May
2005
Tranquility,
Speech, Media, and Ethics, Petition of The Association for Civil Rights
in Israel (ACRI) against the Fence Route, The Palestinian Authority, PCU
Patients and Pain, Modern Times, The ATU Boycott, New Website, World Press
Freedom Day, We Are the Champions!, Israel Cup, Films
Dear
friends and colleagues,
Tranquility
Many
people who do not live in Israel have asked me throughout the years: How is it
to live in Israel? My answer in the past few years was: Imagine your life here
(i.e., in the USA, England, Canada, etc.) but without one crucial dimension:
tranquility. Then you can start fathom living in Israel, if you are capable to
imagine such a thing. Many have said they cannot figure out what does it mean
to live without this important aspect of one's life.
In
contrast, the month of May, after many many months of living in Israel, has
been tranquil, at least for me. There is a different atmosphere, different
feeling. What a relief to lead a life that is free of the constant threat of
terrorism over your head. Be it because of Abu Mazen and his stern belief that
terrorism inside the Green line does not serve the Palestinian best interest,
because of the fence, because of the successes of our intelligence, combination
thereof and/or other reasons, living in Israel has improved. This does not mean
that we are free of problems. Far from it. There are still Kassam missiles in
the Gaza Strip; there are more and more incidents of corruption, or of
"bad smell"; the Ministry of Education terminates thousands of
teaching contracts. But there was not one single incident of terrorism inside
Israel (knock on wood). What a relief.
The
improvement is immediate. We are happy to go out. Restaurants and coffee shops
are full again. People are strolling the streets and the malls. Buses are full
as ever. The economy is improving. More tourism. In my immediate surroundings,
more friends and colleagues are coming; international conferences with guests
from all over the world; hotels are full. You hear English and French in the
streets of Tel Aviv, especially near the wonderful promenade (to my taste, one
of the most beautiful promenades I have ever seen, second only to Rio's). I
hope June will continue the same pattern. I'll think about July in late June.
Life in Israel has taught me not to be too greedy.
Speech, Media, and Ethics
The
paperback edition of Speech, Media, and Ethics: The Limits of Free
Expression (Houndmills and New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2005) is now
available worldwide. It includes some ten years of thinking and research on
different aspects of freedom of expression and media ethics. I would
like to reiterate gratitude, expressed in the book, to friends and colleagues
who conversed with me on pertinent questions, who read parts, or all of my
writings, and who supported this project in various ways. Isaiah Berlin was a
kind supporter. I greatly miss his friendship, advice, and the intellectual
aspiration he offered me when we used to meet in his room at All Souls College,
Oxford. I am deeply thankful to Geoffrey Marshall, my academic mentor and
source of inspiration who is also no longer with us. Geoffrey read several
drafts of this book and commented with his usually precision and sharp mind.
Further gratitude is expressed to Wilfrid Knapp, Bob O’Neill, David Heyd, Eric
Barendt, Ed Lambeth, Jim Weinstein, Jack Pole, Dave Boeyink, and Sam Lehman-Wilzig.
I am also indebted to Wayne Sumner, Ronald Dworkin, David Feldman, Yitzhak
Zamir, Haim Zadok, Aharon Barak, Zelman Cowen, Adam Roberts, Dick Moon, Valerie
Alia, Georg Nolte, Eike-Henner Kluge, David Lepofsky, Ron Robin, Gabriel
Weimann, Jonathan Cohen, Rivki Ribak, Cliff Christians, Hugh Stephenson, David
Allen, Art Hobson, David Goldberg, Ejan Mackaay, Godfrey Hodgson, Jan
Sieckmann, and Conrad Winn for their thoughtful remarks and incisive comments.
Their knowledge, experience, and insight were truly enriching and illuminating.
Infra please find its table of contents. Please
consider ordering it to your respective libraries.
Acknowledgements
Foreword by Geoffrey Marshall
Introduction
Part One
Freedom
of Expression
I. Harm Principle, Offence Principle, and
Hate Speech
II.
The Right to Demonstrate v. the Right to Privacy: Picketing Private Homes of
Public Officials
III. The Right to
Participate in Elections: Judicial and Practical Considerations
Part Two
Media
Ethics, Freedom and Responsibilities
IV.
Objective Reporting in the Media: Phantom Rather than Panacea
V.
Ethical Boundaries of Media Coverage
VI. Media Coverage of Suicide: Comparative Analysis
VII. The Work of the Press Councils in Great Britain, Canada, and
Israel: A Comparative Appraisal
Appendix:
Perceptions of Media Coverage among the Israeli-Jewish Public: A Reflection of
Existing Social Cleavages? (with
Itzhak Yanovitzky)
Index
In
his Foreword Geoffrey Marshall wrote:
The
principle of free communication is probably the most complex and controversial
of all constitutional guarantees. Traditionally it has been spoken of as the
free speech principle. But that expression conceals the fact that the principle
it enunciates is both narrower and wider than its language suggests. The
principle does not protect many things that are in a literal sense speech. On
the other hand it does protect many things that are not speech. Defamation,
obscenity, and fraud may be perpetrated through speech acts but are
unprotected. Marching, picketing, and voting are non-speech activities but the
free speech guarantee may in certain circumstances protect them.
In 1994, in The Boundaries of Liberty and Tolerance, Raphael Cohen-Almagor
published a pioneering study of the challenge to liberal principles of
toleration posed by extremist political parties in Israel. In Speech, Media, and Ethics: The Limits of
Free Expression, the examination of the limits of tolerance is extended to
embrace the problem of maintaining a free press in the face of challenges from
forces that if left unrestrained would destroy the institutions of a free
society. This is the classic dilemma of liberal toleration. To the extent that
liberal theory can distinguish between what John Stuart Mill - the Founding
Father of free speech theory - called discussion and expressive activities that
go beyond discussion the classic question whether we should tolerate the
intolerant has a simple answer. The toleration of discussion or advocacy
extends to the advocacy of violent or extremist policies since ex hypothesi it
extends to the advocacy or discussion (if that is what it is) of anything. But
the application of that principle and the analysis of what it is that carries
communicative activities beyond advocacy are complex. It is also best explored,
as here, in relation to concrete instances and experiences.
Though much of this study focuses on the
necessary limitation of the communicative and journalistic function, it is
written from a liberal rather than a communitarian standpoint. Communitarian
critics of liberal ideology sometimes write as if liberal theory in its nature
were incapable of entertaining societal considerations or limitations on
individual aspiration. Liberals are sometimes said to be committed to a
metaphysic of the atomic individual. But - unless it is definitionally so
arranged - there is nothing in the concept of being an atomic, molecular, or
just plain individual that determines how such individuals should behave in
relation to each other. Separate identity is not inconsistent with mutual
restraint. Individual personalities may wish to limit their activities for good
reasons for the sake of other individual personalities - in other words,
society. In relation to expression, liberal theory is neither in principle nor
in practice incapable of accepting limitations on freedom. It is true that some
few American constitutionalists have spoken energetically and unreflectively of
the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee as being absolute within the
boundaries of political speech. But that has not been the general consensus,
and everywhere courts and commentators in the liberal tradition operate on the
assumption that there are principled limitations on expression that may be
imposed in a free society and on a free press and, in the latter case, that
some of them are best when self-imposed.
It is even possible that defenders of
liberal and democratic principles may be too modest in expounding them. Raphael
Cohen-Almagor presents his conclusions as principles that are fitted for
democratic societies rather than doctrines having universal application. It is
of course true that non-democratic and non-liberal societies would reject them.
Nevertheless, if such principles are advanced as moral propositions they must
be universalisable. That is only to say that they will apply in all societies
unless there are good reasons for making exceptions and modifications to them.
Whether there are such reasons and how the
relevant principles should be formulated are matters for close argument. But denial of their relevance or
validity by non-democratic societies should not persuade democrats to refrain
from proclaiming them as universal moral principles. This does not of course mean that they apply absolutely or
in uniform fashion in all places and circumstances. But the same is equally true within one society.
Of all the dilemmas in the operation of free
governments, the dilemma of free discussion and the delimitation of press
freedom are the most intractable.
In these essays Raphael Cohen-Almagor tackles the dilemma at the points
where its complexities are most apparent.
Political theorists, politicians, and philosophical journalists (if such
there be) will have good reason to ponder what he has to say.
Petition
of The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) against the Fence Route
My
reading of Sharon is the following: Sharon understood that it is impossible to
ignore demography, and that Israel needs to take concrete steps to secure its
future against both bullets and babies. He understood that Israel needs to make
sacrifices. Gaza seemed as the ultimate solution. Israel will get rid of 1.3
million Palestinians residing in Gaza plus all the advantages that I reiterated
when I began advocating the Gaza First Plan back in 2000. But the Palestinians
will have to pay a high price for this sacrifice: the West Bank. Sharon wants
the majority of the West Bank to remain in Israeli hands. All that he does
suggest that he wishes to have a relatively large Israel and a very small
Palestine. He thinks he could succeed in this, that the Palestinians are too
weak to influence the international community to exert pressure on Israel to
evacuate the West Bank, and that with the help of the fence Israel will be able
to defend itself against terror attacks.
I
am very worried. I am worried because I am vehemently opposed to the
occupation. As long as the occupation remains, both Palestinians and Israelis
are doomed to suffer. The deal should be fair to both sides, Israel and
Palestine, not only to one side. We are born free and wish to remain free.
On
May 5, 2005 The Association for Civil Rights in Israel petitioned the Supreme
Court against the existing route of the fence.
ACRI
submitted to the Supreme Court:
A statement of
opinion that the ruling issued by the International Court of Justice in The
Hague is binding to Israel:
The
route of the separation barrier represents a gross violation of international
law and severely violates Palestinian human rights
If the barrier is
required it should coincide with state borders
The
route of the separation barrier that has been constructed, the majority of
which is located within the West Bank represents a clear violation of
international law, as determined by the International Court of Justice in The
Hague (ICJ), and therefore the route must be amended – as required – to adhere
to the country’s borders. This was the explicit position voiced by ACRI in its
statement of opinion that was submitted today to the Supreme Court. ACRI
submitted the statement to the court in response to the state’s stated official
position on the issue, and in relation to the upcoming hearing of the petition
regarding the barrier that is due to be heard on Monday before an expanded
panel of nine Supreme Court Justices. The petitions refer to the route of the
barrier surrounding the villages of Budrus and Shuqba. In response to the
petitions, the court ordered the parties to prepare a written position on the
significance and relevance of the ICJ ruling in the context of these two cases.
ACRI’s written response was prepared by ACRI Attorney Limor Yehuda, and
includes sections which relate specifically to the cases of the two villages:
part of the response was prepared by Attorney Ronit Robinson, who is
representing the residents of Budrus on behalf of ACRI, and another section was
prepared by Attorney Muhammad Dahleh, who is representing the residents
of the village of Shuqba.
ACRI
made clear, in the submitted document that the international court is the most
senior judicial tribunal that is authorized to interpret and determine what
constitutes international law, and therefore the contents of the advisory
opinion are binding. The aforementioned contravenes the states’ claims that the
ICJ ruling is non-binding. ACRI further emphasizes that, even after the
changes that have been introduced to the route of the barrier after the ICJ
ruling, the overwhelming majority of the barrier is still situated beyond the
sovereign borders of the State of Israel, in territory that is held in a state
of belligerent occupation. The status and powers of Israel in this
territory, ACRI’s response adds, is drawn from international law and is
dependent upon it. Therefore, the normative framework, upon which the actions
of the state in these areas should be examined, is first and foremost by this
judicial system. Thus, when one considers the fact that the
construction of the separation barrier, which Israel is currently carrying out
in the occupied territories, represents a violation of international law, it
can in practice be considered to be an illegal act.
The
encroachment of the route into West Bank territory is the result of a number of
motivations. The first and principle motivation, to which the state has fully
admitted to in its response to the Supreme Court, was and remains – the desire
to relocate the barrier to surround Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and
to ensure that the majority of the Jewish settlers are located on the “Israeli”
side of the barrier. On this issue, the international court’s absolute ruling
that was endorsed by all 15 justices is still relevant. The ruling stated that the
route of the barrier, as it relates to the creation of territorial contiguity
between the Jewish settlements and territory belonging to the State of Israel,
with its effective annexation of land, represents a clear violation of
international law that cannot be justified under any circumstances. The
stated necessity to protect Jewish settlements can also be achieved by the
construction of a barrier around settlements themselves. Thus there would be
not need for de-facto annexation of West Bank territory to Israel by pushing
the route of the barrier deep into occupied territory. With regard to sections
of the barrier that encroach on West Bank territory for other reasons – this
will be considered to be illegal unless the state is able to prove that the
reasoning does not contravene the provisions of international law, and that the
infringements resulting from the chosen route are proportional. The data
provided by the state is not sufficient to remove the clear and heavy onus on
the state to show that the chosen route is the only one that can satisfy a military
necessity, and that this legitimate goal, namely – the protection of the
residents of the State of Israel – cannot also be achieved by changing the
route of the barrier to coincide with the pre-1967 border, in a manner that
does not violate the Palestinian residents’ human rights and remains within
state territory.
Israel,
as a country that would like to strictly adhere to honoring international law,
and as a state that wishes to continue to be “ a legitimate member” and
entitled to rights in the international community, ACRI states, must honor and
act in accordance with the court’s published advisory opinions which
represent, in fact, a ruling within the context of international law in its
current format. In this context one should expect that in light of the ICJ
ruling in The Hague, that Israel will amend the route of the barrier in such a
way as to comply with its legal obligations as prescribed by international law.
It
is also stated that according to the present authorized route of the barrier,
approximately 9.5% of the West Bank territory will be cut off from the rest of
the West Bank and will find itself to the west of the barrier. The land in
question is among the most fertile of the West Bank, and many Palestinian
farmers will, as a result, be unable to reach their agricultural land. Some
24,000 Palestinians will find themselves trapped in the seam zone, the
closed military area to the west of the barrier, and some 230,000 others will
be forced to reside in residential areas that are surrounded on three sides at
least, by the barrier. Approximately 220,000 Palestinian residents of
East Jerusalem will be cut off from the West Bank, with the resultant enforced
separation from the society to which they belong. In addition to which, the
construction of the barrier results in the severe and sweeping violations of
the right to private property, including the expropriation of thousands of
dunams of land (1dunam = 4 acres), the destruction of plantations, agricultural
land, structures, wells and more. The route of the barrier has also
resulted in severe violations of freedom of movement for many of the
residents, limited access to public services, including health and educational
services, the isolation of communities and the prevention of the maintenance of
family and social ties. All the aforementioned represent a gross violation
of international law.
For
further details please contact: Attorney Limor Yehuda at: 02-6521218, or Yoav
Loeff, ACRI spokesman, at: 02-6521218 / 052-3410631 / Beeper: 03-6106666,
subscription no: 36477.
ACRI’s
website: www.acri.org.il
The
Palestinian Authority
Recently the Carnegie Endowment released a paper in
its Rule of Law Series, Evaluating Palestinian Reform. In it, Arab
governance expert Nathan Brown measures reform efforts to date and proposes
concrete steps in four priority areas: political parties, security services,
judiciary and media. The full
report is attached.
PCU
Patients and Pain
In a recent posting I provided evidence that
physicians do not know whether PCU patients suffer pain. Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig
has sent me the following article that suggests that things may have changed
recently, and that technology is capable to play more significant role in
deciding whether patients suffer pain. I welcome your reflections, especially
from those who might have used this technology to measure brain activity of PCU
patients.
Mind-reading
machine knows what you see
15:26 25 April
2005
NewScientist.com
news service
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7304
It is possible to read someone’s mind by remotely measuring
their brain activity, researchers have shown. The technique can even extract
information from subjects that they are not aware of themselves.
So far, it has only been used to identify visual
patterns a subject can see or has chosen to focus on. But the researchers
speculate the approach might be extended to probe a person’s awareness, focus
of attention, memory and movement intention. In the meantime, it could help
doctors work out if patients apparently in a coma are actually conscious.
Scientists have already trained
monkeys to move a robotic arm with the power of thought and to
recreate scenes moving in front of cats by recording information directly from
the feline’s neurons (New Scientist print edition, 2 October 1999). But
these processes involve implanting electrodes into their brains to hook them up
to a computer.
Now Yukiyasu Kamitani, at ATR Computational
Neuroscience Laboratories in Kyoto, Japan, and Frank Tong at Princeton
University in New Jersey, US, have achieved similar “mind reading” feats
remotely using functional MRI scanning.
Between the lines
The pair showed patterns of parallel lines in 1 of
8 orientations to four volunteers. By focusing on brain regions involved in
visual perception they were able to recognise which orientation the subjects
were observing.
Each line orientation corresponded to a different
pattern of brain activity, although the patterns were different in each person.
What is more, when two sets of lines were superimposed and the subjects were
asked to focus on one set, the researchers could work out which one they were
thinking of from the brain images.
In a separate study, also published in Nature
Neuroscience, John-Dylan Haynes and Geraint Rees at University College
London, UK, showed two patterns in quick succession to 6 volunteers. The first
appeared for just 15 milliseconds - too quick to be consciously perceived by
the viewer.
But by viewing fMRI images of the brain, the
researchers were able to say which image had been flashed in front of the
subjects. The information was perceived in the brain even if the volunteers
were not consciously aware of it.
The study probed the part of the visual cortex that
detects a visual stimulus, but does not perceive it. “It encodes what we don’t
see,” Haynes says. He thinks that, further along the visual pathway, brain
regions consciously take note that there has been a stimulus. But this does not
happen for the “invisible” stimulus.
Consciousness
kicks in
By understanding the perception pathway and working
out the point at which consciousness kicks in, patient consciousness could be
diagnosed. This would mean the setup could be used as a “consciousness-meter,”
says Haynes; “a device that allows us to assess whether a patient is
consciously perceiving his or her outside environment.”
Yang Dan, a neurobiologist at the University of
California in Berkeley, agrees this would be possible. But she cautions that there
is little agreement over what consciousness actually is.
More subtle forms of mind-reading such as working
out intentions or beliefs are much more speculative, she argues. Even if such
subtle information could be gleaned from brain scans both studies suggest the
patterns are unique to individuals.
And using the technique as an alternative to the
polygraph would be very risky, says Dan. “The relationship between brain
patterns and lies may be very loose.”
Journal reference: Nature Neuroscience (DOI:
10.1038/nn1445 and 10.1038/nn1444)
Modern
Times
My
friend, Art Hobson, has asked me to publish his piece and I do this with
pleasure.
SCIENCE
AND SOCIETY: WE'RE NOT PAYING OUR DUES
Humankind is not adjusting
well to the scientific age. The problem is that we are only too happy to
accept the fruits of science, but unwilling to accept the accompanying
responsibilities.
The Terri Schiavo saga illustrates the problem. We are eager to
accept life-extending technology, but reluctant to accept the accompanying
responsibility to limit that technology when it's doing more harm than
good. Most of us would probably prefer not to be kept alive in a
zombie-like state for years when there is essentially no hope of recovery, yet
the political charade surrounding Terri Schiavo illustrates that society has a
difficult time allowing people to die when it makes no sense to live.
Some argue that society should not have played God by allowing Schiavo's
feeding tube to be removed, but society decided long ago to play God by
developing the technology that extends human life. We cannot have it both
ways: If we use medical technology to keep people alive, we must make the
hard decision to allow people to die when that technology becomes
counterproductive.
Examples of similar science-and-society problems are legion. Earth
is overpopulated because we welcome the fruits of agricultural and medical
technology without accepting the responsibility to limit births. The
automobile destroys our environment, our cities, and our lives because we love
its mobility so much that we will not accept reasonable limits on its
use. In one of the planet's greatest challenges, we guzzle fossil fuels
without attending to the global warming that comes with them.
Modern technology is miraculous, but its
side effects are deadly. I'm convinced that we can all live like kings
and queens if we can learn to use technology wisely. Yet much of the
planet remains poor, miserable, and uneducated.
The problem is partly embedded in our genes.
Billions of years of biological evolution, capped by some 6 million years of
specifically human evolution since we parted ways with our closest cousins, the
chimpanzees, have not prepared us well for modern technology. Consider,
for example, overpopulation. The universal biological urge, instilled in
our genes by eons of evolution, is to procreate. But with the rise of
agriculture some ten thousand years ago, and of modern medicine during the past
few centuries, human numbers skyrocketed and our urge to procreate became
counterproductive. Scientists estimate that Earth can sustain a human
population of about four billion living at the consumption level of
Mediterranean nations such as Italy, or two billion living at the USA's
consumption level. Yet our population is over six billion and still
climbing, because we have not accepted family planning as a moral
responsibility.
Overly individualistic ideologies
often lead to harmful uses of technology. The automobile is a good
example. It has given many of us unparalleled freedom of movement, but
that freedom is now destroying our cities and our environment. It's a
freedom that didn't even exist until about a century ago. Yet people get
incensed at suggestions that even a small part of that freedom be sacrificed
for the greater good by, say, raising the driving age, or increasing the
gasoline mileage standards. We accept the technology, but reject the
responsibility.
Cultural habits, especially as expressed through many
of the world's religions, often stand in the way of rational decision-making
about science and technology. Science is certainly compatible with humane
and liberal religious values, including a belief in God, but it is not
compatible with fundamentalist beliefs such as the so-called "literal
truth" of particular religious texts. Thus fundamentalists around
the world tend to oppose the changes needed to overcome, for example,
overpopulation: family planning, sex education, and the education and
economic freedom of women.
We stand with one foot in modernity and the other in medieval superstitions, a
contradiction that cannot endure. If allowed to continue for many more
decades, such consequences as resource shortages, failed nations, terrorism,
and environmental collapse will put both our feet back into the middle
ages.
But don't despair, for our predicament is eminently solvable. The
solution is to use the part of our anatomy that has gotten us this far:
our brains.
Education is the place to start. As
Doctor Frankenstein discovered, it's dangerous to use powerful technology
without understanding its possible consequences. We are not paying our
dues for the modern age. Paying our dues means, primarily, learning more
than we are learning today. Education must be more rigorous and
universal, must spend far more time on science, and must emphasize critical
rational thinking. Unfortunately, superstition continues to inhibit
science education as fundamentalists seek to replace or "supplement"
the fundamental principle of biology, namely biological evolution, with
creationism. This is exactly like supplementing the notion that our
planet is spherical with the notion that it's flat. There is no debate
among scientists about this issue, yet fundamentalists continue their noisy
public spectacle. Until we can rid ourselves of such distractions, we
won't get the educational system we need.
Scientists themselves have been leading shirkers of responsibility for the
humane use of science. It's up to scientists to spend the time and energy
required to help educate teachers, students, politicians, reporters and
others. But we scientists have spent nearly all of our time doing
narrowly-focused research, earning prestige and profits but spending little time
with even the undergraduates on our own campuses, much less concerning
ourselves with the broader society.
The most important part of the solution is not difficult, and in fact it's a
lot of fun. It's called education. But we'd better get busy.
Previously
published in the Northwest Arkansas Times of Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA. Art Hobson is Professor Emeritus of
Physics at the University of Arkansas, and the author of a liberal-arts physics
textbook for non-scientists, "Physics: Concepts and Connections"
(Prentice
Hall, 3rd edition 2003).
The
ATU Boycott
The ATU is about
to convene on Wednesday to reconsider their decision. It will be very good if
the Post will publish something about this before then to exert further
pressure on them. The decision is so unfair, so sweeping, so judgmental, and so
damn wrong, relying on a testimony of one person who is full of hate that you
cannot help thinking: There is more behind this. Call it anti-Semitism,
Pro-Palestinianism, radical leftism. The decision was ill-considered and
utterly biased. One of my colleagues found that the pusher and mover behind the
decision, Sue Blackwell, was saying the Holocaust was exaggerated, and is
obviously supporter of the Palestinians and against the occupation. Well, we at
the University of Haifa are not Holocaust deniers, but the wide majority
opposes the occupation, no less than the infamous Ilan Pappe. We are
responsible for the occupation to the extent that he does.
On May 6, 2005 I
received the following message from Prof. RP:
Sent:
Friday, May 06, 2005 4:38 PM
To:
ralmagor@soc.haifa.ac.il
Subject:
Re: Special Newsletter
Rafi:
Thought you might be interested in this statement just issued by AAUP
Committee A, on which I sit:
Release
date: 5/03/05
Contact:
Jonathan Knight
Washington,
D.C. - The American Association of University Professors issued the following
statement:
Academic
Boycott
Delegates
to a recent meeting of the British Association of University Teachers (AUT)
approved resolutions that damage academic freedom. The resolutions call on all
members of AUT to "refrain from participation in any form of academic and
cultural cooperation, collaboration, or joint projects" with two
universities in Israel, Haifa University and Bar Ilan University. Excluded from
the ban are "conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to
their state's colonial and racist policies," an exclusion which, because
it requires compliance with a political or ideological test in order for an
academic relationship to continue, deepens the injury to academic freedom
rather than mitigates it.
These
resolutions have been met with strong condemnation and calls for repeal within
the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The American Association of University
Professors joins in condemning these resolutions and in calling for their
repeal. Since its founding in 1915, the AAUP has been committed to preserving
and advancing the free exchange of ideas among academics irrespective of
governmental policies and however unpalatable those policies may be viewed. We
reject proposals that curtail the freedom of teachers and researchers to engage
in work with academic colleagues, and we reaffirm the paramount importance of
the freest possible international movement of scholars and ideas. The AAUP
urges the AUT to support the right of all in the academic community to
communicate freely with other academics on matters of professional interest.
The
American Association of University Professors is a nonprofit charitable and
educational organization that promotes academic freedom by supporting tenure,
academic due process, and standards of quality in higher education. The AAUP
has 45,000 members at colleges and universities throughout the United States.
On
May 26, 2005 UK academics have voted to overturn the boycott. The academics'
body now says it is time to "build bridges" between those with
opposing views and support peace moves. A statement from the AUT said:
"After a lengthy debate involving deeply held views on both sides of the
argument, AUT's special council has today voted to revoke all existing boycotts
of Israeli institutions. AUT council has decided to base its policy on
providing practical solidarity to Palestinian and Israeli trade unionists and
academics, by agreeing a motion committing the union to having a full review of
international policy, working alongside NATFHE and the TUC. UK higher education
has a long and proud tradition of defending academic freedom. The struggle to
maintain academic freedom whenever it is under threat is one that AUT will
always support and this principle will continue to guide our work."
A
small group of demonstrators from both sides had gathered outside the London
venue for the vote. Among them was Luciana Berger, a member of the Union of
Jewish Students, from Birkbeck, University of London. She said: "We are
very happy. It's a victory for peace and open dialogue. It's a victory that we
shouldn't have had to have won in the first place."
Earlier,
Jon Pike, a senior philosophy lecturer at the Open University, said pressure to
end the sanctions had come "from below", with 80% of AUT members
nationwide against them.
The
Royal Society, which represents UK science, said that boycotts of Israeli
universities "grossly violate" existing efforts to protect academics'
human rights.
Common sense does
prevail. Sometimes it hesitates but eventually it materializes. Having said
that, knowing the people involved I am sure the last word has not been said,
and that we can expect more rounds of struggle to come.
New
Website
The
website of the Centre for Democratic Studies was launched recently. See Center
for Democratic Studies http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/center/
World Press
Freedom Day
Thousands of
newspapers world-wide commemorated World Press Freedom Day on Tuesday, May 3,
2005 by publishing editorial and advertising materials on press freedom themes
from the World Association of Newspapers.
World Press Freedom
Day marks the anniversary of the 1991 Declaration of Windhoek, a statement of
principles calling for a free, independent and pluralistic media throughout the
world. The Declaration affirms that a free press is essential to the existence
of democracy and a fundamental human goal.
It has become a
day to raise awareness of press freedom problems worldwide, and to recognise
the sacrifices that independent media and journalists make to keep their
societies informed.
See http://www.worldpressfreedomday.org
The World
Association of Newspapers also announced plans to launch a new electronic
network in September 2005 to support media reform and help build a stronger independent
press in the Arab world.
The Arab Press
Network (APN) aims to contribute to the professionalism of newspapers in the
region by promoting the exchange of ideas and experiences between media
executives throughout the Arab world. WAN says the initiative will fill a gap
in Arab media, which currently does not have an Internet-based forum where
media professionals can learn more about their rights, develop professionally
and share their ideas and experiences.
The network is
being supported by the Danish press group JP Politiken. It is modeled after
WAN's RAP21 (African Press Network for the 21st Century) project, which was
launched in 2000 for African media professionals. RAP 21 disseminates media
management, press freedom and related practical information via e-mail
newsletters and a website (http://www.rap21.org) to thousands of
members across Africa.
The core of the
APN will be an electronic newsletter, distributed in Arabic and English, which
provides information on professional development, editorial issues, media law
reform and press freedom. The network will also provide a channel to distribute
leading-edge knowledge, information and strategies from WAN about the creation
of better and more prosperous independent newspapers.
To join the
network or request more information, contact Kajsa Törnroth, Director of Press
Freedom Programmes at WAN: ktornroth@wan.asso.fr
The Paris-based
World Association of Newspapers (WAN), the global organisation for the
newspaper industry, defends and promotes press freedom world-wide. It
represents 18,000 newspapers; its membership includes 72 national newspaper
associations, individual newspaper executives in 102 countries, 11 news
agencies and nine regional and world-wide press groups.
We Are the Champions!
On May 8, 2005 Maccabi
Tel Aviv won the Euroleague title for the second consecutive year and the fifth
time in the team's history on Sunday, beating Tau Vitoria of Spain by 90 to 78.
For an
entire season, the Euroleague had been gearing up for a seemingly inevitable
Final Four championship game: Maccabi Tel Aviv against CSKA Moscow. But the
script was given an unexpected twist on the semis, when Tau Vitoria upset CSKA
and the whole of Europe by knocking the host team out of contention. CSKA
invested more than 20 million dollars in its team and finished in the fourth
lace, after loosing to Pao from Greece in the game on the 3rd place. What an
upset for the Russian investors. Maccabi, on the other hand, did exactly what
we expected it to do. We won against Pao in the semis, and lead throughout the
final game against the strong Spanish team.
Of all the teams
Maccabi had in its history, I think this is the most talented team of all. It
has three legitimate NBA players. Two were in the NBA in the past: Anthony
Parker and Maceu Baston. The third, Sarunas Jasikevicius, is heading to the
NBA, possibly to the Indiana Pacers.
I remember the first time Maccabi won the
championship. The year was 1977 and we conceived this as sort of a miracle. A
little Israeli team, with some Americans, beating the lions of Europe, much
invested teams from Spain, Italy and Russia. Since then we went from strength
to strength and Maccabi became one of the most reputable teams in Europe.
Maccabi became one of the icons of European basketball. We won the championship
also in 1981, 2001 and 2004. What an achievement for small Israel. What joy for
all Israelis around the globe.
Israel Cup
On May 18, 2005 Maccabi Tel Aviv won the Israel
Football Cup. It was a terrible game, with a sweet ending. The score after 120
minutes was 2:2, after horrid defence mistakes against Maccabi Herzliya, a
second division team that was not the worse of the two teams. Then came the
penalties, and my beloved Maccabi won 5:3. Experience does pay. At the end of
one of the worse ever years in the history of Maccabi, the club won the Israel
Cup and next year will compete in Europe. In order to succeed, it needs to
completely change its face and shape, bringing new talented players. I would
sell at least seven of its mediocre players and bring athletes who understand
the game and are able to run (to be distinguished from walk) ninety minutes.
Films
The
Syrian Bride by Eran Riklis
with Hiyam Abbass (as Amal). An Israeli-Druze production about a Druze woman
from the Golan Heights who is engaged to marry a Syrian television soap-opera
star whom she has never met. She tries t figure him out by looking at his
dramatic-comic performance of TV. Upon moving to Syria she would leave her
present life behind her as she will never be able to return to her home.
Complications are inevitable, as expected when you count on the good faith of
Israelis and Syrians on both sides of the border, especially when the bride's
father supports the Assad family. A quality production, with magical and
touching moments, humane scenes, political concerns, developed characters, good
acting and interesting plot. In Arabic, with some Hebrew and little English. I
recommend.
Stay
away from Sin City. The only good thing I can say about this crap is
that I was able to take a nap despite the horrible sound-track. These were the
only quality moments I spent during this so-called "film".
Happy
(slightly belated) Lag Baomer,
With my very best
wishes, as ever,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com
Earlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Books
archived at http://almagor.fetchauthor.info
Center
for Democratic Studies http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/center/
May
6, 2005 – Special and Urgent Newsletter
Rescind the AUT Boycott
Dear
friends and colleagues,
There
is one single topic in this special edition of the Newsletter: the boycott of
two universities in Israel. My usual Newsletter will hopefully be published by
the end of month.
Rescind the AUT Boycott
Next Wednesday the Association of University Teachers will meet in
London. On their agenda there will be one single issue: reconsidering their
decision to boycott two universities in Israel.
I have read and signed the online petition:
"Rescind the AUT Boycott"
hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition service,
at: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/isboy05/
I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might agree,
too. If you can spare a moment,
please take a look, and consider signing yourself.
You may find interest in the following article published today:
The Spectator
6
May 2005
"Anti-Semitic
studies"
Douglas
Davis
Pay attention, Professor. If you support the
proposed academic boycott of Israel — and if you are to remain intellectually
honest — prepare for a radical lifestyle change. Firstly, unplug your computer.
Good. Now switch off your interactive digital television set. Well done. And
now throw away your mobile phone. Excellent. You see, Professor, these machines
are not only the engine of the globalised, capitalist world but they also
depend on technologies that have been produced by Israeli academics in the
Zionist entity.
Stop playing with your detached mouse,
Professor, and concentrate. I’m afraid you may not use the British Library
because it has been computerised by Ex Libris, a Zionist company that was
spawned by the odious Hebrew University of Jerusalem. And if, God forbid, you
develop problems of the small intestine, you may not pop the Zionist-invented
‘video capsule’, which passes naturally through your body as it monitors this
delicate piece of your anatomy. You will, sadly, have to take it up the
derrière, Professor. As a matter of principle, of course. But remember: your
principle allows your proctologist to keep his hand in...
The rest is in the extended entry due to
annoying registration.
All this boycotting, you see, is the logical
extension of proposed academic sanctions against Israel by some members of your
Association of University Teachers (AUT) when they meet in Eastbourne next
Wednesday. Just visit the website of Egyptian-born Mona Baker of the University
of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. She set the standard by
firing two Israeli scholars from the boards of her translation journals as a
matter of high academic principle.
You will see that Ms Baker’s ambitions do
not end with the academic boycott. Her website also includes a section entitled
‘Boycott Israeli Products & Services’, which features dozens of global
brands that, inconveniently, are not Israeli at all. The offenders presumably
have earned their place in infamy by dealing with the Zionist entity, by being
owned by Jews or by having Jews on their boards. They range from Coca-Cola and
Nescafé to Johnson & Johnson and Estée Lauder, from Hugo Boss and Ralph
Lauren to Selfridges and Marks & Spencer, from Kleenex and Wonderbra to
Lancôme and.... All marked for boycott.
Absent from Ms Baker’s list — and here I
think I can help — is a set of global companies which are arguably even more
culpable because they not only operate in Israel but also do most of their
R&D there. IBM and Intel each have three R&D centres in Israel;
Microsoft established its first non-American facility there, and Cisco Systems
has built its only non-American R&D centre in Israel. Then there is
Motorola, which has its largest R&D site in Israel, and News Corp, whose
company NDS develops those neat interactive technologies for digital
television. There are many more.
The AUT boycott brigade has cause for
concern. It knows that these companies are attracted not only by the innate
brutality of the expansionist regime but also by the cunning of its university
graduates (most of the R&D centres are located on or near Israeli
university campuses). Proportionally, the Zionist entity has more university
graduates than any other country, while its scientists, engineers and
agriculturists publish more professional papers per capita than do their
counterparts anywhere else on earth. The result is that Israel has the largest
concentration of high-tech companies outside Silicon Valley. But the ultimate
sin is that Israel, which came to independence in the process of post-war
decolonisation, stubbornly refuses to become a failed state.
So dangerous has the situation become, dear
Professor, that when you meet in Eastbourne you will set aside the small matter
of your pay deal (which many universities have failed to implement). Instead,
you and your fellow intellectual heavyweights will ponder far worthier matters.
Like foreign affairs. Of course, you will not have to bother your turbo-charged
minds with this week’s Unicef report which shows that half of the women in the
Arab world are illiterate and more than ten million children in the region
don’t attend school.
The issue that will preoccupy you will be
the aggressive imperialist apartheid state: a state that has nurtured the
Palestinian universities and colleges in the West Bank; one that offers equal
rights — and access to its universities — to all its citizens, regardless of
race, religion, ethnicity or sex; and which has educated tens of thousands of
Palestinians at Israeli universities (several hundred a year still opt for an
Israeli education). It is significant that Omar Barghouti, the Palestinian who
is encouraging you and your British comrades to boycott Israel, is a doctoral
student at none other than Tel Aviv University.
No, Professor, not all Israeli universities
and not all Israeli academics will be boycotted if the AUT motion is passed.
Such a proposition was defeated 3–1 at the association’s conference two years
ago, and the boycotters are too smart to repeat past mistakes. The new motion,
says one of its authors, has been ‘tactically’ amended to get it passed. ‘We’ve
got to be a bit more sophisticated,’ she says. And sophisticated they are. They
even had a dry run last December, when they met to rehearse their presentations
and develop killer responses to potential critics.
Their sleek new motion — which does not
involve a single book-burning — envisages sanctions against only the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv University and Haifa University. And there’s
more: the boycotters generously offer Israeli academics the opportunity to buy
themselves immunity if they are prepared to denounce their country, specifically,
‘conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state’s
colonial and racist policies’. Who could seriously question the integrity of
your fellow academic freedom fighters?
But there are, of course, small obstinate
obstacles in the way of you visionaries, Professor. Britain’s academic
institutions, for example, have not endorsed boycotting Israel’s academic
community. Indeed, when the Oxford don Andrew Wilkie told an Israeli PhD
applicant that there was ‘no way would I take on somebody who had served in the
Israeli army’, he was hauled before the university’s disciplinary body and
suspended without pay for two months.
Cambridge University’s Professor Sir Aaron
Klug, Nobel laureate and former president of the Royal Society, put me right
when I asked him about the possible impact — on Britain no less than on Israel
— of such a boycott: ‘How important is the AUT? That’s the question you have to
ask.’ He is no supporter of Israel’s Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, and his
policies but he does consider that the proposed boycott is ‘ill considered and
doesn’t promote anything at all’. The AUT, he says, is out to attack Israel
‘but this is no way to proceed’. Sir Aaron is ‘not one who looks for
anti-Semitism around every corner,’ he says, ‘but I do think there’s an element
of that here. It does give people who are anti-Semitic the opportunity to
express themselves.’
But relax, Professor. The AUT has solemnly
concluded that there is a clear distinction between anti-Semitism and
anti-Zionism. They don’t mind Jews. They just detest the Jewish state.
Douglas Davis is co-author, with Helen
Davis, of Israel in the World — Changing Lives Through Innovation, which was
published this week by Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Shabbat
Shalom and have a joyful weekend,
With my very best
wishes, as ever,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com
Earlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Books
archived at http://almagor.fetchauthor.info
Center
for Democratic Studies http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/center/