Politics – August 2013
Support is sought to facilitate the work of the Middle East Study Group. Information at
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/
~Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Reflections on My Two-State Petition
Middle East Studies Program
On Representation
Proposal for Parliamentary Democracy
Israel’s Future 1
Bill Requiring Referendum on Ceding Land Passes First Knesset Reading
Most Israelis Object to Withdrawing to Pre-1967 Borders
German Magnate Berthold Beitz, who saved Jews in WWII, dies
Israel’s Future 2
Question
Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism - 4th International Conference
China to Stop Harvesting Organs from Executed Prisoners
Book Review - Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger
New Books
Visit to Israel
Movie
Gem of the Month – The Lake District
Monthly Poems
Light Side
Reflections on My Two-State Petition
I continue my campaign for a two-state solution, including my petition at
http://www.change.org/
PA
wrote: “A two-state solution is no solution; it's capitulation. Israel
should occupy its full Biblical borders, and only Jews and those chosen
by Jews should have any rights there. End of story”.
Middle East Studies Program
Below information about our program for this year. All invited.
Title of event in full
Professor Lester Grabbe, MESG, "The Manipulation of History for Ideology: Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Zionist Examples"
|
Date
Wednesday, 17 October 2013
|
Venue
Room 2-100 Wilberforce Building
|
Lester L. Grabbe
is Emeritus Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the
University of Hull. As the academic title indicates, his main interest
is
in the history of ancient Israel and the Jews of the Second Temple
period. He founded and convenes the European Seminar on Methodology in
Israel’s History, and publishes the proceedings in the sub-series
European Seminar in Historical Methodology (T & T Clark
International). 9 volumes are available and 2 more are in the process
of editing. In addition, he has authored a dozen volumes, as well
editing or co-editing a total of 16 volumes. He is series editor of the
T & T Clark International monograph series, Library
of Second Temple Studies. Before retirement, he established and taught
for several years a module, Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, and another
module, Religious Sectarianism in History and the Modern World.
Any quotes or names of books/films/ music pieces should be in italics
|
Enquiries: Professor Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Chair in Politics
T: +0044 (0)1482 465024
F: +0044 (0)1482 466208
|
Sponsored by: Middle East Study Group
|
Title of event in full
Ambassador Professor Manuel Hassasian, Palestinian Ambassador to the UK
|
Date
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
|
Venue
Room 2-100 Wilberforce Building
|
Manuel Sarkis Hassassian (born 28 December 1953 in Jerusalem) is an
Armenian-Palestinian
professor who since late 2005 has been the
Palestinian Authority's
diplomatic representative to the
United Kingdom after being appointed to the position by Palestinian Authority
President
Mahmoud Abbas. He will speak on the prospects for peace in the Middle East.
|
Enquiries: Professor Raphael Cohen-Almagor
|
Sponsored by: Middle East Study Group
|
Title of event in full Mr Dan Meridor, “The Arab Spring and Its Impact on the Middle East and World Order”
|
Date
Wednesday, 18 December 2013
|
Venue
Room 2-100 Wilberforce Building
|
Dan Meridor was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intelligence
in the Government of Israel (31.3.2009 - 18.3.2013). In 2001-2003 he
served as a Minister in the Israeli government, in charge of strategic
affairs, and was a member of the Inner Cabinet. In 1999-2001 Mr. Meridor
served as the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of
the Knesset. In 1996-1997 Mr. Meridor was
the Minister of Finance of Israel. In 1988-1992 Dan Meridor was the
Minister of Justice of Israel. In 1982-1984 Mr. Meridor served as the
Secretary of the Cabinet under Prime Minister Menahem Begin and Yitzhak
Shamir. He is married to Dr Leora Meridor, with
four children and seven grandchildren.
|
Enquiries: Professor Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Chair in Politics
T: +0044 (0)1482 465024
F: +0044 (0)1482 466208
|
Sponsored by: Middle East Study Group
|
On Representation
This was published on the
Jerusalem Post on August 12, 2013.
On 31 July 2013,
the Governance Bill passed its first reading in the Israeli Knesset, with 63 MKs voting for and 46 against.
The bill amends the Basic Law: The Government.
It includes a limit on the number of government ministers to 19 and of
the deputy ministers to four; motions of no-confidence will be held only
once a month in
the presence of the prime minister or at the demand of 61 MKs, in which
case the debate will be held immediately; if the motion of no-confidence
is carried by a 61 MKs majority, and an alternative candidate for prime
minister is proposed and accepted, the
candidate will have 21 days to form a government instead of the current
28. Should the candidate fail, the deposed government will return to the
cabinet. The bill also determines that if the coalition does not manage
to pass the State budget within three months
the Knesset will be dissolved. After the general elections, the
government will have 55 days to form a State budget, and the Knesset 45
days to pass it. All these amendments have strong reasoning behind them.
The most controversial part of the Bill was
the
raising of the election threshold to 4%. This part of the Bill received
the support of 64 MKs. Opposition Member of Knesset (MKs) from Meretz
(the civil rights party), United Torah
Judaism, Arab parties and several MKs from the Labour party took the
Knesset podium and protested against the “anti-democratic” bill.
Since 1987 I have written on democracy and its inherent problems, speaking in favour of its obligation to defend itself.
In elucidating the theory of Democracy on the Defensive, I explained that the very principles that underline democracy might undermine its existence.
Democracy is founded on the idea of
liberty. But if we allow limitless liberty to each and every
person to pursue what she perceives to be her conception of the good,
the result would be anarchy.
Democracy is built on the idea of
tolerance. But if we tolerate violent, coercive and
anti-democratic groups in society, this might bring about the
destruction of the democratic order.
Democracy is built on the idea of
participation. Indeed, the idea of participation is so important
that many call present-day democracy “participatory democracy”. The
citizens should exercise their potential ability to influence the
decision-making process, while the government, on its
part, should encourage individuals and groups to take part in civic
life. But if each and every citizen will swamp the government with
everyday demands, organize constant demonstrations, pickets and rallies
then the government would find it difficult to function.
Democracy is built on the idea of
representation. Each citizen is to have an equal vote to
influence the outcomes of the legislative process; each citizen
alienates his right for political decision-making and gives authority to
few delegates to manage the civic life in the way they see
best. These representatives are chosen by the people to decide for them,
ideally according to the lines prescribed in their political platform.
This elections process is the mechanism that gives effect to the
difference between democratic and non-democratic
modes of representation. While decision-making processes should aspire
to take into account as many interests as possible, there is no
obligation to consider each and every interest in society. This would be
nearly impossible, or impossible. Democracy should
aspire to ensure adequate representation but it is not obligated to represent each and every view.
Thus, there is a tension between each and every democratic principle. A good government has to find the right balance
between each and every principle, and in the interplay between the principles.
I
have argued for years that Israel should increase the entry threshold
to the Knesset to 4 or 5 percent. This in
order to ensure better governance capabilities. I have argued this also
when I was active in the Meretz Party. I cannot say that I gained many
supporters within my party for that view... But I sincerely believe this
is the right thing to do. The Knesset has
far too many parties. As a result, many governments did not complete
their terms. Fragile coalitions, tempting deals, blackmailing efforts,
partisan interests -- all these factors have undermined Israeli
governance.
A
good government is one that does not distort the representative system
in favour of the majority; that ensures and
protects an adequate proportional representation of minorities. Nothing
but a false show of democracy is possible without it. John Stuart Mill
said: "In a really equal democracy, every or any section would be
represented, not disproportionately, but proportionately".
This can be done also with fewer parties represented in the Knesset. The
United States has two major parties. The United Kingdom has three. They
are not less democratic than Israel, and their governance abilities are
far more efficient. The decision to raise
the entry threshold to the Knesset to 4% is correct and will contribute
to a stronger, better-functioning Israeli democracy.
Sam Lehman-Wilzig notes that the new law also has provisions to prevent artificial parties from breaking apart right
after elections into their “original” constituent small parties.
Proposal for Parliamentary Democracy
Mixed
semi-presidential system, where the president is elected by first past
the post and the legislature is elected by proportional representation.
The
leader of the majority party within the legislature who is elected
within his party by its members is then formally asked by the president
to become the prime minister.
It
incorporates bicameral chambers, one fully elected, one half elected by
the legislature and half appointed by the president advised by the
prime minister and cabinet.
The
threshold will be 4% of the votes so as to have a more stable
parliament comprised of parties that are able to pass this significant
bar. At the same time, this will be a multi-party system
as it can be expected that more than two or three parties will be able
to pass this threshold.
The
fully elected chamber will house the elected representatives from the
state regions. The second chamber’s role will be to scrutinize bills
effectively.
Consensual
politics will be facilitated and encouraged via proportional
representation. The legislature will have the ability to express vote of
no confidence in the prime minister. It will be
a committee-based debating chamber similar to the American system.
The
legislature will also be able to place a basic vote of no confidence in
the president, facilitating accountability and control also on the
president.
The
president will be responsible for foreign policy and for the
appointment of senior judges and ambassadors. He is also responsible for
defence decisions, upon the advice of the prime minister
and the cabinet.
The prime minister will be responsible for domestic and economic policy.[1]
As in Britain, members of the executive will be questioned regularly on their policies.
The
judiciary will be completely independent, assigned as a court of
appeals, as a constitutional court, and as a check against corruption
allegations.
Israel’s Future 1
I was asked whether I am hopeful about the new peace initiative and prospects. My candid answer is very reserved. For such a momentous achievement of resolving a deep, entrenched conflict, three things are absolutely essential:
- An Israeli leader who is committed to bring peace to his people and is willing to pay the necessary price;
- A Palestinian leader who is committed to bring peace to his people and is willing to pay the necessary price;
- Shared belief by both leaders that the time is ripe for peace. By “time is ripe” it is meant that both leaders believe that enough blood was shed, that they need to seize the moment because things might worsen for their people, and that they have the ability to lead their respective people to accept the peace agreement and change reality for the better.
I
am unable to say that each and every one of the three preconditions is
present today. I am sorry for this sober assessment. I am truly, very
sorry.
On
July 31, 2013, the Knesset gave initial approval to a government-backed
bill that would enhance the status of existing legislation providing
for a referendum over any future decision on Israel’s
part to give up its sovereign territory.
What
does this tell you? Does it tell you that the government is committed
to “land-for-peace” formula? Does it tell you that the government is
willing to pay the price for peace?
Most Israelis Object to Withdrawing to Pre-1967 Borders
A
new poll shows the extent to which the Israeli stance has hardened in
recent years. The combination of right-wing government, right-wing
popular media, not reassuring
withdrawal from Gaza and the establishment of Hamastan, and general
mistrust in every Palestinian have made quite an impact on Israeli
society.
Most
Israelis would oppose any peace deal with the Palestinians that
involved withdrawing to pre-1967 ceasefire lines, even if land-swaps
were agreed to accommodate Jewish
settlements.
The
survey by the liberal Israeli Democracy Institute (IDI) showed 65.6
percent of those questioned did not expect to see a deal in talks
between Israel and the Palestinians
within a year.
Even
if the Israeli government managed to defy sceptics and secure an
accord, the poll suggested it would struggle to sell it to its people.
Of
the 602 people questioned, 55.5 percent said they were against Israel
agreeing to the 1967 lines, even if there were land-swaps which would
enable some Jewish settlements
in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to remain part of Israel.
Among
Israel's majority Jewish population, opposition to such an agreement
was 63 percent, while among Israeli Arabs only 15 percent objected to
such a deal.
Some
67 percent of all Israelis said they would also oppose Palestinian
demands for a return of an even a small number of refugees who either
fled or were driven away when
Israel was created in 1948. They were also against compensating the
refugees or their descendants financially.
On
one of the other issues facing negotiators, the question of whether
Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem should become part of a Palestinian
state, some 50 percent of Israeli
Jews said they were against the idea.
Only
55 percent of Israeli Arabs were in favor, fewer than might be
expected, suggesting Arab residents of East Jerusalem did not want to
lose advantages of living under
Israeli government control, such as health and national insurance
benefits.
Source: Reuters -
http://www.reuters.com/
Berthold Beitz and his wife, both seen
here in 1995, hid Jewish workers in their home during WW II ; Photo: BBC
Berthold Beitz, a leading German industrialist who saved hundreds of Jews during World War II, has died aged 99.
Berthold
Beitz headed the ThyssenKrupp corporation, one of the world's largest
steel producers. Mr Beitz was internationally recognised for saving Jews
in occupied Poland
from being transferred to Nazi death camps. The magnate was also
credited with playing a key role in Germany's post-war reconstruction.
During
the war, Mr Beitz managed an oil field in occupied Poland. Between 1942
and 1944, he rescued hundreds of Jewish oil field workers from trains
destined for the Belzec
death camp. He and his wife also hid Jewish children in their home:
"Together with his wife, he set an impressive example of courage and
humanity by saving hundreds of persecuted Jews from the SS, risking his
own life in the process".
Mr
Beitz received numerous honours for his bravery. In 2000, both he and
his wife were awarded the Leon-Baeck prize, the highest award by
Germany's Central Council of Jews.
Chancellor
Angela Merkel has described Mr Beitz as one of the country's most
distinguished businessmen and applauded his "brave and exemplary support
for Jewish workers
during World War II".
Mr Beitz was considered instrumental in helping to revive the German steel trade and expand into foreign markets after the war.
In
the 1950s, he joined the Krupp steel company, which had been heavily
involved in armaments production during the war. He ran the company for
six decades.
Story: BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
Israel’s Future 2
In the London 2012 Olympics, Israeli athletes manifested Pierre de Coubertin’s statement: The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.
The Israeli delegation was comprised of 37 athletes who returned home empty handed, with no medals, despite the high hopes. Israel has competed at the Olympic Games since 1952 and won 7 medals, in total. We are not known for our athleticism.
Compare the all-time Israeli record to the record of one Baltimore man, Michael Phelps.
Brains is a different story altogether. Here lies Israel’s strength and future. This year, the young Israeli delegation to the Mathematics Olympics (High School) returned with six medals. Israel was ranked 13th of 103 delegations.
Israeli
delegation to the Mathematics Olympics, Haaretz
In the last Physics Olympics, Israel won 5 medals. In the Chemistry Olympics, Israel won 4 medals. In the Computer Science Olympics, Israel won 4 medals.
Congratulations to the winners! Go from strength to strength and lead Israeli society to a better future!
Question
Is it mere coincidence that Michael Phelps is an American?
Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism - 4th International Conference
Raphael Cohen-Almagor[2]
I was happy to take part in the
Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, convened by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Professor
Yehuda Bauer argued that Jews cannot fight anti-Semitism on their own.
Jews must have allies. Jews need Muslims, Christians, non-believers and
others who oppose racism of all kind. Indeed,
there is little doubt in my mind that it is in the interest of the
Jewish lobby to cooperate with others who fight hate and bigotry:
Moslems who fight Islamophobia, gay people who fight gay bashing, other
minorities who fight discrimination.
Mufti
Dr Abduljalil Sajid of Brighton Islamic Mission, the UK, said that the
state of Israel should be protected. Those who oppose its existence are
anti-Semitic. Muslims and Jews should fight
together any form of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. We need to expose
ignorance which opposes both religions. With dialogue we will promote
love and understanding. Let there be respect for the other, love in our
lives.
In
his recorded address to conference participants, Prime Minister
Netanyahu conflated anti-Semitism and any critique of Israel. I beg to
differ: criticism of specific Israeli policies should
not been seen as anti-Semitism. One who criticizes the occupation, or
the settlements, is not necessarily anti-Semitic. There are many
Israelis and Jews who disagree with the present government policy
vis-Ã -vis the Palestinians that pays mere lip-service to
two-state solution with zero commitment to pay the necessary price for
peace.
In
the English mainstream media, so it was argued, there is an increase in
anti-Semitic tropes. Professor Bauer criticized the politicians, saying
that they are in the ivory tower while academics
are on the ground doing the fighting. Academics, I may add, need help
especially from teachers and media professionals. Combating
anti-Semitism should be conducted in multiple spheres:
More
than anything, what is needed is a coordinated effort, speaking in one
voice, negotiating with the major ISPs under one umbrella organization,
evoking their awareness to the challenges and
problems, and requesting the same substantive changes. At present
multiple actors are involved, each comes with its own agenda, each puts
forward its own proposals. Sometimes the proposals conflict. Thus the
ISPs remain non-responsive. It is easier, and cheaper,
for them simply to do nothing, saying that they could not feasibly
satisfy all demands. One voice, one mission, a unified effort, will make
a powerful plea that major ISPs could no longer ignore.
Frankly,
this was my hope from this global forum. I was hoping that there will
be “someone” who will make order, and put things together. This hope
should materialize one way or another.
At
the end of the day, social responsibility is good for the community and
also for business. The gatekeepers should take responsibility for what
they are hosting and promoting. Without access,
the face of modern terrorism and modern crime will be forced to change,
yet again. Hopefully it will change to something less dangerous.
In
addition, CleaNet © will be a pragmatic, fluid tool, sensitive to
cultural norms and open to contestation. It is designed by the people,
for the people, answering people’s needs and concerns.
CleaNet © is suggested precisely because no existing filter can achieve
the desired outcome of a clean Internet, with full transparency in
regards to the relevant considerations and the citizens’ ability to
deliberate, exchange ideas and influence cyber surfing.
Finally,
on CleaNet ©, search engines will not keep their ranking algorithms
secret. Quite the opposite. They will proudly announce that the ordering
of search results is influenced by standards
of moral and social responsibility, commitment to preserving and
promoting security online and offline, and adherence to liberal
principles we hold dear: Liberty, tolerance, human dignity, respect for
others, and not harming others.
China to Stop Harvesting Organs from Executed Prisoners China will begin phasing out a program that allowed the harvesting of organs from prisoners who were executed. Former deputy health minister Huang Jiefu, who still heads the ministry's organ transplant office, said that in the future, organs would be only be taken from volunteers who submitted their request to be donors through the new national organ donation system, which is called the China Organ Transplant Committee: "I am confident that before long all accredited hospitals will forfeit the use of prisoner organs," Huang said. There are currently 165 Chinese hospitals that perform transplants. Huang said the first batch of hospitals -- he didn't say how many -- will end the practice of using prisoners' organs following a meeting on the issue this November. About 300,000 patients are wait-listed each year for an organ in China. Only one in 30 will receive a transplant. Voluntary donations remain low because many Chinese people follow beliefs that oppose organ removal before burial. Huang said in 2010 there were only 63 cases of voluntary organ donation. This year, the country has averaged 130 donations per month, but it's still not nearly enough to meet demand. There is also a widespread belief in China that using organ donations from prisoners on death row allows the inmates to redeem themselves for their crimes. China says it is only done with the prisoners' consent. But human rights groups have long been outraged by the practice, and say there's evidence that organs are harvested without consent -- and worse, sometimes when the donor is still alive. Though Chinese officials had also said in 2007 that they would stop using organs from prisoners, China Daily reported in 2009 that 65 percent of the country's organ donations still came from convicts. The volunteer donor system was established that same year. The numbers improved only slightly since then: Huang said that at the end of 2012 about 64 percent of organs transplanted in China came from prisoners. So far this year, the number is at 54 percent. The China Organ Transplant Committee began in 25 provinces and municipalities. About 1,000 organs have been donated, and 3,000 patients have been helped, Huang said. Officials hope they can take the program nationwide by the end of 2013. Huang gave assurance that all future donations through this program would "meet the commonly accepted ethical standards in the world."
Book Review -
Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger
Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger,
Jewish Terrorism in Israel Wars (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 243 pp.; Price: $20.
|
Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 25, Issue 3
(2013), pp. 501-503.
The idea behind this book is interesting. Pedahzur and Perliger, who
have been studying Israeli extremism and political
violence for a number of years, wanted to examine manifestations of
Jewish violence from the Second Temple era until today. They analyze the
sociological and cultural conditions that contribute to the
radicalization of communities and the socialization processes
among peers that culminated in manifestations of terrorism. For this
purpose, Pedahzur and Perliger created three databases. The first
includes information on 309 Jewish terrorist attacks in Palestine/Israel
between 1932 and 2008. The second is a biographical
database of the 224 people who participated in the terrorist attacks,
and the third concerns the ties between members of each Jewish terrorist
network (p. xiii).
Pedahzur and Perliger define terrorism as a phenomenon that involves
the use of violence. By this they divert from common
definitions that include also the threat of violence. Second, there is a
political motive that activates the violence, and there is an intention
to strike fear among the targets of terror who are civilians or
noncombatants (p. xii).
The first two chapters did not utilize the three databases as their
concern predates 1932 by many years. Chapter 1 reflects
on Jewish organized violence in the Second Temple. The Hashmonai family
engaged in guerrilla warfare against Hellenistic rule in Israel. Yehuda
Hamakabi, who assumed power in 165 B.C.E., secured partial religious
autonomy for the Jews and restored the status
of the Temple in Jerusalem as the center of spiritual life.
Pedahzur
and Perliger then jump forward to more than 100 years after the fall of
the Hashmonai kingdom and describe the Sicarians, the first group to
systematically engage in terrorism and political assassinations
(p. 6). They set the examples for many Jewish extremists from then until
now, not hesitating to murder Jews who opposed their ideas. The
internal rivalry between different segments of the Jewish population had
helped the Romans to crush the Jewish revolt against
them in 66-70 C.E and led to the destruction of the Second Temple. The
defeat was so disastrous that Jewish Law (Halacha) adopted a specific
directive against rebellion that might provoke the anger of the
gentiles. Consequently, over the course of nearly 2,000
years of Jewish Diaspora, descendants of these Jews refrained almost
entirely from engaging in terrorism (p. 8).
Chapter 2
is concerned with the terrorist activities of the Etzel (Irgun) and the
Lehi (acronym for Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, known also as the
Stern Gang) against the British Mandate and the local Arabs
in Palestine with the aim of achieving Jewish independence. Between 1936
and 1939, the larger organization of the two, Etzel, carried out sixty
operations that resulted in the killing of more than 120 Palestinians
and the injury of other hundreds of Palestinians
(p. 13). Etzel was also engaged in the assassination of British key
figures (such as the senior police officer Ralph Carnes) and the bombing
of British Mandate symbols, including the King David Hotel in Jerusalem
which
housed the military command and the Mandatory government secretariat.
The Lehi, in turn, was responsible for the assassination of Lord Moyne,
the British Minister for Middle East Affairs in Cairo, and of the UN
Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte
in protest of his diplomatic efforts to modify the plan to partition
Palestine into two countries, Arab and Jewish. In their survey, Pedahzur
and Perliger failed to mention the political assassinations of Yaacov
Yisrael De-Haan, an ultra-Orthodox and anti-Zionist
activist in July 1924, and of the Zionist prominent activist, Haim
Arlozoroff in June 1933.
Chapters 3 and 4 examine two strands of terrorism, one emerging from
the Gush Emunim (Block of the Faithful) settlement
movement after the 1967 Six Day War; the other emerged after Rabbi Meir
Kahane’s immigration to Israel in 1971. The first engendered the Jewish
Underground after the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace accords in 1979
that resolved to return the Sinai
Peninsula to Egypt, while the quasi-Fascist Kahanist
movement produced zealots like Baruch Goldstein who murdered 29
Palestinian worshippers in February 1994, and groups such as Kach,
Kahane Is Alive, the Gal Underground, DOV (acronym
of Dikuy Bogdim, “Suppression of Traitors”), TNT (“Terrorism Against
Terrorism”) network, and the Sicarii (Sikrikim) called after the
Sicarians who, as said, were the first to engage in terrorism. Both
strands of Jewish violent extremism were comprised mainly
of Orthodox zealots who believed that Godly truth lay with them. Members
of those illegal elements attacked Palestinians, perceived as the
enemies of Israel and rivals over Israel’s small territory. Many of the
attacks were meant to avenge the blood of Jewish
victims, killed by Palestinians terrorists.
Chapter 5 investigates how Jewish terrorists who were active during the
1990s integrated elements from previous group. One
of them was Yigal Amir who on 4 November 1995 assassinated Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin because Rabin was willing to give up Jewish land,
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in exchange for peace with the
Palestinian Liberation Organization. Amir would not have
murdered PM Rabin without an explicit Halachic directive of rabbis he
trusted. He had set a dangerous precedent: for the first time in the
history of modern Israel, a Jew was prepared to take the life of the
prime minister. An important psychological barrier
was broken.
Chapter 6
presents the violent groups that emerged in the West Bank following the
Palestinian violent uprising of 2000. The Bat Ayin Underground, the Abu
Tor Underground, and the hilltops youth operating under different
names (“Gilad-Shallhevet Brigade”, “Sword of Gideon”, “Tears of the
Widows and the Orphans”) terrorized the lives of their Palestinian
neighbours. The idea was to create a highly stressful environment that
would motivate the Palestinians to emigrate from the
West Bank to other parts of the world where they might feel more
comfortable.
Chapter 7 is a curious one. It reflects upon violent groups and
lone-wolves who acted out of revenge against Palestinians
and others. However, it also discusses the Meshulam Cult that was not
terrorist by nature. Its leader, Rabbi Uzi Meshulam, wanted to force the
Israeli establishment to investigate one particular troubling episode
in Israel’s early days of establishment: the
kidnapping and disappearance of children of Yemenite immigrants. The
Meshulam Cult should be outside the scope of this book (Jewish
terrorism) and merits a separate discussion on religious/cultural cults
in Israel. This chapter also discusses the Lifta Gang
which attacked mosques in the Jerusalem vicinity in the early 1980s.
This group should have been discussed in Chapter 3.
Chapter 8 is most interesting as it draws conclusions from the previous
discussions on Jewish terrorism in modern Israel.
Pedahzur and Perliger note that most terrorists emerged within the
framework of religious Zionism; they sought to enforce their illiberal
values not only on their own community but on all people who reside in
Israel and territories under its rule. The vast
majority of the terrorists were young men. At least half of them were
unemployed and many of them were in a state of personal crisis. Pedahzur
and Perliger argue that in both Jewish and non-Jewish religious
terrorism, many perpetrators are driven by some form
of Godly grand vision of a new order (p. 165). The justifications of
violence are based on a radical interpretation of religious writings.
Many terrorists perceive themselves as a vanguard group who will show
the right light to the rest of their community.
On the way, some do not hesitate attacking moderate elements within
their own community who fail to see the light and stand in the way to
redemption.
At the end of the book there are some useful resources: Glossary of
important places, organizations, people and historic
milestones (pp. 171-173); chronology of attacks and events related to
Jewish terrorism from 1948 until 2007 (pp. 175-192), and a detailed
Index (pp. 227-243).
Conclusion
Pedahzur and Perliger provide an important, engaging, well-written book on Jewish terrorism. The first of its kind,
Jewish Terrorism in Israel sheds a fascinating light on a very
timely subject that no doubt will have a few more chapters written to it
as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians continues to exact a
bloody price from both societies.
In the
next edition it would be useful to analyse the political assassinations
of Arlozoroff and De-Haan and to include an alphabetical bibliography. I
also suggest rewriting Chapter 7 as it includes episodes that
do not fall within the book’s remit of analysis. This chapter should
focus on lone-wolves, mentally and not-so mentally competent, who acted
against Palestinians due to a twisted sense of “justice”, settling
accounts with the shedding of Jewish blood by a
vile, indiscriminate killing of Arabs.
I thank
Terrorism and Political Violence
for a copy of this book.
New Books
Benjamin MacQueen,
An Introduction to Middle East Politics (London: Sage, 2013).
If you are teaching a core module on the Middle East for undergraduates, this textbook is one for you to consider.
The book covers:
-Historical Legacies; The Ottoman Empire, WWI, colonialism and the Cold War; nationalism and Islamist politics.
-Authoritarianism
in Egypt, Algeria and Syria; political changes in Iran; the politics of
oil in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States; Israel, the Palestinians and
the Arab
States.
-Intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.
-The recent uprisings in the Arab World, human rights, social movements and social media
Each
chapter opens with helpful learning objectives and concludes with study
questions, annotated bibliographies and recommendations for further
reading. None of the topics
is covered in a comprehensive fashion; thus I would not recommend it for
post-graduate studies. However, for students who for the first time
wish to gain understanding into the complex politics of the Middle East,
and to gain insights into its history, this
book is a wonderful resource. It is lucid, very accessible to students,
with ample photos for students to recognize leaders of different
countries, a clear time line, and clarification of concepts and terms.
I enjoyed reading this book and recommend this clearly-written resource.
I thank Safe for sending me a copy of this book.
Adrian Athique,
Digital Media and Society (Cambridge: Polity, 2013).
The
rise of digital media has been widely regarded as transforming the
nature of our social experience in the twenty-first century. The speed
with which new forms of connectivity
and communication are being incorporated into our everyday lives often
gives us little time to stop and consider the social implications of
those practices. Nonetheless, it is critically important that we do so,
and this sociological introduction to the field
of digital technologies is intended to enable a deeper understanding of
their prominent role in everyday life.
The
fundamental theoretical and ethical debates on the sociology of the
digital media are presented in accessible summaries, ranging from
economy and technology to criminology
and sexuality. Key theoretical paradigms are explored through a broad
range of contemporary social phenomena – from social networking and
virtual lives to the rise of cybercrime and identity theft, from the
utopian ideals of virtual democracy to the Orwellian
nightmare of the surveillance society, from the free software movement
to the implications of online shopping.
As
an entry-level pathway for students in sociology, media, communications
and cultural studies, the aim of this work is to situate the rise of
digital media within the context of a complex and
rapidly changing world.
I thank Polity Press for a copy of this book.
Visit to Israel
Next
month I am invited to a conference in IDC, Herzliya. I’d be happy to
see friends and colleagues during my short visit to the Holy Land.
Zehavit’s
brother and his family came for a visit and both families travelled to
the Lake District, our favourite region in England. We stayed at
Coniston and visited
other nearby villages. The Lake District is relaxing and picturesque,
with stunning views of lakes, green and mountains. We enjoyed hiking and
boating, visited some art galleries, refreshed ourselves in multiple
coffee shops, and I reread Wordsworth poetry
while visiting one of his houses in Grasmere.
We
went to explore Lake Coniston. It was a normal summer day in England
(i.e., dreary and rainy) but we were not deterred. My daughter Dana took
command over our
boat like a true skipper!
Monthly Poems
A Jewish Family In A Small Valley Opposite St. Goar, Upon The Rhine
GENIUS of Raphael! if thy wingsMight bear thee to this glen,
With faithful memory left of things
To pencil dear and pen,
Thou would'st forego the neighbouring Rhine,
And all his majesty--
A studious forehead to incline
O'er this poor family.
The Mother--her thou must have seen,
In spirit, ere she came
To dwell these rifted rocks between,
Or found on earth a name;
An image, too, of that sweet Boy,
Thy inspirations give--
Of playfulness, and love, and joy,
Predestined here to live.
Downcast, or shooting glances far,
How beautiful his eyes,
That blend the nature of the star
With that of summer skies!
I speak as if of sense beguiled;
Uncounted months are gone,
Yet am I with the Jewish Child,
That exquisite Saint John.
I see the dark-brown curls, the brow,
The smooth transparent skin,
Refined, as with intent to show
The holiness within;
The grace of parting Infancy
By blushes yet untamed;
Age faithful to the mother's knee,
Nor of her arms ashamed.
Two lovely Sisters, still and sweet
As flowers, stand side by side;
Their soul-subduing looks might cheat
The Christian of his pride:
Such beauty hath the Eternal poured
Upon them not forlorn,
Though of a lineage once abhorred,
Nor yet redeemed from scorn.
Mysterious safeguard, that, in spite
Of poverty and wrong,
Doth here preserve a living light,
From Hebrew fountains sprung;
That gives this ragged group to cast
Around the dell a gleam
Of Palestine, of glory past,
And proud Jerusalem!
William Wordsworth
Light Side
Gotta Love the Irish – Part 1
The Errand
McQuillan walked into a bar and ordered martini after martini, each time removing the olives and placing them in a jar.
When the jar was filled with olives and all the drinks consumed, the Irishman started to leave.
"S'cuse me", said a customer, who was puzzled over what McQuillan had done, "what was that all about?"
"Nothin', said the Irishman, "me wife just sent me out for a jar of olives!"
McQuillan walked into a bar and ordered martini after martini, each time removing the olives and placing them in a jar.
When the jar was filled with olives and all the drinks consumed, the Irishman started to leave.
"S'cuse me", said a customer, who was puzzled over what McQuillan had done, "what was that all about?"
"Nothin', said the Irishman, "me wife just sent me out for a jar of olives!"
Peace
and love. Continue to enjoy the summer, if you have one. I am so much
into the summer mood, with a wonderful month of sunny weather in Israel,
California and even Amsterdam that I forgot
it is winter in some other parts of the world. An Australian friend
reminded me of this geographic reality and I asked forgiveness for my
absent-mindedness.
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
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
[1] Sam Lehman-Wilzig notes that this is unworkable. In today's "globalized" world, you cannot separate responsibility between foreign and domestic policy -- the two are far too intertwined: economics, trade, immigration etc.
[2] D. Phil., Oxon (1991); Chair and Professor of Politics, Director of the Middle East Study Group, University of Hull, http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/
[2] D. Phil., Oxon (1991); Chair and Professor of Politics, Director of the Middle East Study Group, University of Hull, http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/
