Politics – April 2013
Support is sought to facilitate the work of the Middle East Study Group. Information at http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/
I also welcome promoting the two-state solution. See http://www.hull.ac.uk/rca/
Many Israelis believe that vis á vis the Palestinians what does not work with force will work with more force. Many Palestinians believe that vis á vis the Israelis what does not work with force will work with more force. The bloody result is inescapable.
~Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Reflections on March Newsletter
President Obama’s Visit to IsraelPresident Obama on the Need for Peace
President Obama on Iran
Israel Resumes Diplomatic Relationships with Turkey
One State Solution?
More Obstacles to Two-State Solution
Three State Solution?
Gaza, Again
Marwan Barghouti
Israel 65 Independence Day
Article on Targeted Killings
My New Article
My Newspaper Article on Academic Boycott
New Books
Visit to Israel
Gem of the Month
Maccabi Tel-Aviv – Champion
Life and Death – Pompeii and Herculaneum
Monthly Poems
Light Side
Reflections on March Newsletter
Professor Jo Carby-Hall wrote from Hull:
Dear Rafi
Thank you for your interesting newsletter. You are a very compassionate and kind person with your description of Pesach when you were a kid and the film on slavery... I was commissioned by the Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection of the Republic of Poland in 2005 to carry out a three year research programme on A8 and A2 economic migrants' treatment in the EU Member States and to write a report for the Polish government on what changes are required in EU member states, the EU and international laws to combat the exploitation evil.
See J.R. Carby-Hall, The Treatment of Polish and Other A8 Economic Migrants in the European Union Member States, published by the Bureau of the Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection Warsaw (2008).
You
have very kindly agreed to write an essay in that Commissioner's
(Janusz Kochanoeski) book which I am editing and contributing an essay
to. My essay will be an off-shoot of that report.
I laughed when I read your correspondence with the editor of the "insular" journal. I have experienced that "narrowness" regularly in the UK as well as in the USA. You did right to point out to him how narrow the journal's policy is.
Greetings galore
Ever yours
Jo
President Obama’s Visit to Israel
On
March 20-22, 2013, President Obama arrived in Jerusalem and charmed the
nation. He spoke directly to the Israeli people, conveying words of
simple truth, logic and wisdom. President Obama is a great orator, with
great values. He reassured Israel that the United States stands by
Israel, that “you are not alone” (he said this in Hebrew). He explained
that the key to Israel’s security, indeed survival, is peace with its
neighbours. He commended Israel’s achievements, expressed understanding
of our history, identified with our hardships, condemned terrorism, and
celebrated the story of Passover. People should be free to live in their
own country as an independent sovereign nation. This truism, of course,
is true for all nations, including the Palestinians.
President
Obama exhibited true unity with the Israeli nation. He spoke as a
friend. He spoke as a concerned citizen of the world who wants to do
good. He spoke as a wise, responsible leader who wants to speak directly
to the Israeli nation in simple words, which he hoped all understand
despite the language barrier. He tried to insert Hebrew words here and
there to overcome this barrier and to transcend language. President
Obama wanted to make it abundantly clear that Israel is facing a choice:
to make an effort for peace, or change forever.
In
effect, change is required one way or another: If Israel opts for
peace, the change will be dramatic because it would exact a significant
toll: evacuation of settlements, resettling dozens of thousands of
Israelis in other parts of the land in return for a sustained peace with
the Palestinian nation. Or Israel will continue the occupation, lose
its Jewish identity, and become a bi-national state in which the
Palestinians will be the majority. It is just a matter of time. If
Israel decides to continue infringing them of their basic rights as
human beings, it will face unending cycles of violence and increased
isolation from the rest of the world. It is not a double standard: The
world has the same expectations from all democracies. If Israel will
maintain occupation and coercion, it then would exclude itself from the
democratic world and be treated as the democratic world treats
authoritarian regimes.
It
was bitter-sweet to hear President Obama. Sweet because I identify with
every word he said. My loyal readers know that my views are very
similar to those of President Obama. Bitter that the Israeli nation
needed to hear this from a foreign leader, in a foreign language. Bitter
that there is no single leader in Israel today who is able to
articulate this message, with similar force, in Hebrew. It is so very
sad.
Israel
has a Palestinian dream as partners for negotiations: Abu Mazen and
Salam Fayyad. The latter has just resigned but I won’t be surprise
if he will return in one way or another. He is certainly considered in
the west as a valuable player. I hope PM Netanyahu will seize the
historical moment.
President Obama on the Need for Peace
President
Obama’s speech in Jerusalem was carefully constructed and articulated.
It is one of the most impressive speeches I have heard in recent years.
It is a historic speech. In his speech of March 21, 2013, Obama said:
The question, then, is what kind of future Israel will look forward to. And that brings me to the subject of peace.
I
know Israel has taken risks for peace. Brave leaders – Menachem Begin
and Yitzhak Rabin –reached treaties with two of your neighbors. You made
credible proposals to the Palestinians at Annapolis. You withdrew from
Gaza and Lebanon, and then faced terror and rockets. Across the region,
you have extended a hand of friendship, and too often have been
confronted with the ugly reality of anti-Semitism. So I believe that the
Israeli people do want peace, and you have every right to be skeptical
that it can be achieved.
But
today, Israel is at a crossroads. It can be tempting to put aside the
frustrations and sacrifices that come with the pursuit of peace –
particularly when an Iron Dome repels rockets, barriers keep out suicide
bombers, and so many other pressing issues demand your attention. And I
know that only Israelis can make the fundamental decisions about your
country's future.
I
also know that not everyone in this hall will agree with what I have to
say about peace. I recognize that there are those who are not simply
skeptical about peace, but question its underlying premise, and that's a
part of democracy and the discourse between our two countries. But it
is important to be open and honest with one another. Politically, given
the strong bipartisan support for Israel in America, the easiest thing
for me to do would be to put this issue aside, and express unconditional
support for whatever Israel decides to do. But I want you to know that I
speak to you as a friend who is deeply concerned and committed to your
future, and I ask you to consider three points.
First,
peace is necessary. Indeed, it is the only path to true security. You
can be the generation that permanently secures the Zionist dream, or you
can face a growing challenge to its future. Given the demographics west
of the Jordan River, the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a
Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent
and viable Palestine. Given the frustration in the international
community, Israel must reverse an undertow of isolation. And given the
march of technology, the only way to truly protect the Israeli people is
through the absence of war – because no wall is high enough, and no
Iron Dome is strong enough, to stop every enemy from inflicting harm.
This
truth is more pronounced given the changes sweeping the Arab World. I
recognize that with the uncertainty in the region – people in the
streets, changes in leadership, the rise of non-secular parties in
politics –it is tempting to turn inward. But this is precisely the time
to respond to the wave of revolution with a resolve for peace. As more
governments respond to popular will, the days when Israel could seek
peace with a handful of autocratic leaders are over. Peace must be made
among peoples, not just governments. No one step can change overnight
what lies in the hearts and minds of millions. But progress with the
Palestinians is a powerful way to begin, while sidelining extremists who
thrive on conflict and division.
Second,
peace is just. There is no question that Israel has faced Palestinian
factions who turned to terror, and leaders who missed historic
opportunities. That is why security must be at the center of any
agreement. And there is no question that the only path to peace is
through negotiation. That is why, despite the criticism we've received,
the United States will oppose unilateral efforts to bypass negotiations
through the United Nations.
But
the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and justice must
also be recognized. Put yourself in their shoes – look at the world
through their eyes. It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow
up in a state of her own, and lives with the presence of a foreign army
that controls the movements of her parents every single day. It is not
just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It is
not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands; to restrict a
student's ability to move around the West Bank; or to displace
Palestinian families from their home. Neither occupation nor expulsion
is the answer. Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland,
Palestinians have a right to be a free people in their own land.
Only
you can determine what kind of democracy you will have. But remember
that as you make these decisions, you will define not simply the future
of your relationship with the Palestinians – you will define the future
of Israel as well. As Ariel Sharon said, "It is impossible to have a
Jewish, democratic state and at the same time to control all of Eretz
Israel. If we insist on fulfilling the dream in its entirety, we are
liable to lose it all." Or, from a different perspective, think of what
David Grossman said shortly after losing his son, as he described the
necessity of peace – "a peace of no choice" he said, "must be approached
with the same determination and creativity as one approaches a war of
no choice."
Of
course, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is
dedicated to its destruction. But while I know you have had differences
with the Palestinian Authority, I believe that you do have a true
partner in President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Over the last few
years, they have built institutions and maintained security on the West
Bank in ways that few would have imagined a decade ago. So many
Palestinians – including young people – have rejected violence as a
means of achieving their aspirations.
Which
leads to my third point: peace is possible. I know it doesn't seem that
way. There will always be a reason to avoid risk, and there's a cost
for failure. There will always be extremists who provide an excuse to
not act. And there is something exhausting about endless talks about
talks; the daily controversies, and grinding status quo.
Negotiations
will be necessary, but there is little secret about where they must
lead – two states for two peoples. There will be differences about how
to get there, and hard choices along the way. Arab States must adapt to a
world that has changed. The days when they could condemn Israel to
distract their people from a lack of opportunity are over. Now is the
time for the Arab World to take steps toward normalized relations with
Israel. Meanwhile, Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a
Jewish state, and that Israelis have the right to insist upon their
security. Israelis must recognize that continued settlement activity is
counterproductive to the cause of peace, and that an independent
Palestine must be viable– that real borders will have to be drawn. I've
suggested principles on territory and security that I believe can be the
basis for talks. But for the moment, put aside the plans and process. I
ask you, instead, to think about what can be done to build trust
between people…
I
know this is possible. Look to the bridges being built in business and
civil society by some of you here today. Look at young people who have
not yet learned a reason to mistrust, and those who have learned to
overcome a legacy of mistrust that they inherited from their parents
because of the simple recognition that we hold more hopes in common than
the fear that drives us apart. Your voices must be louder than the
extremists who would drown them out. Your hopes must light the way
forward. Look to a future in which Jews, Muslims and Christians can all
live in peace and greater prosperity in this Holy Land. Look to the
future that you want for your own children – a future in which a Jewish,
democratic state is protected and accepted, for this time and for all
time.
There
will be many voices that say this change is not possible. But remember
this: Israel is the most powerful country in this region. Israel has the
unshakeable support of the most powerful country in the world. Israel
has the wisdom to see the world as it is, but also the courage to see
the world as it should be. Ben Gurion once said, "In Israel, in order to
be a realist you must believe in miracles." Sometimes, the greatest
miracle is recognizing that the world can change. After all, that is a
lesson that the world learned from the Jewish people.
That
brings me to the final area I will focus on: prosperity, and Israel's
broader role in the world. I know that all the talk about security and
peace can seem distant from other concerns that you have in your daily
lives. And every day, even amidst the threats you face, Israelis are
defining themselves by the opportunities you create…
As
the President of a country that you can count on as your greatest
friend, I am confident that you can help us find the promise in the days
that lie ahead. And as a man who has been inspired in my own life by
that timeless calling within the Jewish experience – tikkun olam – I am
hopeful that we can draw upon what's best in ourselves to meet the
challenges that will come; to win the battles for peace in the wake of
so much war; and to do the work of repairing this world. May God bless
you, and may God bless Israel and the United States of America. Toda
raba.
President Obama on Iran
In his speech of March 21, 2013, Obama said:
All
of us have an interest in resolving this issue peacefully. Strong and
principled diplomacy is the best way to ensure that the Iranian
government forsakes nuclear weapons. Moreover, peace is far more
preferable to war, and the inevitable costs – and unintended
consequences – that would come with it. Because of the cooperation
between our governments, we know that there remains time to pursue a
diplomatic resolution. That is what America will do – with clear eyes –
working with a world that is united, and with the sense of urgency that
is required.
But
Iran must know this time is not unlimited. And I have made the position
of the United States of America clear: Iran must not get a nuclear
weapon. This is not a danger that can be contained. As President, I have
said to the world that all options are on the table for achieving our
objectives. America will do what we must to prevent a nuclear-armed
Iran.
Israel Resumes Diplomatic Relationships with Turkey
On the day of President Obama’s departure, it was announced that PM Netanyahu called Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
to express apology for the events on the Gaza flotilla that resulted in
the killing of Turkish citizens. Erdogan accepted the apology and
initial relationships resumed although Erdogan does not rush to restore
full diplomatic affairs.
I
hope that after three years of ego games and crisis, the two leaders
understood that the damage done by the crisis was far greater than the
benefits they could reap from a renewal of relations.
Netanyahu
told Erdogan that he appreciated the comments made by the former to the
Danish newspaper Politiken in which he took back the statements he
previously made calling Zionism a form of racism. Erdogan explained that
he was criticizing Israeli policies in Gaza and that his statements
were misconstrued. Erdogan told Netanyahu that he cherishes the
longstanding relationship between Israel and Turkey and between the
Turkish people and the Jewish people, stressing that he would like to
improve relations.
Former
Defense Minister Ehud Barak, even in his last days in the job,
pressured Netanyahu to end the crisis with Turkey. The Israel Defense
Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and Mossad head Tamir Pardo, who were
in on the secret of contacts with Ankara, also supported the apology to
Turkey.
Make
no mistake: The Obama administration was heavily involved in
reestablishment of relations between the two countries. The Turkish
prime minister promised President Obama to stop his harsh public
criticism of Israel. Erdogan was said to be surprised (God knows why) by
the strong American response to the speech in which he said that
Zionism is a crime against humanity. The USA would probably have had a
similar response if someone were to argue that Atatürkism is a crime against humanity.
I
am delighted that common sense prevailed. Israel needs Turkey far more
than Turkey needs Israel. Good and stable relationships between the two
countries are essential for peace and stability in the Middle East.
Turkey and Israel see eye to eye on Iran and Syria. They have mutual
interests in seeing that Iran won’t become a nuclear power, and in
seeing a change of regime in Syria that would result in stopping the
steady flux of refugees and in restoring order in the troubled nation.
Both Israel and Turkey are concerned at the same time that the power
reshuffle in Syria would not yield terrorism and give rise to radical
Jihadists. The challenge is significant and disconcerting.
For further information, see http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/
One State Solution?
As
Israel encircles East Jerusalem, the designated capital of Palestine,
with more settlements and bolstering existing ones, more and more people
in Israel and abroad are calling for a one state solution, i.e., one
Israel-Palestine for both nations. This will be the end of Zionism.
Those
well-meaning individuals who promote a one-state solution tend to be
left-wing intellectuals, people who believe in peace, freedom, tolerance
and justice. Many of them have no religious beliefs. Their beliefs, I
repeat, are peace, freedom, tolerance and justice. The way to achieve
these ends is through people’s efforts, not God. The result of a
one-state solution, however, will be unGodly. I am not sure whether they themselves will be happy to live in their imaginary state. Yet they preach it for others.
For those who advocate a one-state solution, this is the future you propose:
Hamas
appears obsessed with the issue of what women must and cannot wear in
various circumstances. Men are no longer allowed to cut women’s
hair. Women are not permitted to run the marathon, no matter how they
were dressed. Recently they decided that all schools, by law, must
be gender-segregated over the age of nine, and no men may teach
girls under any circumstances.
But,
as Hussein Ibish notes, Hamas's religious authoritarianism was never
restricted purely to male hysteria. They've also cracked down on every
art form imaginable (one singer noted,
"Gaza is the place where art goes to die") since they are mostly a
surefire shortcut to eternal damnation. And they've banned men from
various commonplace but loathsome and corrupting practices.
Hamas
officials—clearly not having anything better to do since their people
are so well off, well cared for and happy—decided also to take decisive
action on one of the most pressing crises the people of Gaza have faced
in recent times: despicable male ruffians with long or gelled hair and
the wrong kind of pants.
Hamas
police rounded up several groups of young infidels sporting clear
evidence of degeneracy: longish, gelled or spiky hair.
These dissolute miscreants were hauled off to police stations
where they were crudely shaved, told to go to a local barber to finish
the job, and kicked out. If they complained, they received a no doubt
well-deserved beating. Similar treatment was meted out to young
malefactors depraved enough to wear the wrong trousers (too narrow,
low-hanging).
I
envisage good cooperation between Hamas and the Jewish ultra-Orthodox
circles in implementing these policies in the prospective
Israel-Palestine.
Source: Hussein Ibish, Hamas: The Palestinian Fashion Police, http://www.thedailybeast.com/
More Obstacles to Two-State Solution
Have
you heard of the E1 Plan? Behind this simplistic, meaningless and
obscure name lies a comprehensive building operation with full meaning
and grave consequences for any future peace process, so much so that it
might put “peace” (a phrase that the Israeli government still uses)
squarely in the fantasy world.
The plan is to
build thousands of housing units and hotel rooms near the Ma’ale Adumim
settlement. One settlement plan of critical importance is Giv’at
HaMatos. Giv’at HaMatos would connect the dots of several other planned
or expanding settlements along southern Jerusalem - including Giv’at
Yael in the southwest; and Har Homa and East Talpiyot in the southeast.
Its build-up would cut off Arab neighbourhoods in southern Jerusalem,
like Beit Safafa and Sharafat, rendering them “Palestinian enclaves”.
The
planned large housing at the southern perimeter of Jerusalem would
further disrupt the contiguity of land between East Jerusalem and the
rest of the West Bank required for a future Palestinian state, seriously
impeding a two-state solution. It would also mark the first new
settlement construction in Jerusalem since 1997.
Last
year, Israel also issued tenders for the construction of 606 new
housing units north of East Jerusalem, in Ramot, just north of the Green
Line marking the border between Israel and the West Bank, and approved
another 1,500 units in the neighbouring Ramot Shlomo.
In
2012 the Israeli government approved the construction of 6,676 settler
housing units in the West Bank, compared with 1,607 in 2011 and several
hundred in 2010, according to Peace Now. In June last year, the Israeli
government announced it would build 851 new units in the West Bank,
including more than 230 in the controversial settlements of Ariel and
Efrat which are situated deep in the West Bank. Like Giv’at HaMatos,
these two settlements make any contiguous Palestinian territory very
difficult.
Israel
is building Jewish settlements and at the same time is destroying
Palestinian houses. Both activities do not bring peace nearer. According
to the Displacement Working Group, a grouping of aid agencies helping
displaced families, Israel destroyed 139 Palestinian structures,
including 59 homes, in January - almost triple 2012’s monthly average.
The demolitions occurred in East Jerusalem and the West Bank - with a
majority taking place in Area C controlled by Israel - and left 251
Palestinians, including over 150 children, displaced.
The UN estimates there are now 520,000 Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, with 43 percent of the land there allocated to local and regional settlement councils. Israel has transferred roughly 8 percent of its citizens into these areas since the 1970s, altering the demographic composition of the territory and furthering the Palestinian people from their right to self-determination.
Source: Briefing: Beyond the E-1 Israeli settlement, http://www.irinnews.org/
Three State Solution?
I
was asked for my opinion on three-state solution. This solution is
often aired by those who oppose the two-state solution, mocking the idea
by saying that Fatah and Hamas are rivalries; they hardly speak and
have no shared vision for a Palestinian state. Thus, if at all, we
should speak of three-state solution, not of the “simplistic” formula of
a State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel.
The
Palestinians themselves reject the three-state solution, believing that
a way can be found to resolve the differences between Fatah and Hamas.
Moreover, I do not think that, if seriously considered, a three-state
solution serves Israel’s interests. Israel has a vested interest to see
that Palestinian radicalism is contended with by the Palestinian
authority and its sovereign powers, not by Israel. Division within
Palestine is bad for Palestine, and also for Israel.
Gaza, Again
In
early April, Israel was struck yet again by sporadic rocket fire from
Gaza struck. On April 2, 2013, Israel responded with an aerial bombing
raid against Hamas targets. This flare-up is the most serious one since
the end of the "Operation Pillar of Fire" in November 2012. Israel
considers Hamas responsible for any rocket fire from the Gaza Strip. The
new defence minister, Moshe Ya'alon, has a very low threshold of
tolerance when it comes to such terror incidents. Whoever plays with
fire will be burnt very quickly.
Marwan Barghouti
A poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey was published in early April showing that Marwan
Barghouti, a Fatah-linked terrorist currently serving five life
sentences for coordinating attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli
civilians, is still the most popular leader in the Palestinian society. Barghouti
would receive 38 percent of the votes if Palestinians elections were
held today, versus 31 percent for Haniyeh (Hamas) and 26 percent for
Abbas (PA). A majority of respondents considered Abbas’s Fatah
faction and Haniyeh’s Hamas faction corrupt, with 64 percent describing
Hamas that way and an eye-popping 78 percent of respondents
saying that Fatah is corrupt. The PA in general and Abbas in particular
have recently come under sustained criticism for laws and tactics
that circumvent the rule of law and threaten civil liberties in the West
Bank. A recent crackdown on journalists has seen a West Bank court
upholding a prison sentence for a journalist convicted of “defaming
Abbas,” and the Palestinian Ministry of Information imposing new
registration restrictions on journalists working in their areas. Abbas
himself is serving in the ninth year of his four-year presidential term.
Source: The Israel Project
Israel 65 Independence Day
I
was very happy to participate in Israel 65th year of independence party
at the magnificent London Guildhall. Thousands of people came to show
their support. The atmosphere was excellent, the food was delicious, the
ambassador’s speech was superb, singing the Tiqva was moving. I was
thrilled to spend a joyful evening with people who share love and
concern for Israel. All in all a delightful and most rewarding evening.
Article on Targeted Killings
Amos
Guiora published a new article on targeted killing. Amos knows a thing
or two about this subject as he served in the occupied territories as an
IDF lawyer.
Abstract: Targeted
killing sits at the intersection of law, morality, strategy, and
policy. For the very reasons that lawful and effective targeted killing
enables the state to engage in its core function of self-defense and
defense of its nationals, I am a proponent of targeted killing. However,
my support for targeted killing is conditioned upon it being subject to
rigorous standards, criteria, and guidelines. At present, new
conceptions of threat and new technological capabilities are drastically
affecting the implementation of targeted killing and the application of
core legal and moral principles. High-level decision makers have begun
to seemingly place a disproportionate level of importance on tactical
and strategic gain over respect for a narrow definition of
criteria-based legal and moral framework. Nonetheless, an effective
targeted killing provides the state with significant advantages in the
context of counterterrorism. Rather than relying on the executive branch
making decisions in a “closed world” devoid of oversight and review,
the intelligence information justifying the proposed action must be
submitted to a court that would ascertain the information’s
admissibility. The process of preparing and submitting available
intelligence information to a court would significantly contribute to
minimizing operational error that otherwise would occur.
You can read the article at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
My New Article
“The Six Day War – Interviews with General Aharon Yariv and Ambassador Shimon Shamir, Lessons and Insights”, Social Issues in Israel (Sugioth Chevratiut Be’Israel), Vol. XV (2013), pp. 171-194 (Hebrew).
The
article records interviews with Professor Shimon Shamir and Major
General (res.) Aharon Yariv in which the two explained the reasons for
the outbreak of the Six Day War. Their analysis shows that the war
erupted even though neither Israel nor Egypt (at least initially) wanted
war. Energized by his own rhetoric, Nasser made a series of fateful
decisions that brought about war. Israeli leaders were perceived as
being weak, and Nasser chose brinkmanship diplomacy that brought his
downfall. Negative roles in the escalation process were played by the UN
General Secretary U-Thant and the USSR. It is argued that the Six Day
War was a just war from Israel's point of view as the closure of the
Straits of Tiran constituted a clear casus belli. The discussion
highlights the points of agreement and disagreement between Professor
Shamir and Major General Yariv.
I am happy to email the article to interested parties.
The article is also available on my Website: http://www.hull.ac.uk/rca
My Newspaper Article on Academic Boycott
An Irish union’s boycott fallacy
April 19, 2013
THE JEWISH CHRONICLE ONLINE
Dr
Ilan Saban is a lecturer at the University of Haifa who devotes much of
his time defending and promoting the rights of Palestinians. But if he
were to post one of his articles on the subject to a journal in Ireland,
his envelope might not be opened, simply because it had come from
Israel. This is the result of the Teachers Union of Ireland's recent
unjust, unfair, and counterproductive decision to boycott all academic
collaboration with Israel.
The decision is unjust because
any sweeping decision, by its nature, cannot do justice. It is one
thing to offer a rationale to boycott a certain institution or
individual. It is quite another thing simply to boycott everyone.
It is unfair
because it is based on a small, committed and vocal group of members
who have made boycotting Israel their mission. They exploit the silence,
indifference and inactivity of the majority of TUI members to pass
their unjust resolution. And it is counterproductive because it
weakens the peace camp in Israel and strengthens the right-wing position
that prefers land over peace and promoting human rights. It hardens the
hardliners.
Israeli
academia tends to be liberal. Many academics are human-rights
activists. Many oppose the settlements. Many are for a two-state
solution, the splitting of Jerusalem, a return to 1967 borders, and wish
to see a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.
I
have intimate knowledge of Israeli academia, having served as a
professor at two Israeli universities and established the Centre for
Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. Since 1985, I have been
promoting human rights in Israel and for the Palestinians inside and
outside of Israel. I received the support of academics in all Israeli
institutions.
We
have been trying to influence government decisions for years, with some
success, notably between 1990 and 1993, when Israeli academics,
including myself, pushed for negotiations with the PLO. Boycotting
academia will work against the peaceful, constructive and liberal
elements in Israeli society and play into the current government's
hands.
Those
who wish to boycott Israel say that Israeli academia is sponsored by
the government. This is true. Thus, they deduce, academics are implicit
collaborators of discriminatory policies. This claim is as true as the
claim that British academics are implicit collaborators in British
governments' decisions to wage war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Those
who boycott Israel blame academics for not being able to influence
government decisions for the better. Yes, Israeli academics do not have
the power they would like. But the TUI decision will render them weaker.
Israeli academics tend to be involved in peace-seeking politics more
than academics are in Britain, Canada and the US, but the Israeli
government pays attention to its academics to a similar degree that the
British government does.
The
boycotters undercut academic freedom and betray values we all hold
dear: freedom of expression, tolerance, equality and justice.
Personally, I object to this decision. But if the TUI insists on
boycotting countries, I fail to understand why it singles out Israel.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where there is no shortage of
injustices and severe human-rights violations. How is it that, of all
countries, it is only Israel that preoccupies the minds of these vocal
teachers?
The
Economist Intelligence Unit's Index of Democracy ranks Israel 37th out
of 167 countries. The index takes into account civil liberties, among
other things. Granted, Israel has room for improvement, but 130
countries are ranked below it. Why does not the TUI focus its attention
on any of these for a change?
New Books
Asher Susser, Israel, Jordan and Palestine (Waltham, Mass.: Brandeis University Press, 2012)
The
study seeks to examine the positions of the three key players on the
various options for solution. It makes it clear that up until now, in
the Palestinian worldview anything less than an independent state in the
1967 boundaries, with Arab Jerusalem as its capital and a substantial
return of refugees to Israel fell short of the bare minimum that the
Palestinians could accept. Susser explains that all of the West Bank and
Gaza is the meager 22 percent rump of historical Palestine. The
Palestinians sought the full implementation of UN Security Council
Resolution 242 and 338, and General Assembly Resolution 194 on the
refugees and would not agree to anything less. “To expect them to do so
was pure illusion” (p. 47).
The
book surveys important milestones: Camp David, Taba, the Clinton
parameters, the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Declaration, the Geneva Accord, the
Arab Peace Initiative, the Abbas-Olmert talks, the Fayyad plan, showing
that the gaps between the two sides are still far too wide. More needs
to be done to find a way on the most delicate issues of Jerusalem and
refugees. I think the other concerns can be addressed and resolved but
these two issues demand far more creativity and willingness to
compromise, on both sides.
Susser
also analyses various peace solutions: one state, two state, and some
sort of federation or confederation with Jordan. He explains why the
first and the third are not viable, leaving us with only one option to
pursue: two state solution. But if Israel continues to enlarge existing
settlements and build new ones, then we might face a deadlock that would
hamper this possibility, leading both sides to more cycles of violence.
The
book is thorough, lucid and thoughtful, considering the issues with
much knowledge, sensitivity and skill. It highlights major concerns, and
observes the path to reconciliation. I hope leaders of both Israel and
Palestine will read you. They can benefit greatly from this study, as I
did.
I thank Shai Feldman for a copy of this book.
Dhiraj Murthy, Twitter (Cambridge: Polity, 2013)
193
pages on 140 characters. The book has seven chapters. The first
explains what Twitter is, and the second put the Twitter phenomenon
within the present social-technological context. We learn that more than
200 million tweets are sent each and every day (p. 2), although unclear
how many of them are actually read; the use of the hashtag # is
clarified (p. 3); what is microblogging (p. 10). It is argued that
Twitter has extended the notion of the global village (pp. 19-22).
Chapter 3 theorizes Twitter, rather thinly, while the rest of the book
observes the connection between the succinct social network and
journalism, and the use of the platform for reporting disasters, for
reporting health problems, and for political activism.
Social
media are regarded as a significant factor in the Arab Spring. In
Libya, however, 5.5% of the population uses the Internet, and in Yemen
only 1.8% (p. 98). In Egypt, more people use the Internet, including
Twitter. The number of Twitter users rose from January to the end of
March 2011 from about 12,000 to 131,000. This is certainly significant
(p. 107).
Murthy
argues that Twitter changes the relationships between health
institutions and the public. It lends itself to a “medical support group
format”, where people exchange information about medical problems,
treatment, medication and professionals (p. 120). Twitter is also used
by medical researchers and physicians to interact and enhance drug
discovery (p. 121). It can be used to correct medical misinformation (p.
126).
In
the Conclusion, Murthy notes the self-centered character of Twitter, as
people wish to promote themselves. The more followers they have, the
prouder they become. The increased following gives them a sense of
satisfaction, pride, self-worth, esteem. Many believe that if you do not
exist on Twitter, then you do not exist. People share ideas, thoughts,
reflections, banal information, facts, jokes and essentially anything
that might increase following. There are manuals as to how to promote
your business on Twitter, believing that the greater the exposure, the
more profitable your business becomes. The top five hashtags in 2010
were #rememberwhen, #slapyourself, #confessiontime, #thingsimiss and
#ohjustlikeme.
I
wanted to read this book because I was intrigued to know what are the
justifications for writing a whole book on 140 characters. Murthy
convinces that there is a scope for a book, possibly also for other
books as he did not relate at all to the controversies around Twitter,
to court cases relating to problematic tweets, and to questions relating
to censorship, self-censorship, monitoring, self-monitoring, and the
boundaries of freedom of expression generally.
I thank Polity Press for a copy of this book.
Book Received with gratitude:
Sylvia Barack Fishman, Double or Nothing? (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2004).
Visit to Israel
In
the second half of May next month I am scheduled to visit my beloved
country. I will be happy to see as many of you as it possible. I will
spend most of my time in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Theatre – The Winslow Boy
I
love many of the arts. I cannot live without culture. Of all the arts,
my greatest passion is theatre, a passion I shared with my mother. I
simply adore good theatre, and specially British theatre. There is
nothing like it.
The
Winslow Boy represents English theatre in its very best. Great play,
based on a true story; great acting; wonderful sense of timing; a
captivating drama.
George
Archer-Shee was a 13-year-old cadet at the Isle of Wight's Osbourne
Naval College. He was accused of stealing a five shilling postal note
from the locker of a fellow cadet in 1908. The college claimed that
George stole a postal order and cashed it, and consequently he was
expelled from the College. The father, Martin Archer-Shee, a Liverpool
bank manager believed his son, and tried unsuccessfully to get
satisfaction, first from the Commander of the College, and then from the
Admiralty. Archer-Shee couldn't file suit directly against the College,
as it and the Admiralty were part of the King's domain and therefore
immune from such actions. The King could do no wrong.
Many people in England at the time felt that George, as a Catholic, was a victim of bias. It was widely reported that several cadets were suspected of the crime, while only Archer-Shee was expelled and charged.
Archer-Shee asked Edward Carson, who achieved recognition earlier in his life as the man who prosecuted Oscar Wilde, to serve as the family's barrister. In order to argue the case, Carson made use of a Petition of Right — which if accepted by the Home Office and the Attorney General, could be given to the King. The King could then, if he desired, grant the Petition and the case could go to court. In May of 1909, King Edward VII received the Petition and signed it "Let Right be Done," allowing the prosecutor to proceed. The admiralty challenged the petition and won, but that ruling was subsequently overturned on appeal by Carson.
On July 26th, 1910 the trial began, with Sir Rufus Isaacs chosen to represent the Admiralty. Four days into the trial, Isaacs announced that on behalf of the Admiralty and the crown, he accepted George's claim of innocence. It was reported that at the trial, members of the jury climbed over barriers just to congratulate the Archer-Shee family.
Later, the case became the subject of heated political debate. Many felt that the first Lord of the Admiralty, Reginald McKenna, tainted the image of British justice, by not paying damages to the Archer-Shee family. George's brother, who had just been elected a Conservative and Unionist Member of Parliament, brought the issue to his colleagues' attention. Finally, the family was paid £3,000 in addition to the costs of the trial.
While the financial matters were squared away, no formal letter of apology or a withdrawal of charges was ever sent to George Archer-Shee. George Archer-Shee served in the military in World War I and was killed in action in 1914 in Ypres.
In 1946, the skillful playwright Terence Mervyn Rattigan took this story and made it into play. Rattigan made numerous alterations as he created his play, simplifying the legal niceties and advancing the date from 1908 to 1912-1914, when the Admiralty had WW1 on its hands along with young Ronnie Winslow who stole, or did not, a five shilling postal note. George's 36-year-old Tory MP brother, Martin Archer-Shee, became the playful Oxford undergrad Dickie Winslow and he changed the very conservative sister Catherine into a feminist Suffragette. Rattigan also removed the religious aspect to the family's struggle to keep his focus on their relentless quest for justice.
Many people in England at the time felt that George, as a Catholic, was a victim of bias. It was widely reported that several cadets were suspected of the crime, while only Archer-Shee was expelled and charged.
Archer-Shee asked Edward Carson, who achieved recognition earlier in his life as the man who prosecuted Oscar Wilde, to serve as the family's barrister. In order to argue the case, Carson made use of a Petition of Right — which if accepted by the Home Office and the Attorney General, could be given to the King. The King could then, if he desired, grant the Petition and the case could go to court. In May of 1909, King Edward VII received the Petition and signed it "Let Right be Done," allowing the prosecutor to proceed. The admiralty challenged the petition and won, but that ruling was subsequently overturned on appeal by Carson.
On July 26th, 1910 the trial began, with Sir Rufus Isaacs chosen to represent the Admiralty. Four days into the trial, Isaacs announced that on behalf of the Admiralty and the crown, he accepted George's claim of innocence. It was reported that at the trial, members of the jury climbed over barriers just to congratulate the Archer-Shee family.
Later, the case became the subject of heated political debate. Many felt that the first Lord of the Admiralty, Reginald McKenna, tainted the image of British justice, by not paying damages to the Archer-Shee family. George's brother, who had just been elected a Conservative and Unionist Member of Parliament, brought the issue to his colleagues' attention. Finally, the family was paid £3,000 in addition to the costs of the trial.
While the financial matters were squared away, no formal letter of apology or a withdrawal of charges was ever sent to George Archer-Shee. George Archer-Shee served in the military in World War I and was killed in action in 1914 in Ypres.
In 1946, the skillful playwright Terence Mervyn Rattigan took this story and made it into play. Rattigan made numerous alterations as he created his play, simplifying the legal niceties and advancing the date from 1908 to 1912-1914, when the Admiralty had WW1 on its hands along with young Ronnie Winslow who stole, or did not, a five shilling postal note. George's 36-year-old Tory MP brother, Martin Archer-Shee, became the playful Oxford undergrad Dickie Winslow and he changed the very conservative sister Catherine into a feminist Suffragette. Rattigan also removed the religious aspect to the family's struggle to keep his focus on their relentless quest for justice.
Three characters are in the heart of this wonderful play: the father, Arthur Winslow, acted by Henry Goodman
is strongly motivated by a sense of justice. Wrong was done to his son,
and he was determined to set it right. His daughter, Catherine Winslow,
played by Naomi Frederick, who was blessed with the same
principled quest for justice, and who was willing to pay a significant
personal price to secure justice. And the family barrister, Sir Robert
Morton, played by Peter Sullivan
who encapsulates the traits of a shrewd, experienced and determined
lawyer, driven by a large ego, healthy chutzpah, and an admirable desire
to see that right is done while willing to pay a high personal price to
force the Admiralty to admit error. Almost every
character in this play paid a high price for this relentless search for
justice. But was it only justice they were seeking?
One
particular sentence strikes one’s mind: A newspaper calls the House of
Commons debate about the Winslow case “a shocking waste of the
government’s time — but a good thing because it could only happen in
England”.
The Winslow Boy ***** in Rafi’s scale. This is the best show I have seen in a long time.
Maccabi Tel-Aviv – Champion
My
beloved team, Maccabi Tel-Aviv, won the Israeli championship in
football. This was its 19 championship and it came after ten most
frustrating years. Maccabi has a winning mentality. Second place is
never good. Maccabi is about being the best and lead by example. It is
the Barcelona (or Man. Utd.) of Israel. I wish Spurs would have this
mentality.
I am delighted!!
Life and Death – Pompeii and Herculaneum
I recommend the Pompeii and Herculaneum
exhibition at the British Museum. Lots to see and reflect upon. The
life in AD 79 was not dramatically different from our life today.
More similarities than differences
Painted on a wall in one triclinium in Pompeii: don't dirty the couch covers, keep your eyes off other. People's partners and take your quarrels home with you
Monthly Poems
April Love
We have walked in Love's land a little way,
We have learnt his lesson a little while,
And shall we not part at the end of day,
With a sigh, a smile?
A little while in the shine of the sun,
We were twined together, joined lips forgot
How the shadows fall when day is done,
And when Love is not.
We have made no vows - there will none be broke,
Our love was free as the wind on the hill,
There was no word said we need wish unspoke,
We have wrought no ill.
So shall we not part at the end of day,
Who have loved and lingered a little while,
Join lips for the last time, go our way,
With a sigh, a smile.
Ernest Christopher Dowson
We have learnt his lesson a little while,
And shall we not part at the end of day,
With a sigh, a smile?
A little while in the shine of the sun,
We were twined together, joined lips forgot
How the shadows fall when day is done,
And when Love is not.
We have made no vows - there will none be broke,
Our love was free as the wind on the hill,
There was no word said we need wish unspoke,
We have wrought no ill.
So shall we not part at the end of day,
Who have loved and lingered a little while,
Join lips for the last time, go our way,
With a sigh, a smile.
Ernest Christopher Dowson
"It was an April morning: fresh and clear"
It was an April morning: fresh and clear
The Rivulet, delighting in its strength,
Ran with a young man's speed; and yet the voice
Of waters which the winter had supplied
Was softened down into a vernal tone.
The spirit of enjoyment and desire,
And hopes and wishes, from all living things
Went circling, like a multitude of sounds.
The budding groves seemed eager to urge on
The steps of June; as if their various hues
Were only hindrances that stood between
Them and their object: but, meanwhile, prevailed
Such an entire contentment in the air
That every naked ash, and tardy tree
Yet leafless, showed as if the countenance
With which it looked on this delightful day
Were native to the summer.--Up the brook
I roamed in the confusion of my heart,
Alive to all things and forgetting all.
At length I to a sudden turning came
In this continuous glen, where down a rock
The Stream, so ardent in its course before,
Sent forth such sallies of glad sound, that all
Which I till then had heard, appeared the voice
Of common pleasure: beast and bird, the lamb,
The shepherd's dog, the linnet and the thrush
Vied with this waterfall, and made a song,
Which, while I listened, seemed like the wild growth
Or like some natural produce of the air,
That could not cease to be. Green leaves were here;
But 'twas the foliage of the rocks--the birch,
The yew, the holly, and the bright green thorn,
With hanging islands of resplendent furze:
And, on a summit, distant a short space,
By any who should look beyond the dell,
A single mountain-cottage might be seen.
I gazed and gazed, and to myself I said,
"Our thoughts at least are ours; and this wild nook,
My EMMA, I will dedicate to thee."
----Soon did the spot become my other home,
My dwelling, and my out-of-doors abode.
And, of the Shepherds who have seen me there,
To whom I sometimes in our idle talk
Have told this fancy, two or three, perhaps,
Years after we are gone and in our graves,
When they have cause to speak of this wild place,
May call it by the name of EMMA'S DELL.
William Wordsworth
It was an April morning: fresh and clear
The Rivulet, delighting in its strength,
Ran with a young man's speed; and yet the voice
Of waters which the winter had supplied
Was softened down into a vernal tone.
The spirit of enjoyment and desire,
And hopes and wishes, from all living things
Went circling, like a multitude of sounds.
The budding groves seemed eager to urge on
The steps of June; as if their various hues
Were only hindrances that stood between
Them and their object: but, meanwhile, prevailed
Such an entire contentment in the air
That every naked ash, and tardy tree
Yet leafless, showed as if the countenance
With which it looked on this delightful day
Were native to the summer.--Up the brook
I roamed in the confusion of my heart,
Alive to all things and forgetting all.
At length I to a sudden turning came
In this continuous glen, where down a rock
The Stream, so ardent in its course before,
Sent forth such sallies of glad sound, that all
Which I till then had heard, appeared the voice
Of common pleasure: beast and bird, the lamb,
The shepherd's dog, the linnet and the thrush
Vied with this waterfall, and made a song,
Which, while I listened, seemed like the wild growth
Or like some natural produce of the air,
That could not cease to be. Green leaves were here;
But 'twas the foliage of the rocks--the birch,
The yew, the holly, and the bright green thorn,
With hanging islands of resplendent furze:
And, on a summit, distant a short space,
By any who should look beyond the dell,
A single mountain-cottage might be seen.
I gazed and gazed, and to myself I said,
"Our thoughts at least are ours; and this wild nook,
My EMMA, I will dedicate to thee."
----Soon did the spot become my other home,
My dwelling, and my out-of-doors abode.
And, of the Shepherds who have seen me there,
To whom I sometimes in our idle talk
Have told this fancy, two or three, perhaps,
Years after we are gone and in our graves,
When they have cause to speak of this wild place,
May call it by the name of EMMA'S DELL.
William Wordsworth
Light Side
The guide to wife translations
The wife says: We need
The wife means: I want
The wife says: We need to talk
The wife means: I need to complain
The wife says: You're ... so manly
The wife means: You need a shave and sweat a lot
The wife says: This kitchen is so inconvenient
The wife means: I want a new house.
The wife says: I want new curtains.
The wife means: Also carpeting, furniture, and wallpaper!
The wife says: Hang the picture there
The wife means: No, I mean hang it there!
The wife says: I heard a noise
The wife means: I noticed you were almost asleep.
The wife says: How much do you love me?
The wife means: I did something today you're not going to like.
The wife says: I'll be ready in a minute.
The wife means: Kick off your shoes and take an hour nap.
The wife says: You have to learn to communicate.
The wife means: Just agree with me.
The wife says: Yes
The wife means: No
The wife says: No
The wife means: No
The wife says: Maybe
The wife means: No
The wife says: Was that the baby?
The wife means: Get out of bed and walk him
In answer to the question "What's wrong?"
The wife says: Nothing.
The wife means: Everything.
The wife says: Nothing, really.
The wife means: It's just that you're an idiot.
The wife says: I don't want to talk about it.
The wife means: I'm still building up steam.
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
Follow me on Twitter at @almagor35
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
posted by Raphael at 2:32 PM
