Politics – January 2014
Support is sought to facilitate the work of the Middle East Study Group. Information at
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/
~Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State
What Iran wants by Hassan Rouhani
Nuclear Bombs
Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security – A Profile
Israeli Ministers Endorse Legislation to Annex Part of West Bank
Against Boycotting Israeli Academics
Dan Meridor’s Visit to Hull
2013: Record year for incoming tourism to Israel
A Precedent for the Arab World: Official Events Marking The Holocaust
Visitor to the University of Hull - Dr Rusi Jaspal
Revolutionary Cancer Trials Begin in the University of Hull
Christmas Conversations
Book Review - Silvio Waisbord, Reinventing professionalism
New Books
Monthly Poems
Gem of the Month – Nottingham
Light Side
Ariel Sharon (1928-2014)
In
January 2006 Prime Minister Sharon suffered a stroke and entered into a
situation of Post-Coma Unawareness. After eight years he succumbed to
death.
I will remember Sharon for two main things:
1.
I was a soldier in the 1982 Lebanon War, a war that left quite an
impression on me. Thus it was one of the two wars I researched carefully
(the other was the 1967 Six Day War, my first war).
All Israeli wars scarred and shaped my personality and made me the
peacenik that I am but these two were the most influential.
2.
My only contact with Sharon was in 2000, when I began my campaign for
Gaza First. My loyal readers may remember my three-year campaign, and my
hopes that Sharon will execute the plan and evacuate
Gaza. I always said and believed that Sharon was a pragmatist who was
able to reason, and who was able to change his mind in the face of
facts. Thus I was among those who wrote to Sharon and explained why it
was a good idea to evacuate Gaza. In 2003, Sharon
announced his disengagement plan, and in 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza.
In hindsight, the disengagement should have been done with full
collaboration of Abu Mazen.
Above
all, Sharon will be remembered as a bold leader who fought for his
ideas. If he wanted something, he usually got it. Obstacles were moved
away or removed. The word “No” from his superiors
never impressed him. Sharon, with his innovative mind and immense sense
of chutzpah, always devised ways to bypass obstacles, do away
with them or devise ways to see his ideas through despite those who
stood on his way.
This song is in Sharon’s memory:
See NY Times obituary:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/
Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State
In
recent years, PM Netanyahu has insisted that the Palestinians recognize
Israel as a Jewish state. It is a publicity card, not of any real
substance.
Abe Silverman
from Canada recently wrote to me:
I
envy your idealism and your sense of fair play. However trying to draw
an equivalence between a people who are trying to live in peace in their
ancestral homeland and neighbors who believe that
we have no right to the land will not bring peace. Netanyahu is right.
Peace is not possible until the Arabs accept that Israel is the home of
the Jewish people. And until that happens all of the peace agreements in
the world will not change the hearts and
minds of the Arabs.
To which I replied:
Dear Abe
You
put far too much emphasis on this issue of recognizing Israel as a
Jewish state. I repeat: The Palestinian high officials I met ALL SAID
WITHOUT EXCEPTION that this is a non-issue. PM Netanyahu
pulled this card to halt, stall, and disrupt the negotiations on the
substantive issues. It is no more than a red herring, destructive rather
than constructive.
Yasser Arafat and many other Palestinian leaders explicitly recognized Israel as a Jewish state. See for instance
Having
said all that, John Kerry is investing much effort to push the peace
wagon forward. Israel had released Palestinian prisoners and claims that
the PA gives nothing in return. It is time
for the Palestinians also to give. If this recognition is not really
meaningful, it is time for the PA to recognize Israel as a Jewish state
and remove one obstacle from the road to peace.
I do not wish to think about the ramifications of Kerry’s failure on the region. Enough blood has been shed.
With my very best wishes,
Raphael
Iranian president Rouhani published an article on Iran’s agenda and I wish to bring to your attention some of his most important messages.
President Rouhani opened by stating that when he campaigned to become President of Iran, he promised to balance realism and the pursuit of the Islamic Republic’s ideals—and won Iranian voters’ support by a large margin. “I am committed to moderation and common sense, which is now guiding all of my government’s policies. That commitment led directly to the interim international agreement reached in November in Geneva on Iran’s nuclear programme. It will continue to guide our decision-making in 2014”.
The Iranian government is discarding extreme approaches. “We seek effective and constructive diplomatic relations and a focus on mutual confidence-building with our neighbours and other regional and international actors, thereby enabling us to orient our foreign policy toward economic development at home. To this end, we will work to eliminate tensions in our foreign relations and strengthen our ties with traditional and new partners alike. This obviously requires domestic consensus-building and transparent goal-setting—processes that are now underway”.
President Rouhani emphasised the need for economic development and the democratic processes in Iran. He spoke of the need to rebuild and improve Iranian bilateral and multilateral relations with European and North American countries. President Rouhani voiced grave concerns regarding the situation in Syria, stating: “I am profoundly disturbed over the humanitarian tragedy in Syria and the enormous suffering that the Syrian people have endured for nearly three years. Representing a people who have experienced the horror of chemical weapons, my government strongly condemned their use in the Syrian conflict. I am also concerned that parts of Syrian territory have become breeding grounds for extremist ideologies and rallying points for terrorists, which is reminiscent of the situation on our eastern border in the 1990s. This is an issue of concern to many other countries as well, and finding a durable political solution in Syria requires cooperation and joint efforts”.
President Rouhani devoted a large part of his article to the nuclear debate, stating that Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy programme has been subject to enormous hype in recent decades. He maintained that since the early 1990s, one prediction after another regarding how close Iran was to acquiring a nuclear bomb has proved baseless. Throughout this period, alarmists tried to paint Iran as a threat to the Middle East and the world.
President Rouhani wrote: “We all know who the chief agitator is, and what purposes are to be served by hyping this issue. We know also that this claim fluctuates in proportion to the amount of international pressure to stop settlement construction and end the occupation of Palestinian lands. These false alarms continue, despite US national intelligence estimates according to which Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon. In fact, we are committed not to work toward developing and producing a nuclear bomb. As enunciated in the fatwa issued by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, we strongly believe that the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are contrary to Islamic norms. We never even contemplated the option of acquiring nuclear weapons, because we believe that such weapons could undermine our national security interests; as a result, they have no place in Iran’s security doctrine. Even the perception that Iran may develop nuclear weapons is detrimental to our security and overall national interest”.
“I committed myself to doing everything in my power to fast-track a resolution to the standoff over our nuclear-energy programme. To fulfill this commitment and benefit from the window of opportunity that the recent election opened, my government is prepared to leave no stone unturned in seeking a mutually acceptable permanent solution. Following up on November’s interim agreement, we are ready to continue to work with the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany) and others with a view to ensuring our nuclear programme’s full transparency. The peaceful nuclear capability that we have achieved will be used within an internationally recognized framework of safeguards, and it will be accessible to multilateral monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, as has been the case in the past several years. In this way, the international community can ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of our nuclear programme. We will never forgo our right to benefit from nuclear energy; but we are ready to work toward removing any ambiguity and answer any reasonable question about our program. The continuation of pressure, arm-twisting, intimidation, and measures aimed at cutting off Iranians’ access to a whole range of necessities—from technology to medicines and foodstuffs—can only poison the atmosphere and undermine the conditions needed to make progress”.
President Rouhani concluded that “Iran is fully prepared to engage seriously with the international community and to negotiate with our interlocutors in good faith. We hope that our counterparts, too, are ready to take advantage of this window of opportunity”.
Source: Hassan Rouhani, “What Iran wants”, LiveMint (December 30, 2013), http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/xBXXsUtXwudOvz1YWruktN/What-Iran-wants--Hassan-Rouhani.html
Nuclear Bombs
Dr Bert Keizer wrote from Amsterdam:
Dear Rafi,
I am always surprised by the wide range of topics you are willing to consider in your monthly letter.
I also take you to be a very astute analyst of political and moral conundrums.
On these grounds I would like to bother you with a question that nobody seems to consider.
Why
is it that the possession of nuclear weapons is deemed to be the proper
thing for the US - Russia - China - France - Britain - Israel - India
and Pakistan?
On
what grounds do we, do they, does whom, consider the possession of
nuclear weapons wrong - misplaced - dangerous etc. in the case of Iran -
Iraq - Egypt - United Emirates - Yemen - Sweden -
Liechtenstein etc. etc.?
Do
we consider the present day owners of these weapons to be in any sense
more responsible - ethically finer tuned - more civilized than all the
other nations?
And is it from this (to me ludicrous) position of moral superiority that they derive the right to impose a ban on Iran etc.?
Or
is the ban just a way to stop the proliferation as a danger in itself,
thinking along the lines of: the more bombs in store, the higher the
chance that one gets thrown one day?
Or is it more like the heavy smoker who tries to prevent others taking up the practice?
In
any contest where you would be armed with a gun and your opponent with a
tennis racket, what could the tennis racket man do but try to get a gun
as well?
Looking forward to your answer I send you a warm greeting from Amsterdam,
Bert Keizer
Dear Bert
You are raising many important issues. Let me answer them briefly.
It is a well-recorded historical fact that democracies do not fight one another. Thus dangerous weapons in the hands of democracies is one thing, while such weapons might be extremely dangerous in the hands of authoritarian and dictatorial regimes. The rationale is: If they maltreat their own people, they will have no qualms hurting other people.
This, of course, does not mean that we should trust democracies to never use nuclear weapons. If they are attacked by authoritarian regimes, they might resort to the bomb. The only time the bomb was used in history was by the USA against Japan.
The nuclear club is very distinctive and it does not include democracies only. Because of the mixed bag, the world will be safer if there won’t be any nuclear weapons in the world, and if these weapons will not proliferate. You may recall that in February 2013 I published a short obituary of Dr. Max Kampelman, who devoted the last years of his life calling to destroy all arsenals of nuclear weapons. An utopian dream, yet the world needs people with dreams and vision who wish to promote good, justice, human dignity and human rights. Max was such a person. He was an inspiration to many, including myself.
Israel’s
official stance until now is that it won’t be the first to introduce
nuclear weapons into the region. Israel never openly admitted that it
possesses such weapons. I think this policy
of vagueness (“amimut”) policy was good for many years but now it
needs to be changed. Israel needs to acknowledge its capacity. Israel
until now has enjoyed a special status: everyone knows that it is in the
nuclear club while
it never admitted it publicly and openly. It reminds me of Marx (the
funny one,
Groucho): “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member”. I do not think Israel could hold the stick from both ends for much
longer: demanding that Iran won’t have nuclear capability while
maintaining its own, winking
to the world that Dimona is a textile plant. It cannot demand UN
inspections of the Iranian plants while prohibiting access to Dimona.
It will take courageous American, Russian and Chinese leaders who reach an understanding that the world will be safer without the bomb. Only such unity in pushing forward an all-inclusive pact of non-nuclear-weapons-world, only such concerted attempt might force other countries to destroy their own arsenals.
We can expect that once Iran will acquire such a capability, Saudi Arabia will have its own bomb. Egypt and Turkey will be next in line. It will be a far more dangerous world.
All good wishes for Happy New Year!
Rafi
Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security – A Profile
You
might be interested in a Report Prepared by the Federal Research
Division, Library of Congress, under an Interagency Agreement with the
Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office’s Irregular
Warfare Support Program (December 2012)
I thank Dr Athina Karatzogianni for bringing this to my attention.
Far-right members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party and members of his cabinet endorsed proposed legislation to annex an area of the occupied West Bank likely to be the eastern border of a future Palestinian state.
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni who heads Israel's negotiations with the Palestinian Authority immediately challenged the motion, saying she would use her powers to block the legislation from being voted on in Parliament.
Peace talks have shown few signs of progress since US Secretary of State John Kerry oversaw their renewal in July after a three-year deadlock.
The Jordan Valley region of the West Bank which Israel captured in a 1967 war and Palestinians seek as part of their future state, has been a focus of recent disagreement. Palestinians reject Israel's demand to maintain a security presence there.
Kerry said that the need to resolve the dispute over the Jordan Valley was "a critical threading of a needle that has to happen in order to achieve an agreement". He said he was coordinating with Jordan as well.
The Israeli proposal to incorporate the Jordan Valley within its borders, endorsed by the cabinet's legislative committee, was the first Israeli step in years to annex any territory captured in 1967.
The last time Israel annexed any land captured in the 1967 war was in 1981 when it applied its law to the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau that lies to the north.
Against Boycotting Israeli Academics
There are two kinds of criticisms: constructive and destructive. The former aims to build; the latter aims to break.
It
is far more difficult to build than to destroy: one bomb can put an end
to a year of discussion. Thus, radicals often are those who dictate the
course of events.
When
it comes to peace in the Middle East, at present there are increasing
attempts to undermine the peace efforts by delegitimizing the
constructive peace efforts. This has been done by calling
to ban all Israeli people and its institutions, notwithstanding their
position, ideas and agenda; on the Palestinian side, it is done by
threatening those who are willing to speak to Israelis.
The decision is
unjust because any sweeping decision, by its very nature, cannot do
justice. It is one thing to offer a rationale to boycott a certain
institution or individual for good reasons. It is quite another thing to
simply boycott everyone. I oppose general boycotts
in principle.
The decision is
unfair because it is based on a small, committed and vocal group of
members who made boycotting of Israel their life’s mission. They exploit
the silence, indifference and inactivity of the majority of association
members to pass their unjust resolution
which does not represent the views of many, possibly most members.
The decision is
counter-productive because it undermines the objectives that the
committed group of members wishes to reach. Boycotting Israeli academics
weakens the peace camp in Israel, strengthens the right-wing position
that prefers land over peace and the promotion
of human rights, and hardens the hard-liners.
Israeli
academia tends to be liberal. Many of its members belong to the peace
camp. Many academics are human rights activists. Many oppose the
settlements. Many are for a two-state solution, a
just settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the splitting of
Jerusalem, return to the 1967 Green Line, and finding a just solution to
the Palestinian refugee problem.
I
have intimate knowledge with Israeli academia. I have been a professor
in two universities in Israel and have good contacts with all Israeli
universities. I established the Center for Democratic
Studies at the University of Haifa and served as its director. Since
1985, I have been promoting human rights in Israel and for the
Palestinians inside and outside of Israel. I received the cooperation
and support of many academics in all Israeli institutions.
We have been trying to influence government decisions for many years,
with some success, most notably during 1990-1993, when Israeli academics
including myself pushed for negotiations with the PLO and putting in
motion the peace wagon. Boycotting academia
will work against the peaceful, constructive and liberal elements in
Israeli society and will play into the hands of politicians who are
trying to downplay the importance of Israeli academia.
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 against
Palestinians. This claim is as true as the claim that American academics
are implicit collaborators in the American government decisions to wage
war in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other parts of the world.
Those
who wish to boycott Israel blame academics for not being able to
influence governmental decisions for the better. Yes, Israeli academics
do not have the power they wish to have. But boycotting
decision will make them even more powerless. Israeli academics tend to
be involved in leftist, peace-seeking politics more than academics in
Britain, Canada and the USA, countries I know well. The Israeli
government pays attention to its academics to a similar
degree that the British government pays attention to its own academics.
Those
who wish to boycott Israel undercut academic freedom and betray values
we all hold dear: Freedom of expression, tolerance, equality, justice
and peace. Sweeping boycott decisions are truly
horrible.
Finally,
I personally object to sweeping boycotting decisions. But if you insist
on boycotting countries, I fail to understand why single out Israel
time and again. Unfortunately, we live in a
world where there is no shortage of injustices and severe human rights
violations. How come that of all countries in the world it is only
Israel that preoccupies the minds of some vocal members who have little
understanding of the situation in Israel? The
Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy 2012
puts
Israel in 37th place out of 167. This index takes into account, among
other things, civil liberties. Granted that Israel has room for
improvement, but 130 countries are ranked below Israel. Why don’t
you focus your attention on any of those countries for a change? Please
see the Index at
http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/
This
decision is appalling. Those who promote an Israeli boycott know very
little about the relationship between academia and government, and have a
dubious understanding of the essence of academic
freedom.
I
believe in a free exchange of ideas, in being constructive, in creating
bridges rather than putting more obstacles to peace. Banning ideas and
people only increases rifts and hostility. The
only way to peace is through engagement and conversation. We should
fight those who wish to dictate the agenda by bans, exclusion and
animosity.
At the time of writing this blog, a petition of Israeli academics is organized to protest against the government’s attitude to asylum seekers. There are some 54,000 asylum seekers in Israel, mostly from Eritrea and Sudan and the Israeli government is persecuting and harassing them, devising ways to throw them out of the country. Hundreds of academics have signed the petition until now. Those who endorse boycotting Israeli academics wish to silence some of the leading human rights activists in Israel.
Dan Meridor’s Visit to Hull
Last
month I brought to the Hull campus His Excellency Manuel Hassassian who
delivered a very effective presentation for the Palestinian people. The
visit went well. There were no disturbances
or concerns. I reported the main themes of Ambassador Hassassian’s
lecture on my
Israeli Politics Blog (http://almagor.blogspot.com). Ambassador Hassassian’s speech is available at
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/
DPM
Meridor arrived at the train station. I welcomed him and the embassy
people. The university driver and car took us directly to the Vice
Chancellor’s Office, where Dan was greeted and welcomed
by the VC. The VC led us to lunch with some dignitaries -- university
leaders and my personal guests, including the President of the European
Israeli Studies Association, and the Senior Vice President of The Board
of Deputies of British Jews. After lunch,
Dan had a discussion with a small group of friends and then he delivered
a thoughtful presentation on the Arab Spring and its effects on Israel
and the Middle East. Dan spoke of the need for a two-state solution, as
this is the only viable solution. He explained
the wrongs of the occupation, and the need to evacuate some settlements
in order to avoid a situation of either an apartheid state, or a
bi-national state that would effectively end the Zionist dream. DPM
Meridor spoke, without a single piece of paper, for
more than one hour, and then patiently answered all questions from the
audience. The hall was packed. As a matter of fact, we needed to
restrict entry as the demand was greater than space. More than 100
people RSVP for the event, and the majority of them came.
Dan received excellent comments from quite a few people who attended the
lecture.
After
the Q&A, the Lord Mayor took us in her stretch limousine to the
Guildhall, where she organized a festive dinner in DPM Meridor’s honour,
with the city dignitaries and officials, leaders
of the two small Jewish communities – the Orthodox and the Reform – and
my university leaders, including the Vice Chancellor. Toasts were raised
in honour of the Queen, and President Shimon Peres. The Lord Mayor
delivered a speech in Meridor’s honour, and
Dan thanked her warmly. All in all, it was a great event.
It
was an important event for the university, for the city, and especially
for the Jewish communities. Usually, Israeli dignitaries visit only
London, sometimes Manchester, but they refrain from
going to other places. Such a high-profile visit is so vitally important
for the Jews of Hull as it makes them feel they are part of the
discourse, that Israelis relate to them and care about them, coming to
see them in person.
Dan was, as usual, pleasant, friendly and
gracious,
generous with his time and sharp as ever. He probably has little idea
just how much good he did for the people in Hull. DPM Meridor’s visit
has demonstrated that we should
fight those who wish to dictate the agenda with bans, exclusion, and
animosity. We should not allow bigots and extremists to deny freedom of
expression and the free flow of ideas. Constructive talks about the need
for peace bring the peace nearer, not outright
bans on all Israelis notwithstanding their contributions to the
discussion.
I
thank Dan Meridor for coming to Hull, and for the wonderful speech he
delivered. I thanked personally all the people who were involved in the
organization of this important visit, from the VC
and the Lord Mayor to the administrators who ensured that the day would
run faultlessly. Without the help of the following people, this event
would not have materialized:
ü
Vice Chancellor Professor Calie Pistorius
ü
Lord Mayor
Cllr Nadine Fudge
ü
Pro Vice Chancellor Professor Glenn Burgess
ü
Cllr Colin Inglis
ü
Ms. Jeannette Strachan
ü
Professor Caroline Kennedy
ü
Professor Christopher Wilson
ü
Ms. Marianne Lewsley-Stier
ü
Mr Glenn Hodgson
ü
Ms. Rony Yedidya-Clein
ü
Ms. Rebecca Schapira
ü
Ms. Sue Allen
ü
Dr Allan Craig
ü
Ms. Kerry Carter
DPM Meridor’s lecture is available on our MESG website, at
Tourism Ministry figures point to new record in tourist entries in past year with more than 3.5 million visitors.
Habima, Tel Aviv
As
always, most tourists arrived from the United States – about 623,000
Americans, who make up 18% of Israel's incoming tourism. Russia came in
second with 603,000 tourists followed by France
with some 315,000 tourists.
Germany
came in fourth with 254,000 visitors, followed by the United Kingdom
with 217,000 visitors, Italy with 173,000 visitors, Ukraine with 134,000
visitors and Poland with 89,000 visitors.
Some 71,000 tourists arrived from Canada, 57,000 came from Holland and 53,000 from Spain.
Before
your visit to Israel, you can download your own personal tour guide of
Israel, digital guidebook and friendly travel companion. See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
I thank Tal Brody for bringing this information to my attention.
A Precedent for the Arab World: Official Events Marking The Holocaust
In December 2013, some unusual events relating to the Holocaust took place in the Arab world: a first official conference on the Jewish Holocaust was held in Tunisia, dealing with Holocaust of the Jews in that country (see below); the first visit by an Arab diplomat to a Holocaust memorial site took place when Bahraini ambassador to France Nasser Al-Balushi visited a memorial in Drancy, near Paris. Earlier on July 27, 2012, Ziad Al-Bandak, the Christian affairs advisor to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, visited Auschwitz and lit a memorial candle for Holocaust victims.
On December 14, 2013, Tunisia held the Arab world's first official Holocaust conference. The two-day conference, attended by historians, clerics, authors, and journalists, dealt with the Tunisian Jewish Holocaust, and its purpose was to commemorate the 5,000 Tunisian Jews who were sent to labor camps or European death camps during the Nazi rule of the country. During the conference, speakers praised Tunisian Muslims who helped Jews during the Holocaust, including Khaled 'Abd Al-Wahhab, who hid 20 Jews in his factory.
The event was held under the auspices of the Tunisian Association to Support Minorities, as well as the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, which works to bring religions, specifically Muslims and Jews, closer together. The president of the Association to Support Minorities, Yasmina Thabet, said that "the conference aims to preserve the issue of the Holocaust in public consciousness... and ensure that a depraved act such as the Nazi Holocaust will never happen again in any form..."
Source: MEMRI, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7772.htm
Visitor to the University of Hull - Dr Rusi Jaspal
On January 8, 2014,
Dr Rusi Jaspal delivered his paper
"Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Iran". It was good to see Rusi again and listen to his thoughtful paper.
The paper is available at
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/
Abstract:
Anti-Semitism
and anti-Zionism constitute two important ideological building blocks
of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yet, there is no existing research
into the psychosocial motives underlying the manifestation of
anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism at the institutional level in Iran or in
the Iranian general population. Here it is argued that there is much
heuristic and predictive value in applying tenets of
Identity Process Theory (IPT), a socio-psychological model of identity
threat and action, to the primarily socio-historical literature on
anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in Iran.
In the
first half of the paper, the author provides a summary of anti-Semitism,
anti-Zionism and ‘new anti-Semitism’ and IPT. It is argued that (i)
anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism may restore feelings of belonging
in the Muslim world and beyond; (ii) there are important inter-relations
between ingroup and outgroup self-efficacy; (iii) there is a
psychological motivation to maintain Shiite ideology and Khomeini’s
legacy; (iv) Jews and Israel are constructed and perceived
in terms of a threat to group continuity. In the second half of the
paper, quantitative survey data, qualitative interview data and
qualitative visual and media data are presented in support of these
assertions. It is suggested that insights into the motivational
principles underlying anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism may inform further
empirical research into social representations of Jews and Israel in
Iran and potential interventions for mitigating anti-Semitism and
anti-Zionism. More broadly, this paper highlights
the potential contribution of social psychology to existing work on
anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in political science and the humanities.
Dr Rusi Jaspal
(M.A., Cambridge; M.Sc., Surrey; Ph.D., London) is Lecturer in
Psychology at De Montfort University, Leicester, UK. Dr.
Jaspal has published widely on identity, intergroup relations and the
media, with a particular focus on anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in Iran
and the Muslim world. His work in this area has appeared in journals
such as
Israel Affairs, The Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs and The British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. Rusi Jaspal is co-editor (with Prof Dame Glynis Breakwell) of
Identity Process Theory: Identity, Social Action and Social Change (Cambridge University Press, 2013) and the author of
Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism: Representation, Cognition and Everyday Talk
(Ashgate, 2013).
Revolutionary Cancer Trials Begin in
the University of
Hull
A
ground-breaking approach to the treatment of some breast cancers is now
being tested at the University of Hull’s Centre for Magnetic Resonance
(MR) Investigation.
It
is hoped that the new therapy, which uses a high intensity focused
ultrasound beam to target cancerous tissues, will eventually provide a
non-invasive alternative to the surgical removal of
some small tumours of the breast. The technology will also be tested as
an alternative to radiotherapy for relieving pain in patients who have
tumours that have spread to their bones (metastases).
Christmas Conversations
Two conversations
1.
"How was your Christmas?"
"We'll, I did a bit of travelling."
"Oh really! Somewhere interesting?"
"I went to see my parents; five hours each way. it's Christmas you know."
2.
"How was your Christmas?"
"Good. I travelled to see my mom and dad. It is always great to see them. I so much cherish my time with them."
If only I had the ability to travel to see my parents.
I saw a guy
He thanked me with a sigh
Gem of the Month – Nottingham
Each and every year, during Christmas time, my family and I visit one English city. This time it was Nottingham.
Nottingham has a lot to offer. The city is built on hundreds of caves and it is possible to visit some of them. You can visit the Galleries of Justice, Nottingham's old courthouse and gaol, the lovely market and castle, art galleries, nice parks including Wollaton Hall and Parks, and shop-until-you-drop in the elaborate shopping centres. There are plenty of restaurants to choose from, two universities, and a fair amount of culture.
Nottingham is certainly worthy of a visit.
Light Side
"How was your Christmas?"
"We'll, I did a bit of travelling."
"Oh really! Somewhere interesting?"
"I went to see my parents; five hours each way. it's Christmas you know."
2.
"How was your Christmas?"
"Good. I travelled to see my mom and dad. It is always great to see them. I so much cherish my time with them."
If only I had the ability to travel to see my parents.
Book Review -
Silvio Waisbord, Reinventing professionalism
Cambridge: Polity, 2013, pp 266
ISBN 978-0-7456-5192-7
Ethical Space, Vol. 10, No. 2/3
(2013), pp. 80-81.
The
saying, ‘Do not judge a book by its cover’, was never truer. While the
cover is dull, the book is interesting, engaging and penetrating. It is
full of interesting observations and is very
well-written.
Waisbord
attempts to explain the controversy around journalism as a profession,
why it has never been recognised as a profession in a similar fashion
that we understand medicine, for instance.
He examines the field of journalism in its historical context,
explaining the obstacles for making it a profession and why it is in the
interest of journalists to make journalism a defined profession.
Many,
if not most journalists perceive themselves as ‘hacks’, involved in a
trade or craft. As Michael Jordan was born with a basketball in his hand
and Lionel Messi with a football at his feet,
so they believe they were born with a pen (or keyboard) in their hands.
They are blessed with a gift of God to write and uncover ‘the truth’.
This gift, this talent, is enshrined in them. They do not need to study
it. Thus, they wish to have some elements
of professionalism: first and foremost work autonomy, but they do not
welcome other trademarks such as accreditation, examinations, monitoring
bodies, responsible ethics, and the possibility of sanctions.
Professionalism,
Waisbord explains (p. 11), refers to the ability of a field of practice
to settle boundaries and avoid intrusion from external interests. It is
about the specialisation of labour
and control of occupational practice (p. 15). Compared to occupations,
professions have a social contract with the state (p. 84). At the same
time, professionals – unlike journalists – distance themselves from
politics and politicians. Waisbord has no doubts
that journalism is and should be a profession (p. 74). It should have a
code of ethics and a public interest mission. Waisbord observes,
however, some of the subjective and objective intervening factors that
make journalism the quasi-profession it is.
Building on Max Weber’s notions, Waisbord explains that the press is nestled in
patrimonalistic politics. While professionalism requires abiding
rules, patrimonalism is characterised by arbitrary actions which have no
rules nor guiding principles. If there are any rules and principles,
these are ambiguously defined and are enforced
or ignored according to personal discretion (p. 163). Patrimonalism
encourages journalists to prioritise political causes over professional
identities and offers journalists options outside journalism to achieve
economic and social benefits. Thus, journalists
define occupational identities politically rather than professionally
(p. 169).
Waisbord
argues that professional journalism remains an ambiguous and contested
notion (p. 15). He notes that professionalism has been
stronger among US journalists than anywhere else in the world, and that
British journalists have historically held more mixed views on the
subject (p. 77). Indeed, many journalists are content to have loosely or
ambiguously-defined ground-rules that are enforced
or ignored according to their own personal discretion. The loose ends
provide them with an open playground that perfectly fits their work
‘ethics’. The ambiguity creates fuzzy boundaries and allows ‘creative’
and sometimes adventurous conduct.
However,
as agents of a powerful resource in society, journalists must conduct
their affairs carefully and not overstep their boundaries.
Power must have boundaries; otherwise the temptation for abuse might be
too compelling. The boundaries are set by professional codes and
standards. As it is unthinkable to allow other agents of power in
society to act without proper professional standards,
so it is unthinkable to allow journalists to act with complete freedom
irrespective of any harmful consequences. Quoting John Hughes (2002),
Waisbord observes that journalism like other professions has its
imperfect practitioners and “there are many things
we could do better” (p. 74). Waisbord maintains that if journalism does
not regain its professional mission it runs the risk of being lost.
Indeed, journalists like other professionals should keep and promote
certain professional standards without which the
credo of journalism is lost. Looking at other professions, an engineer
who builds an unsafe bridge would face harsh sanctions for endangering
public safety and human life. A physician who amputates the wrong leg
would be required to account for her wrongful
conduct. A lawyer who fails to follow legal directives might pay with
her job. A banker who attempts to embezzle clients’ money may face
prison. A pilot who jeopardises passengers’ lives by drinking alcohol
deserves to be fired. A psychologist who betrays
a patient’s confidentiality for personal gains risks losing her licence.
A plumber who does a reckless job which results in a flooded house will
be required to compensate for any damages. Similarly, a journalist who
recklessly destroys a person’s life and
reputation or unjustifiably undermines state security should be held
responsible for her wrong conduct and face significant sanctions both as
retribution and deterrence for others. Journalism, I believe, should
not be stripped of any professional standards.
Freedoms of expression and of the press are vital for democratic life
but unlimited freedom might lead to anarchy and lawlessness.
Waisbord
maintains that professions are independent moral voices which provide a
logic characterised by evidence and truth that neither
markets nor bureaucracies want to acknowledge (p. 125). Journalism,
however, lacks both state-sanctioned credentials and esoteric knowledge
to separate them from the lay public (pp. 85, 144). He correctly notes
that objectivity has been the ‘God-term’ of professional
journalism in the United States and the subject of extensive analysis
and debate (pp. 76, 123). Objectivity is associated with different
notions: (1) accuracy; (2) truthfulness; (3) fairness and balance, and
(4) moral neutrality. Elsewhere I asserted (Cohen-Almagor
2008) that in many cases journalists are not objective in their
reporting either because they consciously prefer not to be or because
they are being manipulated by their sources. Furthermore, the values of
not harming others and respecting others should play
a prominent part in the considerations of journalists. These are basic
ethical standards that require normative reporting. Consequently,
morally neutral coverage of hate speech and racism is a bad idea.
Subjectivity is preferable to objectivity when the media
cover illiberal and anti-democratic phenomena.
Waisbord
concludes by explaining why journalism should be a fully recognised
profession. If it is not able to control professional boundaries,
journalism is vulnerable to powerful external interests
and it cannot be the kind of public-minded institution that makes
significant contributions to democratic life (p. 226). Journalists will
not be able to maintain and promote their autonomy and withstand
political and economic pressures as long as they are
perceived as mere hacks.
The
book has an extensive bibliography and a concise index. It is full of
incisive insights and sharp observations. To date, it offers the most
learned analysis of the ‘journalism as a profession’
issue. It is simply a must for media ethicists. I certainly intend to
use it in my own classes.
Cohen-Almagor, R. (2008).
"The Limits of Objective Reporting",
Journal of Language and Politics, Vol. 7, No. 1: 138-157.
Hughes, John (2002). “Restoring my faith in American journalism”,
Christian Science Monitor (March 20): 1-2.
I thank Polity for a copy of this book.
New Books
Jenny Edkins and Maja Zehfuss (eds.),
Global Politics (London: Routledge, 2014).
The
idea behind this large volume is an interesting one. The editors posed
some general and more specific questions and then asked colleagues to
answer them laconically and lucidly. The result
is certainly fresh and novel. This is not the common way to teach an
introductory course on global politics. This is the major plus. However,
because this big volume of 681 pages poses a certain set of questions,
teachers of global politics need to adopt this
book and teach the course in accordance with its chapters and questions.
Either you adopt this book because you are persuaded the data and the
way the questions are presented and answered are compelling, or you
refrain from adopting the book. There is hardly
a middle ground.
The
treatment of issues is not deep. The discussions give students just a
flavor of the complexities involved. Sometimes, the treatment of the
questions may provoke students to delve into the
issues further. Sometimes, the treatment of issues is not compelling
enough.
Among the questions:
Thinking about torture
Can we save the planet?
Who do we think we are?
How does religion affect politics?
Why do we obey?
What difference does the Internet make?
Does the nation-state work?
Is democracy a good idea?
How does colonialism work?
Why are some people better off than others?
How can we end poverty?
What counts as violence?
Who has rights?
I
did not find logical coherence in this book. Unclear why these topics
were chosen, and what is the logic of the chapter order. Readers move in
a somewhat chaotic way from one topic to another.
The book is so rich that it is possible to construct an agenda and a
course plan of the wide selection of 28 chapters. There is certainly a
lot to choose from. The result of adopting this book will be anything
but conventional.
I thank Routledge for a copy of this book.
Monthly Poems
A Calendar of Sonnets: January
O Winter! frozen pulse and heart of fire,
What loss is theirs who from thy kingdom turn
Dismayed, and think thy snow a sculptured urn
Of death! Far sooner in midsummer tire
The streams than under ice. June could not hire
Her roses to forego the strength they learn
In sleeping on thy breast. No fires can burn
The bridges thou dost lay where men desire
In vain to build.
O Heart, when Love's sun goes
To northward, and the sounds of singing cease,
Keep warm by inner fires, and rest in peace.
Sleep on content, as sleeps the patient rose.
Walk boldly on the white untrodden snows,
The winter is the winter's own release.
Helen Hunt Jackson
O Winter! frozen pulse and heart of fire,
What loss is theirs who from thy kingdom turn
Dismayed, and think thy snow a sculptured urn
Of death! Far sooner in midsummer tire
The streams than under ice. June could not hire
Her roses to forego the strength they learn
In sleeping on thy breast. No fires can burn
The bridges thou dost lay where men desire
In vain to build.
O Heart, when Love's sun goes
To northward, and the sounds of singing cease,
Keep warm by inner fires, and rest in peace.
Sleep on content, as sleeps the patient rose.
Walk boldly on the white untrodden snows,
The winter is the winter's own release.
Helen Hunt Jackson
Like a fly
For Roei
I saw a guy
Who wanted to fly
I asked him “Why?”
He was kind of shy
Until he said “Oh my!”,
“I might fall down and cry, iiei
If I attempt to fly”.
He thanked me with a sigh
Then smiled
And disappeared like a fly
Bye bye.
Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Each and every year, during Christmas time, my family and I visit one English city. This time it was Nottingham.
Nottingham has a lot to offer. The city is built on hundreds of caves and it is possible to visit some of them. You can visit the Galleries of Justice, Nottingham's old courthouse and gaol, the lovely market and castle, art galleries, nice parks including Wollaton Hall and Parks, and shop-until-you-drop in the elaborate shopping centres. There are plenty of restaurants to choose from, two universities, and a fair amount of culture.
Nottingham is certainly worthy of a visit.
Light Side
Gotta Love the Irish – Part 5
Water to wine
An Irish priest is driving down to New York and gets stopped for speeding.
The state trooper smells alcohol on the priest's breath and then sees an empty wine bottle on the floor of the car.
An Irish priest is driving down to New York and gets stopped for speeding.
The state trooper smells alcohol on the priest's breath and then sees an empty wine bottle on the floor of the car.
He says, "Sir, have you been drinking?"
"Just water," says the priest.
The trooper says, "Then why do I smell wine?"
The priest looks at the bottle and says, "Good Lord! He's done it again!"
"Just water," says the priest.
The trooper says, "Then why do I smell wine?"
The priest looks at the bottle and says, "Good Lord! He's done it again!"
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
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
