Skip to content

Archive

Tag: Israeli
Rafi Segal the Israeli architect and urbanism expert has been profiled by Michael Sorkin in an article published in The Nation magazine titled ‘The Trials of Rafi Segal’. Sorkin states “In early 2012, the National Library of Israel announced a competition for a new building in Jerusalem. The site was one of special prominence—near the Knesset, the Supreme Court and the Israel Museum—and the project enjoyed enormous national prestige. The competition was sponsored by two entities: the Israel National Library Construction Company and Yad Hanadiv, a foundation funded and controlled by the Rothschild family and the principal funder of the library project. The track record of the Rothschilds in sponsoring Israeli architectural competitions is somewhat checkered, which isn’t surprising for a rich and powerful organization participating in processes where the outcome is, theoretically, beyond its control. …When the library competition was announced, it almost immediately became mired in similar issues of power and manipulation. …And then something remarkable happened: in September 2012, Rafi Segal—a very talented young Israeli architect—became the jury’s enthusiastic choice. His elegant, subtle, site-sensitive scheme was described by the jury as “modest yet original and unique.” And so it was. …Then the assault began. First came an attack on Segal by Yair Gabbay, an attorney from the Jerusalem Municipality Planning and Building Committee, who threatened to thwart the permit process for the new building unless the National Library Board promised to “cancel the results of the tender and start a new process to choose a worthy planner for the National Library from among the Zionist architects living in Israel” Gabbay’s beef with Segal had to do with the latter’s authorship a decade ago (with Eyal Weizman) of the fine book A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture, which succinctly examined the spatial specifics of Israeli settlement policy. …This was only the beginning…”  Inspired by Michael Sorkin, The Nation ow.ly/kBg8D Image source LinkedIn ow.ly/kBfZM A worthy planner for the National Library (May 31 2013)

 

Rafi Segal the Israeli architect and urbanism expert has been profiled by Michael Sorkin in an article published in The Nation magazine titled ‘The Trials of Rafi Segal’. Sorkin states “In early 2012, the National Library of Israel announced a competition for a new building in Jerusalem. The site was one of special prominence—near the Knesset, the Supreme Court and the Israel Museum—and the project enjoyed enormous national prestige. The competition was sponsored by two entities: the Israel National Library Construction Company and Yad Hanadiv, a foundation funded and controlled by the Rothschild family and the principal funder of the library project. The track record of the Rothschilds in sponsoring Israeli architectural competitions is somewhat checkered, which isn’t surprising for a rich and powerful organization participating in processes where the outcome is, theoretically, beyond its control. …When the library competition was announced, it almost immediately became mired in similar issues of power and manipulation. …And then something remarkable happened: in September 2012, Rafi Segal—a very talented young Israeli architect—became the jury’s enthusiastic choice. His elegant, subtle, site-sensitive scheme was described by the jury as “modest yet original and unique.” And so it was. …Then the assault began. First came an attack on Segal by Yair Gabbay, an attorney from the Jerusalem Municipality Planning and Building Committee, who threatened to thwart the permit process for the new building unless the National Library Board promised to “cancel the results of the tender and start a new process to choose a worthy planner for the National Library from among the Zionist architects living in Israel” Gabbay’s beef with Segal had to do with the latter’s authorship a decade ago (with Eyal Weizman) of the fine book A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture, which succinctly examined the spatial specifics of Israeli settlement policy. …This was only the beginning…”

 

Inspired by Michael Sorkin, The Nation ow.ly/kBg8D Image source LinkedIn ow.ly/kBfZM

Catherine Rottenberg the Israeli Assistant Professor in the Department of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics and the Gender Studies Program at Ben-Gurion University has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Hijacking feminism’, arguing that powerful women are introducing a new form of feminism devoid of social justice. Rottenberg states “A new trend is on the rise. Suddenly high-powered women are publically espousing feminism. In her recently published book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead Facebook's chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg advocates for a new kind of feminism, maintaining that women need to initiate an "internalised revolution". Sandberg's feminist manifesto comes on the heels of Ann-Marie Slaughter's much- discussed Atlantic opinion piece, "Why Women Still Can't Have It All", which rapidly became the most widely read essay in the magazine's history. In her piece, Slaughter explains why professional women are still finding it difficult to balance career demands with their wish for an active home life: social norms and the inflexibility of US workplace culture continue to privilege career advancement over family. The buzz that has surrounded these two "how-to-reinvigorate-feminism" programmes suggests that Sandberg and Slaughter have struck a deep cultural chord. Indeed, the two women are quickly becoming the most visible representatives of US feminism in the early 21st century.  …Articulated at a time when Western liberal democracies are loudly decrying women's lack of freedom in the Muslim world while lionising gender equality in their own societies, it actually makes a kind of cultural sense to shift the conversation away from the gendered division of labour and profound social injustices upon which US liberalism itself is constituted. The turn to the language of balance, internalising the revolution and a happiness project, in other words, puts the burden of unhappiness, failure and disequilibrium once again on the shoulders of individual women while diverting attention away from US self-scrutiny with respect to its own "woman problem". “ Inspired by Catherine Rottenberg, Aljazeera ow.ly/jBfip Image source bgu ow.ly/jBfha New form of feminism devoid of social justice (April 28 2013)

 

Catherine Rottenberg the Israeli Assistant Professor in the Department of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics and the Gender Studies Program at Ben-Gurion University has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Hijacking feminism’, arguing that powerful women are introducing a new form of feminism devoid of social justice. Rottenberg states “A new trend is on the rise. Suddenly high-powered women are publically espousing feminism. In her recently published book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead Facebook’s chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg advocates for a new kind of feminism, maintaining that women need to initiate an “internalised revolution”. Sandberg’s feminist manifesto comes on the heels of Ann-Marie Slaughter’s much- discussed Atlantic opinion piece, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All”, which rapidly became the most widely read essay in the magazine’s history. In her piece, Slaughter explains why professional women are still finding it difficult to balance career demands with their wish for an active home life: social norms and the inflexibility of US workplace culture continue to privilege career advancement over family. The buzz that has surrounded these two “how-to-reinvigorate-feminism” programmes suggests that Sandberg and Slaughter have struck a deep cultural chord. Indeed, the two women are quickly becoming the most visible representatives of US feminism in the early 21st century.  …Articulated at a time when Western liberal democracies are loudly decrying women’s lack of freedom in the Muslim world while lionising gender equality in their own societies, it actually makes a kind of cultural sense to shift the conversation away from the gendered division of labour and profound social injustices upon which US liberalism itself is constituted. The turn to the language of balance, internalising the revolution and a happiness project, in other words, puts the burden of unhappiness, failure and disequilibrium once again on the shoulders of individual women while diverting attention away from US self-scrutiny with respect to its own “woman problem”. “

 

Inspired by Catherine Rottenberg, Aljazeera ow.ly/jBfip Image source bgu ow.ly/jBfha

Ronnie Barkan the 35 year old Israeli human rights activist, conscientious objector and co-founder of Boycott from Within, a group of Israeli citizens and residents which supports the Palestinian call for BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel), has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Demanding equality - how is that illegal?’. Barkan states “If the anti-boycott law is ever put to the test, the first cases may provide an even greater boost to the BDS movement. …speaking as an Israeli-Jewish boycott activist who is working to end Israeli apartheid, the law actually serves our struggle. There is a long list of discriminatory laws against non-Jews in Israel or those affected by Israeli policies. Many of these laws were passed during the early days of the state following the forced ethnic cleansing that was meant to create an artificial Jewish majority on that land. Such racist laws were put in place to maintain, as well as institutionalise, that crime. Then came the military occupation of 1967 which introduced a whole slew of repressive military laws aimed specifically against the Palestinians under occupation. Military tribunals, with a whopping 99.7 per cent conviction rate, still stand to this day. In that sense, the anti-boycott law is nothing out of the ordinary. It is only different in one respect - that the target audience includes the privileged group under Israeli apartheid. …The Israeli anti-boycott legislation, which is meant to stifle any attempt to hold it accountable for its violations of international law, is a serious matter. Consequently, it is worrisome that several European governments have recently attempted to protect Israel from holding it legally accountable by conditioning their vote at the UN on denying recourse for Palestinians in front of the International Criminal Court, where they may have access to the protection of international law.” Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/gpPrG image source Restiamoumani ow.ly/gpPpU Demanding equality – how is that illegal (January 4 2013)

Ronnie Barkan the 35 year old Israeli human rights activist, conscientious objector and co-founder of Boycott from Within, a group of Israeli citizens and residents which supports the Palestinian call for BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel), has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Demanding equality – how is that illegal?’. Barkan states “If the anti-boycott law is ever put to the test, the first cases may provide an even greater boost to the BDS movement. …speaking as an Israeli-Jewish boycott activist who is working to end Israeli apartheid, the law actually serves our struggle. There is a long list of discriminatory laws against non-Jews in Israel or those affected by Israeli policies. Many of these laws were passed during the early days of the state following the forced ethnic cleansing that was meant to create an artificial Jewish majority on that land. Such racist laws were put in place to maintain, as well as institutionalise, that crime. Then came the military occupation of 1967 which introduced a whole slew of repressive military laws aimed specifically against the Palestinians under occupation. Military tribunals, with a whopping 99.7 per cent conviction rate, still stand to this day. In that sense, the anti-boycott law is nothing out of the ordinary. It is only different in one respect – that the target audience includes the privileged group under Israeli apartheid. …The Israeli anti-boycott legislation, which is meant to stifle any attempt to hold it accountable for its violations of international law, is a serious matter. Consequently, it is worrisome that several European governments have recently attempted to protect Israel from holding it legally accountable by conditioning their vote at the UN on denying recourse for Palestinians in front of the International Criminal Court, where they may have access to the protection of international law.”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/gpPrG image source Restiamoumani ow.ly/gpPpU

How hatred plays a role in politics (November 29 2012) How hatred plays a role in politics (November 29 2012)

Niza Yanay the 61 year old Israeli Professor of Sociology and Anthropology has been interviewed by Neve Gordon in an Aljazeera article titled ‘The Ideology of Hatred’ discussing how ‘hatred’ plays a role in politics. In the interview Yanay states “…distinction between hatred as an experience and hatred as ideology underscored the need to ask new questions about the relation between politics and hatred. And these new questions, I believe, need to focus on power relations between different groups, such as coloniser and colonised, ruler and subject, and not so much on the personal experience of specific individuals who experience hatred (though such questions are still important too). …Most people consider “suicide bombings” as motivated by hate, while very few people consider air strikes on populated areas to be hate crimes. The media often describes the suicide attack as a hate crime, but I have never come across a report describing the US drone attacks in Pakistan – that have killed over 3,500 people – as hate crimes. This suggests that hatred as ideology is at work. And this ideology helps determine who is blamed for being the initiators of hate, who becomes the target of hatred, and, in fact, when hatred counts as hatred at all. Let me give you an example to help clarify my claim. Think about a young adolescent Jewish girl in Israel who leads a comfortable life and has never interacted face-to-face with Palestinians. This is a very reasonable assumption, since Israel is a totally segregated society. Why, it is interesting to ask, would a girl who has never met a Palestinian speak with such vehemence and personal hatred against Palestinians and Arabs in general? Why do so many Jewish citizens of Israel, who have never been hurt by Palestinians, openly admit to intense hatred? This articulates a national ideology of hatred and not merely a personal hatred.”

 

Inspired by Redress ow.ly/fuIio image source Neve Gordon ow.ly/fuIrJ

Send Gaza back to the Middle Ages (November 26 2012) Send Gaza back to the Middle Ages (November 26 2012)

Michael Marder the Spanish Ikerbasque Research Professor of Philosophy has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Israel’s medievalism’ claiming calls to send Gaza “back to the Middle Ages” only reinforce Israel’s current state of medievalism. Marder states “In one of the most brazen and, at the same time, frank declarations to date, the Israeli Minister of the Interior, Eli Yishai stated regarding the war currently being waged on the Gaza Strip: “The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years.” With these words, he revealed much more than the subtext behind the official reasons for the invasion, namely restoring Israel’s “deterrence capabilities” and destroying Hamas missile launchers. He also shed light on Binyamin Netanyahu’s vision of peace not as a relation among equals but as the calm of the defeated, the vision consistent with the use of war to bolster the Prime Minister’s domestic image as a tough, military leader in a run-up to his likely re-election in January 2013. Yishai’s Biblical allusions to forty years of wandering in the desert are not accidental. After all, his political party, Shas, is the utterly fanatical, religious faction in the Netanyahu government. Its ideal of Israel, too, is not very far from being medieval – a country where men and women would be segregated in public transport as well as in every area of public life, where freedom of religion would be a pipe dream, and where homosexuality would be deemed a plague “as toxic as bird flu”. In brief, both the domestic and the foreign policies of Yishai’s party are based on a venomous mix of anti-modernism, theocracy, religious parochialism, and disrespect for human rights.”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/fuDtu image source Michael Marder ow.ly/fuDji

Israeli policies reminiscent of apartheid (November 17 2012) Israeli policies reminiscent of apartheid (November 17 2012)

Heidi-Jane Esakov the South African researcher at the Afro-Middle East Centre, a Johannesburg-based think-tank, has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Israeli policies of dispossession reminiscent of South African apartheid’ discussing how plans to displace bedouins in Israel are reminiscent of the forced removals of blacks in Sophiatown. Esakov states “During the forced removals of the South African suburb of Sophiatown in 1955, around 65,000 residents were moved and “dumped in matchbox houses” in black townships. Only a few years before that, in 1948, Bedouins of Israel’s Naqab/Negev region, who Israel had not expelled, were also forcibly moved “from their ancestral lands into a restricted zone called the Siyag (literally, ‘fenced in’)”. And, just as Sophiatown was completely bulldozed, the Negev village of Al-Arakib was recently razed to make way for a Jewish National Fund forest. As a South African it is particularly difficult not to see the stark parallels between the experiences of black South Africans under apartheid and of Palestinians today. …The villagers of Umm al-Hiran and Al-Arakib are citizens of Israel: Its Arab citizens that Israel prides – and parades – as proof of its democracy. They are, however, not Jewish, a critical determiner of who is entitled to what land and how rights are allocated. …It is not for the oppressor to decide how the oppressed should understand their oppression. But, how is whites-only different to Jewish-only? And, if the forced removal of 30,000 Bedouins to make way for 250,000 Jews is not “systematic oppression… with the intention of maintaining the regime”, what, then, is it?”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/f5wnA image source Twitter ow.ly/f5wKR

No justice for Rachel Corrie (September 17 2012) No justice for Rachel Corrie (September 17 2012)

Neve Gordon the 47 year old Israeli Philosopher of Politics and Government, supporter of the two state solution and member of the Israeli peace camp, has released an article on Aljazeera titled ‘No justice for Rachel Corrie’. Gordon states “Twenty-three-year-old Rachel Corrie …[while] demonstrating against the Israeli military’s massive demolitions of houses on the Egyptian border … was crushed to death by a Caterpillar D9R Israeli military bulldozer … the family filed a civil suit in Israel against the State of Israel and the Defence Ministry. …according to the Israeli military … close to 6,000 grenades were thrown at the IDF in the region, there were 1,400 shooting incidents between the IDF and Palestinians, and 150 roadside bombs were detected. Writing for Haaretz, Amira Hass reveals that bullets were fired in both directions. …101 Palestinians were killed in the region, forty-two of them children. One Israeli soldier was also killed during the same period. The defence team used these statistics against Corrie, claiming that she put herself in harm’s way, but one could, more persuasively I think, say that she was an incredibly courageous human being who believed that all people should enjoy basic rights, such as freedom, self-determination and security. And Rachel was willing to struggle for such rights. Haifa District Court Judge Oded Gershon showed no empathy toward this line of thinking, and on August 28 handed down his verdict: the State of Israel and the Defence Ministry were not responsible for Rachel Corrie’s death.”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/dCCcl image source openshuhadastreet ow.ly/dCC1k

Dan Meridor the 64 year old Israeli deputy Prime Minister a longtime member of the Likud party and Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy, has admitted Iran’s President Ahmadinejad was misquoted, never saying that Israel must be wiped off the map. Speaking to the Arab network Aljazeera, Meridor stated “They [Iranian leaders] all come basically ideologically, religiously with the statement that Israel is an unnatural creature, it will not survive… They didn’t say ‘we’ll wipe it out,’ but (rather) ‘it will not survive, it is a cancerous tumor, it should be removed’. They repeatedly said ‘Israel is not legitimate, it should not exist’.” An English translation of a speech attributed to Ahmadinejad in 2005 at the “World Without Zionism” conference highlights the problem in translating a Persian metaphorical turn of phrase where there is no exact English language equivalent. The importance of these translation issues rests with how Israel has used the words to garner global support against these Iranian overt threats toward Israel “In the words of Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister: “They are the leaders of Iran who called for a new Holocaust and who vowed to wipe Israel off the map.””

 

Inspired by Dudi Cohen http://ow.ly/anBhZ image source דן מרידור, מאיר שמגר http://ow.ly/anAPd

Rss Feed Tweeter button Facebook button Technorati button Reddit button Myspace button Linkedin button Delicious button Digg button Flickr button Stumbleupon button Newsvine button Youtube button