there were more people like Libby and Len who don’t only speak, but actually do quite a lot of amazing things to promote understanding between conflicting sides.

More information on their welcomed activities is available at http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm


In Memory – Sheila Finestone (1927-2009)

I was very sorry to hear of the death of former senator Sheila Finestone. Finestone was the MP for the Montreal riding of Mount Royal for more than a decade during the 1980s and 1990s. She was appointed to the senate in 1999, retiring two years later. Finestone was a compassionate social activist, and a loyal supporter of Israel. I met her a few times during my visits to Montreal as she was very eager to learn about Israeli politics, wanted to understand the Israeli scene and the differences between the parties. I certainly appreciated her ability to listen, a rare quality among politicians, and her strong desire to help Israel in any way she could.
I wish to express my sincere condolences to her family for their grave loss. Sheila will be greatly missed.


2009 LORENZO PRIZE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY

The European Commission is calling on journalists committed to reportinghuman rights, democracy and development issues to apply to the 2009 LorenzoNatali Prize. A total of 60,000 EUR will be distributed among 17 winners ata ceremony at the European Commission in Sweden.
The Lorenzo Natali Prize is open to print, TV and radio journalists workingin one of the five following regions: Africa, Asia and Pacific, LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, Europe and the Arab World and the Middle East.
To apply online, visit: http://www.nataliprize2009.eu/



Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA) and Luis Alfonso De Alba Win Press Emblem Campaign Award

On 4 June, the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA)and the Mexican Ambassador to the UN, Luis Alfonso De Alba, were jointlyhonoured in Geneva with the first Press Emblem Campaign (PEC) Award for theProtection of Journalists.
MADA was chosen for its role in providing accurate and detailed updates during the siege of journalists both in and outside Gaza, from late December 2008 to mid-January 2009. During this time, foreign media were forbidden from entering the Gaza strip to report on the bombing campaign.
"In carrying out its mission, MADA has proven even-handedness, impartialityand a neutral coverage on media violations by all parties within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories, a courageous outlook that deserves serious acknowledgment," PEC said.
Ambassador De Alba was credited for his dedication in raising the issue ofthe protection of journalists in conflict zones at the level of the UN. Helaunched a consultation process with fellow ambassadors to look atpossibilities for securing journalists' access to and safety in volatileareas.To read more about the award to MADA, see the MADA website: http://www.madacenter.org/en/?p=213%23more-213


Freedom to Create Prize

The philanthropic organisation ArtAction is seeking to "find light in darknessand courage in truth" with the 2009 Freedom to Create Prize, which honoursartists around the world who promote human rights and free expression and are denied their "freedom to create." The deadline for entries is 14 August 2009.
The prize is divided into three categories: the Main Prize is open to artists (individuals or artistic groups) in all creative fields; the Youth Prize is for artists aged 18 or younger; and the Imprisoned Artists Prize is for artists currently in jail because of their work. The total prize fund of US$125,000 is to be divided between the winning artists and advocacy organisations they designate in order to further the cause their artwork has highlighted.
For more information and to register, visit the Freedom to Create Prizewebsite: http://www.freedomtocreateprize.com/


My Visit to Israel

I plan to be in Israel from July 21 until August 12, 2009 and be happy to meet my friends. Those who wish to set time for a meeting are welcomed to contact me now, as I am beginning to organize my schedule.




My New Article

R. Cohen-Almagor and Marco Zambotti, “Liberalism, Tolerance and Multiculturalism: The Bounds of Liberal Intervention in Affairs of Minority Cultures”, in Krzysztof Wojciechowski and Jan C. Joerden (eds.), Ethical Liberalism in Contemporary Societies (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2009), pp. 79-98.
I thank Marco Zambotti for great cooperation, and Krzysztof Wojciechowski and Jan C. Joerden for their excellent editorial work.

As ever, I’d be happy to circulate my new article to interested parties.


New Books

John S. Dryzek & Patrick Dunleavy, Theories of the Democratic State (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2009). ISBN 9780230542877

The authors’ starting point is the classical theories of the state: pluralism, elite theory, Marxism and market liberalism. They then turn to the contemporary forms of pluralism prevalent in political science, systematically exploring how they address central issues, such as networked governance, globalization, and changing patterns of electoral and identity politics. They proceed to analyse a range of key contemporary critiques of modern states and democracy that have emerged from feminism, environmentalism, neo-conservatism and post-modernism. Each approach is carefully introduced and analysed as far as possible in relation to a common set of issues and headings.
Theories of the Democratic State takes the reader straight to the heart of contemporary issues and debates and, in the process, provides a challenging and distinctive introduction to and reassessment of contemporary political science.

Review- "At a time when many are rethinking the relationship between state and market, this is a very useful survey setting the issues in historical and theoretical perspective. Like its predecessor, Dunleavy and O'Leary's Theories of the State, it will be very effective for course use." - Peter A. Hall, Harvard University http://www2.lse.ac.uk/ERD/pressAndInformationOffice/publications/books/2009/TheoriesDemocraticState.aspx.

Introduction: The State and Liberal Democratic Politics
PART I: CLASSICAL VIEWS Pluralism Elite Theory Marxism Market Liberalism
PART II: PLURALIST TRANSFORMATIONS From Neo-Pluralism to Governance Competitive Electoral Politics Identity Politics
PART III: CRITIQUES OF THE STATE Democratic Critique and Renewal Feminist Theory of the State Environmental Theory of the State The Conservative Reaction
PART IV: BEYOND THE STATE Post-Modernism Globalization Current and Future Debates About the State

JOHN S. DRYZEK is Professor of Political Science and Australian Research Council Federation Fellow in the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University.
PATRICK DUNLEAVY is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy Chair at the London School of Economics and Politics Science, UK.

There are enormous challenges in establishing policing systems in young democracies. Such societies typically have a host of unresolved pressing social, economic and political questions that impinge on policing and the prospects for reform. There are a series of hugely important questions arising in this context, to do with the emergence of the new security agenda, the problems of transnational crime and international terrorism, the rule of law and the role of the police, security services and the military.

This is a field that is not only of growing academic interest but is now the focus of a very significant police reform ‘industry’. Development agencies and entrepreneurs are involved around the globe in attempts to establish democratic police reforms in countries with little or no history of such activity. Consequently, there is a growing literature in this field, but as yet no single volume that brings together the central developments.

This book gathers together scholars from political science, international relations and criminology to focus on the issues raised by policing within developing democracies examining countries in Eastern Europe, Asia, South America and Africa.


Ruth Wodak, The Discourse of Politics in Action - Politics as Usual (Palgrave, 2009).

Nowadays we have unprecedented levels of access to information; politics and the media share a closer relationship than ever before, and the more successful politicians acquire the status of quasi-celebrities. Despite this, there is widespread disenchantment with politics, a growing cynicism about the political process, and much concern about the so-called 'democratic deficit'.
And yet, how much do we actually know about the real world of politics? Is our eroding trust in politicians based on a lack of understanding about the activities they actually engage in?
In an extensive critical ethnography of the European Parliament, typical 'orders and disorders of discourse' are identified that illustrate the discursive mechanisms by which politics are organised in this and other (transnational, national and regional) arenas. The intricate complexity of 'powerknowledge' in the daily quest for hegemony is analysed in detail, carefully documenting politicians' movement across many 'communities of practice', employing a huge range of genres, conversational styles, argumentative moves, and (in)direct pragmatic devices, as part of their 'professional habitus'. Furthermore, this critical discourse analysis is juxtaposed with its fictionalised representation in the American TV soap The West Wing, which constructs an idealized version of this 'backstage', conveying to a global audience a highly simplistic account of what politics entails. This book goes behind the scenes of politics, uncovering the reality of daily 'politics as usual', and contrasting this with the glamorised, often sensationalised world of politics presented to us on television.

RUTH WODAK is Distinguished Professor of Discourse Studies at the Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, UK (and affiliated to the University of Vienna). Besides various other prizes, she was awarded the Wittgenstein Prize for Elite Researchers in 1996. She has published widely on (European and national) Identity Politics, Racism and Discrimination, Multilingualism and Language Policies, and Politics of the Past.

http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=276612 April 2009 Hardback £50.00 978-0-230-01881-5



Note on the New Books Section

I thank all those who send me their books for inclusion. I wish to emphasize that I'm unable to publish reviews for all books received, nor do I promise to publicize all books. Publication means endorsement; thus only books I believe could enrich and educate my readers are mentioned.



Novel – Q & A

Vikas Swarup’s first and, to date, only novel is a modern Cinderella story. It takes place in the slums of India. The hero is a young boy, Ram Mohammed Thomas. His Prince on White Horse is a TV show, “Who Wants to Be Billionaire?” Why does an 18 year-old poor waiter want to participate in such a programme, and what are his chances to win? In this story, Ram becomes the Prince Charming, there to save his sweetheart from the darkest debasements of humanity, where human beings become commodity, where light, compassion, warmth are scarce, where death is more comforting than life.

Swarup’s book is witty, engaging and compelling. The unbelievable story becomes real as the plot unfolds, and we learn to know Ram and the twists and turns in his adventurous life. Swarup is a sensitive author, who blends tragic stories with a sense of humour, healthy cynicism, and understanding what are the ingredients of a good story. This is the best book I read this year.

The book was made into a film, Slumdog Millionaire. As is usually the case, the book is better than the movie. Don’t be deterred if you have seen the movie. The book is sufficiently different for you to enjoy.


English Football

It has been an excellent season for English football with dramas and excitement. It is no wonder that three of the four teams that reached the European Championship semi-finals were English. I followed my team, Tottenham Hotspur mainly on television, and Hull City in the KC stadium. Here are the players that impressed me the most. They are among the best players in the world. A joy to watch.

Goal Keeper:


Edwin van der Sar (Manchester United, The Netherlands). Quiet. Serious. Trustworthy. Excellent positioning. Excellent reading of situations.







Defence:



Patrice Evra (Manchester United, France). Best in his role in England.










John Terry (Chelsea, England). Solid. Rock.
























Rio Ferdinand (Manchester United, England). Solid. Rock.














Glen Johnson (Portsmouth, England). Not consistent as he should be. Still the best in his role (right back)


Midfield: many excellent players. I chose leaders of their respective teams.



Antonio Valencia (Wigan, Ecuador). Should move to a better team, where he could better fulfill his potential.











Cristiano Ronaldo (Manchester United, Portugal)














Steven Gerard (Liverpool, England). Player of the year.









Mikel Arteta (Everton, Spain). Superb player. His understanding of football is flawless. Master of the game.








Stephen Ireland (Manchester City, Ireland). Unbelievable he is so young. If he takes good care of himself, and fortune will be on his side, he will grow to be one of the very finest.






Giovanni (Hull, Brazil). He reminded me of an excellent student in a class of good students. Sometimes bored. Sometimes wondering what the heck is he doing with them; sometimes frustrated. It is not easy to be a diamond among stones.











Frank Lampard (Chelsea, England)













Dirk Kuyt (Liverpool, The Netherlands)











Samir Nasri (Arsenal, France). A genius with the ball. Each touch is a joy for the eyes. Few people can master the ball as well as he does.







Strikers:







Wayne Rooney
(Manchester United, England)









Fernando Torres (Liverpool, Spain). I am sorry he was injured for quite a long period. He is a kind of player that people buy a ticket to watch.






In addition, I should note:

Goal Keepers: Jose Manuel (Pepe) Reina (Liverpool, Spain); Shay Given (Manchester City, Ireland)

Defenders: Nemanja Vidic (Manchester United, Serbia), Phil Jagielka (Everton, England), Kolo Toure (Arsenal, Ivory Coast), Luke Young (Aston Villa, England)

Midfield players: Paul Scholes (Manchester United, England), Yossi Benayoun (Liverpool, Israel), Michael Essien (Chelsea, Ghana), Shaun Wright-Phillips (Manchester City, England), Andrey Arshavin (Arsenal, Russia), Gareth Barry (Aston Villa, England), James Milner (Aston Villa, England)

Strikers: Dimitar Berbatov (Manchester United, Bulgaria), Theo Walcott (Arsenal, England)


Euro Economics

To my friends that do not understand Economics and the crises we are experiencing – here's your first lesson to understand Euro Economics:

It is August. In a small town on the South Coast of France, holiday season is in full swing, but it is raining so there is not too much business happening. Everyone is heavily in debt.

Luckily, a rich Russian tourist arrives in the foyer of the small local hotel. He asks for a room and puts a Euro100 note on the reception counter, takes a key and goes to inspect the room located up the stairs on the third floor.

The hotel owner takes the banknote in a hurry and rushes to his meat supplier to whom he owes E100. The butcher takes the money and races to his supplier to pay his debt. The wholesaler rushes to the farmer to pay E100 for pigs he purchased some time ago.
The farmer triumphantly gives the E100 note to a local prostitute who gave him her services on credit. The prostitute goes quickly to the hotel, as she was owing the hotel for her hourly room use to entertain clients.

At that moment, the rich Russian is coming down to reception and informs the hotel owner that the proposed room is unsatisfactory and takes his E100 back and departs.

There was no profit or income. But everyone no longer has any debt and the small townspeople look optimistically towards their future.


July Vacation

I am taking a vacation in July. Thus, my next Newsletter will appear in late August. The Politics Newsletter is now in its ninth year, with almost 1,000 subscribers and thousand of hits on the blog. As always, I thank Sam Lehman-Wilzig and Sharon Haleva-Amir for all their help in the publication process. Sam’s wise counsel and Sharon’s technical ingenuity are invaluable.


Happy Summer, peace and love.
Yours as ever,
Rafi

My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com/ .
Earlier posts at my home page: http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca . People wishing to subscribe to this Monthly Newsletter are welcome to e-mail me at r.cohen-almagor@hull.ac.uk

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Politics – May 2009

Character is destiny. Heraclitus

Big results require big ambitions. Heraclitus


May 14, 2009: The economic crisis is now beginning to make its mark in Israel. In additional to global troubled markets, Israel experienced two costly wars in 2006-2009. Wars don’t come cheap. The government prepared the annual budget. Many cuts in all governmental offices. As always, the poor will suffer and be hurt more than any other sector. It is easy to harm them. They don’t have a strong lobby at the Knesset.

An Israeli scene: Senior officials at the Finance Office prepare the budget, and submit it to the Minister of Finance. He approves. The budget is published. Huge outcry. Many ministers object to the cuts in their offices. The Ministry of Education, a large ministry with lots of money for justified causes, is said to be hurt more than others. The Minister of Finance said that he was aware of the plans, but that the Prime Minister was not aware of it. The Prime Minister steps forward and announces that there won’t be drastic cuts in education.

Is there a need for a Minister of Finance?
The American administration makes statements that Israel did not hear in the past eight years, and more: Freezing settlements, evacuation of outposts, nuclear transparency, commitment to peace translated to concrete measures vis-à-vis the Palestinians. President Peres was sent to Washington to soften Obama before his meeting with Netanyahu. Obama and Netanyahu are on the path for collision.

Lieberman justifies his reputation and continues to air controversial statements. He called the peace process “an industry” from which some people profit. God. And this is the guy that is supposed to lead us to peace. Forget that. I hope this government will not lead us to yet another war.

One more month with the growing Iranian threat. This issue was, yet again, at the center of the AIPAC annual conference in Washington. President Peres made an eloquent speech and met with President Obama to that effect. Obama continues to say that all cards are on the table, and that no options should be ruled out, including direct negotiations. That’s fine, but we want to see some movement in any direction. The status quo serves the Iranian cause.

Prime Minister Netanyahu made his very first visit to a foreign country. On May 11, 2009 he left for Egypt for talks with President Hosni Mubarak. On the agenda: Iran. Netanyahu is seeking support against Iran's nuclear drive despite the existing discord between the two countries on the Middle East peace process, but not on Hamas.

Two days earlier, the Hamas movement's Damascus-based politburo chief Khaled Meshal said that the Palestinian Islamic movement will not accept a two-state solution as a means to end the conflict with Israel. No surprises under the sun. More bloodshed will comfort his heart.

Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that his new government will not cede the strategic Golan Heights for the sake of peace with Syria. The announcement comes after heated debate among ministers about the wisdom of pursuing the indirect contacts with Syria via Turkey launched by the former government of Ehud Olmert.

Hectic developments ensued in preparation for the Netanyahu-Obama meeting as Netanyahu crossed the border to meet with Jordan's King Abdullah II, who has been lobbying for a sweeping resolution of Israel's conflicts with the Muslim world, in step with the Obama administration's efforts to link progress on peacemaking to progress on curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions. Netanyahu, however, argues that peacemaking cannot progress until Iran's influence in the region is clipped.

In the May 14, 2009 meeting, Abdullah pressed Netanyahu to "immediately declare his commitment to a two-state solution, acceptance of the Arab peace initiative and to take necessary steps to move forward toward a solution".

It seems that Netanyahu has found an idol to imitate. In his election campaign, he more or less copied the winning formula of Obama. His Internet site had such a resemblance to Obama’s that he could have been sued for copyright violation. After his election, Obama first visited his neighbours, Canada and Mexico. Netanyahu has now visited Egypt and Jordan. Mabruk. But what about our two other neighbours, Syria and Lebanon? Hamas?

With all his yearning to become Obama, Netanyahu is not, and the first to understand this is Obama himself. Both leaders would like to maintain a good relationship. They will strive to do so; time will tell whether successfully.


Efforts to bring Gilad Shalit home should continue. Prime Minister Netanyahu said it is a top priority. But until now he did not nominate a chief negotiator to replace Olmert’s man, who resigned. I hope, for a change, to find some correlation between statements and deeds. This will be refreshing.
There was a narrow window of opportunity during the last weeks of Olmert’s government. Olmert decided, at the end, that the price was too high. Gilad remains captive.

Gilad is now more than 1000 days in captivity. It is time for Veshavu banim legvulam. See http://dogood.aish.com/gilad/

Pope’s Visit to Israel - Obama-Netanyahu Meeting - Will Russia Help the United States with Iran? - Survey: Ahmadinejad's Popularity Rises in Iran - Allegations that Gaza Patients "Forced" to Help Security Services in Exchange for Israeli Medical Treatment - Brazil: Supreme Court Strikes Down Press Law - UNESCO Launches First-ever Survey of Historical and Contemporary Slavery - Sixth Ordinary Session of the World Commission of the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (16 - 19 June 2009) - Human Rights Reporting and U.S. Foreign Policy - My Visit to Israel - My New Article -
Gad Yaakobi’s Autobiography - New Book - Movie of the Month: The Curious Story of Benjamin Button - Light Side


Pope’s Visit to Israel

As could be expected from Pope Benedict XVI, he arrived in Israel for a visit. As expected, on May 11, 2009 he used his first speech in Israel to remember the six million Jews killed by the Nazis and try to heal fresh wounds over his reinstatement of a bishop who denied the Holocaust.
"Tragically, the Jewish people have experienced the terrible circumstances of ideologies that deny the fundamental dignity of every human person," he said, going on to challenge Israel's right-leaning government by calling for a Palestinian homeland.

"I will have the opportunity to honor the memory of the six million Jewish victims of the Shoah," the German-born pope said, using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust, "and to pray that humanity will never again witness a crime of such magnitude."

In the 45 years since the Second Vatican Council repudiated the concept of collective Jewish guilt for Christ's death, Catholic-Jewish relations have been haunted by the Holocaust and the question of what the church did, or failed to do, about it.

They went through one of their worst periods after the pope in January lifted the excommunication of four traditionalist bishops, including one who denied six million Jews were killed.

The Vatican says it had not known enough about that British bishop's past and the church and Jewish religious leaders now hope the issue can be definitively closed with a visit later in the day by the pontiff to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, Israel's memorial to the victims of the Holocaust.

Pope Benedict, who flew into Israel from Jordan, lashed out at anti-Semitism, which he said "continues to rear its ugly head" in many parts of the world.

"This is totally unacceptable," he said in his speech at Ben-Gurion airport. "Every effort must be made to combat anti-Semitism wherever it is found, and to promote respect and esteem for the members of every people, tribe, language and nation across the globe."

Pope Benedict, born Joseph Ratzinger in Bavaria in 1927, was a member of the Hitler Youth and later served in the German army before deserting at the end of World War Two.

Reiterating Vatican policy, the pope called for "just resolution" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090511/ts_nm/us_pope_mideast_8


Obama-Netanyahu Meeting

On Monday, May 18, 2009, the much awaited meeting took place. Netanyahu stressed the Iranian issue. Obama stressed the Palestinian issue. The disagreements were noticeable. Netanyahu and Obama came to the meeting with competing goals. They knew this will be the case as the Israeli and American teams have been working on the agenda for quite sometime. Obama wanted Netanyahu to embrace a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Netanyahu wanted Obama to take a strong stand on the threat to Israel’s security posed by Iran.

If Obama thinks that he will be successful in offering Israel a package deal, Muslim and Arab states’ recognition of Israel and, in return, Israel will make concessions to the Palestinians, I wish him good luck but history showed that his chances to fail are great. Traditionally, Muslim and Arab states demand Israel make concrete steps before such recognition. Netanyahu will not move quickly, if at all. The Israeli electorate, by empowering Likud and Lieberman, said a clear “no” to peace.

This reflects Israel’s public stance. For some time now, since the attack on Park Hotel during Passover night in 2002, Israelis do not wish peace. Security is enough, thank you. Only dreamers, utopians, and hopeless optimists still believe in peace. Hamas has successfully awakened all the rest. (Photo - NY Times, May 19, 2009)

Iran

Obama wants time for his diplomatic overtures to work. He said that he expected to know by the end of the year whether Iran was making “a good-faith effort to resolve differences” in talks aimed at ending its nuclear program, signaling to Israel as well as Iran that his willingness to engage in diplomacy over the issue has its limits. According to the New York Times (May 19, 2009), Obama said that “We’re not going to have talks forever,” and that “We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds.” Obama added that he did not intend to foreclose “a range of steps” if Iran did not cooperate.

Obama is expecting international talks with Iran, involving six nations including the United States, to begin shortly after the Iranian elections in June, with the possibility of “direct talks” between the United States and Iran after that.

Netanyahu thanked Obama for keeping “all options on the table” with respect to Iran. This is language that Obama rarely uses, but that was invoked frequently by President Bush, typically to imply that the United States might use military force against Iran if its nuclear program progressed too far.

Israel reluctantly will wait and see what will transpire. Iran poses an existential threat with which Israel finds it difficult to live. It will coordinate its moves with the USA and all other international parties, hoping to resolve the threat via peaceful means. Possibly (but don’t hold your breath; see infra) the Iranian elections will bring good news and change of mood in the Iranian radical regime.
On May 20, 2009 The Washington Times reported that the United States and Israel are quietly forming a high-level working group to assess the progress of President Obama's outreach to Iran and to share intelligence about the Islamic Republic's nuclear weapons program. The agreement, reached during Monday's meeting between Netanyahu and Obama gives the U.S. a clear channel for communicating with the new Israeli government and a vehicle for keeping tabs on any military contingency plans Israel might make if diplomacy fails and Iran develops nuclear weapons capability.

Israel and the U.S. have long consulted closely on strategic issues, but the new working group will focus exclusively on Iran. One Israeli official said that the working group intends to meet at least once a month. "Contingencies would include sanctions and other forms of pressure".
President Reagan signed a directive forming the first U.S.-Israel strategic dialogue in 1983. It originally discussed contingency plans for downed pilots in the region. Since then, consultation between the two countries has expanded and became especially close during the last administration.
Source: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/20/us-israel-forming-working-group-on-iran/

Palestine
Obama understands that concrete trust-building steps should be made by both sides in order to bring the peace wagon back on track. He therefore pressed Netanyahu to freeze the construction of Israeli settlements on the West Bank: “Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward,” Obama said. “That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that. But it’s an important one, and it has to be addressed.”

Netanyahu did not respond. He cannot. He is leading one of the most hawkish governments in the history of Israel. If he were to accede, his government will fall apart.

Netanyahu does not wish to embrace a two-state solution. He cannot. The very first person with whom he signed coalition agreement was Avigdor Lieberman, presently his Minister of Foreign Affairs. Netanyahu was willing to concede that “I want to make it clear that we don’t want to govern the Palestinians; we want to live in peace with them.”

Netanyahu also said that he was ready to resume peace talks with the Palestinian Authority immediately, but only if the Palestinians recognized Israel as a Jewish state, something that President Abbas is not willing to do. Meaning, standstill.

One senior person in the Netanyahu delegation was reported saying that the two state solution is “childish”. He, apparently, thinks that the continuation of the occupation is mature and just. I think, and I have been saying this for many years, that this is the only sensible solution to bring some tranquility for Israel and Palestine. Concrete steps, such as dismantling illegal outposts, freezing building in the settlements, reducing the number of checkpoints, and freeing prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit, are right and prudent steps to take at this point.

To be continued.


Will Russia Help the United States with Iran?

The free world needs China and Russia for enforcing significant sanctions on Iran. This piece is about Russia. I thank Patrick Clawson, The Washington Institute, for sending this to me. I have shortened the piece a bit.

By Mark N. Katz, May 13, 2009

Russia's recent decision not to sell the S-300 antiaircraft missile system to Iran (at least for now) raised hopes that Moscow would cooperate more fully in the effort to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. Recent statements from Russian leaders indicating that they were on board with the U.S. strategy further buoyed optimism. Despite these promising signs, however, there is strong reason to doubt that Moscow's cooperation will continue.

The Need for Russian Help

While the Obama administration has been formulating its Iran strategy, Congress and many pundits have touted the need for Russian support. At the opening session of the hearing "Prospects for Engagement with Russia" held on March 19, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) observed that "Vital to our efforts toward a nuclear-free world will be a greater effort from Russia to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. The president is right to open the door to direct engagement with Iran. But it is imperative that we back a strategy of engagement with a commitment to more effective multilateral sanctions if negotiations do not bring progress. To do this effectively, we need Russia on board."
In a May 1 Wall Street Journal interview, Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser to Republican presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, said with regard to "the looming Iranian nuclear danger" that "the only chance to dissuade Iran is if the United States and Russia are linked together on Iran."

Russia's Real Agenda
Like Europe, Israel, the United States, and most Arab governments, Russia does not want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. The expectation that this will lead to joint Russian-American cooperation, however, is seriously mistaken. Moscow does not want Iran to either voluntarily renounce or be forcefully prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons if -- as Moscow fears -- this results in a diminution of Russia's value to Iran as a protector or partner. Even a nuclear-armed Iran would be preferable to Moscow than this prospect.
Moscow has little interest in working with Washington to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons for two important reasons: First, Moscow has reasonably good -- though not untroubled -- relations with Tehran. Russian firms profit from selling arms and nuclear technology to Iran, and Russian petroleum firms are actively seeking to invest in the Iranian oil and gas sectors. Moscow is also deeply appreciative that Tehran has not supported Chechen or other Muslim rebels in Russia, or challenged Moscow's influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

Moscow does not want to jeopardize any of this by seriously cooperating with Washington against Tehran. What Moscow would prefer instead is that others -- the United States, Europe, Israel, or some combination -- take the lead in confronting Tehran on the nuclear issue. If they succeed in getting Iran to halt its efforts, then Russia gains by avoiding the strategic challenge of having another nuclear power in its neighborhood. But if they fail to halt this activity, Moscow prefers that these actors -- and not Russia -- be the focus of Iran's ire. This is especially true if Iran actually acquires nuclear weapons.
Second, the Kremlin sees the Obama administration as asking Russia to risk harming its Iranian ties while Washington is openly attempting to improve Iranian-American relations. Moscow has long feared that if U.S.-Iranian ties improve, Russia's importance to Iran will diminish. Many Russian observers are convinced that Tehran would much prefer to purchase weapons, nuclear reactors, and virtually everything else from America and the West rather than from Russia. Although Moscow does not want to see open conflict between the United States and Iran (especially if it leads to greater American influence in the region), it certainly has no interest in facilitating an improvement in American-Iranian relations that the Kremlin fears will diminish Russian influence over Iran.

Medvedev's False Reassurances

First, Medvedev's alleged desire for greater cooperation with the United States does not mean that he will follow through. He knows Washington wants Russia's help, and he may hold out the prospect of collaboration to see what concessions the Obama administration might make to secure Moscow's support. Second, the Russian president's cool response to Obama's letter -- stating that there would be no need for U.S. deployment of ballistic missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic (something Moscow vociferously opposes) if there were no Iranian threat -- indicates that this concession is not enough for Moscow. Even if Medvedev meant what he reportedly told Obama, it is Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, not Medvedev, who has the final say on Russian foreign policy. Third, Putin, who has privately expressed concern to Western visitors about Iran's nuclear program, hinted during a CNN interview in August 2008 that Russian cooperation on Iran is contingent on American cooperation on Georgia. As far as Moscow is concerned, Washington's continued support for Georgia (including the recent NATO military exercises there) demonstrates that the United States is not cooperating with Russia on this issue.
Even if Washington made the concessions Moscow seeks, what help can the United States reasonably expect Russia to provide on the Iranian nuclear issue? Russia will neither take part in any forceful action against Iran, nor damage its economic relationship with the country, especially since Moscow fears that Washington is trying to snatch the Iranian market away.
Some believe that Medvedev's reputed concern about Iran's nuclear program will lead to Russian support for tougher UN Security Council sanctions against the Iranian regime. But Medvedev's alarm is more rhetorical than real, and Moscow will most likely do what it has done in the past: work with China to delay and water down a resolution introduced by the United States or one of its allies, and then try to mitigate Iranian anger by claiming that Moscow had actually protected Iran from much harsher sanctions that the United States sought to impose.

Moving Forward Without Russia
The degree of effort necessary to secure Russia's limited help is not worth Washington's time or resources: if U.S.-Iranian relations improve, Washington would not need Moscow's help, and if they do not, Russia would not be willing or able to do anything significant to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Whether the Obama administration should attempt to improve relations with Tehran is open for debate, but the notion that "We need Russia to help us with Iran" is not.

Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University.


Survey: Ahmadinejad's Popularity Rises in Iran

Meanwhile, against the backdrop of all kind of positive, wishful-thinking so-called experts and envisage the downfall of the Holocaust denier president Ahmadinejad, Iranian surveys constantly and repeatedly forecast his indisputable victory as his popularity rises.

On May 13, 2009, Press TV reported that while Ahmadinejad's popularity has grown among Iranian voters, support for Ahmadinejad's rival, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, has remained unchanged.

The survey showed that 58.6% would vote for Ahmadinejad in the June 12 presidential elections, while some 21.9% would vote for Mousavi.

A government survey conducted earlier this month showed that Ahmadinejad had 53.6% support, with Mousavi securing almost the same backing.

According to a more recent poll, 44.8% of Teheran residents would vote for Ahmadinejad while some 29% would cast their ballots in favour of Mousavi.

The Holocaust denier also enjoys the support of the supreme clergy. On June 12, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, implicitly backed Ahmadinejad. "We should elect those who have popular support and who live in a simple and modest way... are pained by the pain of the people," Khamenei said. “They should be close to people, be away from corruption. They should not be aristocrats themselves so to push people toward aristocracy."

Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212365091&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Allegations that Gaza Patients "Forced" to Help Security Services in Exchange for Israeli Medical Treatment

A report issued by Physicians for Human Rights-Israel indicates that the Shin Bet security services conduct a policy of forcing patients to provide information as a condition of being allowed to leave the Gaza Strip for medical care.

According to the human rights organization, the number of Palestinian patients who are summoned for interrogation as a precondition to receiving an exit permit from Gaza for treatment has risen. Between January 2008 and March 2009 at least 438 patients were interrogated by the Shin Bet.
The report, which was presented to the United Nations Committee against Torture, in Geneva, also shows that the Shin Bet has begun interrogating minors in need of medical care, to photograph patients against their will, and to detain patients for undisclosed periods of time. According to testimonies, patients who do not cooperate are returned to Gaza without receiving a permit to exit the territory for medical treatment.

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel gathered testimony from 30 patients who underwent interrogation. One patient, known as R, has cancer and is being treated at a hospital in central Israel. R said that she came to the Erez crossing after being informed that an exit permit had been approved for her and her mother. According to her testimony, at 9AM R and her mother were told to wait in the departure hall. At 11 30AM, three Shin Bet agents approached and asked R to come with them for questioning. R was removed from her mother for interrogation. She was asked questions about her father and an uncle, including about their place of employment. Only at 5 pm was she permitted to leave for Israel.

Another patient in the report is W, a Gaza man with kidney stones, who was interrogated in December 2008 after being referred for treatment at St Joseph Hospital in east Jerusalem. He told researchers that he was asked which members of his family belonged to Hamas and which to Islamic Jihad. He told them, "There aren’t any people like that in my family." W was sent back to Gaza.

Hadas Ziv, director of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, called for an end to the use of patients for the purpose of gathering intelligence.

"It is incredibly dangerous for any democratic nation when a secret agency known to use unorthodox methods is allowed to operate without proper supervision or criticism," he said.

Shin Bet categorically rejected all claims of "extortion" of patients.

"The position of the security service is determined by concrete circumstances and balances an estimate of the level of threat posed by the individual requesting entrance to Israel for medical treatment against medical need," the agency said in a statement.

"The entry of most of those asking to enter Israel is enabled eventually, despite the complex security circumstances and despite the large number of examples of the use of forged permits, in part for purposes of terror."

Source: British Medical Journal (8 May 2009);338:b1879


Brazil: Supreme Court Strikes Down Press Law

On April 30, 2009, the Brazilian Supreme Court held that the 1967 Press Law, adopted by a military government, was void as it breached the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. This important victory should be followed up by the adoption of legislation on privacy and defamation which respects constitutional and international guarantees of freedom of expression.
The Press Law was originally passed in 1967, during a period of dictatorship, and it was historically used to silence and manipulate the press. The Law authorised a number of abusive measures against journalists and media outlets, such as the seizure of newspapers without a judicial order, the banning of newspapers and magazines, and censorship.
The Press Law also regulated civil defamation and the right of reply. The Criminal Code and electoral legislation continue to provide for criminal defamation, but there is no longer a specific legal framework for civil defamation and the right of reply. Research by ARTICLE 19 suggests that this legal gap is likely to create serious legal insecurity, in particular since no clear standards apply to the question of damages for defamation, which will be now at the sole discretion of individual judges.
ARTICLE 19 participated in the Supreme Court challenge by filing an amicus curiae with the Court. In its brief, ARTICLE 19 argued that the Press Law criminalised the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. Our brief demonstrated that criminal defamation rules were applied abusively to convict journalists and human rights defenders, including when reporting on human rights violations and corruption.
Together with ARTICLE 19, I welcome the revocation of the outdated and repressive Press Law in all parts of the world, including Israel. There is a need to adopt new laws on defamation and privacy which are consistent with international and constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, as well as other rights. Defamation should be addressed exclusively as a civil matter.

ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works globally to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech. For more information on ARTICLE 19 please visit http://www.article19.org/

Source: Mark Perkins lists - lists@markperkins.info

UNESCO Launches First-ever Survey of Historical and Contemporary Slavery

Slavery may have been legally abolished around the world, but it remains “a widespread and deeply rooted component on contemporary life” concludes the first-ever comparative analysis of historical slave systems and modern forms of human bondage, published by UNESCO.

Entitled “Unfinished Business”, the survey was commissioned by UNESCO’s Slave Route project and prepared by Joel Quirk of the Wilberforce Institute for the study of Slavery and Emancipation (WISE, University of Hull). It aims to provide the basis for dialogue about ways of addressing contemporary slavery, including human trafficking, sexual servitude and child labour, and the enduring legacies of historical slave systems.

The publication is divided into five chapters: defining slavery in all its forms; presenting data on the scale of slavery, slave trading and other forms of human bondage; examining differences and similarities between historical and contemporary practices; identifying, via case studies in the United States, Saint Domingue/Haiti, Great Britain and Portugal, the main paths through which abolition of slavery has historically occurred; and, through a further series of case studies, exploring the key limitations of the legal abolition of slavery.
The conclusion outlines a series of general strategies and recommendations for addressing contemporary problems, based around education, information and awareness, further legal reform, effective enforcement, and release, rehabilitation and restitution.

Source: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=38461&URL_DO=DO_PRINTPAGE&URL_SECTION=201.html


Sixth Ordinary Session of the World Commission of the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (16 - 19 June 2009)

The sixth ordinary session of the World Commission of the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) will be held in Kuala Lumpur, from 16 to 19 June 2009.

COMEST is an advisory body and forum of reflection composed of 18 independent experts. The Commission is mandated to formulate ethical principles that could provide decision-makers with criteria other than purely economic.

Discussions will focus mainly on the two COMEST reports foreseen for 2009: on science ethics, and on the ethical implications of climate change. Discussions will also be scheduled on environmental ethics, with particular reference to teaching, and on the ethical issues of nanotechnologies.

The session will be an excellent opportunity to extend discussions through the UNESCO Asia-Pacific School of Ethics and gathered experts from around the globe on the ethical issues concerning science and technology in Asia and the Pacific, enlarge the framework of the debate, and reinforce future activities throughout the region and beyond.
A Youth Forum on the ethical and social responsibilities of scientists in Asia will also be integrated into the program, with a view to involving young researchers and representatives of youth organizations in the work of COMEST and UNESCO.
The sessions are open to the public, as will be satellite conferences on 15 and 19 June. There is no registration fee for any of these events. However, as is customary, the travel and living expenses of observers will be borne by them or by the Organization they represent.
To register, please complete the registration form.

Contact:

Henk ten Have, COMEST Secretariat
UNESCO 1 rue Miollis 75732 Paris Cedex 15 FRANCE
Tel.: +33 (0)1 45 68 38 28; Fax: +33 (0)1 45 68 57 24
E-mails: comest@unesco.org
Website: http://www.unesco.org/shs/ethics


Human Rights Reporting and U.S. Foreign Policy

From Robert McMahon, Deputy Editor, Council on Foreign Relations

The annual U.S. State Department report cataloguing the human rights failures and progress of nations around the world regularly arouses controversy as well as acclaim. Nations that receive poor ratings in the report, sometimes important U.S. partners, bitterly resent the exercise and often accuse Washington of hypocrisy. Since 9/11, many states have sharply criticized the United States for singling out their records when Washington has itself been under scrutiny for its actions at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. At the same time, many rights activists say the annual U.S. report shines a useful spotlight on abusive nations. Since the U.S. Congress mandated the reports in 1976, policymakers have sought to balance the need to engage friends and allies while acknowledging the human rights shortcomings cited by the State Department. The Obama administration has stressed a commitment to improving the United States' own record, but already has grappled with reconciling strategic interests with China and other partners against the human rights concerns. Have a look at this comprehensive and important report.

Source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/18939/us_human_rights_report.html?breadcrumb=%2F


My Visit to Israel

I plan to be in Israel from July 21 until August 12, 2009 and be happy to meet my friends. Those who wish to set time for a meeting are welcomed to contact me now, as I am beginning to organize my schedule.

My New Article

“Euthanasia Policy and Practice in Belgium: Critical Observations and Suggestions for Improvement”, Issues in Law and Medicine, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Spring 2009), pp. 187-218.

The essay opens with some background information about the context of euthanasia in Belgium. It proceeds by discussing the Belgian law on euthanasia and concerns about the law, its interpretations and implementation. Finally, the major developments and controversies since the law came into effect are discussed. Suggestions as to how to improve the Belgian law and circumscribe the practice of euthanasia are made, urging Belgian legislators and the medical establishment to reflect and study so as to prevent potential abuse of vulnerable patients.

The article’s methodology is based on critical review of the literature supplemented by interviews I conducted in Belgium with leading scholars and practitioners in February 2003 and February 2005. The interviews were conducted in English, usually in the interviewees’ offices. The interviews were semi-structured. I began with a list of twenty-four questions but did not insist on answers to all of them if I saw that the interviewee preferred to speak about subjects that were not included in the original questionnaire. The length of interviews varied from one to two and a half hours. After completing the first draft I sent the manuscript to my interviewees as well as to some leading experts for critical review and comments. The comments received were integrated into this final version of the essay. In 2008, while writing the final draft, I approached my interviewees and some other well-known experts and invited their comments and updates. Responses received by mid-January 2009 were integrated into the article.

The essay is on my website, http://www.hull.ac.uk/rca. As ever, I’d be happy to circulate my new article to interested parties.

Gad Yaakobi’s Autobiography

Gad Yaacobi, Grace of Time: An Autobiography (Tel Aviv: Yedioth Ahronoth-Miskal, 2002).

Gad Yaacobi tells the story of his life, from Kfar Vitkin, where he was born and where he grew up; his acquaintance with his mentor, Moshe Dayan; activities as Member of Knesset from 1969 until 1992; poetry; Minister in Israeli governments (1974-1977, 1984-1990); service as Israel Ambassador to the UN, and finally Chairman of the Board of the Israel Electric Corporation.

Yaacobi, in his reserved and precise style, describes people he knew: Moshe Dayan, Henry Kissinger, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and others. He is candid and open as he can be, and sometimes you need to read between the lines more than in the lines. Gad achieved a lot in his lifetime, but he felt he could achieve more. His complaint is to himself: The character is the destiny. If he were more ambitious, if he had zeal for politics to the extent that, say, Shimon Peres, has, then he could have reached the highest post in Israel: Prime Minister. Gad thought he was well-suited for the job. I concur.

Yaakobi’s autobiography provides a personal account of some twenty years of Israeli history, from the 1970s until the 1990s. He was right there when crucial decisions were in the making, and sometimes his mind and experience helped to shape history. For better and for worse, his career was interwoven with Peres’s career. Their complex relationships are at the heart of this book.

More than anything else, this book is so him. I knew Gad since 2003 until the last days of his life. This book, which accompanied me over the past few weeks, took me back to our meetings at his home in Tel Aviv, where -- so he proudly said -- you can see the sea. Gad was always true and honest with himself, rational, learned, observant, sensitive, fair-minded, concerned and involved. His qualities shine out from his autobiography. I miss him.


New Book

Richard Jackson et. al., Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda (London: Routledge, 2009).


Movie of the Month - The Curious Story of Benjamin Button (2008)

There are magical movies, movies that enthrall you, capturing your soul and mind. This is the story of Benjamin Button, who was born with several aging diseases and experiences a unique life journey, opposed to what we know: Benjamin was born an old man, and as he grows up he becomes younger and younger until he completes a full life circle. Meanwhile, his family and friends are all getting old and, with the exception of the love of his life, Daisy, all die.

Abandoned by his biological father, Thomas Button, after Benjamin's biological mother died in childbirth, Benjamin was raised by Queenie, a black woman and caregiver at a seniors’ home. The movie opens with the last day of the Great War, and finishes with Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. With Benjamin we witness scenes from the Second World War, the 1960s (Beatles), New York Ballet, race relations in New Orleans. Benjamin Button is played by six different actors, mainly by Brad Pitt.

At the core this is a love story between Benjamin and Daisy, played by three actresses, mainly by Cate Blanchett who gives yet another superb performance. Benjamin, while away getting younger, had a short love affair with Elizabeth Abbott, played by another wonderful British actress, Tilda Swinton. There are many touching moments that touch your heart, but the most touching one is when Benjamin decides to leave his lover, and his one-year-old daughter, before she will be able to remember him.
He wanted his daughter to have a real father, not one who grows to become a child as his daughter grows older.

David Fincher directed this movie with sensitivity and silky imagination. Alexandre Desplat’s music is enchanting and moving. It's a beautiful score that promotes the many magical moments you experience while watching this long movie, 2:40 hours, yet I found myself hoping that the movie would never end. I highly recommend this Hollywood gem.


Light Side

An old farmer wished to plow his field in order to plant his vegetables, but the work was too difficult for him. His only son was in jail for bank robbery. The old farmer sat down and wrote his son a letter in which he complained of his hardship.

After a short while, he received a letter from his son: Please dad. Don’t plow the field. It is where I buried the money!!

At 4 a.m., twelve policemen appeared at the old farmer’s home, and then turned his field upside down, looking for the money.

The old farmer wrote his son another letter, telling him what has just happened, and asking him what he should do now.

Plant your vegetables, answered the son. This is what I could do from where I am.

Happy Spring, peace and love. I hope that Israel will have a good and relaxed summer for a change. We call it in Hebrew “Onat Hamelafefonim”, Cucumber Period. May I continue writing about issues for the heart, joyful to the eye, comforting the mind.

Yours as ever,
Rafi

My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com/
Earlier posts at my home page: http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/ People wishing to subscribe to this Monthly Newsletter are welcome to e-mail me at r.cohen-almagor@hull.ac.uk

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Politics – April 2009

Occupation desensitizes soldiers. The longer the occupation, the more they feel like they're in a Hollywood movie, without caring too much for the consequences of "shooting". The occupied, however, will not return to life, not even when the occupation ends, and it will end.

A stable democracy needs a strong government but no less important, also a strong coalition. Without the latter, the road to corruption is wide open.

Raphael Cohen-Almagor


April 29, 2009 – Israel celebrates 61 years of independence. Happy Birthday.

I wish this year will be a year of tranquility, of stable economy; a year of progress during which Israel will receive the same media exposure as Portugal; a year when Israel will receive the same number of tourists who visit Paris; a year in which UNESCO will summarize Israel in one paragraph; a year whose headlines will be about contributions to science and high-tech; a year of integration into the region, where neighbours become friends not only on television, and the main action will be on the screen. During the past year, we had our fair share of action, thank you very much. Now it is time to build and see light, while protecting the environment and excelling in culture and sports.

The 32nd Government is on its way. Bibi Netanyahu put together the most expensive government in the history of Israel. I did not check, but will not be surprised if this is the largest government per capita in the world. Netanyahu believes that size does matter. One more month with the growing Iranian threat. Efforts to bring Gilad Shalit home should continue.

Gilad is now more than 1000 days in captivity. The narrow window of opportunities for exchange between the Israeli soldier and hundreds of bloody terrorists did not materialize. Olmert backed down in the last moment. The government reshuffle certainly does not help Gilad’s cause but I hope the new prime minister will be innovative and relentless in his efforts to bring Gilad home. I highly suggest the Shalit family to seek advice from terrorism and negotiation experts as the family’s interests do not necessarily coincide with the government’s interests. I am sure that most experts would not charge for the service. I certainly would not. It is time for Veshavu banim lig'vulam.

Hamas-Israel War - Netanyahu Government - Law v. Common Sense - Israeli Bedouin villages have severe shortages of medical services - The Lancet – Health in the Occupied Territories - 70% of Palestinian Youth Oppose Violence to Resolve Conflict - Senators Target Firms Doing Business with Iran - A Loud and Promised Land - COMMITTEE to PROTECT JOURNALISTS Launches ARABIC WEBSITE - Europeanization, Welfare and Democracy - 2009 JOHN HUMPHREY AWARD - CJFE Calls for Submissions for 2009 INTERNATIONAL PRESS FREEDOM AWARDS - Entries wanted for KURT SCHORK AWARDS in INTERNATIONAL JOURNALISM - Sad Note - New Article - New Books - Novel - Light Side

Hamas-Israel War

Israel likes to pride itself as having the most moral army in the world. I don’t wish to speak of other armies. We can do better.
Much of what happened in Gaza, some military experts said, was in reaction to the way events unfolded in the second Lebanon war in 2006 when Hezbollah caused many Israeli casualties. In that war, when Israeli soldiers took over a house, they sometimes found themselves shot at from a house next door. The result was that in Gaza, many houses next to those commandeered by troops were destroyed to avoid that risk.
The number of Palestinians killed during the 22 days of Operation Cast Lead is controversial. According to the Hamas-run health ministry in the Gaza Strip, 1,324 Palestinians were killed, most of them civilians; among them were 412 children and 110 women. The figures were published a few days after cessation of the fighting, and there is no breakdown as to how many of those killed were fighters in local armed organizations.
The Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which documents Palestinian casualties on a regular basis, announced this month that 1,434 people, of them 960 civilians, were killed in the operation. Furthermore, according to the center, only 235 of those killed were fighters in the organizations, and 288 children and 12 women were among the civilians who died. In addition, 239 policemen were killed - the vast majority in the air-force bombing during the first hours of the fighting.
The IDF published its own data concerning the majority of Palestinians killed, after cross-checking their names with other lists of militants. The IDF figures relate to 1,200 of the 1,338 whom it says were killed. Among them, 580 were activists in Hamas and other organizations (including police), whereas 300 were men, women and children not involved in the fighting. The army estimates that two-thirds of the remaining 320 people were involved in terror activity.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/world/middleeast/20gaza.html?agewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072470.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072231.html

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1072440.html

On April 22, 2009, the Deputy Chief of Staff appeared before the media. Maj-Gen Dan Harel admitted that alongside Operation Cast Lead's achievements, there were several mishaps, some of which resulted in the loss of Palestinian civilian lives.

Source: Ynet (April 22, 2009)

Major-General Harel stressed that the numbers of these operational malfunctions was small, adding that "each case has been investigated and we are learning their lessons”. Hamas, he added, must shoulder some of the blame since "it placed civilians in the front lines. None of the investigations conducted so far have turned up so much as one case in which an Israeli soldier deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians, and should any such case be found, we will deal with it to the full extent."

Operation Cast Lead's debriefings will be fully concluded in two months time, when all the military units taking part in the operation finish reviewing their operations in the field. I would not hold my breath. Such investigations should be carried out by independent bodies.

One of the first issues probed by the defense establishment was the use of phosphorus shells. The IDF stressed that the Navy's use of the shells adhered to the restrictions posed by international law, but following the criticism voiced over their use, the military decided to halt such fire on January 7, 2009.

Nonetheless, several incidents in which phosphorus shells were used were recorded after the cease and desist order was given – a fact the IDF attributed to the directive not reaching all troops – but even then, the fire complied with international law restrictions.

As for the use of smoke bombs containing phosphorus, the IDF said such applications were restricted to camouflage use. Smoke bombs, said the report, pose no threat to human beings, they are a necessary part of combat and should they be needed in the future they will be used again.

The most severe operational failure investigated took place during Cast Lead's sixth day, in the east Gaza City neighborhood of Zeitoun: IDF forces were gearing to attack an arms warehouse adjacent to a civilian home. As a result of faulty intelligence, the Air Force was given the wrong coordinates and shelled the house, instead of the warehouse, killing 21 members of the same family.

The military said that the regrettable incident, grave as it may be, was the result of a professional mistake, which could occur during intensive fighting in urban terrain.

Other incidents probed concern claims of fire on United Nations and other internationally-owned facilities. One of the cases investigated is the targeting on an UNRWA school, Fakhura, in the northern Gaza neighborhood of Jabalya. The Palestinians initially claimed 40 people were killed in the ill-fated strike, but the IDF found that forces in the field were firing at a Hamas cell engaged in launching rockets. The military deduced that between 12 and 17 people were killed, five of whom were confirmed Hamas terrorists – and that the school was never hit.

Another investigation focused on two alleged strikes on a Red Cross warehouse in the Tel Hawwa neighborhood in Gaza City. The IDF found that in both cases, the Israeli forces were returning enemy fire. The facility was never directly targeted, although flash fire did ensue the fighting.

According to military data, only a handful of UN facilities were damaged during the Gaza offensive, and only one case indicated that a soldier violated fire protocol and hit a UN vehicle – for which he faced disciplinary proceedings.

Another military investigation was launched into incidents involving fire on medical facilities, vehicles and personnel in the Gaza Strip. The IDF was able to ascertain the fact that Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh set up his headquarters inside Gaza's Shifa Hospital, which was also used as an operational headquarters by other Hamas leaders. The military found that Hamas operatives also took over the hospital's basement ward, closing it off to civilians.

Another inquest probed the January 4, 2009 event which left senior Hamas operative Nazar Rayan dead. The IAF was ordered to strike four weapon warehouses hidden inside residential homes. The military placed calls to all four venues, in an attempt to warn any civilians away and the IAF conducted an advance-fire maneuver near the premises prior to striking. Nevertheless, 16 civilians were killed in the strike. The IDF maintains it did not know the Rayan family members remained on the premises.

The IDF also looked into a December 29, 2008 strike on a truck transporting rockets. The truck was targeted after the military's data indicated that the cargo was made up of rockets, but it later turned out to be carrying oxygen tanks. The military concluded that the truck's proximity to a Hamas hub led to the strike. Four of the eight people killed in the incident were confirmed to be Hamas operatives.

All this makes the requirement of an independent inquiry committee more urgent and necessary.

Major-General Harel pointed out that according to defense establishment intelligence, 709 out of the 1,167 Palestinian fatalities in Operation Cast Lead were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist and 295 were civilians. The affiliation of the remaining 162 fatalities, he said, has so far been impossible to ascertain. Note the discrepancy between these figures, and the figures quoted above. This discrepancy is not very reassuring and suggests that more efforts should be made to confirm the right figures.

Source: Ynet, http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3705081,00.html

See also the exchange between Prof David Luban (Georgetown University Law Center) and Prof. Amos Guiora (University of Utah Law Center) regarding Operation Cast Lead.

In this exchange, published in the American Bar Association’s National Security Law Report, Prof. Luban argues that the Gaza campaign violated both the jus ad bellum and jus in bello proportionality principles and that the Hamas civil administration were not lawful targets under Israel's own interpretation of the law of armed conflict. Prof Guiora argues that terrorism changes the landscape of armed conflict and requires a reconfiguration of international law. Under this reconfiguration, an entire terrorist organization may properly be targeted. Prof Luban’s article is entitled “Was the Gaza Campaign Legal”; Prof Guiora's is entitled “Proportionality ‘Re-Configured”.

The link to the debate is at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1364608.

I thank Amos Guiora for the information.


Netanyahu Government

March 25, 2009: Likud has 27 MKs. Netanyahu had to secure at least 61 MKs to comprise a coalition, preferably 65-67. First he signed an agreement with his natural ally, Israel Beitenu (15). Avigdor Lieberman will be Israel Foreign Minister. Then he signed with the religious SHAS party (11). Elie Yishay will be Minister of the Interior, a role that he fulfilled in the past. Then Bibi courted Barak. I say Barak, not Labour. Barak agreed after Bibi promised a very tempting deal. Seven Labour MKs objected (of 13). Barak did not blink. There is more than one road into the coalition. Barak likes to remain in the Minister of Defence Office. He brought the decision to the party convention. 680 delegates voted to back Barak and join the coalition, while 507 voted against. Labour will have many jobs to allocate, but it lost its dignity. Maybe Labour will be able to preempt some of Bibi’s initiatives that would be detrimental to Israel’s best interests.

During the process, Netanyahu also signed an agreement with Jewish Home (National Religious Party) (3), and a last-moment agreement with the ultra-religious Yahadut Hatorah, United Torah Judaism (5). Thus he secured 74 MKs (assuming that the entire Labour MK delegation supports the government). He also enjoys the backing and support of the National Union (4). Netanyahu has a very strong coalition. At least on paper.

Some preliminary observations:

Livni will be the Opposition Leader, not a small feat as solid democracy requires strong government, but no less importantly strong opposition. If Kadima will conduct its affairs prudently, the traditional rivalry between Likud and Labour will pass from the world. The two focal points will be Likud and Kadima.
To make this coalition possible, Netanyahu had to go the extra mile in catering the needs and ambitions of the said parties. Yet again we will have a very large government. The running of the government would require huge expenditure. In a time of international economic crisis, reason dictates slimming down. Not in Israeli politics. Here partisan interests rule supreme. Each party will get its fair share of the deal. The taxpayer will pay. As always.

It will be very interesting to see how flexible Labour will be, with the hawkish Likud, Lieberman, Jewish Home, and the backing and support of National Union. Hopefully, Labour will serve as a mitigating force, balancing the nationalistic-capitalistic inclinations of its partners. More likely is that Labour will eat frogs, one after the other, until its stomach cannot digest anymore.

Barak will act as the opposition to Bibi within Bibi’s government, no doubt trying to present himself as the voice of reason and moderation. Both Bs understand they need to work together to sustain the coalition. In some respects, they are very similar. Therefore, clashes are inevitable. No doubt they will try to work together, for partisan and national interests. Barak believes that it is good for the nation that he is Defence Minister, and that Labour is in government. But it would be increasingly difficult, given the wide differences between the world outlook of both parties, and the destructive bulldozer force of Lieberman. I am afraid we are heading, yet again, to very interesting times. Too interesting to my liking.

April 1, 2009: Israel has a new government. The Knesset affirmed the 32 member Government. 69 Knesset members enter a yea vote, 45 opposed, five abstained, all from Labour. One MK, Ahmad Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al) had more important business to attend to.

One by one, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin (Likud) called the new cabinet members to the podium, where they recited: "I hereby pledge my loyalty to the State of Israel and its laws, to faithfully carry out the position of my office and to uphold the decision of the Knesset."

Due to the generous deals with Israel Beitenu and Labour, Netanyahu had to be innovative in granting his own Likud Party members government portfolios. Another table needs to be introduced into the House to cater to this large, over-sized government. The present table does not have enough seats.

Israel's new fat government is comprised of the following ministers:

· Vice Premier and Minister for Strategic Affairs - Moshe Yaalon (Likud) – Yaalon the hawk was promised to be Vice Premier and a senior cabinet role. Because of Labour’s entry into government, he cannot serve as Minister of Defence as he had hoped. Expect clashes with Ehud Barak. This office is artificial and redundant. Yaalon will feel at home with Lieberman. Their world view is quite similar when it comes to Arabs.

· Vice Premier, Minister for Regional Development and Minister for Development of the Negev and Galilee - Silvan Shalom (Likud) – Netanyahu did not wish to have fierce opposition within his own party from day one, hence went the extra mile to satisfy and establish peace with his main rival Shalom. He offered one portfolio. Added another. Finally, gave him also the role of Vice Premier. Shalom, who loves titles, is content. For the time being.

· Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak (Labour). History will judge whether he was correct in entering the coalition. Barak is a very good Defense Minister.

· Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Israel Beitenu) – Soon the world will learn to know Mr. Lieberman. Charming like a hippo in a china store. Determined. Focused. A doer. Bulldozer. Intimidating. We shall see his name often in the international press. I am sure the media will cover him closely, waiting for every pips he’ll make. And he will. Be sure. Until he is indicted on corruption charges – in the coming months.

· Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Eli Yishai (SHAS) is back to power, money, resources. Exactly what the party wants and needs to cater the needs of its underprivileged constituency, secular and religious.

· Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) - I am delighted for Yuval, my friend from the University of Haifa. His loyalty to Bibi has paid him well. Yuval would have preferred to serve as Defence Minister. Time will tell whether this was a good appointment, as economics is not Yuval’s strong field. No doubt that Netanyahu will keep a close eye on the ministry, and Yuval will run the day-to-day affairs. In today’s economy, I hope this will be enough.

· Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar (Likud) – I wish him luck. This is a very important ministry, with many problems. Sa’ar is a very able man. I have high hopes from him.

· Justice Minister Prof. Yaakov Ne'eman - Labour’s precondition for entering the coalition was to see Daniel Friedman out of office. Enough is enough. Netanyahu agreed. Lieberman did not. Ne’eman was the compromise between the two, accepted by Barak. Ne’eman thus returns to the ministry he was forced to resign from in the Sharon government. He is not a fan of the Supreme Court, and no doubt his first loyalty is to Netanyahu. But he is not a lone wolf like Friedman. The bad wind is gone. Ne’eman is a very astute, experienced and gifted man. He will strive to work in tandem with the government and the President of the Supreme Court, Dorit Beinish.

· Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon (Labour) – the right person in the right place.

· Communication Minister Moshe Kahlon (Likud) – very popular politician. I never quite understood why. Seems like a nice guy, but this ministry requires someone who understands the very complex issues.
· Culture and Sports Minister Limor Livnat (Likud) – Well, I certainly did not miss her. Sorry to see her back in power. This ministry is redundant. It used to be part of the Education Office, a ministry Livnat knows well, as she did her best to ruin it. Luckily, she does not have much to ruin in culture and sport. As a populist, she would not harm sports. There are too many fans to consider. Culture, I suspect, is going to suffer. Livnat is not a very cultured lady, and not very popular in cultural circles for obvious reasons. I wish her to meet for tea with Queen Elizabeth. Ahhh, I can imagine this summit which both ladies surely would not enjoy, with the possible exception of acknowledging with some satisfaction the other’s suffering.


· Environmental Protection Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) – Erdan is a very bright politician. If he remains in politics, for him the sky's the limit. The environment needs a person like him, to put issues on the agenda, to evoke awareness, to establish a new ecological agenda for Israeli politics. I wish him good luck.




· Housing and Construction Minister Ariel Atias (SHAS) – Another very powerful ministry, with lots of resources, in the hands of SHAS. SHAS loves this government and will do its best to sustain it. Atias is a very competent politician, the future leader of SHAS. He will do his best to see that precious resources will go to his constituency.





· Immigrant Absorption Minister Sofa Landver (Israel Beitenu) – Landver is a very pragmatic politician, not to say elastic. She is a good student of Machiavelli, whether she knows it or not. As a former immigrant from Russia, she knows the world of immigration. I wish that her hands will be full of work.

· Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (Labour) – very experienced politician, loyal to Barak. This might be his last outing as a minister.

· Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch (Yisrael Beitenu) – He is certainly well-suited for the job. However, his party’s leader Lieberman is under serious police investigations. Lieberman insisted on having this portfolio for very good reasons. Aharonovitch asked NOT to be informed about investigations related to political figures. Whether you believe this is possible is another issue.

· National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau (Israel Beitenu) – Hard-line Landau found a new home after he left the Likud, and Lieberman rewarded him with a very important ministry. I am sorry to see Mr. Landau in this government.

· Transportation Minister Israel Katz (Likud) – sorry to see him in this government.

· Science and Technology Minister Daniel Hershkowitz (Jewish Home) – Prof. Hershkowitz is the party’s new leader. This is a small ministry with very important subjects to address. I wish Hershkowitz good luck and success in navigating this ministry to address the various challenges.

· Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog (Labour) – nice man in a small and important office.

· Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov (Israel Beitenu) – Well, we could certainly do better with tourism. Israel is a very beautiful country situated in a very hostile surroundings. Good luck.

· Minister of Government Services to the Public Michael Eitan (Likud) – I am very happy to see Micky in government. He is a politician I appreciate a great deal. At the same time, this ministry is redundant. Micky deserves a senior ministry.

· Minister of Intelligence Services Dan Meridor (Likud) – Dan returned to the Likud to serve as a minister. He has no interest to serve as a mere MK. Meridor is wise and competent. Whatever I said about Micky Eitan is true for Dan. This is a redundant ministry. From the establishment of Israel, the prime minister was in charge of the intelligence services. This is not going to change. Netanyahu will have a direct and final say on all matters. Meridor, like Steinitz, will run the day-to-ay matters.

· Minister of Minority Affairs Avishay Braverman (Labour) – Braverman is finally a minister, not Finance Minister as he had hoped but still a minister. This is, I am sorry to say, another redundant ministry, born only to satisfy Labour’s demands.

· Minister of Information and Diaspora Yuli Edelstein (Likud) – redundant ministry.

· Minister of Religious Affairs Yakov Margi (Shas) – the ministry that was abolished returns. I am sorry. This ministry will not adequately cater to the needs of the Christian, Muslim and Druze communities in Israel. It will not even care for Reform and Conservative Judaism. It will serve only Jewish Orthodoxy, and even more so Sephardi-Orthodoxy.

· Minister Benny Begin (Likud) – Begin, like Meridor, did not return to politics to serve as MK. He wanted to be a minister. He deserves better than a minister without portfolio. Useless.

· Minister Meshulam Nahari (Shas) – Useless.

· Minister Yossi Peled (Likud) – General Peled deserves better than being a minister without portfolio. Ditto.

In addition, there are seven deputy ministers in this government.

Time will tell whether size does matter, and whether by this composition Netanyahu will be able to sustain his coalition for long. Recent governments did not last more than three years. In his first speech as prime minister, Netanyahu voiced his commitment to a secure peace for Israel. The challenges are formidable: The nuclear threat from Iran; Gaza; the West Bank; Lebanon; Syria; terror; the economy; internal schisms. From the bottom of my heart, I wish Mr. Netanyahu Good Luck.


Law v. Common Sense

I spoke in the past about the conflict between law and common sense. Here is another chapter that hardly benefits Israeli politics, tolerance and mutual coexistence.
On Tuesday, March 24, 2009 the far-right activist Baruch Marsel finally was able to execute his intention to march in the Arab town of Umm al-Fahm. 30 people were wounded during clashes between police and protestors.
The far-rightists began the march at 10:00 A.M. and ended it about 45 minutes later. The clashes, however, continued for some two hours after the march had been concluded.
Deputy police commissioner Shahar Ayalon and fourteen other policemen were wounded by stone-throwing demonstrators; twelve Umm al-Fahm residents were hurt in scuffles with police, according to Magen David Adom emergency services.
Leftist lawmaker Ilan Ghilon (Meretz) was also wounded in the incident when police fired tear gas grenades in a bid to disperse the crowd.
The clash erupted after police arrested three Israeli Arabs who had scuffled with officers. The detainees had gathered for a counter-demonstration held by Umm al-Fahm residents.
Police declared the rally to be illegal and ordered the Israeli Arab protestors, some of whom were waving Palestinian flags, to leave.
More than 2,500 police officers deployed in and around Umm al-Fahm, Israel's largest Arab city ahead of the rally, for which the far-rightists had received High Court approval. See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073507.html
The marchers were refused permission to enter the city itself, however, and were only allowed to march on roads outside residential areas, but within the city's municipal boundaries. Marsel saw this as a victory and proclaimed that next time they will enter the city center.

The march is a provocation. It won’t yield any positive results. If Marsel and his likes are determined to continue their show-off provocations, the only way to stop this is by Israeli-Arabs asking permit marches in Kfar Tapuach and Bat Ayin, the strongholds of Kach activists. It will not promote peace and human understanding, but it may stop those right-wing provocations. The message that Marsel brings with him is never one of peace and mutual understanding. He has dedicated his life to promote Arab immigration from Israel, and to Eretz Yisrael Hashlema, the entire Eretz Israel in the hands of the People of the Torah, at the expense of gentiles.


Israeli Bedouin villages have severe shortages of medical services

Tens of thousands of children from Israel’s southern Bedouin population living in "unrecognised" villages lack the service of a single pediatrician, says a new report from the groups Physicians for Human Rights—Israel and Women Promote Health, says that just 12 community health clinics serve 34 villages with a combined population of 83,000, 60% of whom are children.

The report says that 80% of children hospitalised at Soroka University Medical Centre in Beersheba are from the villages, although they make up just a quarter of children in the area, indicating that there is poor or little healthcare provision in this community.
The 12 clinics have no obstetricians, gynecologists, pediatricians, or pharmacies, says the report, and in most of them the staff do not speak Arabic. Also, the number of hours the clinics are open is much less in the villages than in the region’s townships or the Jewish suburbs of Beersheba (1.9 physician hours per 100 patients in Bedouin villages and 5.2 in Jewish settlements).

Because of crowding and delays, only 55% of Bedouin women visit the villages’ medical clinics with their children; others rarely or never attend, because of inaccessibility. Some have to take their children on foot for two hours to reach a clinic.

The infant mortality rate in the Bedouin population in the Negev region is among the highest in Israel. In 2005 the rate was 4.7 deaths for every 1000 live births among the Jewish population in the region and 15.5 per 1000 among the Arab population.

The report calls for Israel to officially recognise the villages and provide them with basic infrastructure, including water and electricity supplies, to allow them to refrigerate drugs, among other things. Primary care services in the Bedouin villages should be equivalent to those provided in other settlements and should be culturally sensitive to residents’ needs, it says.

The report adds: "The state must initiate and implement planning programs aimed at reducing the morbidity and mortality rates among the residents of the unrecognised villages in general and their children in particular, in a culturally adapted manner." Source: BMJ 2009;338:b1209


The Lancet – Health in the Occupied Territories

The Lancet commissions Series to highlight clinically important topics and areas of health and medicine often overlooked by mainstream research programmes and other medical publications. Many of the Series have thespecific aim of raising the profile of these neglected areas as an advocacy tool to inform health policy and improve human development.
The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9666, Pages 837 - 849, 7 March 2009 is concerned with Health status and health services in the occupied Palestinian territory. This is the first in a Series of five papers on health in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Summary
The authors describe the demographic characteristics, health status, and health services of the Palestinian population living in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory, and the way they have been modified by 60 years of continuing war conditions and 40 years of Israeli military occupation. Although health, literacy, and education currently have a higher standard in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory than they have in several Arab countries, 52% of families (40% in the West Bank and 74% in the Gaza Strip) were living below the poverty line of US$3·15 per person per day in 2007. To describe health status, the authors use not only conventional indicators, such as infant mortality and stunting in children, but also subjective measures, which are based on people's experiences and perceptions of their health status and life quality. The authors review the disjointed and inadequate public-health and health-service response to health problems. Finally, the authors consider the implications of our findings for the protection and promotion of health of the Palestinian population, and the relevance of our indicators and analytical framework for the assessment of health in other populations living in continuous war conditions.

The authors’ account of Palestinian health under Israeli military occupation—the longest occupation in modern history—also calls for the protection of the basic human rights of Palestinians, in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, including the right to justice and to health. This demand for rights and justice is at the centre of plans to improve Palestinian health. However, it cannot be met by medical and humanitarian interventions alone, because such interventions leave the causes of ill health in the occupied Palestinian territory untouched. The authors concur with the judgment of the World Bank that economic growth cannot be achieved and donor assistance will not produce durable results without serious improvements in security, dismantling Israeli restrictions on the movement of people and goods, and achieving progress on Palestinian reform and institution building.


70% of Palestinian Youth Oppose Violence to Resolve Conflict

More than 80 percent of young Palestinians are depressed and 47 percent identify themselves as Muslim rather than Palestinian, according to a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) recent report. UNDP is the UN's global development network, advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. The report, based on interviews with 1,200 Palestinians over the age of 17 from the West Bank and Gaza found that 39 percent were "extremely" depressed and 42 percent were depressed by their conditions. Depression was more marked in the Gaza Strip where 55 percent said they were "extremely" depressed.
When asked to define their identity, 47 percent identified themselves as Muslims, 28 percent as Palestinians, 14 percent as humans and 10 percent as Arabs.
The survey also revealed that the majority of Palestinian youth (69 percent) believe that the use of violence as a means to resolve the conflict is not very helpful, while only 8 percent believe it is an important tool.
Youth are exceptionally vulnerable to conflict, and unemployment rates for youth range from 35 percent in the West Bank to 51 percent in Gaza. UNDP commissioned the survey to understand the needs and expectations of youth organisations, levels of intervention, gaps to be filled, and set youth policies and strategies relevant to the needs of the Palestinian society and adopted by both the public and private sectors.

For further information, please contact:
In Jerusalem: Dania Darwish, Communications Officer, Tel. +972-2-6268229 - e-mail: dania.darwish@undp.org, Conal Urquhart, External Relations Advisor, Tel. +972-2-6268200 - e-mail: conal.urquhart@undp.orgIn New York: Sausan Ghosheh, Communications officer, e-mail: sausan.ghosheh@undp.org or undpnewsroom@undp.org, Tel. +1 212-906-5382
I thank the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) for this information.
Source: Independent Media Review Analysis, 1 April 2009, http://www.imra.org.il/.


Senators Target Firms Doing Business with Iran

Sens. Evan Bayh and Tom Coburn called for increased sanctions against foreign companies that trade with Iran, saying such action is crucial to stunt Iran's push for nuclear weapons. Mr. Bayh, Indiana Democrat, said that the U.S. government must "really crack down on companies doing business with Iran, to increase the cost of that business, to drive up the price of violating these sanctions on the part of the Iranians." Bayh and Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, are co-sponsoring legislation to impose sanctions on companies that do business with Iran.

While the United States already has imposed sanctions that target Iranian financial institutions, the country's biggest vulnerability is its reliance on imported oil. Therefore, foreign energy companies that sell gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran - and even insurance companies that insure oil tankers destined for the Islamic Republic - should be penalized.

Source: The Washington Post (April 13, 2009)

Mr. Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, agreed, saying, "Talk isn't going to do it - there has to be consequences, and there are ways to make it very painful for Iran. "They produce only about 30 percent of their consumable gasoline, and yet some of our allies continue to supply them with refined distillates," he said. Mr. Coburn maintained that the United States should strengthen sanctions against North Korea, which this month conducted a ballistic missile test over the Sea of Japan. "Doing what we've done in North Korea has not be highly successful since we've seen three launches in the last three years of long-range missiles," he said. "So there has to be significant sanctions on North Korea, and that can be stiffened as well."

Mr. Bayh said while he is skeptical that sanctions targeting Iran would work in the long run, "we've got to try it and we've got to mean business." He added that White House pressure on countries that do business with Iran - such as Russia, China and some European nations - would be crucial for sanctions to be successful. "We've got to make [foreign companies] choose. Do you want to be on good terms with the United States? Do you want to do business in America, or do you want to continue to enable this kind of irresponsible behavior on the part of Iran?"

Source: The Washington Post, April 13, 2009, at http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/13/senators-target-firms-doing-business-with-iran/print/


A Loud and Promised Land

On April 16, 2009 David Brooks published a piece in the NY Times which captures some elements of Israel that makes it special, and explains why it gained the appreciation and admiration of millions. Israel is not an easy country. Far from it. Yet it is interesting, captivating, thrilling, enriched by the vitality and warmth of its people, and by its immense beauty. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/opinion/17brooks.html?_r=4

I thank Bill Dackman for pointing the article to me.


COMMITTEE to PROTECT JOURNALISTS Launches ARABIC WEBSITE





The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) launched the Arabicversion of its website, featuring translated content from CPJ's Middle Eastand North Africa programme. Arabic-speaking journalists and mediaprofessionals can now access CPJ's alerts, statements and special reportsabout their region, including the full MENA chapter from CPJ's 2009 annualpublication "Attacks on the Press".
"The release of an Arabic site on cpj.org is a testament to our dedicationto coverage of the Middle East region," said CPJ.
The website includes a recent appeal to the King of Bahrain expressingconcern at the blocking of critical websites and blogs run by human rightsactivists, including IFEX members the Bahrain Center for Human Rights andthe Arabic Network for Human Rights Information.


Europeanization, Welfare and Democracy

I was invited to this conference in Copenhagen, which was interdisciplinary in nature, with participants from diverse fields: politics, philosophy, law, sociology, media and film studies. One participant had rightly observed that it was as if we participated in three different conferences at the same time. I presented a paper on “Multiculturalism in Liberal Democracies: The Bounds of Intervention in Practices of Minority Cultures”. Here is the abstract:

One of the most pressing issues facing liberal democracies today is the politicization of ethno-cultural diversity. Minority cultures are demanding greater public recognition of their distinctive identities, and greater freedom and opportunity to retain and develop their distinctive cultural practices. In response to these demands, new and creative mechanisms are being adopted in many countries for accommodating difference. This paper discusses some of the issues raised by these demands, focusing in particular on the difficulties that arise when the minority seeking accommodation is illiberal.
It is increasingly accepted that common citizenship rights are not sufficient to accommodate all forms of ethno-cultural diversity. In some cases, certain "collective" or "group-differentiated" rights are also required. And indeed there is a clear trend within liberal democracies towards the greater recognition of such group-differentiated rights. Among the pertinent questions are: How are these group rights related to individual rights? What should we do if group rights come into conflict with individual rights? Can a liberal democracy allow minority groups to restrict the individual rights of their members, or should it insist that all groups uphold liberal principles? Can a liberal democracy allow minority groups to restrict individual rights of members of other groups? To address these questions, controversial cultural norms will be considered, as well as the relationships between state and religion in Israel. Helpful distinctions will be made between self- and other-regarding conduct, and between inter-group and intra-group relationship. Furthermore, I probe the relations between various Western liberal democracies and minority cultures, most notably analyzing the headscarf controversy in Europe.

I thank Ib Bondebjerg for his kind invitation and for organizing a very stimulating gathering of people from Scandinavia as well as from Australia, Belgium, Greece, Hong Kong, Spain, Turkey, the UK and the USA. Diversity is enriching and stimulating.


2009 JOHN HUMPHREY AWARD

The Canadian organisation Rights & Democracy is currently accepting nominations for the John Humphrey Freedom Award, which is presented every year to an organisation or person who has made an outstanding contribution to the promotion of human rights and democratic development. The deadline for nominations is 30 April 2009.
The award, named in honour of the Canadian human rights professor who prepared the first draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, consists of a grant of CAD$30,000 (US$24,900) and a speaking tour of Canadian cities to help increase awareness of the recipient's human rights work.

For eligibility criteria, see the Rights & Democracy website:
http://www.dd-rd.ca/


2009 INTERNATIONAL PRESS FREEDOM AWARDS - CJFE Calls for Submissions

Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) is seeking nominations forits annual International Press Freedom Awards, which recognise journalistswho put their lives at risk to ensure citizens stay informed. In 2008, CJFEhonoured journalists from Sudan and Zimbabwe.

The deadline for nominations is April 30. Organisations or individualswishing to nominate a deserving journalist can download the form here:http://cjfe.org/releases/2009/11032009award.html


KURT SCHORK AWARDS in INTERNATIONAL JOURNALISM - Entries Wanted

The Kurt Schork Awards in International Journalism celebrate freelance andlocal journalists who show great courage and commitment to reporting oncontroversial issues in a developing country or nation in transition. Thedeadline for applications is 22 June 2009.

Two prizes of US$5,000 are up for grabs, one to a freelance journalistcovering international news, and the other to a local journalist who showscourage in reporting on controversial issues. The stories can focus onconflict, human rights concerns, cross border issues, or any other issue ofcontroversy in a particular country or region.
The prizes, funded by the Kurt Schork Memorial Fund and Reuters, honourKurt Schork, a U.S. freelance journalist who was killed in a militaryambush while on assignment for Reuters in Sierra Leone in May 2000.
For full details of the awards and how to enter, see the Institute for War& Peace Reporting's website: http://iwpr.net/kurtschork


Sad Note


It is saddening to think of the leading scholars who passed away since I left Oxford in 1991. First was H.L.A. Hart (1907-1992) identified with legal positivism more than any other person in the past one-hundred years. Hart was an intellectual Oxonian in spirit, attending conferences and lectures until his very last days. He knew how to listen and not only to speak, a true virtue to be appreciated in people of his stature.






Then I suffered a great personal loss. Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) was a philosopher and the leading historian of ideas of the 20th Century, one of the brilliant leading liberal thinkers of his time. He was a real mensch, kind, warm and wise. He excelled as an essayist and lecturer, a captivating orator who delivered richly allusive and coherently structured analysis, whether for a lecture series at distinguished universities or as a broadcaster on BBC radio, usually without a script. I miss our meetings and his sharp analysis of politics.




In 2002, the world lost two brilliant philosophers, both from Harvard, both rejuvenated and revitalized political philosophy. Both, in different ways, were extraordinary personalities and intellectuals. John Rawls (1921-2002) and Robert Nozick (1938-2002) published A Theory of Justice and Anarchy, State and Utopia in the early 1970s. Rawls’ theory of justice came out in 1971, and Nozick’s libertarian response in 1974. I invited both of them to deliver the Isaiah Berlin Annual Lecture at the University of Haifa. Both of them declined due to poor health.

Rawls’ contribution to political philosophy cannot be underestimated. There was a period of time when you could not do any dissertation in the field without some reference to his work. I think his work will continue to live for many generations to come, together with the works of Kant, Mill and Marx.

Nozick was a multifaceted philosopher, writing in very different styles on diverse topics. While Anarchy, State, and Utopia is engaging and relatively easy to read, Philosophical Explanations offer a trying journey into epistemological philosophy, probing the meaning of life, the nature of value, free will, personal identity, and the theory of knowledge. Later in life, Nozick retreated from some of the views he expressed in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, saying that he was no longer as hardcore a libertarian as he once was.





Then, in the following year, the world had lost two more brilliant men: Geoffrey Marshall and Bernard Williams. Geoffrey Marshall (1929-2003) was my mentor, supervisor, guide, and kind supporter. I owe him (and Wilfrid Knapp) my doctorate. Geoffrey had the best legal mind of all political scientists I know. He was wise, quiet, kind, unobtrusive, supportive and effective. Colleagues and students liked and respected him for his dedication, vast knowledge, humility, dry yet sharp wit, and self-deprecating humour. I miss him greatly.


Bernard Williams (1929-2003) was the most important British moral philosopher of his time. He was a true intellectual, sharp as a razor, honest, witty, logical, erudite and humane. I cherished the classes he delivered with Ronnie Dworkin, which I attended religiously, not always in full understanding of the subtle exchange on issues remote from my immediate concerns, yet with full appreciation of the two great minds who debated the notions of equality, fair distribution and moral justice.





In 2004, we lost two more great minds: Susan Moller Okin and Joel Feinberg. Susan Okin (1946-2004) was the world leading feminist political philosopher. Her work focused on the exclusion of women from most Western political thought, past and present. She argued that gender issues belong at the core of political philosophy. Her book Women in Western Political Thought (1979) is considered a cornerstone of research on women in politics.





Joel Feinberg (1926-2004) is known for his work in the fields of individual rights and the authority of the state. The four thought-provoking volumes which he published in four years: Harm to Oth­ers, Offense to Others, Harm to Self and Harmless Wrongdoing influenced my thinking a great deal. They were published as I was writing my dissertation on the Boundaries of Liberty and Tolerance and provided inspiration and challenges. Feinberg was invited to Oxford and I was privileged to meet with him and discuss his work. Offense to Others is arguably the most comprehensive work ever written on this tricky subject – offense.






During the past two months two other influential figures passed away: Brian Barry (1936-2009) and Neil McCormick (1941-2009). Barry was one of the greatest moral and political philosophers of our time. He studied under the direction of Hart and, like Rawls, supported equal civil and political rights and an egalitarian income distribution.





Neil McCormick was a renowned legal philosopher and Scottish politician. Among his many roles he was President of the International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Geoffrey Marshall referred to him frequently in our conversations. Neil was respected and appreciated in many circles. His inspiration, leadership and rigor thinking will be sorely missed.
All of them influenced my thinking, shaped my education and enriched my life. Their scholarship will live for many years to come.





New Article

“John Stuart Mill”, in Clifford G. Christians and John C. Merrill (eds.) Ethical Communication: Five Moral Stances in Human Dialogue (Columbia, MO.: University of Missouri Press, 2009), pp. 25-32.

John Stuart Mill's concept of ethics was closely related to his firm belief in freedom. He was strictly a believer in each person bringing the greatest degree of happiness or good to the greatest number. This would be an individual act and in no way a forced action. One is free to act without coercion as long as no harm is brought to another person. Consequences must be considered carefully before acting and the act chosen must be the best of possible choices designed to bring about the most good. Mill is definitely a prime example of teleological ethics—an ethics of considering consequences, one which is notably different from Kant's concept of following a priori maxims or principles, regardless of consequences.
As ever, I’d be happy to circulate my new article to interested parties.



New Books

Clifford G. Christians and John C. Merrill (eds.) Ethical Communication: Five Moral Stances in Human Dialogue (Columbia, MO.: University of Missouri Press, 2009).
ISBN 9780826218391

The book is designed for use in upper class and graduate courses in journalism, mass communication, media studies, and communication. It is based on a series of discussions about persons who characterize the various ethical stances in the field of communication ethics. But it goes beyond mere biographical data, emphasizing the theorist’s special concern with communication and including critical and interpretive input by the various contributors. The list of those chosen is gender inclusive, ethnically diverse, and international.

Editors’ Rationale

This generation of students, raised on Wikipedia as a reference tool and in a culture that values celebrity, are fascinated with the way individuals live their lives. Ethical Communication deliberately uses biography as an entree to the larger world of philosophical ideals. This life-centered approach means that while students are getting an introduction to major thinkers and their ideas, they are also being introduced to those thinkers embedded in the historical moment. We as editors believe this is a unique approach among the current texts on media ethics and one that connects with this generation of learners. There is intellectual merit in our approach as well, for the subject of ethics is about “the life well lived”, and our method of understanding ethical theory emphasizes this practical aspect of ethics. Since theorists are chosen from the broadest possible range of history and geography, Ethical Communication breaks down the prejudice against theory that is Western, ancient, and male dominated.

The writers of the essays are all leading teachers in journalism and communication programs and are especially interested in the persons they profile. In order to cover the wide range of thinkers across history and geography, these contributing experts were needed to assist the editors. However, to ensure uniform quality throughout the book, the editors—veteran authors themselves—will work over each entry thoroughly and without compromise. Each profile follows an identical pattern and all of them are original entries for this book, laid out in advance by the editors. This volume is not an anthology of uneven contributions written for various audiences, but essays from authors who know the editors’ work and each others’, and share a common vision of the project as a whole.

I am delighted to have an article in a book edited by two giants of media ethics, who contributed so many ideas to this growing field and in many respects have set the foundations.


Orit Ichilov, The Retreat from Public Education: Global and Israeli Perspectives

The purpose of this book is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the universal elements that characterize markets in education without focusing on any particular country. This includes the examination of the social conditions that facilitate the invasion of all public spaces by the free market, analysis of the various education policies and practices that embody privatization of education, and most importantly, exploring the educational and social consequences of markets in education. Secondly, the book examines the process of the building of the public education system in Israel, and analyzes the retreat from it in recent years. The Israeli public (or state) education system emerged shortly after the establishment of the state in 1948. This case study provides a unique opportunity to closely examine the significance of public schooling in the process of nation-building, and in the building of a democracy. This represents a pioneering attempt to study the rise and fall of state education in Israel.... more on http://springer.com/978-1-4020-9569-6


Novel - David Grossman, Until the End of the Land
(in Hebrew: A Woman Run Away from News)

Grossman has a way with words. There are not many people who master Hebrew as he does. His ability to express ideas, thoughts, sentiments, characters, the inner human streams that run in our hearts and minds is admirable. Grossman takes you by the hand, slowly makes you immerse in the story, your soul intertwined with the pictures he paints, you become part of all that is happening to the heroes, all the twists and turns, the emotions, the turmoil, the storms, the fears, the hopes, the love.
I have never seen such a characterization of a relationship between parents and children. It is deep. It is penetrating. It is true. It sweeps you off your feet.

The Hebrew title is truer to the story. It is about a mother, whose younger child is recruited to serve in yet another military operation in a foreign land, designed to promote the security of a nation in arms. She cannot stand the tension. The idea of three officers knocking on her door, announcing the death of her soldier boy, torments her. She decides to trick them. She leaves her home. If there is no recipient to the news, then there will be no news. Together with a close friend, father of her soldier son, she tours the north of Israel. The father never saw his son. He knows nothing about him. While touring beautiful Israel, Ora tells Avram the story of Ofer’s life. The story is down to the fine details of memories since Ofer was a baby, until his becoming a young man. The stories move you, startle you; it is impossible to remain aloof, uninvolved. Grossman is an artist with a fine brush, a genius of the pen.

Grossman lost his son Uri in the most unfortunate Israel-Hezbollah War of 2006. A Woman Run Away from News can be seen as his farewell from Uri. Grossman had completed most of the book before he received the news about the death of his son. It is shivering.

A Woman Run Away from News is a masterpiece of the kind that wins a Nobel Prize. Surely, the translation cannot be 100 percent to the original. But I hope that not too many idioms and ideas are left out.


Light Side

A couple stand in the bank in line, waiting to be served. In front of them stands a very attractive lady in a mini skirt. The man can hardly take his eyes of her, letting his imagination run wild.

After he and his wife are served and leave the bank, the wife asks: Tell me, is she worth it?
Him: Worth what?
Her: The scolding that you are about to receive.


May I wish you Happy Independence Day, and Happy Spring with your loved ones.

Yours as ever,

Rafi

My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com/ Earlier posts at my home page: http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/ People wishing to subscribe to this Monthly Newsletter are welcome to e-mail me at r.cohen-almagor@hull.ac.uk

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Politics – March 2009

One of Menachem Begin’s first decisions in office was to admit some 200 refugees from Vietnam to Israel. In his first week in office, Barack Obama ordered to close the much-reviled detention center at Guantanamo Bay. I wish to see an Israeli prime minister whose first decision would be to compensate the families of Ikrit and Biram for the gross injustice they have suffered for so many years. May I see the day.

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Bibi Netanyahu composed his short-lived government. One more month with the growing Iranian threat. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad resigned to enable the reentry of Hamas into government. More Kassams in the south of Israel. Public and private efforts to bring Gilad Shalit home. I hope his release is imminent.

In Hebrew there is a saying: “Veshavu banim legvulam”, meaning returning the boys to their border, their home. It is about time to return Gilad. Almost 1000 days in captivity are more than enough. He should not reach the 1000th day. We all want to see Gilad at his home, celebrating the Pesach Seder with his family. Veshavu banim legvulam.

Responsibility - Israel Elections - Israel-US Relationships - Human Rights Watch Report - Post-War Developments - War on Terror - U.S. Aid to the Palestinians - CIA Destroyed 92 Interrogation Tapes - Harvard's Web Seminar on "Closing Guantánamo: Legal and Policy Debates” - The London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism - Lecture: Elections in Israel 2009 - Stem Cell Research - ME Study Group - Purim - New Books - Movie of the Month - Light Side

Responsibility

There is a noticeable trend among some governments (Turkey) as well as media and other organizations to minimize Hamas's responsibility for the last round of violence and to maximize Israel’s responsibility. With regard to Hamas, the argument accentuates that it is the democratically elected government of Palestine. The rockets are termed “flying pipes”, observing the number of casualties killed as a result and ignoring the terror and fear they inflict. The “minimizers” also say that “only” 13 Israelis were killed during the Cast Led Operation. They depict the Palestinians as helpless, weak, occupied, refugees, oppressed, seek freedom, underdog, powerless.

The effort to minimize the Palestinian role in the last round of hostilities is accompanied with massive critique of Israel. Its response is said to be disproportional. The IDF is the fourth strongest army in the world fighting against people armed with guns and “flying pipes”. It is not a fair struggle. 1300 Palestinians were killed, two thirds are said to be peaceful civilians. Among them are many children and women. More than 5,000 Palestinians were injured. Gaza is destroyed. Israel inflicted on the Strip unjustified collateral damage. Israel’s conduct amounts to state terrorism and to war crimes.

We should expect responsibility from people who speak of responsibility. I say time and again that there are no angels in this conflict. Both sides have made their fair share of mistakes. I always believe in Aristotle’s Golden Path and am certain that the conclusion – if there ever be a conclusion – will be one of compromise between the two sides. I will not repeat ideas and statements I reiterated in the past as I wish to avoid boring you, and me, to death. What I expect from governments and commentators is to “pick” the facts honestly and reasonably, and to check the facts before rushing into provocative and irresponsible allegations. I recently met with some leading human rights lawyers. Not one of them conceded that Israel’s conduct amounted to “war crimes”. To my direct question their answer was: We need to investigate all the facts before reaching such a conclusion. Not all facts are known at present. In dispute is the number of civilians killed during the operation. To call Israel “terrorist” one should establish that the aim was to target civilians. I found it difficult to believe that in the operation’s orders such an aim was specified. I want proof before rushing to such allegations.

Some words about responsibility. Aristotle was the first to construct a theory of moral responsibility. In discussing human virtues and their corresponding vices, Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics III.1-5 explores their underpinnings. He states that it is sometimes appropriate to respond to an agent with praise or blame on the basis of her actions and/or dispositional traits of character. Of course, if one is acting out of coercion one cannot be held responsible for one’s deeds. One is responsible when one is informed, aware of what one does (1110B15-25). Only a certain kind of agent qualifies as a moral agent and is thus properly subject to ascriptions of responsibility, namely, one who possess a capacity for decision. For Aristotle, a decision is a particular kind of desire resulting from free deliberation, one that expresses the agent's conception of what is good. Choice is important, to have desirable ends and relevant means to pursue the end (1111b15-1113b22). Aristotle spells out the conditions under which it is appropriate to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for some particular action or trait. He proposes that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary. A voluntary action or trait has two distinctive features: the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action or possess the trait — it cannot be compelled externally. And the agent must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about (1110a-1111b4).

Thus, by moral responsibility it is meant that autonomous agents have the understanding of the options before them, have access to evidence required for making judgments about the benefits and hazards of each option, and able to weigh the relative value of the consequences of their choice.

In a recent article (Ethics, Vol. 118, 2008), William J. FitzPatrick further explains that all cases of moral responsibility for bad actions must involve a strong form of akrasia, i.e. acting against one’s better judgment. If an agent does something bad, either she does so in full knowledge that she should not be doing it, which is clear-eyed akrasia, or she is acting from ignorance. In the former case, she will be held responsible. In the latter case, whether she is responsible or not will depend on whether or not her ignorance is culpable. Her ignorance will be culpable only if she is responsible for some earlier failure that gave rise to that ignorance. And she will be responsible for that earlier failure again only if that was a case of clear-eyed akrasia. We do not establish culpability until we arrive at a relevant episode of clear-eyed akrasia. Ignorance, whether circumstantial or normative, is culpable if the agent could reasonably have been expected to take measures that would have corrected or avoided it, given her capabilities and the opportunities provided by the social context, but failed to do so either due to akrasia or due to vices such as overconfidence, arrogance, dismissiveness, laziness, dogmatism, incuriosity, self-indulgence and contempt. Agents of governments and media organizations should not substitute truth inquiry with the above vices. I know this would demand time and resources on their part, and it is most convenient to seek short cuts. The shorter route, however, is often not the most prudent or responsible one.


Israel Elections

Bibi has an excellent chance to establish a government. It might not be the government that he wants. He would have liked to see Kadima in it. Livni, however, now for the second time showed that she is a different sort of politician, one who is not driven by personal zeal for power but rather by agenda, principles. Livni stands by her principles and does not replace them with a seat. This is quite refreshing. We are not used to it. When she gave up the option to become a prime minister some six months ago, she was perceived as a green, inexperienced, not very astute politician. Now, it seems, we understand her better, understand that she is made from a different material, rare, fresh, surprising, appealing. However, not all members of Kadima are as oblivious to power as Livni. We shall see what transpires.

Bibi has several options:
Likud-right government:very cohesive in terms of agenda; detrimental to peace; bound to clash with the international community; short lived coalition.

Likud-right-Kadima: frictions; divisive; more reasonable; better chance to reach three years in office.

Likud-right-Labour: Labour is reduced to the fourth largest party, hence will not make too many waves after it agrees to enter coalition; good Minister of Defence; more reasonable; better chance to reach three years in office.

Likud-right-Kadima-Labour: strong government; divisive; hardly any opposition; recipe for corruption. In democracy we need strong government and, no less importantly, strong opposition to keep an eye on government.


Israel-US Relationships

I was asked: Do you think that the appointment of George Mitchell, who has always opposed the settlements, will help? Should Mitchell threaten withdrawing some US aid to Israel unless Israel ends settlement expansion?

My answer: Generally speaking, I believe that if the USA wishes to play a constructive role in any peace process, it should act as a fair broker; fair meaning fair to both sides. G.W. Bush is generally regarded as Israel's best friend. I am not so sure that the policy that effectively turned a blind eye to Israel's settlement policy worked for Israel's long-term interests. Peace is a precious commodity. To reach peace both sides need to make concessions. Security is also a precious commodity. Those of us who stop hoping for peace and yearn to secure Israel's borders need to understand that security cannot be achieved if you infringe upon the rights of the Palestinians.

I can predict an inevitable clash between the Obama administration and the newly elected government of Israel. I hope that the long-term implications will work for Israel's well-being.


Human Rights Watch Report

Human Rights Watch recently published its report for 2008. I wish to highlight some of the finding regarding Israel and the Occupied Territories.
Israel's blockade of Gaza and restrictions on movement to protect illegal West Bank settlements, along with indiscriminate Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli towns and serious abuses by Fatah and Hamas against each other's supporters, were major components of the human rights crisis in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories in 2008.
- Palestinian civilians accounted for around half of those killed in Israeli military operations in Gaza prior to a June ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. More Palestinians were killed in Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in the first half of the year than in all of 2007 in both the West Bank and Gaza.
- Israel's blockade of Gaza has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis affecting Gaza's 1.5 million residents. In the West Bank, Israel maintains onerous restrictions on freedom of movement for Palestinians.
- Palestinian armed groups fired rockets and mortars indiscriminately into Israeli towns, particularly Sderot, killing four civilians and wounding others. Fatah and Hamas, the dominant Palestinian parties in the West Bank and Gaza, respectively, were responsible for extensive human rights violations as they sought to impose their authority, and retaliated for each other's violations.
- Palestinian armed groups in Gaza continued to hold as hostage Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured in June 2006.


Gaza Strip

Israel's comprehensive blockade of the Gaza Strip has severe humanitarian and economic consequences for the civilian population. Even after the June ceasefire, continued restrictions reduced the availability of basic goods and the provision of essential services. Imports in September represented 30 percent of what Israel allowed into Gaza in December 2005. Exports remained completely barred.
Israel is Gaza's major source of electricity and sole source of fuel, so its restrictions on their supply cripple transportation as well as water-pumping, sewage, and sanitation facilities.
Israel also continues to restrict the movement of Palestinians out of Gaza. The restrictions rely on Egypt's cooperation along its border with Gaza, in particular at the Rafah crossing.
Israel reintroduced a complete blockade in November in retaliation for a wave of Palestinian rocket attacks. The complete closure by Israel cut off food and medical aid, as well as fuel supplies, halted the United Nations' food distribution to 750,000 people, and caused widespread power cuts.
Between January and June 2008, Israeli forces conducting military operations killed 388 Palestinian fighters and civilians in Gaza, about half of whom were civilians; 59 of the dead were children. Israeli forces killed 41 Palestinians in the West Bank between January and the end of October, of whom at least 15 were civilians. The largest Israeli military operation, between February 27 and March 3 in Gaza, killed 107 Palestinians, more than half of them civilians. Human Rights Watch examined one area occupied by Israeli troops during the operation and found strong evidence in four incidents that Israeli forces deliberately fired at and killed five civilians, medical personnel, and incapacitated fighters. In other attacks, Israeli forces did not appear to take all feasible precautions to ensure targets were military and not civilian.
Settlements and the Wall

The route of the "separation barrier" or wall, more than 80 percent of which extends into the West Bank, further restricts the ability of thousands of Palestinian residents to access their land, essential services such as education and healthcare, and water.
As of mid-2008, more than 600 buildings were under construction in illegal West Bank settlements (not including East Jerusalem) and tenders had been issued for more than 2,400 others. In July, government approval of Maskiot marked the first official recognition of a settlement in almost nine years.
The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, in October, reported 429 cases of settler violence against Palestinians and their property in 2008, a 75 percent increase over 2007. These included physical assaults with firearms, beatings, and destruction of crops and other property. Israeli authorities seldom apprehend or prosecute perpetrators.


Discriminatory Legislation

In a positive development, since October 2007 Israel approved nearly 32,000 family unification requests in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the first exceptions to a freeze on family unifications put in place in September 2000. Some 90,000 family reunification requests remain pending.
Israeli laws and practices continue to force tens of thousands of Bedouins in the Negev region to live in "unrecognized" shanty towns. The state deliberately excludes Bedouin villages from its national planning process, thus denying them legal status. Israeli authorities demolished dozens of Bedouin dwellings in 2008. An official commission headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Eliezer Goldberg held public hearings to examine the land ownership issues in early 2008, but as of November had not issued any findings or recommendations.




The Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas Attacks on Israeli Civilians

Palestinian armed groups in Gaza indiscriminately fired locally-made rockets into the Israeli border town of Sderot and other civilian areas throughout the first half of 2008. The rocket fire killed four Israeli civilians and wounded others in 2008, prior to the June ceasefire. Palestinian armed groups, excluding Hamas, continued to fire small numbers of rockets after the ceasefire came into effect. According to media reports, Hamas authorities temporarily detained several Islamic Jihad members for planning or carrying out rocket attacks. In early November Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups fired over 80 rockets at targets inside Israel, including civilian populated areas in response to an Israeli military operation that killed six fighters. As in previous rocket attacks, Palestinian authorities in Gaza took no action to prosecute any of the individuals involved.


Intra-Palestinian Fighting and Lawlessness

Hamas forces in Gaza and Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority forces in the West Bank have carried out arbitrary arrests of each other's supporters, tortured prisoners in their custody, and closed down scores of charities, political societies, and other organizations. The PA prosecuted defendants before military courts, circumventing due process safeguards.
These abuses occurred throughout the period since Hamas took control of Gaza in June 2007, peaking in July 2008 after a bombing in a Gaza City beach café killed a four-year-old girl and five members of Hamas's armed wing, the Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades. Qassam Brigades members, who have no law enforcement powers, arbitrarily arrested over 200 people. In the West Bank, PA security forces responded by arbitrarily arresting over 100 people considered sympathetic to Hamas.
Palestinian security forces tortured detainees during interrogation, sometimes leading to their deaths. Hamas authorities claimed in early June that they had punished 35 officers for "violating human rights" but did not provide details.
The struggle between Hamas and Fatah also contributed to Gaza's humanitarian crisis. In August Hamas authorities interrupted regular diesel shipments to the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, an agency controlled by the PA in Ramallah.


Key International Actors

Israel is the largest recipient of aid from the United States, receiving US$2.38 billion in military aid in 2008. Washington has not made any funds conditional on Israel improving its adherence to international human rights and humanitarian law. The US trained and equipped Palestinian security forces, which took over some security functions in Jenin and Hebron.
The current European Union-Israel Action Plan only briefly and vaguely mentions human rights concerns, in contrast to similar plans between the EU and other countries in the region. As talks commenced in late 2008 about an "upgraded" relationship with Israel, the EU said any new agreement would include a formal subcommittee on human rights.
The Quartet (the EU, US, Russia, and UN) provided limited humanitarian aid to Gaza; the US and EU continued their economic sanctions against the de facto Hamas government there.
Israel was reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review mechanism of the UN Human Rights Council in May 2008.
The full report is available at http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2009/israeloccupied-palestinian-territories-opt?print


War on Terror

Last month I was invited to participate in a conference held at the Israel Democracy Institute. The subject was “War on Terror”. The participants arrived from Israel, the USA, Canada, Germany, Hungary, Switzerland and England (myself). Most of them were legal scholars from different law schools. Most speakers think that the threat of terror will remain with us for years to come. Most thought that we can expect further deterioration of our freedoms as more protective measures will be taken to counter terror. Clearly, there is a need for international cooperation to counter global terrorism.

Among the speakers was Hassan Jabareen, Founder of Adalah and its General Director. Adalah is the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. The Adalah advocates do an important job in protecting the basic rights and freedoms of Israeli Arabs.

Jabareen said that Hamas can take the West Bank in one day. Hamas does not wish to. Its leaders are reluctant to take responsibility. He said that the Palestinian people and Israel do not have hope. Negotiations without hope are difficult to carry. I agree. Such negotiations are most likely to fail.

I asked Jabareen whether Hamas is a terrorist organization. His answer was that Hamas does many things. Some of them are terrorist in nature. Many others are not. Hamas provides social welfare to its people; it governs; it provides social structure; it is a religious organization. Thus, Jabareen is reluctant to call Hamas terrorist. Instead of speaking of terrorist organization, speak of terrorist acts. When Hamas fires rockets into Israel, aiming indiscriminately to kill civilians, it is acting in a terrorist fashion.

Another question I posed for Jabareen was whether we should prosecute people who support the firing of Kassams on Israel, suicide bombing and other forms of terror attacks. In his answer, Jabareen differentiated between ordinary people and public figures. Suppose a resident of Umm El Fahm watches Al Jazeera’s coverage of Cast Led. He sees young Palestinian children maimed, other dead. He is upset and angry. He goes to the nearest coffee shop and says to his mates: So many children were killed in Gaza. I wish a Kassam will kill some Jewish children so Jews would understand what they are doing. Jabareen says this is a protected speech. The Palestinian simply vents his fury. His angry words would not bring about violent action. He has no influence over the firing of Kassams. However, a different matter is if the same words would be pronounced by a Palestinian public leader, secular or religious. Then such words carry weight that makes the exclusion of this speech from the protection of the Free Speech Principle.

Lastly, I asked Jabareen what he thinks about Raad Salah’s speeches and activities, knowing that he represented Salah in the past. Salah is the leader of the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement. Two repeated themes in Salah’s preach are the need for violence against the Jews, and establishing the rule of Islam in the region. He said that soon Islam will rule the entire Middle East. In a fiery speech in the February 16, 2007 protest in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Wadi Joz, Salah accused Jews of using children's blood to bake bread: "We have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children's blood," he said. "Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread." "Great God, is this a religion?" he asked. "Is this what God would want? God will deal with you yet for what you are doing." Addressing the 1,000-strong crowd and assembled press, Salah accused Israel of attempting to rebuild the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount while drenched in Arab blood: "Whoever wants to build a house of God should not do so while our blood is still on his clothes, on his doorposts, in his food, in his drink, being passed along from one terrorist general to the next terrorist general," he said. "You are inciting against us, do not let the ranks on your shoulders tempt you," he continued. "These ranks and stars on your shoulders were made from the skulls of our martyrs. They are ranks of shame, not ranks of splendor. These are ranks of disgrace, not ranks of honor." Following the speech and Friday prayers, the crowd began rioting and throwing stones at police.

Jabareen answered that nothing of what Salah said constituted incitement. Offering a consequentialist argument, he asked rhetorically how many of Salah’s followers broke the law and sit in jail. Jabareen’s answer was: None. This for him is a clear indication that Salah does not wish to break Israeli law, nor to sway others to commit criminal acts.

Jabareen called Hamas to accept the Geneva Convention notwithstanding the fact that the Convention applies only to states. This is only a formality. The South African ANC accepted the Geneva Convention in the 1950s, when no one asked them to do so. Jabareen urged Hamas to do the same.

I thank Prof. Yuval Shany and the Israel Democracy Institute for the kind invitation to attend the conference.


U.S. Aid to the Palestinians

U.S. aid to the Palestinians has fluctuated considerably over the past three years, largely due to Hamas’s changing role within the Palestinian Authority (PA). After Hamas led the PA government for over a year, its forcible takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007 led to the creation of a non-Hamas government in the West Bank—resulting in different models of governance for the two Palestinian territories. Since then, the U.S. has dramatically boosted aid levels to bolster the PA and President Mahmoud Abbas vis-à-vis Hamas. In FY2008, Congress appropriated a total of $414.5 million in bilateral assistance to the Palestinians, the largest single year appropriation ever for the Palestinians. Because of congressional concerns that, among other things, U.S. funds might be diverted to Palestinian terrorist groups, much of this assistance is subject to legislative restrictions. For FY2009, an additional $200 million have already been appropriated for the Palestinians (with another $100 million requested by the Bush Administration). Experts advise that PA stability hinges on, now more than ever, improved security, economic development, Israeli cooperation, and the continuation of high levels of foreign assistance. U.S. contributions were made to assist emergency humanitarian efforts in the Gaza Strip during the 2008-2009 Israel-Hamas conflict, and U.S. policymakers have also spoken of possible U.S. participation in international efforts to help with the post-conflict reconstruction of Gaza—subject to finding an acceptable approach vis-à-vis Hamas.

Full report is available at http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22967_20090130.pdf


CIA Destroyed 92 Interrogation Tapes

According to a letter filed by the US government, the CIA acknowledged it destroyed 92 tapes of interrogations. The admission comes in an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit seeking records of the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad. In December 2007, the ACLU filed a motion to hold the CIA in contempt for its destruction of videotapes recording the harsh interrogation of prisoners in violation of a court order requiring the agency to produce or identify all the requested records. That motion is still pending.

The following can be attributed to Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU:

"This letter provides further evidence for holding the CIA in contempt of court. The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a systemic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order. Our contempt motion has been pending in court for over a year now - it is time to hold the CIA accountable for its flagrant disregard for the rule of law."

The tapes, which show CIA operatives subjecting suspects to extremely harsh interrogation methods, should have been identified and processed for the ACLU in response to its FOIA request demanding information on the treatment and interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. The tapes were also withheld from the 9/11 Commission, appointed by former President Bush and Congress, which had formally requested that the CIA hand over transcripts and recordings documenting the interrogation of CIA prisoners.

A copy of the government's letter is available at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/38869lgl20090302.html

The ACLU's contempt motion and related legal documents are available online
at: www.aclu.org/torturefoia

Source: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/38872prs20090302.html>
(March 2, 2009)


Harvard's Web Seminar on "Closing Guantánamo: Legal and Policy Debates”

On March 23, 2009, a live Web seminar sponsored by the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University will be held on “Closing Guantánamo: Legal and Policy Debates”. The seminar will begin at 7:30 a.m. MST. It focuses on the likely effects of the closure of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facilities, including the appropriate legal framework to apply to current detainees and the key lessons to be learned.
For more information on the event, click here:
http://ihlforum.ning.com/events/closing-guantanamo-legal-and (you will need to sign in)
To link to discussion threads on the Humanitarian Law and Policy Forum social networking site, click here:
http://ihlforum.ning.com/forum/categories/closing-guantanamo-legal-and/listForCategory (you will need to sign in)


The London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism By The Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (ICCA) on February 26, 2009.

I wish to bring to your attention the London Declaration. While in Israel I had a long discussion with Irwin Cotler, former Canadian Minister of Justice. Irwin was full of praise for the British parliamentarians who organized the conference. He has high hopes that the committed countries will take active steps to combat racism. Hate crimes are of constant co