February 2005


Comment on Prince Harry, Israel’s Punitive House Demolitions Since 2000, Human Rights in Israel, Peace Index, Syria, Dan Halutz, Excessive Media Ownership and Its Potential Threats to Democracy, Research and Lecture Tour to Holland and Belgium, Interview to Volkskrant, International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation's Campaign, Israel Affairs, Vol. 11, No. 1 (January 2005), Books, Photos


Dear friends and colleagues,


Comment on Prince Harry

SBK from Washington commented on Prince Harry:

No one has pointed out that, added to his evident ignorance and immaturity, the British press has implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, compared Israeli actions in the territories to that of the Nazis. Same among leftist politicians, and polls showed (at least before this incident) that a sizable portion of the British population (40% or so) do equate Israel with Nazi Germany. So why should he have any more reverance for Nazi symbolism that the British press, parliament and citizenry ?? Like any adolescent of average intelligence, Harry can presumably sense hypocrisy a mile away. Perhaps he's learned enough to know that the swastika is a symbolic toy and weapon, to be used for whatever purposes -- demonizing opponents, or amusing friends -- may be convenient.


Israel’s Punitive House Demolitions Since 2000

B’Tselem, the Israeli Human Rights organization, has issued its report on this issue. Its principle findings are:
· Since the beginning of the al-Aqsa intifada, the IDF has demolished 628 housing units, which were home to 3,983 persons.
· These homes were demolished because of the acts of 333 Palestinians. On average, 12 innocent people lost their home for every person suspected of participation in attacks against Israelis.
· Almost half of the homes demolished (295, or 47 percent) were never home to anyone suspected of involvement in attacks against Israelis. As a result of these demolitions, 1,286 persons lost their homes even though according to Israeli officials they should not have been punished.
· Contrary to its argument before the High Court of Justice that prior warning is given except in extraordinary cases, B’Tselem’s figures indicate that in only three percent of the cases were occupants given prior notification of the IDF’s intention to demolish their home.
· Extensive destruction of property in occupied territories, without military necessity, constitutes a war crime.


Three Different Kinds of House Demolitions

Over the last four years, Israel has demolished some 4,100 Palestinian homes in the Occupied Territories. About sixty percent of the demolitions were carried out in the framework of what Israel calls “clearing operations.” Some twenty-five percent were destroyed because Israel claims they were built without permit. The remaining fifteen percent were demolished as a means to punish the families and neighbors of Palestinians suspected of involvement in carrying out attacks against Israelis. These punitive demolitions are the focus of this report.


Punitive Demolitions Over the Years

Israel has demolished Palestinian houses as a punitive measure since the beginning of the occupation in 1967. The extent of such demolitions has varied over the years:
· From 1967 to the outbreak of the first intifada, in December 1987, Israel demolished or sealed at least 1,387 housing units, most in the first few years following occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
· Following the outbreak of the first intifada, Israel dramatically increased its use of house demolitions as a punishment. From 1988-1992, Israel completely demolished 431 housing units and partially demolished fifty-nine.
· From 1993 to 1997, Israel completely demolished eighteen housing units and partially demolished three units.
· From 1998 to October 2001, Israel did not demolish or seal any houses as punishment.
· In the course of the al-Aqsa intifada, Israel renewed with increased vigor its use of punitive house demolitions. As part of this policy, Israel demolished 628 homes from October 2001 to 20 September 2004. The official decision to renew the policy of punitive demolitions was made at a meeting of the Political-Security Cabinet on 31 July 2002, about nine months after the policy began in practice. This report analyzes Israel’s policy during this period.


Punishing the Innocent as Official Policy

The declared purpose of the punitive house demolitions is to deter potential attackers, by harming the relatives of Palestinians suspected of attacks against Israelis. Testimonies given to B’Tselem indicate that security forces occasionally use the threat of demolition to convince relatives of wanted persons to cooperate and turn over their relatives. Israel’s policy has left 3,983 Palestinians homeless since the beginning of the current intifada.

This measure does not directly harm the suspects themselves, who at the time of the demolition are not living in the house. According to B’Tselem’s statistics, thirty-two percent of the suspected offenders were in detention at the time of demolition, twenty-one percent were “wanted,” and forty-seven percent were dead. In addition, in many instances the IDF also destroyed houses adjacent to the house that was the target for demolition. These cases involved both apartments in the same building as the suspect’s apartment, and adjacent buildings. B’Tselem’s research indicates that in some cases the IDF explicitly intended to destroy the nearby houses. Yet, even if the IDF did not intend to damage nearby houses, the fact that there have been many such cases makes the lack of intention irrelevant. Since the beginning of the al-Aqsa intifada, the IDF demolished 295 such adjacent homes (about one-half of all homes demolished), in which 1,286 persons lived. However, statements made by the IDF Spokesperson’s Office following demolitions always mention one house, that in which the relevant individual lived, as the residence that was demolished.


Reason for Demolition: Not Just Suicide Bombings

The text of the decision made by the Political-Security Cabinet and reports in the media give the impression that Israel’s policy is directed only against Palestinians who were directly involved in attacks that caused many Israeli casualties. Yet in practice, Israel demolishes houses in response to involvement in any attempted violent act against Israelis, regardless of the results: from suicide bombings that leave many casualties to “failed” attacks against soldiers. Furthermore, the demolitions are aimed not only at the perpetrators, but also against the homes of individuals with any level of involvement in such attacks, either in the planning, the dispatching of the persons who carried out the attacks, or by providing assistance of some kind. According to B’Tselem’s figures, sixty-six percent of the demolitions were directed at the families of suspects who carried out attacks, while the remaining thirty-four percent were directed at those involved in other ways. In forty percent of the Palestinian attacks because of which the suspects’ homes were destroyed, no Israeli was killed.


No Prior Warning

Contrary to prior practice, since the policy was renewed in 2001, the IDF has generally not issued a demolition order, and has not given prior warning to the occupants before demolishing their home. The IDF gave prior warning in only seventeen cases, representing three percent of the total. Most of the demolitions take place at night, and the occupants are given only a few minutes to remove their possessions from the house.


Causing Severe Physical and Mental Harm

Testimonies given to B’Tselem indicate that the harm suffered by families affects almost all aspects of life: disruption of the family unit, as some families are forced to split up and live separately; sharp decline in the standard of living, as a result of the loss of property, even after the family finds substitute housing; and feelings of dependence and instability as a result of the loss of their home, which is more than just a place to provide shelter. Research on the psychological effects indicates that house demolitions have a substantial post-traumatic effect, primarily on children.


Violation of the Right to Housing

The right to adequate housing is well enshrined in international law. The right to housing is important because it is a prerequisite for the exercise of other rights, among them the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and the right to family life. The right to housing is a vital component of the protection of the rights of children, who are entitled to special protection in international law. As the force in control in the Occupied Territories, Israel is required to respect the Palestinians’ right to housing.


Collective Punishment

Israel’s policy not only infringes the right to housing, it also breaches one of the most fundamental principles of justice: the prohibition on punishing a person for acts committed by another. The prohibition of collective punishment is especially stringent when the victims are children. The Fourth Geneva absolutely prohibits collective punishment without exception.

The Hague Regulations, on the other hand, recognize a narrow exception to this prohibition. The exception applies when occupants of the house intended for demolition knew or could foresee the act for which the army intends to demolish the house, and had the opportunity to prevent it. Despite this, state officials have often declared that prior knowledge or responsibility is not a precondition for the legality of the demolition. In the few cases in which the High Court addressed the question of indirect responsibility of family members for failing to prevent an attack, the justices relied on baseless assumptions to determine that the relatives knew about the attack during the planning stage. This approach is completely inconsistent with the High Court’s handling of the identical offense known in Israeli law as “failure to prevent a felony,” which calls for an extremely heavy burden of proof, in which the prosecution must prove that the defendant had positive, concrete, immediate, and significant information that a felony was about to occur.

Israel further argues that house demolitions are not punishment, but rather a means of deterrence. Therefore, the state contends, the act does not comprise collective punishment and thus does not violate international humanitarian law. The High Court accepted the state’s argument by making an analogy between house demolition and incarceration of the head of a family, which also harms the family. However, the comparison is flawed. The purpose of imprisonment is to deny certain rights to the offender. The suffering of his family is only a by-product which is not necessary to achieve the objective of the imprisonment.


Denying the Right to Due Process

Finally, demolition of houses is an administrative procedure based solely on suspicion, in which the occupants are denied the right to due process of law. Since the policy was renewed in 2001, Israeli has further denied due process by denying victims of the policy the fundamental right to plead their case to the authorities before the demolition is carried out. Israel justifies its failure to give prior warning on the grounds that the warning is “liable to endanger our forces, and cause the action to fail, because warning will enable the enemy to booby-trap the houses scheduled to be demolished, ambush our troops taking part in the action, and the like.” This justification is baseless. At least as far as the West Bank is concerned, the IDF has effective control throughout the area, and is constantly present in almost all the cities, villages, and refugee camps. Also, making demolitions an openly declared policy enables some families to anticipate the demolition of their home. Following recent suicide attacks, the Israeli media reported that the IDF intended to demolish the houses of the persons who carried out the attacks. Thus, the state can no longer justify denial of the right to be heard on the need to preserve the element of surprise.

In perfect timing, after the publication of this report the Ministry of Defence announced earlier this week that it no longer supports demolition of houses as a punitive measure, arguing that it does not really serve as deterrence and only increases hostility and hatred by Palestinian families who were affected by this draconic measure. Prudence does prevail. Sometimes it hesitates, sometimes it takes time, more than necessary.


Human Rights in Israel:
An Overview with Special Reference to Administrative Detention

Just published a short piece of mine: News and Journal 2004, The 21st Century Trust, London. I am thankful to the Trust (Paul and John) for permission to publish it in this forum.


Introduction

Israel is a young democracy under constant stress. It is situated within a hostile environment. Since its establishment in 1948 it experienced six wars (the 1948 Independence War; the 1956 Suez War; the 1967 Six Day War; the 1969-1970 War of Attrition; the 1973 Yom Kippur War; the 1982 Lebanon War), a Palestinian uprising (Intifada) that lasted six years (1987-1993), and since September 2000 it has been under constant terror attacks. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. Israel has been facing terrorism since its inception but the last four years have been particularly harsh. In such a strenuous and abnormal reality respect for human and civic rights is held secondary to security considerations.
Israel is a land of immigrants. The Law of Return, passed on 5 July 1950, gives the Zionist doctrine its most forceful legal expression. It accords every Jew who decides to make aliya (immigrate) and to settle in Israel an automatic citizenship. Effectively, the Law of Return is a nationality law, granting only Jews nationality status in the state of Israel. There are still schisms between different immigrant groups as well as between these groups and people who were born in Israel. Generally speaking, three groups of people are being discerned in the Jewish population in Israel: Sephardim whose origins lie in Asia and Africa; Ashkenazim whose origins lie in Europe and America; and Sabras, native born Israelis. The large Sephardi sector holds justified grievances against the Ashkenazi elite, speaking of systematic discrimination and violation of basic civic rights during the formative years of the state and arguing that some residuals of this discriminatory attitude continued to linger for decades, some say until today.[1]
In this short piece I chose to reflect on the status of Arab-Palestinian citizens in Israel, on some of the problems that the Jewish character of the State present, especially to women, and then on the occupation, specifically on the administrative detention mechanism employed in the occupied territories and sporadically also in Israel.


Israeli-Palestinians

Twenty percent of Israel's population consists of Palestinian-Arabs who do not share the raison d'etre of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. They often claim, quite rightly, that they are being discriminated against and do not enjoy the same rights as Jews. The Orr Inquiry Report about the circumstances leading to the killing of 13 Arab citizens by the Israeli security forces in October 2000, issued in September 2003, sheds light on this continued discrimination in all spheres of life. Formally all Israeli citizens are equal before the law, regardless of national affiliation, religious beliefs, and political stands. I say 'formally' because in this connection an important distinction has to be made between formal citizenship and full citizenship. Israeli Jews can be said to enjoy full citizenship: they enjoy equal respect as individuals, and they are entitled to equal treatment by law and in its administration. The situation is different with regard to the Israeli-Palestinians, the Bedouin and the Druze. Although they are formally considered to enjoy liberties equally with the Jewish community, in practice they do not share and enjoy the same rights and burdens.[2] For example, Israeli-Palestinians pay more income tax than Jews since they do not enjoy discounts given to those who serve in the army. Arabs will find it more difficult than Jews to receive licences for extending their flats, or for building new ones. They also find it difficult to buy, or even to rent a flat in a Jewish neighbourhood. Furthermore, budgets of Arab municipalities stand in no comparison to those of Jewish municipalities. There are not enough classes in Arab towns and villages. Arabs who graduate find it difficult to get a job in government offices. In addition, being a Palestinian-Arab in many cases 'guarantees' that a worker's salary would be lower than that of a Jew who is doing the same work. The Oslo peace process, which started in September 1993, has reinforced the status of the Palestinians in Israel as a “double periphery”: being placed at one and the same time at the margins of Israeli society and at the margins of Palestinian National Movement.[3]


State and Religion

Further twenty percent of the population are orthodox and ultra-orthodox who will be happy to transform Israel into theocracy. They also complain about prolonged discrimination and denial of basic civic rights, although in recent years there are also complaints from the secular majority about reverse discrimination that bluntly favours the religious minority. In Israel there is no division between state and religion. The concept of a Jewish state has been imbued with religious values, and gender equality rights clash with religious norms. Jewish women are subject to male pre-dominance under Jewish Law, the halakha. Women in Jewish (and also Moslem and some Christian denominations) are subject to discrimination in property and inheritance laws. At present, some religious practices are offensive to the sensibilities of women, and involve coercion, which conflicts with the liberal elements of democracy that vouchsafes the rights of individuals. One of these is the right to follow one’s conscience and to practice one's beliefs as one sees fit, as long as this practice does not entail harm to others.
There is no civil marriage in Israel and persons must be married according to the law of their religious communities. Divorce is also regulated by such law and generally speaking constitutes the jurisdiction of the religious courts. Requiring all who wish to marry to do so by religious law is a serious incursion on the fundamental right to marry. Furthermore, there is a large population of people in Israel who cannot marry at all under Israeli law, either because they belong to different religious communities or to non-recognized religious communities, or because they are not allowed to marry under the law of their community. These incursions on the right to marry are compounded by the fact that both Jewish and Muslim law discriminate between men and women, in the laws of marriage and divorce themselves, as well as in the laws of evidence. Women cannot be judges in the courts in which they comprise half the parties to the disputes.[4]
The system of marriage and divorce is not the only sphere in which religion has an effect on individual rights. Sabbath observance laws, which may potentially impose unacceptable limitations on such rights, have in practice been relaxed in recent years. Their existence and level of enforcement now vary from town to town. Thus, in many towns cinemas and other places of entertainment are open on the Sabbath and some shopping centers operate too. However, in most towns, and in interurban routes, public transport does not operate on the sabbath, a restriction that obviously has an inordinate impact on the poorer sections of the population who do not have their own cars, and curtails exercise of their right to freedom of movement.[5]
Democracy is supposed to allow each and every individual the opportunity to follow her or his conception of the good without coercion. Israel today gives precedence to Judaism over liberalism. I submit that on issues such as this one, the reverse should be the case.[6]


Occupation

In addition, there are noticeable tensions between left and right: while people associated with the left concede of the necessity to make grave territorial concessions and end the occupation, the people who associate themselves with the right wish to retain the settlements and maintain control over "Greater Israel", i.e., Israel including the territories that were occupied during the Six Day War. Certainly occupation qua occupation is inconsistent with a human rights regime. Ending the occupation and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel is the key for promoting basic human rights in Israel.
In this short survey it will be impossible to cover all aspects of negation of human rights in the occupied territories. They are numerous. The reader is advised to consult the reports of B'tselem and other human rights organizations that monitor human rights in the occupied territories.[7] The remainder of the article addresses one concern: administrative detention, a procedure that is frequent in the territories and infrequent inside the Green Line. This procedure enables the State to detain a person without trial for six months and, if needed, to prolong the denial of freedom further because of "state security considerations". Since the outbreak of the 1987 Palestinian Intifada in December 1987 until today Israel has detained thousands of people. In 2003, 1007 Palestinians were detained. As of 1 August 2004, the Israel Defence Force (IDF) has detained 731 Palestinians.[8] Some detainees remained in jail for years.[9]


Administrative detention

Administrative detention is widely used in many countries. According to the International Commission of Jurists, at least 85 countries have legislation permitting this practice.[10] Israel made use of administrative detention from its first days as an independent state. This measure has been used both in the occupied territories and in Israel within its Green Line borders. While the military govern and adjudicate the detention procedures in the territories, the civilian executive and judicial authorities govern these procedures inside the Green Line and in East Jerusalem, which was officially annexed to Israel.
The power to implement administrative detention was created at the time of the British Mandate by the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945.[11] When Israel declared its independence in 1948, a state of emergency was announced and the Defence Regulations became part of Israeli law. After the Six Day War, military orders were issued that enabled the use of Defence Regulations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. From the first year of occupation, Israel resorted to administrative detention as a security measure against the Palestinian population and, on occasion, against Jews involved in espionage and similar activities believed to endanger state security. In 1979 and 1980, it was decided to change the existing procedures relating to administrative detention in the Green Line borders and subsequently in the occupied territories. First, the Defence Regulations were replaced with an Israeli law through the enactment of The Emergency Powers (Detention) Law, 5739-1979.[12] Section 2 of this law provides: ‘Where the Minister of Defence has reasonable cause to believe that reasons of state security or public security require that a particular person be detained, he may, by order under his hand, direct that such person be detained for a period, not exceeding six months, stated in the order’.[13] Israeli courts rely heavily on the statements of the Defence Minister who is not obliged to produce substantial evidence, as is required in an ordinary court of law, to justify the detention.
The issue of administrative detention should be viewed, especially in the occupied territories, within the general framework of security considerations that justify the demolition of houses, deportations, controversial instructions for the opening of fire, methods of interrogation that some may regard as torture, closure of newspapers, and the like.[14] Israel does not hesitate to endorse illiberal methods when it comes to defending its security. Those illiberal patterns of ‘militant Zionism’ are being advocated, legalised, implemented, and justified by the legislature, the government, and the court of justice.[15]
Administrative detention is one of the most anti-democratic procedures that exist in Israel. It has severe consequences for the persons concerned, and it contravenes some of the most important documents in international law. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights postulates: ‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile’. And Article 9(1) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights reiterates that ‘Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention’. The right to due process of law grossly infringed by resorting to administrative detentions is protected in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[16]
The reader should not infer from this discussion that democracies should stand idle in the face of grave threats to their security and/or their very existence. Democracies have every right to defend themselves against such threats. I object only to the implementation of what I conceive as an unjust procedure that denies basic rights and liberties and infringes on due process of law at times other than those of real emergency. Obviously, security considerations necessitate taking some restrictive measures such as questioning, detention for 48 hours, house arrest, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, but they do not justify brute denial of rights in the form of administrative detention. This act should not be considered as just another preventive measure to be selected from the arsenal of preventive measures. During normal times, it should not be contemplated at all. It should not be a substitute for criminal proceedings. The courts hold that administrative detention is justified as a last resort, but I have serious doubts as to whether this is, indeed, the case.[17]
Administrative detention is manifestly unjust. It is contrary to the democratic spirit and to liberal reason that proscribes arbitrary arrests. This procedure is the kind of instrument despots use to suppress opposition. In contrast, democracies require that all legal procedures be exhausted before putting individuals behind bars. In a court of law, the prosecution must prove that criminal offences have been committed that justify penalties. Defendants have the right to be represented by lawyers, to summon witnesses and to cross-examine them. The administrative detention procedure omits these rights and, therefore, is contrary to the notion of justice. My contention is simple: if the detainees have committed criminal offences (sedition, incitement, violent or terrorist acts, etc.), they should stand trial, and it is for the prosecution to show why they should be kept out of society. Let the prosecution prosecute, the defendants defend themselves, and the court of justice mete out justice in accordance with material evidence. And if there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute, or if the prosecution is unable to produce relevant material, the defendants should retain their freedom. No procedure should exist to override the administration of justice.[18]


Conclusion

Israel is saturated with schisms. Those schisms challenge the foundations of liberal democracy (liberty, equality, tolerance, justice) and the ability to maintain human rights.
After the Holocaust, the goal was to found a safe haven for Jews all over the world so as to avoid the possibility of another horrific experience of that nature. Indeed, the United Nations acknowledged the need of establishing a Jewish state. This creation, however, based on a Jewish conception of the good, discriminates against the Israeli Arabs. Israel acknowledges the problems involved in the introduction of this perfectionist element in its framework of ruling. To assure an equal status for the Arab minority, the Declaration of Independence holds that Israel will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; that it will be based on the foundations of liberty, justice and peace; that it will uphold complete equality of social and political rights to all of its citizens irrespective of religion, race or sex, and that it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture. It is time to translate these words into deeds and to strive to achieve real equality between Arabs and Jews, and to secure civic and human rights for all.
Israel, being the only Jewish state in the world, should endeavor to retain its Jewish character. The symbols should remain Jewish with some accommodations in order to make the state a home for its Palestinian citizens as well. Shabbat should remain the official day of rest. Palestinian villages and towns may make Friday their day of rest. Hopefully, one day, when security considerations would become less dominant and pressing, and the Israeli economy could afford two days of rest, as is the case in many parts of the world, then Friday and Shabbat will become the two official days of rest.
The preservation of the Jewish character of the state should not entail coercion of the predominant secular circles of Israel. The guiding principle should be Live and Let Live. We need to differentiate between the symbolic aspects and the modus operandi aspects. As far as the latter are concerned, separation between state and religion should be achieved. People are born free and wish to continue their lives as free citizens in their homeland. Coercion is foreign to our natural sentiments and desires to lead our lives free as possible from alien restraints and impediments. Hence, while Shabbat should be observed, malls and shopping places outside the cities should be available for the many people who work during the week and do their shopping during weekends.
Public transportation should be made available for all people who cannot afford having a car and for those who do not drive. The state should cater for the needs of as many citizens as possible. Kosher shops and restaurants should be available and with them non-Kosher shops and restaurants for the secular, agnostic population.
Most importantly, the significant events in one's life: birth, wedding, divorce and death should be handled in accordance of the people's own choices. If they so desire, people may involve rabbinate and other religious institutions in their private lives. But this option should be left to them. If people wish to have secular ceremonies then they should have the ability to conduct them and not to be forced to undergo practices which mean very little to them, if anything. The state should have as little as possible say in family, intimate affairs.[19]
Israel should end the occupation, the sooner the better. The state of occupation harms primarily the Palestinians but it also damages the civic foundations of democracy. Decision makers thought that it is possible to maintain the duality of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: being an occupier outside the Green Line, and a citizen inside the Green Line. However, norms of the occupation infiltrate inside Israel and damage the democratic foundations of the State. The Gaza First Plan is a possible route to follow as -- indeed -- the first step in a calculated process designed to evacuate the territories and shifting responsibility to the Palestinian Authority.[20]
As for administrative detention, this measure should be regarded anti-humanitarian and be objected to in the same way we protest against torture, collective punishment, harming children, deportation, and forced transfer of the population. While recognising that security considerations are of paramount importance, and that without security a democratic state would not exist, there is still a limit to what we can do in the name of democracy. As Justice Aharon Barak contended in the Schnitzer case, our strength lies in our moral power and in our adherence to the principles of democracy, especially when we are encompassed by such dangers.[21]
Security is not an end in itself, but a means. We must secure a democratic system, an administration of the people, for the people, by the people, that guarantees individual freedoms and fundamental human rights.


Peace Index

Prof. Ephraim Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann published the Peace Index of January 2005. In recent months they found cautious optimism among the Israeli Jewish public about the chances of calming the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and at present it has grown. Along with overwhelming support for conducting political negotiations with the Palestinian side, along with greater belief that such negotiations could lead to peace in the coming years, the majority also thinks new Palestinian leader Abu Mazen is making sincere efforts to end the terror and has the ability to end or at least reduce it substantially.

In the domestic sphere, despite enhanced fears that the resistance to the disengagement plan could lead to a civil war, and the widespread view that the plan’s opponents have been “marketing” their message more successfully than its supporters and also are prepared to invest more effort in promoting the policy they favor, support for the plan among most of the Jewish public remains stable, with a clear majority also believing the government will eventually be able to implement it. The majority favors taking various measures to make the domestic process easier, including increasing the financial compensation to the evacuated settlers, preventing the transfer to the Palestinians of their homes and infrastructures without suitable compensation, allowing soldiers who oppose the evacuation not to take part in it, and closing the zones of the evacuation to the media. In addition, the Jewish public supports—by a rate of two to one—holding a referendum on the plan and stepped-up civic activity by its supporters.

Seventy-seven percent of the Jewish public currently support or strongly support holding peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, and 51% believe strongly or moderately that this will lead to Israeli-Palestinian peace in the coming years (in the Arab sector the optimism is high indeed: 94.5% favor negotiations and 78% believe in their chances of bearing fruit in the coming years).

The broad support for the disengagement plan—59%—remains unchanged, and a segmentation of the rates of support and opposition by voting for the large parties also indicates great stability. However, the Jewish public is split regarding the danger that implementing the plan will ignite a civil war—49% see the danger as very high or high (in September this rate was 40%), 46% as low or very low (interestingly, an overwhelming majority—67%—of the Arab public sees little such danger). Some 56.5% think the disengagement opponents are currently “marketing” their message to the Israeli public more effectively than the supporters, and just about the same total say the opponents—more than the supporters—are prepared to invest effort in advancing the policy they favor. It is not surprising, then, that about 60% of the public—similar to the rate of supporters—see it is desirable that the disengagement supporters express their position more effectively via petitions, demonstrations, and the like. However, despite the assessment of the marketing success and determination of the disengagement opponents, a very large majority—74%—expect the government will ultimately succeed in implementing the plan and evacuating the settlements. This is higher than the public’s evaluation of the plan’s chances of success in December (63%). A cross-section of expectations on this issue with positions on disengagement shows, as expected, that among the plan’s supporters there is unanimity (91%) that the government will be able to carry it out. Interestingly, though, among the opponents as well a majority, albeit not large (52%-41%), holds this view.

Seventy percent support increased compensations to the settlers, 68% favor ensuring that their homes and infrastructures are not transferred to the Palestinians without suitable compensation, 53% believe soldiers who oppose the evacuation should be allowed not to take part in it, and the same rate supports closing the zones of the evacuation to the media. Furthermore, despite the prime minister’s opposition to a referendum on the disengagement plan, most of the Jewish public, at a similar rate to support for the plan (61%), favors a referendum. Indeed, a segmentation of support rates for a referendum by position on the disengagement plan shows that even among the supporters a majority, albeit small (52%-45%), wants one to be held. As expected, the rate of those favoring this is higher among opponents of the plan (79%).


Syria

President Bush declared on January 17 that Syria was "out of step" with democratic trends in the Middle East and that the Syrian government needed to cut off support for Iraqi insurgents and stop interfering in Lebanon to avoid becoming further isolated internationally.

The Bush administration announced the recall of the ambassador, Margaret Scobey, to express American displeasure after the assassination on Monday of Rafik Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister who was a close ally of the United States and France and also a critic of Syria's involvement in Lebanon.

Frankly, I would not be surprised if Syria was not behind the assassination and if the investigation will reveal that one of the factions who wish the Syrians out of the country committed the murder, knowing that Syria will be the prime suspect. Syria has an interest to calm down the situation at time when the American lion lies at its gate. They would have committed the assassination only if felt that Hariri became too successful in his anti-Syrian activities. I do not have sufficient knowledge about his range of activities and the extent of his success in the Lebanese internal politics. I presume the clouds will clear soon.


Dan Halutz

Maj. Gen. Dan Halutz was named on February 22 by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz as the next chief of staff, the first ever air force general to reach this position. Halutz, 57, will be the 18th chief of staff. Ariel Sharon was a full partner in the decision to appoint Halutz, who is known to be one of the prime minister's favorite officers.

Halutz is the controversial officer who authorized the "targeted assassination" of Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh by a one-tone bomb dropped by an Air Force bomber on Shehadeh's Gaza home. As a result, 15 civilians, including 11 children, were killed. Quite a collateral way to conduct targeted assassination. Asked how he felt about the death, Halutz said that he "sleeps very well at night." He added that the only thing he felt was "a slight jolt to the airplane - it was gone within a second." Now that this great humanitarian is heading the military pyramid I will not sleep well at night.


Excessive Media Ownership and Its Potential Threats to Democracy

As some of you may know, for the past few years I have conducted research on this issue. The study, which analyses the situation in Canada, Israel and Germany, was just published. The reference is "Excessive Media Ownership and Its Potential Threats to Democracy: A Comparative Analysis", by Raphael Cohen-Almagor with Stefan Seiterle, Annual Rev. of Law and Ethics, Vol. 12 (2004), pp. 437-463. Abstract infra. Those interested are welcome to ask for a copy.

Abstract
The aim of this essay is to examine the issue of media ownership in Canada and Israel, and to reflect on the situation in Germany. In Canada and Israel there is the dual problem of excessive ownership of the media by a small number of people who control the print press and the electronic press. I shall first review the press industry in each country and then reflect on the broadcasting industry. It is argued that the situation of both the Canadian and Israeli markets is alarming because in both societies single individuals have accumulated far too much power. Excessive media ownership threatens diversity of opinions and free journalism and it provides avenues for partisan, partial interests. Germany should learn from the experiences of both countries. Democratic governments should invest efforts to diffuse the power among players with different interests and worldviews.


Research and Lecture Tour to Holland and Belgium

During the first historic meeting between Abu Mazan and Ariel Sharon after the former was elected to succeed Arafat, a meeting that certainly provides fresh and positive wind to our troubled region, I was in Holland and Belgium. I conducted research on euthanasia in the only two countries in the world that legalized euthanasia, research that updates my last book, Euthanasia in the Nethelrands. As ever, a fascinating experience that provides a lot to think and learn about. I need to find the time to sit and analyze the vast material that I have gathered.

I also gave a few lectures on the relationships between media and terror, global terrorism, political extremsism and incitement, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; was interviewed to the written press (one piece infra), and gave a brieifing at the Belgian parliament to some MPs about the heated atmosphere in Israel nowadays. I emphasized that Europe, and also the USA, may have a positive role to play in seeing that the property Israel intends to leave behind will not be demolished and will be transferred to the Palestinan Authority untouched. Both Europe and the USA have the ability to compensate Israel for the lost property. Secondly, I reiterated that Israel will not be able to tolerate the launching of Kassam missiles, and that the onus is on Abu Mazan to halt his extremists. Furthermore, Israel cannot live with the threat of Iranian WMDs and reserves the right to self-defence, including preemtive attacks on such sites in Iran. I expect Bush to increase his involvement in the ME in general, and in Israel-Palestine in particular but said I will be surprised if he will take upon himself to convene a Camp David summit, as Carter and Clinton did. Somehow, Bush does not strike me as a person with an eye on small details, and he lacks the commitment that the two humanitarian presidents had. But, who knows, maybe Bush will surprise me.

I wish to thank my kind hosts that made my visit memorable: Martine Bouman, Eldad Hayet, Sigrid Sterckx, Cas Mudde, Laurent Reichman, Pierre-François Laterre, and Simon Petermann.


Interview to Volkskrant

Mohammed B. is lang geen Osama bin Laden
The Volkskrant
10 February 2005

Interview
Raphael Cohen-Almagor maakt onderscheid tussen lokale terroristen en internationale terreurnetwerken
‘Een aanslag plegen
in Amsterdam zou
een vergissing zijn'
Hoe ver kan een democratie gaan in de strijd tegen het terrorisme zonder op te houden een democratie te zijn? Een Israëlische politicoloog is op zoek naar het antwoord.

Van onze verslaggever
Henk Müller
AMSTERDAM

Europa is vergeven van de terreurnetwerken. Gestaag werken die aan hun groei en hun infrastructuur. Terrorisme staat of valt met de beschikbare infrastructuur en die is volop aanwezig, constateert prof. Raphael Cohen-Almagor.
De Midden-Oosten- en terrorisme-expert van de Universiteit van Haifa in Israël is ervan overtuigd dat Al Qa'ida hard werkt aan een nieuwe grootschalige aanval. Bijvoorbeeld op Londen. ‘Amsterdam aanvallen zou een vergissing zijn in de ogen van Bin Laden. Nederland heeft de infrastructuur voor een grote aanval en is misschien een gemakkelijk doelwit, maar dat zoekt hij niet. Bin Laden wil een belangrijk, symbolisch doelwit. Al Qa'ida kent de geopolitieke verhoudingen.'
Cohen-Almagor heeft in Nederland niet alleen enkele lezingen over terrorisme gegeven, maar ook onderzoek gedaan naar euthanasie. ‘Ik concentreer me in mijn werk op ethiek en ethische grenzen', legt hij uit. ‘Grenzen als die tussen liberalisme en multiculturaliteit, tussen terrorisme en hoe een democratie daarmee omgaat, en de vragen van leven en dood: de holocaust en euthanasie.'
In Israël en de Verenigde Staten doceert Cohen-Almagor de recente geschiedenis van het Midden-Oosten, die deze week een nieuwe fase lijkt te zijn ingegaan met het sluiten van een wapenstilstand.
‘Voetje voor voetje lopen premier Sharon en de Palestijnse leider Abbas door troebel water. Sharon, een zeer voorzichtig man, wil als eerste stap de Israëlische troepen terugtrekken uit Gaza, zien hoe dat uitpakt en wat de Palestijnen gaan doen. Abbas, die nog maar net aan de macht is, probeert de Palestijnse ‘‘legers'' van Hamas en de Islamitische Jihad op één lijn te krijgen om in Gaza zijn gezag te kunnen opbouwen. Hamas en de Jihad willen eerst wel eens zien wat voor vlees ze met Abbas in de kuip hebben. Daarom houden ze zich rustig.'
Cohen-Almagor maakt onderscheid tussen ‘terrorisme op lokaal niveau' in Israël en Europa en wereldwijde netwerken als Al Qa'ida. De moord op Van Gogh is volgens hem gepleegd door lokale terroristen, die niet bij Al Qa'ida horen. ‘Maar je moet oppassen dat je die lokale terreurgroepen geen extra munitie verschaft, en zorgvuldig afwegen waar en wanneer de staat moet ingrijpen. Dat hoeft niet bij alles wat onliberaal is, maar wel als er sprake is van geweld. Wederzijds respect en een ander niet schaden, dat is de basisregel.'
Om te zien waar de grenzen liggen, bestudeerde hij vrouwenbesnijdenis en de rechten van moslimvrouwen. ‘Wat zijn de consequenties van ingrijpen? Stel dat moslimvrouwen binnenshuis moeten blijven. Moet de staat ze dan dwingen de deur uit te gaan? Nee. Als een moslim een vrouw geen hand wil geven, wat dan nog? Maar de staat moet wel ingrijpen als er sprake is van geweld.
‘Of eerwraak terrorisme is? Nee, terrorisme is angst zaaien door willekeur. Eerwraak is geen willekeur. Vrouwenbesnijdenis van Somalische vrouwen bijvoorbeeld is systematisch geweld, daarom moet de staat ingrijpen. Maar vrouwenbesnijdenis onder de bedoeïenen in Israël bleek vooral symbolisch. Niet ingrijpen dus.'
Het gevaar komt niet van lokale terroristen, onderstreept Cohen-Almagor, die Al Qa'ida en Bin Laden ziet ‘als een soort land' dat het verdient harder te worden aangevallen dan Irak. ‘In mijn ogen is dat de belangrijkste prioriteit. De kop van de cobra moet eraf.'
Irak is volgens hem sinds de val van Saddam Hussein geen kweekvijver voor terroristen, zoals Afghanistan destijds. ‘Er is terrorisme, maar de aanwezigheid van de Amerikaanse leeuw voor de poorten van Damascus en Teheran heeft al met al tot minder terrorisme geleid.'
Toen Bush aankondigde het terrorisme wereldwijd te willen aanpakken, vroeg de Israëlische expert zich af of de Amerikaanse president wel wist wat hij zei. ‘Bush is geen Carter of Clinton, die zich intensief met het Midden-Oostenconflict hebben bemoeid. Het zou me verbazen als hij bijvoorbeeld een Camp David-top bijeenroept. Bush is er niet zo persoonlijk bij betrokken. Maar wel bij de bestrijding van terrorisme. Hij wil de geschiedenis ingaan als de man die een einde heeft gemaakt aan het terrorisme.'

Cohen-Almagor is ervan overtuigd dat het Bush menens is als deze zegt het Midden-Oosten te willen democratiseren. ‘Irak was vanaf 11/9 kandidaat nummer één. Het klinkt cynisch, maar het aantal Amerikaanse body bags is niet zo groot dat de regering van mening verandert. Washington moet doorgaan met zijn pogingen van Irak een democratie te maken. Of dat lukt? Ik probeer optimistisch te zijn. Voor hetzelfde geld valt Irak uit elkaar'.

Maar tussen wens en werkelijkheid zit nog wel wat ruimte. Democratisering van de rest van het Midden-Oosten blijft vooralsnog beperkt tot veel geld voor instituten die rapporten schrijven over democratisering in het Midden-Oosten, constateert de Israëlische professor.

‘De regeringen in Egypte, Saudi-Arabië en de Golfstaten blijven zitten, het zijn bondgenoten, ze staan aan de Amerikaanse kant. Kadhafi heeft zijn lesje geleerd, Al-Assad van Syrië weet dat hij de VS nodig heeft om te overleven en Jemen houdt zich koest. Dan houd je alleen Iran over'.

Cohen-Almagor denkt niet dat de VS Iran zullen aanvallen. ‘Dat kunnen zelfs de VS niet aan, twee landen tegelijk aanvallen. Irak is kinderspel vergeleken met Iran. Maar naar Israëlische inschatting kan Teheran over een jaar een atoomwapen hebben. Dat zal Jeruzalem nooit toestaan en als Iran niet alsnog voldoet aan de eisen van het Internationaal Atoomagentschap zal Israël ingrijpen. Al dan niet met expliciete toestemming van Washington. Dat is een van de weinige zekerheden die ik heb inzake het Midden-Oosten'.



International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation's 100,000 Names for 100,000 Lives Campaign

I was asked to post the following. I signed and would appreciate your consideration.

January 17th 2005 marks the 60th anniversary of the disappearance of Raoul Wallenberg, who saved 100,000 lives in Nazi-occupied Hungary during WWII. On January 1945 Wallenberg was captured by the Soviet Army. Since then, his fate remains unknown.

Join the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation's 100,000 Names for 100,000 Lives Campaign to clear up the final destiny of the Swedish diplomat. It is a great opportunity to repair 60 years of silence, unanswered questions and injustice with the steadfast support of us all.

So please, sign your name and spread the word, invite your family and friends to do the same. Help us reach the goal of at least 100,000 names for the 100,000 lives saved by this "Hero without a Grave". If you prefer so, you can also forward this email to your contacts.

All the collected signatures will be presented to the Secretary General of the United Nations to urge the solution of one of the most controversial cases in history of humankind.

Congressman Tom Lantos and his wife Annette, who were saved by Wallenberg were the first to sign.

Sign your name!
http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en/news/2018.htm

The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation www.raoulwallenberg.net irwf@irwf.org


Israel Affairs, Vol. 11, No. 1 (January 2005)

I am the editor of special issue of this journal that appears in London. For each topic I chose the best person in Israel. Hereby the table of contents:

Introduction
Raphael Cohen-Almagor


General

From Socialism to Free Market – The Israeli Economy: 1948 – 2003
Ben-Zion Zilberfarb

Between Enlightened Authoritarianism and Social Responsibility – On Media and Politics
Dan Caspi


Rights and Schisms

Human Rights
David Kretzmer

Health Rights
Carmel Shalev

Women Rights: Legal Aspects
Frances Raday

Israel as a Multicultural Democracy: Challenges and Obstacles
Yossi Yonah

The Absorbtion of Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union
Tamar Horowitz

Is A Halachic State Possible? The Paradox of Jewish Theocracy
Aviezer Ravitzky

“A Jewish and Democratic State”: Present Navigation in the Map of Interpretations
Asa Kasher

Whither the Green Line? Trends in the Orientation of the Palestinians in Israel and the Territories
Majid Al-Haj

Israel and Its Arab Citizens
Hillel Frisch

Israel Facing Terrorism
Ariel Merari


Final Words

Revisiting the Zionist Dream
Claude Klein

Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads
Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Notes on Contributors

Index


I thank the Journal's chief editor, Prof. Efraim Karsh, for his thoughtful cooperation. This volume will also appear as a book by Routledge later this year. Notification will be announced in due course.


Books

A few years ago I saw the film Captain Corelli's Mandolin with Cruz and Cage. Now had the opportunity to read the book by Louis de Bernieres and enjoyed it tremendously. A very gratifying read indeed and -- as in most cases -- the book excels the film. I highly recommend.

Justine Burley (ed.), Dworkin and His Critics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005).

Paul Schotsmans & Tom Meulenbergs (eds.), Euthanasia and Palliative Care in the Low Countries (Leuven-Paris-Sterling: Peeters Publishers, 2005), ISBN 90-429-1556-0.

Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Speech, Media, and Ethics: The Limits of Free Expression (Houndmills and New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2005), 2nd edition, paperback.

Please consider ordering the books to your libraries.


Photos

Enjoy!!


With my very best wishes, as ever,
RafiMy last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.comEarlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Books archived at http://almagor.fetchauthor.info



[1] Raphael Cohen-Almagor, “Cultural Pluralism and the Israeli Nation-Building Ideology”, International J. of Middle East Studies, Vol. 27 (1995): 461-484.
[2] Ian Lustick, Arabs in the Jewish State: Israel's Control of a National Minority (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1980); David Kretzmer, The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel (Boulder: Westview Press, 1987); Hillel Frisch, "Israel and Its Arab Citizens", in R. Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads (London: Routledge, forthcoming).
[3]. Majid Al-Haj, "The Impact of the Intifada on the Arabs in Israel: The Case of a Double Periphery", in Akiba A. Cohen and Gadi Wolfsfeld (eds.), Framing the Intifada. People and Media (Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1993): 64-75; Majid Al-Haj, "Whither the Green Line? Trends in the Orientation of the Palestinians in Israel and the Territories", in R. Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads. See also The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Report 2002-2003 (Jerusalem): 17-23 (Hebrew).
[4] David Kretzmer, "Human Rights", in R. Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads.
[5] Ibid. See also Frances Raday, " Women Rights: Legal Aspects", in R. Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads.
[6] . For further discussion, R. Cohen-Almagor, “Israeli Democracy, Religion and the Practice of Halizah in Jewish Law”, UCLA Women's Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Fall/Winter 2000): 45-65; Aviezer Ravitzky, "Is A Halachic State Possible? The Paradox of Jewish Theocracy" and Asa Kasher, “A Jewish and Democratic State”: Present Navigation in the Map of Interpretations", both in R. Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads.
[7] www.btselem.org; The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Report 2002-2003 (Jerusalem): 30-33 (Hebrew).
· [8] http://btselem.org/
· [9] See, for instance, A.A.D. 10/94 Anonymous v. Minister of Defence, decision granted on 13 November 1997, involving Lebanese citizens who were kidnapped by Israel to serve as "negotiation cards" in the attempts to bring about the release of Israeli POWs.
· [10] Newsletter, International Commission of Jurists, No. 24 (Jan/March 1985), p. 53. For further discussion see Steven Greer, "Preventive Detention and Public Security: Law and Practice in Comparative Perspective", International J. of the Sociology of Law, Vol. 23 (1995): 45-58.
· [11] Cf. Palestine Gazette, No. 1442 (1945) (Supp. 2), at 1055.
· [12] 5739-1979, Laws of the State of Israel, Vol. 33 (1979), at 89.
· [13] Compare with the British Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Article 4 (1) of the Order empowers detaining any person ‘suspected of having been concerned in the commission or attempted commission of any act of terrorism or in the direction, organisation, or training of persons for the purpose of terrorism’ for a period of 28 days. At the end of that period the detainee should be released or could be further detained if the Chief Constable had referred his/her case to a judicially qualified commissioner appointed by the Secretary of State. For further discussion, see Antonio Vercher, Terrorism in Europe (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), esp. pp. 18-28.
· [14] For a critical account of the use of some of these measures, see Geoffrey Bindman and Bill Bowring, Human Rights in a Period of Transition (London: The Law Society and the Bar of England and Wales, 1994).
· [15] Pnina Lahav speaks of a variant of Zionism, which she terms ‘catastrophe Zionism’, whose major goal is defence. Those who adhere to catastrophe Zionism adopt a worldview that is permeated by anxiety. See Lahav, "Foundations of Rights Jurisprudence in Israel: Chief Justice Agranat’s Legacy", Israel L. Rev., Vol. 24, No. 2 (1990): 211-269, esp. pp. 216-223.
· [16] The concept of due process of law is derived from English common law probably during the reigns of Henry I (1100-1135) and Henry II (1154-1189). Chapter 29 (Chapter 39 in a later version) of the Magna Carta of 1215 declares: ‘No free man shall be taken, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and by the law of the land’. For further discussion, see Henry J. Abraham, Freedom and the Court (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982, Fourth Edition): 92-151; and Theodor Meron, Human Rights in International Strife: Their International Protection (Cambridge: Grotius, 1987), esp. pp. 18-22.
· [17] See detailed analysis in R. Cohen-Almagor, "Reflections on Administrative Detention in Israel: A Critique", in R. Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Challenges to Democracy: Essays in Honour and Memory of Isaiah Berlin (London: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2000): 203-241, and “Administrative Detention in Israel and its Employment as a Means of Combating Political Extremism”, New York International L. Rev., Vol. 9, No. 2 (1996): 1-25.
[18] For further discussion, see Prisoners of Peace, Report No. 16 (Jerusalem: B'tselem, June 1997); Dafna Golan, Detained without Trial (Jerusalem: B'tselem, October 1992) (both in Hebrew).
[19] R. Cohen-Almagor, "Final Word", in R. Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads.
· [20] R. Cohen-Almagor, "The best first plan", The Baltimore Sun (December 18, 2003); http://almagor.blogspot.com
· [21] Cf. H.C. 680/88. Schnitzer v. Chief Military Censor, P.D. 42 (iv), 617, p. 645.

January 2005

Comment on Paris, on PA Elections, Kassam Missiles, Civil Disobedience, Center for Democratic Studies, Using the T-Word, Syrian Wins Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders, Peace One Day, Prince Harry in Nazi Uniform, British Theatre, Photos from Israel


Dear friends and colleagues,


Comment on Paris,

Agnes Lefranc from Paris commented on what I had written on Paris and Parisians:

Dear Rafi,

I have to say, even if it hurts, that I agree with what you write about people living in Paris in your last newsletter: a large proportion of them can be totally awful with everyone they consider as a "foreigner" (their definition of a foreigner sometimes including "someone living on the other side of the city's limits"). As another example of that, there is now a lot of buzz around the application of Paris for the 2012 Olympic Games, and Paris authorities try to give the best "image" of the city... Anyway, some Parisians are already complaining about the "invasion" (visitors, tourists) that is going to happen during summer 2012 if the Olympic Games take place in Paris. It was the same for the 1998 soccer world cup, and finally, people were totally ecstatic during the event (the fact that France won the world cup certainly had something to do with it !!). I think that for most of the people living in Paris, the ungracious, grumbling appearance is more an attitude than their real "nature". And I really can understand that this is not an excuse and that this attitude can be totally offending for people visiting Paris.

Anyway, I hope that this will not prevent you from visiting Paris in the future, and I would be very glad to see you then (and perhaps have you meet some "nice" Parisians, if I can find them !!).

Agnes


PA Elections

The first post-Arafat elections took place on January 9, 2005. As was expected, Mahmoud Abbas won 62.3 percent of the vote for Palestinian Authority chairman. This margin of victory would give Abbas a clear mandate to renew peace talks with Israel, rein in militants and reform the corruption-riddled Palestinian Authority. Abbas' main challenger, independent candidate Mustafa Barghouti, won about 20 percent, and five other chairmanship candidates - ranging from a Marxist ex-guerrilla to an academic under U.S. house arrest on suspicion of funneling funds to Hamas militants - scored in low single digits. Hamas, the largest Palestinian militant opposition group, announced it will work with Abbas. Don't be too impressed with verbal declarations. Abu Mazen's test will be his ability to fight down terrorism and to put a stop to the launching of Kassam missiles. At least, unlike Arafat it seems that Abu Mazen does not lack the will to stop violence. He declared openly that violence did not serve the interest of the Palestinian people, and that there are other, more fruitful ways, to achieve independence and freedom. Israel will evaluate the new leader according to his actions, not necessarily according to his success. We first want to see a genuine attempt to stop violence and terror. I hope the Hamas and Islamic Jihad will also revise their policies and strategy. If not we may expect to see bitter internal clashes, with the IDF doing its share to assassinate militants. Those targeted killings proved useful from Israel's view but at the same time did not relax the atmosphere. Quite the opposite. Targeted killings served as a unified mechanism. Palestinian rivals forget all differences when facing Israel's military retaliation.

Senior Palestinian security official and West Bank strongman Jibril al-Rajoub resigned on January 11, saying he wanted to encourage President-elect Mahmoud Abbas to enact reforms. The resignation of Rajoub, a leading security official and West Bank strongman rival to Gaza's Mohamed Dahlan, suggests that Abbas is at least moving quickly to restructure the PA's notoriously corrupt and fractious security forces. Their reform is essential if Abbas is to have any hope of curbing the likes of Hamas and Fatah's own Al-Aqsa Brigades both of which have dismissed his calls to halt the terrorism of their "armed struggle". Rajoub, one of several security advisers, had been at odds with late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat over calls to slim down the range of separate competing Palestinian security forces. Rajoub has called for the merging of some dozen competing security forces to help end chaos that gripped Palestinian streets in the months before Arafat died in a Paris hospital on Nov 11. "I recommend speeding up the combining of the security forces into three, and making radical, immediate changes in the organisational structure and leaderships," Rajoub said. Abbas is expected to carry out such changes, also wanted by Israel and Western countries.

Indeed, security reform is a key issue for Abbas, who may also need more effective forces to bring militant groups under control. Stirring Israeli concerns, Abbas has said he would rather co-opt militants than use force to rein them in. Don't be too amazed if Abbas would reappoint Rajoub in the near future. He needs him and co-optation is a proved mechanism to bring potential rivals to back your own camp.


Kassam Missiles

Ella Abuksis, age 17, was walking in the street in Sderot together with her little brother Tamir when she heard the frightening noise. She embraced her brother and fell with him on the ground. The missile fell five meters behind her. Tamir came out with small injuries. Ella, on the other hand, is now declared brain-dead.

Every country has the right to defend its sovereignty. It is impossible to continue this way. The people of Sderot cannot continue living in this way. The town is becoming a ghost city. Just imagine missiles on York, Ann Arbor and Windsor. Would the UK, the USA and Canada allow this to continue? There are only two possibilities: either the PA will put a stop to it, and this is certainly the preferable option; or Israel will enter the Gaza Strip yet again. To remind, the last time the IDF went the Gaza the result was dozens of casualties on both sides, especially the Palestinian. There is no third option, i.e. letting the missiles continue falling.

On January 18, Abu Mazen declared that he intends to locate one thousand policemen hoping that their presence will serve as deterrence. He says he needs "time and patience", precious commodities in our region. The people of Sderot have lost their patience and now exert pressure on Sharon to retaliate. Retaliation is not the issue. It is simply not enough. The missiles have to stop.


Civil Disobedience

The past few weeks I had several public appearances in which I was invited to express my views on different topics:

Incitement in Israel, calling upon the Attorney General to be alert and to fight down concrete calls for murder: Incitement is not protected under the Free Speech Principle.

Euthanasia and mercy killings: I was invited to present my new book in various forms, and to speak on the legislation process that is now taking place to settle the issue of medical treatment at the end-of-life. I was a member of a public committee, known as the Steinberg Committee, assigned by the Ministry of Health, to draft a law. After a long process this law is now considered by the Knesset Constitutional, Law and Justice Committee for final shape-up before moving on to legislation.

Payment for interviews: Concerning the case of Azam Azam, recently released from Egyptian jail after eight years of prison. Interesting story this one because Egyptian officials, from Mubarak down claimed that he was an Israeli spy, in service of the MOSSAD, while Israeli officials, from Sharon down, claimed that he was an innocent business man. Someone is not telling the truth. Anyway, Azam decided to take advantage of his release and do for his home, demanding a fee for his exclusive first interview. After a short and extensive race TV Channel 10 won the race by paying him some dozens of thousands of dollars. I was asked to comment on this issue.

Civil disobedience and conscientious objection: tricky and complicated question that has been occupying my mind for many years. Israel is a fascinating country in many respects, including demography. In the 1970s, we were about 3.5 million people. In a period of thirty years we doubled our size. Don't know if any other country in the world has such a record. Anyway, in the 1970s and 1980s I used to think that conscientious objection is a luxury we cannot afford. Morally speaking I felt that we should recognize refusal on such grounds, but practically I felt that as a state we are unable to afford it. Things have changed. The army grew beyond its needs. There are less external threats to wage war on us by one of our neighbours. There is peace (cold, but still peace) with the strongest potential rival, Egypt. The army does not recruit all eligible citizens, young men and women, age 18, for various reasons: religion, marriage (for girls), criminal record, poor health (physical or mental). And Israel had a problematic presence in Lebanon, and still has such presence in the occupied territories.

Thus, in the 1990s I expressed my views that it is a democratic right to declare conscientious objection; that Israel should recognize this right, and as people have the right not to serve due to religious reasons, so people should have the right not to serve on conscientious grounds. I backed the "Four Mothers" Movement which called Israel to pull out from Lebanon. The movement grew and made an impact on our society, more so when Yossi Beilin and others became vocal supporters of this motion, and even more so when Prime Minister Ehud Barak became a supporter and in 2000 had the foresight and courage to take our troops out of Lebanon.

It should be noted that in 1995, in order to determine who is a genuine CO and who is just trying to avoid the military service for reasons of personal comfort, the Minister of Defence set up, within the Israeli Armed Forces (IDF), a Conscientious Objection Committee. This move was considered necessary after the State of Israel adhered to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1991.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights do not explicitly mention the right to conscientious objection to military service. However, in 1993, the Human Rights Committee, the body of experts monitoring the implementation of the Covenant, adopted General Comment N. 22 on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and affirmed that the right to conscientious objection to military service can be derived from article 18. Paragraph 11 states that :

"Many individuals have claimed the right to refuse to perform
military service (conscientious objection) on the basis that
such right derives from their freedoms under article 18. In
response to such claims, a growing number of States have in
their laws exempted from compulsory military service citizens
who genuinely hold religious or other beliefs that forbid the
performance of military service and replaced it with
alternative national service. The Covenant does not explicitly
refer to a right to conscientious objection, but the Committee
believes that such a right can be derived from article 18,
inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force may seriously
conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to
manifest one's religion or belief. When this right is recognized
by law or practice, there shall be no differentiation among
conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their
particular beliefs; likewise, there shall be no discrimination
against conscientious objectors because they have failed to
perform military service. The Committee invites States parties
to report on the conditions under which persons can be
exempted from military service on the basis of their rights
under article 18 and on the nature and length of alternative
national service."

As you well know, I oppose occupation and think Israel is mistaken by lasting our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza Strip. There should be a two-state solution, and I hope this will materialize in my life time. I said time and again that I hope many soldiers declare conscientious objection and go to jail rather than serve in the occupied territories. In my last Newsletter I praised the four parents of soldiers who sign parents to oppose sending their children to serve in the occupied territories. A few days have passed and I was invited to express my views on TV. There the issue was civil disobedience and conscientious objection in general, including the right of soldiers to refuse evacuating settlers, and the right of settlers to refuse their evacuation. I said that I see conscientious objection as a democratic right; that I hope soldiers will have the decency to tell their commanders, before going on assignment, that they are not willing to abide the order of evacuation, and not to sabotage the activity on the spot; that I respect conscientious objection as long as people are willing to pay the price for their acts, meaning to serve in jail. Regarding the settlers I support their right to object to what they conceive as illegal and immoral order, to leave their homes, but said that the border line is violence: they should not resort to violence. There is a difference between passive resistance, not cooperating with the army and leave the soldiers with no option but grabbing them by their hands and legs out of their homes to the vehicles, and fighting the soldiers with force, feasts and guns. While I condone passive resistance, I condemn any form of force that might lead to bloodshed and civil war.

Within four days I became the darling of YESHA, the Judea, Samaria and Gaza Council. Suddenly, in the first time in my life, I had something in common with the settlers' camp. Strange feeling, I must admit. I don't wish to play into their hands, but at the same time I need to be loyal to my conscience. I believe conscientious objection is not one-sided, serving the interests of one camp only. When it is from the left, it is fine; when it comes from the right it is condemnable. My conscience is not that flexible. The YESHA Council invited me to debate the issue and after consultation with the Dean of our Law Faculty I agreed upon the condition that the debate will reflect all (or most) streams of thoughts in Israel, that it will be balanced and not one sided, and that it will be of academic nature.

In a previous Newsletter I already mentioned a pertinent Supre Court case. On December 20, 2002, the Court passed an important judgment on the Zonschein case reaffirming the possibility of granting exemptions from military service for reasons of conscientious objection. It noted that "all agree that exemptions for conscientious reasons are included in those 'other reasons', which allow exemption from regular or reserve service." It refers to total conscientious objection only. In fact, it ruled out the possibility of selective objection (that is the exemption from service deriving from an objection to a specific war or military operation) for reasons of national security. The Court held that "the phenomenon of selective conscientious objection would be broader than 'full' objection, and would evoke an intense feeling of discrimination 'between blood and blood'. Moreover, it affects security considerations themselves, since a group of selective objectors would tend to increase in size. Additionally, in a pluralistic society such as ours, recognising selective conscientious objection may loosen the ties, which hold us together as a nation. Yesterday, the objection was against serving in South Lebanon. Today, the objection is against serving in Judea and Samaria. Tomorrow, the objection will be against vacating this or that settlement. The army of the nation may turn into an army of different groups comprised of various units, to each of which it would be conscientiously acceptable to act in certain areas, whereas it would be conscientiously unacceptable to act in others. In a polarised society such as ours, this consideration weighs heavily. Furthermore, it becomes difficult to distinguish between one who claims conscientious objection in good faith and one who, in actuality, objects to the policy of the government or the Knesset, as it is a fine distinction - occasionally an exceedingly fine distinction – between objecting to a state policy and between conscientious objection to carry out that policy."


Center for Democratic Studies

The Center is taking its formative shape. First on the agenda was to establish a reputable Governing Board that will involve capable people whose activities showed their commitment to the values and ideas that underlie the Center. The Board includes at this stage the following dignitaries:

Former Justice of the Supreme Court Dalia Dorner, a leading liberal voice in Israel whose imprint on our legal history is noticeable and admirable

Recipient of Israel Prize in Philosophy, Professor Asa Kasher of Tel Aviv University, a leading expert on ethics, with a sharp mind and careful eye

Rabbi Uri Regev, one of the leaders of the Reform Movement in Israel and in the world. He exemplifies humane Judaism in its best

Former Deputy Speaker of the Knesset (Meretz – the Civil Rights Party), Professor Naomi Chazan of the Hebrew University Dept. of Political Science, a most capable scholar who is spending her sabbatical now at MIT

Professor Eppie Yaar of Tel Aviv University, a leading sociologist who is known also for the Peace Index that he monitors for some years

Former Cabinet Minister (Labour) and Ambassador to the UN Gad Yaakobi, one of the brightest politicians I've ever known, a true intellectual with a passion for poetry

Professor Ben-Zion Zilberfarb of Bar Ilan University Department of Economics. He was the head of the Economic Planning Authority of the Israeli government (1982 –1985) and the Director General of the Ministry of Finance (1988 – 1999).

Head of the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute Dr. Shimshon Zelniker. Van Leer is a leading research center in Israel that has been working for many years to promote peace and understanding within Israel and with its neighbours

Professor Bernard Susser of Department of Political Science, Bar Ilan University. Barney is a leading political theorist in Israel. He supervised my MA thesis on Marx, Engels and Lenin some years ago (who counts…)

Professor Aharon Kellerman, former Vice President of my university, a man of many qualities and capabilities with lots of administrative experience

Professor Yedidya Stern of Bar Ilan University Faculty of Law, a leading activist in promoting understanding between secular and religious Jews, on constitutional issues, and a Senior Fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute

Mr. Gil Weiser, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the University of Haifa. He comes from the high-tech, a successful businessman who cares deeply about the future of Israeli democracy and who knows the inside out of my university

Professor Moshe Zeidner, Dean of Research whose responsibilities include overseeing the work of all centers within the university

I have also invited Professor Majid Al-Haj to be affiliated to my Center and he agreed. Majid heads the Center for Multiculturalism at my university and for this reason cannot be an official member of the Governing Board. He is a respected sociologist who works on the relationships between Arabs and Jews in Israel, and the absorption of the Russian immigrants in Israeli society.

The list is not conclusive as other members who have passion to better the future of Israeli democracy might join. I would like to have on board more business people, with contacts and access to people who care about Israel, and have the resources to invest in various projects and activities. I am also contemplating the establishment of an International Steering Committee. The Governing Board is scheduled to convene in early March and upon their approval I would like to invite people from four corners of the world to officially join the Center. Some already expressed interest, including Nobel Prize laureate Elie Wiesel.

Some of you took the initiative and sent checks in support of the Center. You touched my heart. I am most thankful for your care and concern.

There are some 400 people on this listserve, and more than 1500 people have visited the blog since its inception. If each will donate $100 the Center could kick-off to a good start. People who wish to donate money are welcome to send a check to:

Ms. Michal Zach
(for the Center for Democratic Studies)
The Research Authority
University of Haifa
Mount Carmel
Haifa 31905
Israel.

Those of you who wish to donate larger sums of money and want to receive charitable donation tax receipts are welcome to contact:

Ms. Estie Becker
Resource Development Department
University of Haifa
Mount Carmel
Haifa 31905
Israel.
besty@univ.haifa.ac.il


Using the T-Word

Together with a former student, Amit Rahat, I am conducting research on ombudsmen in the United Kingdom, Canada and Isssrael. For this purpose I recently visited the UK and met with some people in the BBC. I will not elaborate on my findings in this forum but would like to mention only one issue: The BBC cautious refrain from using the word "terrorism". Even those involved in the horrific seizure of a school in the town of Beslan on September 3, 2004 were not described as terrorists. I asked why. Senior people at the BBC explained that the BBC broadcasts worldwide to people with different point of views, and it does not wish to alienate anyone. They continued the explanation by the well-known cliché that one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and therefore opt to the simple solution of not using the T-Word in principle. Then one of them maintained that a certain horrific act may be described as terrorist, but "we don't call the people who conduct the act as terrorist". Do you understand this?

Bear in mind that when the UK was subjected to IRA attacks the BBC had no problem calling the people involved "terrorist". After the Good Friday agreement terrorism no more exists. September 11 was tricky, though. Interesting.

Journalists are morally required to be conscious of the terminology they employ in their reports. An ephemeral terrorist organisation is not "an army." People who kidnap and murder randomly are not "students" or "saints" or "soldiers" or "freedom fighters." The killing of innocent civilians traveling on a bus or a train should not be described in terms of a "military operation." A difference exists between covering news and providing terrorists an equal platform to declare their agenda. To remain objective in the sense of moral neutrality with regard to terrorism is to betray ethics and morality. Terrorists deserve no prize for their brutality. Here I take issue with the BBC and also with the CBC Ombudsman, David Bazay, who in comments about the use of the word "terrorist" wrote that "There is nothing in the CBC's journalism policy that prevents the public broadcaster's journalists from calling a spade a spade or a terror attack a terror attack." But, at the same time, he instructed the CBC to be careful with the use of language. While quoting his colleague Jeffrey Dvorkin, Ombudsman for the American National Public Radio, Bazay explained that while the use of "the 't' word" may be accurate it also has a political and "extra-journalistic role of de-legitimizing one side and enthroning the views of the other." In his view, this is not the role of responsible journalism, "which is and should be to describe with accuracy and fairness events that listeners may choose to endorse or deplore." Indeed, this is the role of responsible journalism and therefore journalists should resort to the term "terrorism" when such acts are conducted. Bazay took pain to explain that sides to a given conflict use and abuse the word "terrorist" to frame the issues to advance their political agenda, but it does not matter how one side or another characterizes the acts of violence it carries. What does matter is whether the acts fall within the definition of terrorism. However, because the description of a given event as terrorist might be difficult and controversial, both the BBC and the CBC are opting, in general, for the simple solution of refraining from using the term.

I am most grateful to Wilfrid Knapp, Prinky and Adam Roberts, Eric Barendt, Jack Pole and Alan Budd for their kind hospitality.


Syrian Wins Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders

Aksam Noaisse, the Chairman of the Committees for the Defense of Democratic Liberties and Human Rights in Syria has won the prestigious Martin Ennals Award. Noaisse was one of the founding members of the Committees, created in 1989, and of the publication "Sawt al-Dimokratiyyah" (voice of democracy). Naisse has courageously spoken out in national, regional and international forums. He has been arrested six times, held incommunicado and tortured. He is currently not allowed to travel abroad. A trial against him will resume on 16 January 2005 and he risks 15 years prison.

The Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders (MEA) is a unique collaboration among eleven of the world's leading non-governmental human rights organizations to give protection to human rights defenders worldwide. The jury comprises Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, International Federation for Human Rights, the International Commission of Jurists, World Organization Against Torture, German Diakonie, International Service for Human Rights, International Alert, Huridocs and DCI.


Peace One Day

The British Council organized an evening to show the documentary film "Peace One Day" and have a Q&A session with the film maker Jeremy Gilley. The film documents the truly amazing journey of a visionary man, who is also a doer, who wanted to better this world by declaring one day of universal peace. To reach 365 days of global peace is somewhat more difficult, but let us start with one day during which all rivals will put down their guns, allow food and medicine to pass securely to people who need them. On this day there will be no firing, no bombings, no launching of missiles, no terrorism, no guerrilla warfare, no assassinations, no military operations. A global armistice and break of violence.

Just imagine a planning meeting of the heads of the Hamas in which the intelligence officer points out that tomorrow there is a golden opportunity to launch a massive suicide attack in the heart of Tel Aviv, but then a Hamas leader rise and say: We cannot. Tomorrow is the International Day of Peace.

Or that the heads of the security forces in Israel convene and the intelligence officer says that tomorrow there will be a golden opportunity to "eliminate" the head of operations of the Islamic Jihad, but then Sharon will respond: Not tomorrow. Tomorrow is the International Day of Peace.

To achieve this end, Gilley started by contacting Nobel Peace Laureates, received the support of some leading figures and then of Costa Rica and the United Kingdom, and in September 2001 the United Nations had passed GA Resolution 55/282 that accepted the idea and initiative. The motion was passed unanimously. 21 September has become the International Day of Peace.

Gilley is continuing his efforts to spread the news about peace-one-day and is now filming his second film in which he documents his efforts. Indeed, we all yearn for peace one day. 21 September can be a good start. Please mark the day in your calendars. (Inter alia, I suggested Gilley to contact all manufactures of diaries to note the day in their products).

If you can, arrange that your respective universities buy the DVD.

For further information, see http://www.peaceoneday.org/


Prince Harry in Nazi Uniform

The photo of the young Prince dressed up as a Nazi was, in one word, revolting. I presume this is the result of sheer ignorance. The guy does not know what he is doing, and not for the first time. Young people are prone to make mistakes more than older guys, but this one shows he lacks good education. God knows what he did at Eton. Apparently not much. Or maybe Eton does not teach WWII, the Blitz, and the horrors of the Nazi regime? I wonder. Young Harry thought that that custom would be most appropriate for the party he attended, that it will be "fun", "cool", and attract attention. Well, it certainly attracted attention, probably more than he wished in the first place. I hope he will now learn something about the people he wished to represent in his fun party.

Here in Israel young people in general don't use the swastika and other Nazi motifs. They understand it is beyond the acceptable. Only political opponents resort to Nazi symbols, dressing the leaders they oppose in Nazi uniform. You may recall the notorious photo of Prime Minister Rabin dressed in Himler's uniform. I read that soldiers in the occupied territories pride themselves with the symbol of the skull with two crossed bones. I assume they don't know much of their predecessors who used this symbol of death. What they want to say, mostly to their comrades as they paint this symbol on their own private closets and put up posters with the symbol in their own private rooms: Be Aware!! I am here to inflict death and mayhem. I am cool. I am not afraid. I am here to gun down Palestinians and to show them who is the boss. In a sense, the skull symbol serves the same purpose of the Nazi symbol in other parts of the world. But, of course, not in Harry's case.

Harry just wanted to be cool per se. Nothing beyond that. What troubles me is that this shallow man serves as an idol for many young people around the world. If he is wearing this so-called ghastly swastika, why won't we? The old generation is too rigid, they might say. It is actually cool to rebel against them and wear Nazi uniform. Who were the Nazis anyway? Germans. We have nothing against Germany. A beautiful country, actually, and a prospering one too. Germany has a long history, with one terribly dark chapter of which Harry and others know very little. Oswiecim is a mere foreign word of no significance and meaning.


British Theatre

Festen – a solid drama that shows British theatre at its best. Patriarch Helge Klingelfeldt is celebrating his 60th birthday at a magnificent old house in the Danish countryside. Surrounded by his loyal wife Else, his daughter Helene, sons Christian and Michael and a host of family and friends this promises to be a very special occasion. And then Christian proposed a toast that transforms the celebration into a painful journey to the dark side of the family. Paul Nicholls, who plays Christian, gives an electrifying memorable performance and holds the play together. You are in for a thrill.

Any idea what festen means? Ideas are welcomed.


Photos from Israel

I wanted to share with you some photos from Israel. Enjoy. These are just few gems to appreciate.


With my very best wishes, as ever,

Rafi

My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.comEarlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Books archived at http://almagor.fetchauthor.info

December 2004


Comments on Bush; on Iran, Syria, "Stray Weeds", Polarization in Israel, Poll on Democratic Values in Israel, Internal Politics, Ami Ayalon, Palestinian Elections, France, Nieman Fellowships at Harvard, Conference in Memory of Mark Biano, Democracy for a Safer World Summit, Israeli Theatre, New Book, Happy New Year


Dear friends and colleagues,

This is my end-of-the-year Newsletter. It highlights some of the main issues that will occupy Israel in 2005, delineating new trends and discussing crucial developments. Please read carefully and circulate among friends and interested parties.


Comments on Bush

Jason Rosenberg, from Washington DC, related to my last posting on Bush's win:

Rafi,

It's great to hear from you. I hope you are doing very well in Israel. Let me say I enjoy so much reading your point of view and hold your views in the highest of regards.

However, your analysis of the election is a little off. This election was not decisive, it was terribly close. As the 2000 election hinged on Florida, the 2004 election was again determined by one state. This time it was Ohio. In 2000, had Al Gore won just two votes per voting precinct, he would have won Ohio and been president. Of course he didn't and of course neither did John Kerry. Over 250,000 Ohioans (Buckeyes) who had jobs in 2000 didn't have work in 2004. But Bush still won the state. Why? One reason, there were up to 4 hour long waits to vote and of course it was cold and rainy after a beautiful weekend and Monday.

The other reason people are scared of war and terror, etc. I can't believe that there were 9 million people in the US who didn't vote for Bush in 2000, looked at his record as president, saw record unemployment, an unjustified war, out of control deficit spending, record number of Americans without health care and voted for him in 2004.

I was in Ohio for election day I started work at 5:30 am and left the state at 9pm. At that time there were still voters waiting in line to vote and I assumed that the election was won for Kerry. The election was close and the Kerry campaign should have looked into voter fraud including the precinct where 6000 votes were cast for Bush, out of a possible 600 or so voters.

Having spent time with John Kerry, I've heard him make very pro Israel comments. I've read comments he said about his time when he flew with Israeli pilots and when he called Israel a friend. Israel had a friend with both candidates. And now that Arafat is dead, Israel, the PA, the US and the world missed out on a true leader to bring a true and lasting peace to the
region.

I wish you the best and I hope you have a great new year!

Best,
Jason


My brief answer:
Hi Jason,

Well, I think Bush's win was quite decisive, esp. in light of the forecasts prior elections, and also given that he won by a margin of more than 3 million people, and he coloured most states in red.

You need not convince me that Kerry is a friend of Israel. As you well know, I supported him and wanted him to win. I wouldn't if he was not a friend of Israel.

The very best,

Rafi

In turn, Valerie Alia from Leeds, the UK, commented:
Dear Rafi

I find your 'reading' of the US election both distressing and in contradiction to much of the other information about the true nature of the exit polls vis-a-vis the actual vote (numerical/popular and electoral). You fail to mention the harassment and the array of illegal, semi-legal and otherwise questionable activities used (e.g., in Ohio) by Republicans and/or their supporters to intimidate potential Democratic voters and obliterate existing votes.

I am distressed as well to see your echo of assumptions of some (and only some) Israelis that Bush is the 'better friend' to Israel. I agree that Kerry missed some opportunities and campaigned rather weakly. But I do not share your apparent conviction that (a) Bush actually won and (b) Bush should have won. I am surprised to see no mention of the growing influence and involvement of the radical 'Christian' right.

With all best wishes for a happy Hanukkah and a peaceful 2005,

Valerie


Dear Valerie,

Thanks for your comment. I don't think there is any point to argue with facts, and the facts are that Bush won quite convincingly, especially bearing in mind the last elections, and the predictions prior this elections. Bush won in the great majority of states, and by a margin of more than 3 million votes. There are many reasons to explain his win, and I did not attempt to provide an exhaustive explanation. I concentrated on the main reason, which is Kerry's mistakes.

I believe people should be congratulated for their achievements. It does not mean that I turned to be a Bush supporter. If you read my previous political Newsletters closely then you know I wanted Kerry to win. I thought Kerry will be good for Israel. However, also on this issue my views are not similar to the wide Israeli public. Polls conducted here showed that the wide majority of Israelis wanted Bush to win, believing that he is a true supporter of Israel, whereas Kerry did not say enough to convince people here that he is an ardent supporter of Israel as Bush was, and is believed to be. I gave the Maariv newspaper headline to show the extent of support Bush enjoys in Israel. This does not mean that I share this view.

With my best wishes,

Rafi


Dear Rafi,

The problem with our 'discussion' is that I do not think you have stated 'the facts'. As we all know (and as I have written, over the years) 'facts' are variable, malleable, and subject to interpretation and misinterpretation. There has been quite a bit of reporting, in the US and internationally and by reputable journalists and others, questioning the 'win' and linking it to Bush's previous, also questionable 'win'. I am not arguing with 'facts', I am questioning which 'facts' you are using and your understanding of the conditions of the election and voting process. If you follow the daily papers, you surely are aware there are legal discussions and actions, particularly around the events in Ohio.

I agree there was a large (and to many of us, frightening) show of support for Bush. I do not agree that he clearly and unequivocally won the election. I am in quite a large company of people who are asking these questions.

I didn't mean to imply I thought you had gone over to Bush. I also agree that Kerry made mistakes, and never did consider him the best of candidates, though I wanted him to win. I do not consider his mistakes 'the main reason' Bush 'won'. I'm not alone in this.

Forgive the cliche, but I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Shalom,
Valerie

Dr Valerie Alia
Professor of Ethics and Identity
School of Applied Global Ethics
Leslie Silver International Faculty
Leeds Metropolitan University



Steve Newman, Toronto, Canada, added:

Perhaps the most decisive factor in the election was the Republican's superior ground organization, which built on church groups and other pre-existing civil society organizations initially mobilized to oppose abortion rights, gay rights, women's rights, and other conservative shiboleths. The Republicans also showed that they had a superior game plan when it came to getting out the vote. The Democrats had invested heavily in improving their ability to get out the vote, but their tactics proved less effective. The religious right did not win the election for Bush, but its leadership is now making that claim. It is something to watch, for if taken seriously by the administration it bodes ill for the cause of religious tolerance in the US. Another point: Bush did in fact win the popular vote this time around, but he hardly won the popular mandate he claims. His fifty-one percent of the vote to Kerry's forty-eight percent is no landslide. And the Electoral College vote was fairly close, too. Had Ohio gone for Kerry instead of Bush --and it wouldn't have taken more than 170,000 votes (not much when you consider the size of the American electorate) --Kerry would be the president-elect. Finally, Jewish supporters of Bush may yet rue the day they gave their support to the president. The war in Iraq is a disaster. Bush has stoked the fires of terrorism rather than extinguishing the threat. And the flames may yet engulf more of the region.

As always,

Steve


Iran

In talks in Paris with Britain, Germany and France, Iran agreed on November 15 to freeze all its nuclear activities. But on November 27, Iran said it wanted to retain 20 centrifuges for research purposes. Iran's foreign minister said that Iran had every right to keep, for research purposes, some centrifuges that could be used to enrich uranium, an indication that a standoff on the country's nuclear program may not be easily resolved. "Iran's demand to keep 20 centrifuges is not against its commitments," said the minister, Kamal Kharrazi, the IRNA news agency reported.

On November 28 Iran backed off a demand to operate uranium enrichment equipment that could be used either for energy purposes or in a nuclear bomb-making project. The retreat came in the form of a letter from Iran to the International Atomic Energy Agency. In the letter, Iran withdrew its demand to operate 20 centrifuges - uranium enrichment machines - for research and development purposes.

"Iran will permit the I.A.E.A. to place these centrifuges under agency surveillance," said Hossein Mousavian, the chief Iranian negotiator, in a telephone interview from Vienna. "Iran will not conduct any testing."

Asked specifically whether the machines would be turned off, as the Europeans have demanded, Mr. Mousavian said, "We say Iran will not conduct any testing," adding that the matter of Iran's desire to continue research will be discussed when Iran and the European countries begin talks in the coming weeks on possible economic, technological and political incentives for Iran under the European agreement.

Note that the 20 centrifuge machines would not be sealed but placed under camera surveillance. Also note that Iran said in their letter that there would be no "testing," rather than no "research and development." One may assume that the sage will continue.


Syria

On December 1, 2004 Maariv reported that Syrian President Bashar Assad was willing to come to Jerusalem and address the Knesset in 2003, as a first gesture before resuming peace talks with Jerusalem, senior defense and political sources reveal. However, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon rejected the offer.

“Israel missed a golden opportunity to return to the negotiating table in ideal conditions as first as it was concerned”, the sources said.

Assad’s proposal was brought up during the secret contacts held between Israel and Syria at the beginning of 2003. All those involved believed Assad was serious about peace: The Syrians themselves, who kept on stressing that Assad himself was in the loop, Israeli military officials who identified Damascus’s positive approach, the international bodies involved and even Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom who was of the opinion that Jerusalem should try and resume the dialogue course. However, the only person who objected Ariel Sharon.

The 2003 talks, which were held in Jordan, were headed by the Director General of the Foreign Ministry at the time, Eitan Bentzur, while the Syrians sent the president’s brother, Maher Assad. Bentzur confirmed the information but refused to elaborate. “The contacts were very serious. I am sorry that there were those in Israel who dismissed them”, he said.

The defense establishment estimated that while contacts were held, Assad was under heavy pressure due to the planned US invasion of Iraq and rumors that American Marines would continue on to Damascus after conquering Iraq.

The official excuses aired by officials and Likud MKs was that Assad wanted to use this as a valve to release the pressure mounting on him due to his support of terror. Further, they argued that he should first withdraw his forces from Lebanon and dismantle the Hizbullah. The unofficial reason, I suspect, is that Sharon is unwilling, possibly also feels unable, to make concessions also in the Golan. To recall, Prime Minister Rabin offered the Syrians a complete withdrawal till Sea of Galilee in exchange for true peace. It is difficult for me to see Sharon committing himself in this same way.

In 1971, Anwar Sadat delivered a message to Prime Minister Golda Meir that he was willing to negotiate peace. Meir ignored the signs and offers. Two years later the Yom Kippur War broke. And we say about the Arabs that "they" learn only in the hard way. Here we had, maybe still have, a genuine offer to negotiate from the highest official in Syria and Sharon is rejecting the offer. Maybe Sharon has very good reasons to decline the offer, but not in the way he did. At least he should do some research, conduct some polls about public wishes to see whether the Israeli public is willing to make concessions in both fronts, Gaza and the Golan, simultaneously.


"Stray Weeds"

The Israeli media has been occupied this month, more than any month I can recall in the past few years, with the evils of occupation. The incident that sparked the debate was the killing of one Palestinian girl, Ayman al-Hams, age 13, who was in her way to school, carrying books and notebooks in her bag. For some reason, on that faithful morning she did not go on the usual route and entered a no passing zone, safeguarded by IDF troops. The soldiers, always on high alert and fearful of potential suicide bombers, fired. The girl collapsed, wounded. Captain R., the commander of the troops, verified that the "enemy" was dead by jumping out of his post, getting close to the wounded girl, and shooting her several times from a close range. Later on it was revealed that the poor girl was shot twenty times.

The tragic story of the girl touched everyone who has a heart. Following this incident, reports came flooding about atrocities conducted by IDF troops in the occupied territories: confiscation of land; uprooting olive trees by soldiers and settlers; harassing and humiliating people; torturing suspects; killing peaceful civilians; mutilating dead bodies. People who have the unfortunate job of "explaining" the occupation acknowledged every once in a while the evil of occupation, but always emphasizing that the IDF is a moral army and that "stray weeds" always exist, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The flood of information brings one to suspect that there are far too many "stray weeds". Occupation corrupt; power corrupt; absolute power corrupt absolutely (Lord Acton), especially when you give it to frighten young soldiers in too-many road posts that make the lives of civilians miserable.

The occupation should be finished the sooner the better. Every person aspires to be free. People are born free and we wish to live as free human beings. Historian Lord Acton (1834-1902) said: "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end... liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition."


Polarization in Israel

On December 18-20 two very different initiatives were put in motion: Binyamin Regional Council head Pinhas Wallerstein declared that the settlers should oppose with force any attempt to evacuate them. Subsequently settlers began to collect signatures of those supported the rebellion against the "anti-democratic" decision to evacuate Jews from their land and homes. The rabbis' council officially endorsed the statement calling for settlers to fight the disengagement plan, even if it means breaking the law. This follows a ruling by the rabbinical council calling on all soldiers not to "uproot Jews from their homes."

Almost the same day four parents of soldiers: Racheli Merhav, Dubi Avigur, Rachel Hayuth and Nili Oshorov announced that sign parents to oppose sending their children to serve in the occupied territories. They explained that they hear and see on television terrible things that soldiers do to Palestinians and cannot sit in silence any longer. Zahal (IDF) no more represents the people of Israel. Soldiers are acting in inhuman, immoral and illegal ways. These parents called their own children as well as of others to oppose serving the occupation. They further rightly noted that the values of occupation infiltrate into our society and destroy our democracy from within. Young soldiers who feel like kings in the road blocks will continue to behave like masters-treating-human-dust in their daily life, looking down at people. They will not treat each other with respect and dignity.

The distinguishing factor between what is democratically permissible and what is not democratically permissible is the resort to violence. People have the right to disobey. It is a democratic right, the result of vital conscious. Thus settlers have all the right to disobey the IDF soldiers who will come to evacuate them, as was the case with the last settlers of Yamit. They need not cooperate with the army. However, they should not resort to violence; they should not open fire at soldiers as Wallerstein implied.

I congratulate the courage and initiative of the parents to say loud and clear: No More! Enough with the occupation that is eating us and is destroying the fabric of society. This is a significant step in the right direction. Like old Cato I will reiterate time and again: Occupation is bad. Occupation negates human rights. Occupation is undemocratic. Israel should better work for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Both entities should fight down the zealots. We should not let a minority of fanatics on both sides of the fence to destroy our lives.

On December 22 Yedioth Ahronoth published a poll it conducted among settlers. The main findings: 52% will object to evacuation "with our bodies"; 10% will resist with violence; 42% will blockade themselves in their homes; 47% support illegal activities. On the other hand, 38% said they will evacuate peacefully.

The pool also provides analysis of the answers of the settlers in the Gaza Strip only. Here the figures are more worrying: 23% are willing to evacuate; 44% will object and apply "passive violence"; 11% will object with force. 22% did not decide what to do. It seems that the settlers' campaign against Gaza First is working, and many settlers in the Strip who were willing to take compensation and leave are now reluctant to do so.


Poll on Democratic Values in Israel

A new study conducted by Professor Eppie Yaar and Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University examined political and personal stands of 1,750 youth ages 15-18 and 21-24 in both the Jewish and Arab sectors. Here are some of the main, highly disturbing, findings:

In the Jewish sector
67% agreed with the statement that "a few powerful leaders could amend the situation in our country better than all laws and talks".
30% agreed with the statement that it is possible to enforce a significant limitation on democracy when its security is threatened, even mildly.
20% prefer anti-democratic government that conforms to their world-view over a democratic government whose world-view negates theirs.
51% of the Jews in the sample said that Israeli-Arabs should be prohibited from being elected to the Knesset, i.e., only Jews should sit in the house of representative.
24% support violent actions of civil disobedience to oppose the disengagement plan.
71% estimated that there is "high likelihood" for another political assassination.


In the Arab sector
59% agreed with the statement that "a few powerful leaders could amend the situation in our country better than all laws and talks".
Only 9.8% thought that democracy is the most important value to achieve.
44% agreed with the statement that it is possible to enforce a significant limitation on democracy when its security is threatened, even mildly.
30% prefer anti-democratic government that conforms to their world-view over a democratic government whose world-view negates theirs.
15% support violent actions of civil disobedience to oppose the disengagement plan.

These findings put into perspective my urging the Israeli government to institute a new field of studies in primary and high schools: democracy and peace studies. This is as important as mathematics, biblical studies and literature.

Because of all issues discussed above, among others (I did not discuss this time the secular-religious schism that is very much alive and kicking) I established the Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. It is designed to fill an important lacuna and to promote liberty, tolerance, equality, pluralism and peace. However, my university is in the business of survival after suffering a major cut of 40 (forty!) per cent in its budget during the past 4 years. Without money the Center could not do much. I plead each and every one of you: If you have the ability to help in any meaningful way, please do.

I spoke with many leaders of Israeli society about the Center: President of State Moshe Katzav; President of the Supreme Court Aharon Barak; present and former Justices of the Supreme Court Yaakov Tirkel, Dalia Dorner and Yitzhak Zamir; MKs Shimon Peres, Yossi Sarid, Yossi Beilin and Amram Mitzna, and many leaders of the Israeli academia. All of them support the idea of the center and endorse the ends it aims to achieve. Good will of these people is very nice and their support is much appreciated. Alas, what the Center needs is significant budget.


Internal Politics

Sharon went down quickly from the tree of insisting not to invite Peres to serve in his government. His last month's decision, discussed in my November Newsletter, was not very prudent, to use an understatement.

Peres is heading back to government. Good for him. He lives for this. The only reason why the establishment of the new coalition is delayed is that Peres insists on the title "Deputy Prime Minister". However, existing law permits only one deputy. So now the Knesset amends the law for Mr. Peres so he will be satisfied with the title. He thinks that with such title he could make more impact in his meetings with politicians and diplomats around the world. I should explain it is a mere title as Ehud Ulmert, the present deputy, insisted to continue having all responsibilities emanating from the title, and the Likud will not allow Peres to replace Sharon even for one moment. Meaning that when Sharon is out of the country, Ulmert will continue to carry all responsibilities. It is amazing to see how much effort Peres is investing for an empty title, perhaps his last, just to satisfy his sense of dignity and pride. I should note that the Attorney General refused to take responsibility for amending the law just for Peres.

Recently Ehud Barak made a fool of himself by jumping on stage and taking possession of the microphone by force during a Labour convention. I think this is the result of stress and frustration. Almost all leaders of the party are united to halt his way back to politics. He does not have many supporters among the present leadership. I had lunch with the former leader of Labour, Amram Mitzna, and he still believes in him, not as a first choice but as a default. He does not see anyone else that is electable and could lead Labour to successful elections. On this issue, see Ami Ayalon infra.

As ever I remain adamant to the idea of unification government in times other than times of war. I think this is a bad idea for democracy. Democracy is about adhering and promoting certain rights and values through mechanisms of checks and balances, government and opposition. Referring to American politics, Lord Acton once said (third and last quote for today): “The great novelty of the American Constitution was that it imposed checks on the representatives of the people". Unified governments are a recipe for corruption, as no adequate guards are left to monitor the government. Members of Labour can speak endlessly that they join the government only to help Sharon to push forward the Gaza First Plan. I remain unconvinced. They could supply him the security net Sharon needs also from the opposition. Their rushing into coalition cannot be explained only in terms of pure greed. True, it is hard to refuse an offer to become a minister. Politicians live for this as Peres epitomizes. I am afraid the more substantial reason is that Labour feels it has nothing to sell. Sharon killed the remains of the Israeli center-left with his Plan. Most of the center-to-left in Israel disappeared thanks to Arafat who lost all credibility after Camp David 2000, and the terrorist campaign that followed the failed Camp David talks. The grains that remain do not justify replacing Sharon. After all, he wishes to execute an old Labour plan, and he has the better ability to do it, so why electing something else? Thus Labour feels that it might gain some points by joining the government, maybe they will be affected by the Sharon-Midas touch. This is perfectly understandable in terms of internal politics, when you put the party before the nation. It is completely unjustified in terms of national responsibility and democracy.

The insulting thing is that unlike unification governments that we knew from the 1980s and 1990s, this one is not built on parity and some equilibrium. The major ministries: Security, Foreign Affairs and Finance remain in the hands of Likud, and were not open for bargaining. Even ministries of lesser importance, but still very significant like Education, Justice and Internal Security were beyond negotiation. Labour was "compensated" by having eight ministries (two without portfolios, one new tailored especially for Peres that would duplicate the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and when the coalition will come true you should expect some bitter arguments between Shimon Peres and Silvan Shalom), two deputy ministers, and two chairpersons committees in the Knesset. The only significant ministry that was given to Labour is Ministry of Internal Affairs. The others are Communication, Environment, Infrastructure, and Building. The last two should have been unified a long time ago, possibly also with the Ministry of Industry.

While Sharon apparently would have found it difficult to remove Silvan Shalom (Foreign Affairs), Benjamin Netanyahu (Finance), Shaul Mofaz (Security/Defence) and Limor Livnat (Education) from their seats, given their influence and powerful position inside the Likud (all of them see themselves as contenders to succeed Sharon in the near or more remote future), it is somewhat surprising that Labour did not fight hard to receive the Ministries of Internal Affairs (with the newly nominated Gideon Ezra) and Justice (vacant after the dismissal of Shinui). I say somewhat surprising because one has to bear in mind that police investigations regarding Sharon and his family in fishy financial affairs, just on the border of legality, are still in motion. Sharon preferred these ministries to remain with people from Likud, and Labour apparently understood and did not stage a fight.

I met Beilin a few weeks ago. We had a pleasant discussion. He seems a nice guy. Don't know if anything concrete will develop but we said we'll keep in touch. Meretz-Yachad tries at this point to retain its small power.


Ami Ayalon

After many hesitations and much studying, Ami Ayalon decided to join establishment, main-stream politics and became a member of the Labour Party. General Ayalon was the commander of the navy. Upon his retirement he was nominated head of the SHABAC and after reported successful service he decided to work for peace. He was one of the leading figures behind the Geneva initiative, which was reported here quite critically as I believed in that time it could not lead anywhere because both Arafat and Sharon did not endorse it. However, Ayalon has many talents and he has the potential to emerge as the leader the Labour Party was seeking for quite a while now. Ayalon is aiming very high, and already declared his destination: to become the leader of his party and then prime minister. This is why he joined politics, understanding that there is no way to bypass main-stream politics. You need to work within the system. Ayalon was courted after also by Likud, and he had the chance to compete for leadership there as well. But Labour better suits his ideology and beliefs, hence decided to put his cards on a declining party, believing that he is able to salvage it and make it a viable competitor for national leadership. Time will tell whether he will succeed. Ayalon is quite naïve politically, but he is eager and able to learn, and unlike Barak will not attempt to import military norms into the political arena. He understands that politics is all about compromises, listening, finding common ground and securing enough allies to resolve solutions. We can see some light at the end of the tunnel: Labour now has a figure that is of prime-ministerial material. I wish him lots of luck and success.


Palestinian Elections

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas seems assured of victory in the January 9 presidential election after the withdrawal of chief rival Marwan Barghouti. Barghouti succumbed to pressure from the dominant Fatah faction of the PLO which threatened to expel its former West Bank leader, currently serving five life prison terms for his role in terrorist attacks.
His candidacy had threatened to split the PLO vote, with opinion polls showing Barghouti and Abbas running neck and neck. The prospect of an electoral victory for the founder of the Al Aqsa Brigades, who still refuses to renounce violence, also worried US and European officials. "Such a development would not only mean a setback to peace efforts," said a State Department official, "but an egg on the face of our policy to democratize the Middle East.

The European Union will deploy over 260 election observers for the poll, including a delegation of 30 European Parliament members. The mission is headed by Euro-parliamentarian and former prime minister of France, Michel Rocard. The EU has allocated €14 million euros (about US $18.6m) since 2003 to prepare the elections, and €2.5 million euros ($3.33m) has been designated for the election observation.

The withdrawal of Barghouti is not an unmitigated blessing for the PLO leadership or for prospects for peace. A seriously contested race--had he won it-- would have given Mahmoud Abbas the legitimacy and political capital he needs to constrain violence and to sell a peace agreement with Israel, said Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research. Other commentators are skeptical of both the pacifying and democratizing potential of the elections. Although the election will still be contested by candidates of less stature than Barghouti, they do not offer the same potential for generating democratic ferment, and Abbas seems assured of at least 80 percent of the vote.


France

The French ambassador to Israel made an undiplomatic statement, saying that Israelis are suffering from anti-French mental disorder, that Israelis hate the French people, and cab drivers in Israel throw French people out of their cars when they hear they speak French. This controversial statement evoked quite a discussion in Israel, where people stated what they love about the French, and what they dislike. The undercurrent of all this debate is the hostile political attitude to Israel, as manifested by Chirac, and the anti-Semitic sentiments that are noticeable in France.

What was striking is what many people said about Paris. Of course, Paris symbolizes France to the extent that London symbolizes England, Ottawa symbolizes Canada, Jerusalem symbolizes Israel, etc. Citizens of all countries know that their respective capitals do not really reflect the national character and culture of their countries. Having said that, many Israelis -- including myself -- of all walks of life express exact same feelings regarding Paris: We all appreciate its beauty, culture, food, style, fashion; we all were offended, if not hurt, by the Parisians when we visited this lovely city, one of most beautiful cities in the world. Once upon a time I thought this attitude is because I am an Israeli. Until a few French people told me not to take this too personally: it is not that Parisians do not like Israelis; they simply don't like everybody, without exception, so I should not feel privileged. They don't even like French people who live outside of Paris. There is a certain sense of pride in them: "We live in this human treasure, and you should keep out of our treasure".


Nieman Fellowships at Harvard

The Nieman Foundation for Journalism is accepting applications for the 2005-2006 Nieman Fellowships, which allow accomplished mid-career journalists to spend an academic year of study at Harvard University.

Established in 1938, the programme awards 12 fellowships each year to working journalists outside the United States who have at least five years of full-time, professional experience in the news media. The fellowships are open to reporters, editors, photographers, producers, editorial writers and cartoonists, and Internet specialists.

While at Harvard, fellows can design their own course of study in any of the university's schools or departments. They will also be able to network and share experiences with other fellows through Nieman seminars and other events.

For more information and to apply, visit: http://nieman.harvard.edu/


Conference in Memory of Mark Biano

On December 11 I participated in a conference at my university in memory of my former student, Mark Biano, who was murdered by a suicide bomber last year, age 29. He was having Shabbat meal with his wife at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa when that murderer entered the restaurant and blew herself to pieces. He was killed instantly, with his newly married wife. The department of communication decided to honour his memory by holding an annual conference in which graduate students present papers based on their MA and doctoral dissertations. Four professors served as chairpersons and discussants of the sessions. The keynote lecture was given by Joseph Turow of University of Pennsylvania.

For the first time I met Mark's mother. We spoke over the phone a few times but never met before. She and her husband who could not find the energies to attend the conference are grieving and looking for further ways to remember Mark publicly. It was an emotional event for me.


Democracy for a Safer World Summit

On March 8-11, 2005, Club de Madrid and the Varsavsky Foundation, in Barcelona, Spain will host an International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security. The conference, sponsored by the Club de Madrid and the Varsavsky Foundation, is supported by the Government of Spain, the Regional Government of Madrid and the City of Madrid. More than 50 former and current Heads of State and Government, decision and policy makers, world experts, and citizens will participate in this forum.

Further information at http://www.clubmadrid.org/cmadrid/index.php?id=1


Israeli Theatre

I saw "Eye Witness" in Hakameri theatre. It tells the story of Franz Yegershtatdter, the Austrian young man who refused to serve in the Warmacht, was locked up in a Nazi jail and eventually executed for his refusal to wear Nazi uniforms. I saw the production in English, a task that was not easy for some of the Israeli actors. The script and plot are interesting and telling. Yegershtatdter tells the story of all those who saw, who smelled, who knew, and played the three monkey. Yegershtatdter did not want to be one of the three monkeys, and obviously did not want to take part in the Nazi atrocities. Yehoshua Sobol, who wrote the play, says that only 1300 people acted like Yegershtatdter and refused the Nazi draft.


New Book

You may like to consider a book that came to my attention: Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, Edited by: Andrew Cohen and Christopher Hea Wellmanhttp://www.blackwellpublishing.com/1405115475
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/contents.asp?ref=1405115475&site=1


Happy New Year

May I wish all of you a joyful New Year and an excellent start of 2005. May it be a year of peace and tranquility, of positive achievements and sweet surprises.

With my very best wishes, as ever,

Rafi


My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.comEarlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Books archived at http://almagor.fetchauthor.info