October 2006
Slogan of the Month:
Beware of Evil from the North.
Raphael Cohen-Almagor
This was a relatively quiet month (compared with the recent ones…). This does not
mean it was all quiet on all fronts. There are battles in Gaza. The IDF is continuing its
pursuit of people involved in firing Qassam rockets, attempting to bring some peace
and quiet to the troubled city of Sderot. Sderot has been suffering from the rockets
since August 2005, when Israel had evacuated Gaza.
The news was dominated by two issues: The investigation of President Katsav for
allegations of sex offences, and the attempts of Prime Minister Olmert to enlarge his
coalition. As for the first, on October 15, 2006 the police team investigating
allegations against President Moshe Katsav recommended that the president be
charged with rape, indecent sexual assault, fraud and illegal wiretapping. As for the
second issue, the courted party was Yisrael Beiteinu, headed by Avigdor Lieberman.
After intense talks, we now see this Putin-like democtator, and its racist party inside
the coalition. I wish Olmert and Lieberman a glorious failure.
The Hezbollah War; Syria; Elections Now; Polls; Changing the Electoral
System; Lieberman; Guest Article: Disengagement 2005 the Correct Decision;
President Katsav; Peres; European Journalism Fellowships in Berlin; Freedom
House Launches Online Press Freedom Resource; British Chevening
Scholarships 2007/2008; Haifa Film Festival; http://almagor.blogspot.com
The Hezbollah War
I received comments and criticisms of my harsh critique of the Quartet. The criticisms
have two dimensions: The first relates to my analysis of the decision-making process;
the second is utilitarian, cost-benefit, saying that the alternative might be worse than
our present leadership.
As for the second: It is not up to me to decide the identity of Israeli leadership. I know
that I don’t trust my government anymore, and am afraid of what might come next.
They lack the prudence needed in such levels of decision-making, concerning 7
million people in Israel, and dozens of millions in countries around us. I believe the
present leadership is unfit for the job, and it is for the Israeli public to elect a new
leadership in which we could put our trust.
As for the first line of criticisms: On the eve of Yom Kippur, Chief of Staff Dan
Halutz gave a revealing interview (Alex Fishman and Ariela Ringel-Hoffman, “I find
it difficult to bear the cost of the war”, Yedioth Ahronoth, Yom Kippur Supplement,
October 1, 2006). Read carefully what he has to say.
Halutz came to the government meeting on July 12, 2006 with a recommendation to
retaliate strongly. He did not know what will be the scope of the operation. The
assessment was that the Hezbollah will fight back with rockets. “I did not know that
this would escalate into a war of such scope” (p. 6).
“That night we did know that we are heading to fight a war against the Hezbollah; we
spoke ofa disproportional response to what the Hezbollah did” (p. 6).
Halutz expected the Hezbollah attack on the north. [The interviewers did not ask him
whether he expected that the scope of the rocket attacks will be 150-200 per day, from
Metullah to Hadera. RCA] He wanted to bring Lebanon into the “operations” by
attacking the State of Lebanon. The idea was to motivate international actors to come
to Lebanon in order to influence the course of events. [Hence, attacking Lebanese
infrastructure, like the port, power stations, bridges and the airport. RCA.] Halutz says
he would repeat the same recommendations today. [Quite startling, don’t you think?
RCA]
One of the ministers asked about the estimated length of operation. Halutz said “we
could not provide a timetable. We talked about days, not weeks” (p. 6).
To the question: “Did anyone asked you about ground operations? Did you raise the
issue yourself”, Halutz answered: “That night, truth needs to be said, I did not
appraise, nor did anyone else, that this would reach the point it had reached” (p. 6).
Halutz said he did recommend declaring war. [Indeed, according to my government,
what we experienced for more than a month is not war. The government is the only
body in Israel that calls the war “campaign”. Indeed, in their logic, war was never
declared, never intended, never opened. Hence, this was not war. RCA]
Halutz maintained: “I will patiently wait till the inquiries are complete. If it will be
found that I failed in my conduct, I will resign” (p. 6). [And this is the man whose
admirers assert that he is a quick thinker, wise, with ability to grasp issues to the
fullest. God. RCA].
Halutz established nine inquiry committees that are supposed to hand out their
recommendations until December. He believes we need to say the truth to ourselves
(p. 8). [Halutz believes the truth should be told only by him and by his people. The
others are biased and, in any event, lack the knowledge/ability/wisdom to discern
truth from falsehood. RCA]
Halutz warned that Israel is close to military confrontation in Gaza. Israel should not
allow Gaza to become another Lebanon (p. 8).
On October 16, 2006 Channel 2 broadcast an investigative report of the Hezbollah
War. According to this report, one (1) government meeting preceded the decision to
bomb targets in Beirut. They spoke of “a retaliatory operation”. The government had
no idea that by this they forced the region into war. This is scary. No checks and
balances. No monitoring mechanisms. You put the wrong people in a high-powered
position, and they can open war without knowing it, in one harsh meeting, based on
wrong conceptions and analysis of the Chief of Staff. And we trust our lives in the
hands of these people. God. Israel needs to wake up. Soon.
Avigdor Lieberman wishes to change our ruling system to the presidential system, as
is the case in Mother Russia. From the above lesson you clearly see that the prime
minister in Israel has enough power. The last thing we need is to make him more
immune and powerful.
Syria
On October 4, 2006 George W. Bush announced that he
has no intention to resume negotiations with Syria. He said this at the time when
Secretary of State Rice was visiting Israel. Bush posed three preconditions for Syria:
full cooperation in the investigations of the murder of Rafiq Hariri; ceasing support
for terrorist organizations and anti-coalition forces in Iraq; and stopping transfer of
ammunition to the Hezbollah.
Bush may have a point in posing these sensible preconditions. At the same time, if he
sees no option in offering carrots to Assad, he should increase the level of sanctions
against Syria. As said time and again, there is no status quo. The present situation
only serves the enemies of the free world.
Elections Now
I reiterate my call for elections before the present leadership
of Israel will commit further mistakes that will cost us dearly. Let the public return to
the polls and make “Kadima” crash in a loud noise. Enough is enough.
Polls
On Friday, October 13, 2006 Yedioth Ahronoth published a comprehensive poll on
political matters. Here are the main findings:
45% support early elections
29% support the establishment of a new coalition.
In other words, 74% are unhappy with the present government. I wonder why…
71% support relocating Amir Peretz to another ministry. Enough is enough. Security
is a too important issue to be left in the hands of a person who does not understand
security.
The two winners of the Hezbollah War remain strong. If elections were held today,
these would be the results:
Likud – 22 seats; Bibi Netanyahu back to the prime minister office
Yisrael Beiteinu – 20 seats
Kadima and Labour – 15 seats (I would be surprised to see Kadima with 15. I think
that until the elections, if nothing substantive would happen, they will be close to
evaporation)
Shas – 10 seats
Other interesting findings:
64% oppose opening negotiations with Syria. As I thought, Israel is not ready to speak
peace with Syria at this stage.
62% support having an alternative to the religious marriage ceremony. People wish to
have alternatives to choose from, not only one option.
Changing the Electoral System
The President's Committee on Election Reform has
completed its study, recommending changing the electoral system. I said time and
again that in this regard we should learn from Germany. Germany is using a mixed
electoral system in which part of the Bundestag is elected in single majority districts
in which a candidate must gain the greatest number of votes to win, and part is elected
through proportional representation, which gives all parties a fair opportunity to gain
some representation in the legislature based on their electoral strength.
Germany’s policymakers after WWII
wanted to avoid a repetition of the Weimar proportional representation system, which
encouraged multiplicity of parties to run candidates for the Reichstag, thereby
contributing to political instability and to the rise of National Socialism. In the early
1990s, Russia, Mexico and Japan adopted a similar mixed electoral system. I suggest
the same for Israel. Sixty percent of the Knesset to be elected directly via a party list
as is now the case in the proportional system, and forty percent to be elected in the
provinces. The idea is to split Israel into several provinces in a way that would reflect
the various groups in society and their relative prominence. Each voter will cast two
ballots: the first for one of the competing party candidates in the province; the second
for one of the lists of candidates drawn up by each party. The number of mandates
received by the party is based on its percentage of votes in the entire country. The
seats are then distributed to the parties according to their strength in each province.
The combination of a higher threshold (I recommend three percent) and a mixed
electoral system would reduce the ability of small interest parties to be elected, will
make the Knesset less diversified, with five or six parties at most, and reduce the
extortion power of the small parties, some of which would altogether disappear. The
Knesset’s power will rise and its effectiveness as a legislative body would grow.
These reforms have been put on the public agenda time and again, and every time had
been turned down due to pressure exerted by the small parties fighting for their
survival. Most notably, the religious parties have resisted such attempts with notable
success. Israel needs strong and bold leaders who are able to rise above and beyond
their immediate interest to sustain power in order to carry out these reforms to better
legislative ability.
Olmert is willing to consider changing the electoral system. First, he needs something
to do. Second, he will consider more or less anything which could save his seat, and
enable him to remain in power. Third, he realizes that all the suggestions that are now
put forward are all the result of lack of leadership. The feelings of discontent and
frustration are fueled by a growing recognition that the nation needs a new father.
Since the hospitalization of Sharon, many Israelis feel that there is no captain to direct
our ragged boat in the stormy waters.
Lieberman
Avigdor Lieberman was able to harvest the fruits of the Hezbollah
War and to enter the coalition. He needs all the legitimacy he can get. Since Meir
Kahane, he is the most frightening figure in Israeli politics.
Labour MKs mumbled something about their inability to sit in the same coalition with
Lieberman but upon acceptance of some political bribes from Olmert, their
conscience or whatever is left of it was calmed down. They would like to keep their
ministerial seats warm and cozy. The only Labour minister to oppose the decision was
Sports and Culture Minister Ophir Pines- Paz. I like him
Labour MKs Avishai Braverman, Danny Yatom, Nadia Hilou, Shelly Yachimovich
and Raleb Majedele signed a protest letter, saying quite rightly: "Sitting together with
Lieberman would legitimize a perception that supports the expulsion of Arabs and
would legitimize Lieberman as a leader; it would harbor a Netanyahu-style economic
policy and a diplomatic deadlock that could lead to a military escalation". I am
disappointed that only they signed the letter.
On October 25, 2006 Labour leader and Defense Minister Amir Peretz said he
believes the coalition in its new format could perhaps last "even a year," but only if
there's a political process to end the stalemate in which he is embroiled. I think Peretz
is incorrect, yet again. This could have been his escape route from the honey trap
called Defence Ministry, but Peretz does not miss an opportunity to take more
erroneous decisions.
If, as expected, Labor's central committee approves on Sunday staying in a coalition
with Yisrael Beiteinu, the cabinet will ratify Avigdor Lieberman's inclusion in the
government the following day.
Guest Article: Disengagement 2005 the Correct Decision
I was asked many times whether I
still support the idea of Gaza First for which I campaigned since 2000, until its
acceptance by Prime Minister Sharon. I answered in the positive, mainly because
there was no future for Israel in Gaza, and because we were losing many soldiers who
were defending the settlers. In 2000, of course, I had no idea that the Hamas will gain
the leadership. I did know about the Qassams, but thought Israel should devise
method to counter the problem. I still think this is the case. We should invest in antirocket defense which would effectively protect our skies and block the rockets in the
air.
The following article was published recently on Mideast: On Target. I am grateful for
permission to copy it here.
by Yisrael Ne’eman and Elliot Chodoff
By the end of this summer many in Israel, and possibly even a majority have declared
last summer’s Disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria to be a
mistake. We will take a close look at this assertion, attempting to analyze the events
of the past year in historical, political and military perspectives. It is clear that those
who were and remain religiously or ideologically opposed to the Disengagement will
not find this analysis relevant, since for them the withdrawal is not to be measured by
events but by predetermined values.For those who believed that Israel’s withdrawal
from Gaza would convince the Palestinians that they should end their war with the
Jewish State and return to the Peace Process, the Disengagement was certainly a
failure. We did not share that political naiveté, and considered the withdrawal from
the perspective of geography, demography and strategy. It was, in our opinion, the
least bad alternative in dealing with the reality known as Gaza.In this discussion, we
will analyze the effects of the Disengagement a year later, but we will not consider the
wisdom or folly of Israel’s policies in the aftermath. Simply put, even if the
Disengagement were the correct decision as we believe, The 8,000 Jews in Gaza were
surrounded by 1.3 million Palestinians, most of them Hamas supporters, as we saw in
the January elections when Hamas took 76 out of 132 parliamentary seats. Sharon’s
withdrawal decision made sense from both a political (disentangling from a binational situation) and military (completely indefensible settlements) perspective. It
had the added benefit of eliciting an explicitly and publicly stated shift in US foreign
policy. Israel gained on both fronts. Remaining in Gaza did not enhance anyone’s
security, least of all those Jews who resided there who were pounded constantly by
Palestinian rockets.Today, the central popular criticism is that the unilateral
withdrawal encouraged terrorism, in particular of the World Jihadist type as
represented by the Hamas. Another point presents then-prime minister Sharon as
willing to evacuate Jews as a way of avoiding a criminal investigation into alleged
fraudulent election funding for his 1999 Likud chairmanship campaign. Before
delving into these issues we need to consider some historical examples. The great
Revisionist leader, Zev Jabotinsky was in favor of not reclaiming Tel Hai, Metulla
and Kfar Giladi in 1920 after the area was overrun by Bedouin, leaving heavy Jewish
casualties at Tel Hai, including Zionist hero Yosef Trumpeldor. David Ben Gurion
and Menachem Ussishkin overruled him and sent pioneers to resettle the Galilee
Panhandle. Jabotinsky did not want to aggravate relations with the British since the
northern border between the Jewish National Home of the Palestine Mandate and the
French Lebanese Mandate had not yet been decided. He considered the alliance with
the British more important than settlement in this specific region.Ben Gurion ordered
the withdrawal from Bet Ha’arava in 1948 when he realized the kibbutz was
indefensible against Jordanian army attacks. In 1951 after losing several bloody
battles in the El Hama region (Hamat Gader) at the southern tip of the Golan Heights,
BG ordered the army to abandon its exposed posts deep in the Yarmukh River valley
as they faced continuous Syrian attacks originating from high ground.Likud prime
minister and staunch Revisionist Menachem Begin evacuated all of the Sinai
Peninsula in return for peace with Egypt during the years 1979 – 82, including the
Labor Party built settlements that housed 6,000 residents. Furthermore, Begin offered
to give Gaza to Egypt, meaning a further evacuation of Jews, but Egyptian President
Sadat refused the offer and told him to deal with the Palestinians instead. Those who
condemn the “secularists” for what they did must consider that both BG and Begin
had members of the National Religious Party in their governments. We have an
interesting biblical precedent for this phenomenon: King Solomon handed over
twenty cities in the Land of Kabul (central western Galilee) to King Hiram of Tyre as
payment for his help in building and decorating the First Temple in Jerusalem.The
point is that lands have been ceded by Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel when
worthwhile or necessary, whether the reason be military, political, diplomatic or
religious. Those who have ceded the lands have been left, right, secular and religious
and all had the interests of the Jewish People in mind. We must also consider the
approximately 10,000 Jews who were forced to leave their homes and their
perspective. The majority of Israelis living in the areas evacuated were and most
likely continue to be supporters of the National Religious Party (NRP) or the National
Union (NU). Both believe in the Greater Land of Israel as a value, even if the NRP is
somewhat more moderate in approach. They consider the Disengagement an
“expulsion”, often compare it to atrocities against Jews over the ages in Europe and
the Moslem world and view the Sharon government as having betrayed them. Many
have dropped out of the Israeli political mainstream preferring to “disengage” from
the state. Their ideological view is one of God’s will (diocentrism) versus that of an
Israeli government elected by humans (anthrocentism). Next is the issue of Sharon’s
corruption. Arik was the national leader and “bulldozer” who had a hand in the
establishment of more settlements than any other Israeli political figure. The Right
(religious or not) did not consider him corrupt when he was in the settlement business,
only when he turned against them. To think Sharon would change his whole ideology
and legacy due to possible charges of receiving illegal election funds is to ignore his
decades of military and public service to the state. Rather, Sharon, was a right wing
secular politician who was willing to withdraw from parts of Judea, Samaria and Gaza
if he believed it was beneficial to the State of Israel and the Jewish People. He closed
this deal with US President George Bush in April 2004 with the exchange of letters in
which the former asserted: Israel’s right to build the controversial security fence; the
right of Israel to pursue terrorism where ver; that the 1949-67 armistice lines are not
necessarily the final border as Jewish settlement blocs need to be considered in a
permanent status agreement (PSA) and that the Palestinians had no right to refugee
return inside Israel proper.None of this absolves the state from its obligations towards
those evacuated. The state failed miserably in moving, resettling and reintegrating the
Gaza and northern Samaria residents into Israeli society; there is no excuse for such
lack of sensitivity and planning.The security question and the impact the
Disengagement had on terrorism must now be considered, as Israel continues to face
an ongoing security threat from Gaza as well as other areas.The two most publicized
issues relating the Disengagement to Israel’s war on terror are that of the tunnels
through which the Palestinian terrorist organizations smuggle arms and munitions
from Egypt in to the Gaza area and the accelerated firing of rockets into Southern
Israel. In the first issue there are those who contend that the withdrawal of IDF forces
from Gush Katif and the zone of the Egyptian border has allowed the terrorists
unprecedented latitude in acquiring large quantities of sophisticated weapons.This
assertion suffers from serious shortcomings. First, the arms smuggling, through
tunnels and otherwise, plagued the IDF for years prior to the Disengagement, and no
satisfactory solution has yet been found. The economic incentives to the Palestinians
for digging and operating the tunnels far outweigh the risks involved, including the
demolitions of the buildings in which the tunnels originate. The IDF has, despite years
of effort, found no technological solution to the tunnels and the cross border
smuggling. While it is true that this past year has seen an unprecedented rise in
weapons smuggling, the trend has been increasing over the years, even when the IDF
was emplaced along the Gaza-Egyptian border. The rate of smuggling seems to have
more to do with Egyptian efforts, or lack thereof, than IDF presence or absence in
fixed positions. The rapid rate of increase may be the result of the Disengagement, but
the tone had been set years earlier.Likewise, the Kassam rocket attacks, which have
increased over the past year, were already on the rise before the disengagement. Gush
Katif had suffered thousands of rocket and mortar attacks in the years prior to the
withdrawal, as had the towns and villages of the Negev around Gaza. Improved
rockets and increased ranges were already an issue in past years, and the
Disengagement certainly did not move Beit Hanun any closer to Sderot than it already
was.On the plus side the withdrawal freed up front line infantry forces to fight
terrorism in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. Without commenting on the poor
command performance of the IDF in the summer war against Hizbullah, the forces
used to combat that organization would not have been available had they still been
committed to protecting the residents of Gaza. The withdrawal removed thousands of
choice, easy targets from under the guns of Palestinian terrorists, making the business
of terrorism more than a bit more difficult for those in Gaza to practice. We have
witnessed a surge in violence between Palestinian factions, at least in part a result of
their inability to attack Israelis with ease. The removal of the IDF from the area
permitted the terrorists to parade their weapons in public, but in the absence of Israeli
targets, they have largely turned those weapons on each other. It is too early to tell
whether the Hamas-Fatah conflict will erupt into full scale civil war, but their façade
of unity was certainly broken in the aftermath of the disengagement. Last but not
least, the Disengagement gained for Israel a modicum of world support that allowed
for a freer hand in dealing with terrorists in Gaza today. There is little question that
the anti terrorist offensive that began in early July with the grabbing of IDF soldier
Gilad Shalit would have faced serious condemnation and threat of sanctions from
world bodies had Israel not relinquished Gaza a year ago. Instead, the IDF has been
given essentially a carte blanche to combat Hamas as it sees fit, with hardly a peep
from the rest of the world. This phenomenon is not about the righteousness of Israel’s
cause against the terrorists (it was righteous before the withdrawal, too) but rather the
perception of the world that Israel made a gesture and was repaid with
violence.Despite the fact that the Disengagement was strategically correct, it should
not be generalized or projected automatically into other areas. What was correct for
Gaza is not necessarily so for the West Bank or the Golan Heights. Each area is
unique: geographically, topographically, demographically, economically and
militarily. Perhaps the greatest success of the Disengagement is that it convinced
many optimists that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is not about territory, and in so
doing, shifted them from unrealistic optimists to harder thinking pragmatists. Whether
that was worth the price, only history will tell.
***************************
President Katsav
This affair did not make much sense from the start. Usually,
on sex allegations, the defendant tries to minimize the gap between his (it is usually a
man) version and the version of his victim. Not here. While the woman stated
explicitly that Katsav had raped her on several occasions, he claimed “none
whatsoever. I never had sex with that woman” (the phrasing may remind you of
another president in another country). Clearly, one was lying over and beyond his/her
teeth. The woman, known as A., received the trust of the police, who believed her
version to be more credible. Katsav’s defence strategy collapsed in a loud noise. If
there was anything between the two of them, he should have admitted this. But this is
not what you expect from your president, a married man with grown children.
I reiterate my call to set a special committee whose aim will be to recommend to the
Knesset a State President. The Knesset is not the most qualified body to elect a
president. Usually they elect their friends. The committee, comprised of the Great and
the Good in Israel, i.e., of public figures, retired Supreme Court Justices, retired
politicians, prominent people in the economy, media leaders, and others, would
recommend a candidate, and then members of the Knesset would vote, in an open
procedure, whether to accept the recommendation. If they don’t accept the
recommendation, detailed explanation should be supplied to the public. The
Committee should be of 13 members, will receive recommendations in writing from
all citizens of Israel who wish to voice their opinion, and after lengthy scrutiny will
make their decision.
Peres
The media are already preparing for Katsav's
successor. At the top of the list is Shimon Peres. You may recall that he lost to Katsav
in the previous round. He would like to avoid another likely embarrassment, hence
will be very cautious in accepting the proposal to run again in a Knesset which he
does not much appreciate.
If he were to ask my opinion, I would advise against. Israel needs his experience in
government. Anyway, I don't see him cutting ties from politics. I tend to think this is
too much to ask of him. Old habits die hard. Peres can far better exploit his talents
where he is now.
European Journalism Fellowships in Berlin
Application invited for the 9th round (Oct. 2007 to July 2008)
Deadline December 15, 2006
Journalists from across Europe and the United States are invited to apply for the
European Journalism-Fellowships, offered this year for the 9th time by the
Journalisten-Kolleg of the Free University of Berlin. Participants are given the
opportunity to take a two-semester leave from their professional positions and spend a
sabbatical year at the Freie Universitaet, pursuing a major research project or an
individual programme of studies. At the same time, the programme enables
participants to network with professional colleagues from Eastern and Western
Europe and the United States. The programme starts in October 2007 and ends in July
2008. Highly qualified journalists in either staff positions or freelance employment
with several years of professional experience, not currently residing in Berlin, are
eligible to apply. The centre piece of the application is a proposal for a scientificjournalistic project to be pursued in Berlin. Certification of German language
proficiency is required (e.g. Goethe Institut, DAAD).
We offer the following fellowships, for a period of 10 months:
Junior-Fellowships for journalists from Central and Eastern Europe with about five
years of professional experience. Junior Fellows receive a monthly stipend of 1,025
Euros.
Standard-Fellowships endowed with a monthly stipend of between 1,100 and 1,500
Euros - depending on the level of professional experience (at least 5 years).
Applicants for the special Abgeordnetenhaus of Berlin (Berlin State Parliament)
Foundation scholarship, endowed with a monthly stipend of 1,300 Euros and
restricted to outstanding journalists from one of World War II Allied Nations (USA,
former USSR, France, Great Britain) must, in addition, submit a review of their
research proposal by an academic expert or professor.
The European Journalism Fellowship programme is being funded by several
foundations and major media enterprises, in cooperation with the Freie Universitaet
Berlin. Current sponsors include FAZIT-Foundation (Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung), Haniel-Foundation and Presse-Haus NRZ Foundation, as well as four major
political foundations: Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation, Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation,
Hanns-Seidel-Foundation, and Heinrich-Böll-Foundation.
Since 1999, 87 journalists from 28 nations have benefited from a European
Journalism Fellowship to spend a sabbatical year of research and studies in Berlin.
Major media companies have granted leaves of absence to journalists for participation
in the EJF programme. Over the years, a close network of journalism has emerged
among alumni. The European Journalism Fellowships of the Journalisten-Kolleg at
the Free University of Berlin have thereby established themselves as a significant
platform for journalists at the European level. For the future of European integration,
especially the convergence of Eastern and Western Europe, it will be increasingly
important for journalists to be familiar with their neighbouring countries, to have
international contacts, and to become acquainted with different cultures. Our aim is to
support the professional and personal development of journalists in this spirit.
The closing deadline for applications is December 15, 2006.
For more detailed information and application forms please contact:
Europäische Journalisten-Fellowships Journalisten-Kolleg Freie Universität Berlin
Otto-von-Simson-Str. 3, D-14195 Berlin
E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ejf.fu-berlin.de
Freedom House Launches Online Press Freedom Resource
Freedom House has released a new web-based resource providing comprehensive
information about press freedom around the world. The website includes global and
regional pages highlighting the main trends for each year, as well as detailed historical
data since 1980 from the organisation's annual Freedom of the Press survey.
Other features of the new web pages include annual essays summarising the state of
global press freedom, interactive maps showing the state of press freedom in a
country for each year since 2002, and reports and ratings for every country in the
world. The web pages also contain links to press freedom resources, including
Freedom House press releases, op-eds, programmatic activities, and other press
freedom and media support groups.
"Freedom of the Press: A Global Survey of Media Independence" covers 194
countries and territories and rates each country's media as Free, Partly Free, or Not
Free. Country narratives examine the legal environment for the media, political
pressures that influence reporting, and economic factors that affect access to
information.
Visit: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16
British Chevening Scholarships 2007/2008
I would like to draw your attention to the British Chevening Scholarships offered
every year by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), to enable promising
young people in Israel to spend between three and twelve months in Britain for post
graduate study or research. The British Council administers these funding schemes on
behalf of the British Embassy in Israel.
Candidates interested in applying should contact our Scholarships Department at the
address below, or access our website for application forms, guidelines and further
information.
All fields of study are considered, but priority is given to subject areas related to
politics and government, conflict prevention, regional and economic development,
law and human rights, environment, media, business and economics, information
technology and applied science.
We are now inviting applications for the academic year 2007/8. The FCO is
particularly interested in applicants who, in addition to academic excellence, show
leadership potential, strong motivation, good communication skills and an interest in
contributing to Israeli society.
If you would like copies of our information sheet for distribution or to display on your
notice boards, please contact us and we will be happy to send some to you.
The deadline for submitting completed applications is 18 December 2006
Claire LevyInformation & Scholarships ManagerBritish
[email protected] opportunity for people worldwide
http://www.britishcouncil.org/israel
The British Chevening Scholarship 2007 programme has been launched. Closing date
for application is 18/12/2006. For more information please log on to
www.britishcouncil.org/israel-education-scholarships-chevening.htm
Haifa Film Festival
The Haifa International Film Festival was held during the holiday of Succoth on the
ridge of Mount Carmel overlooking the Mediterranean Sea. The Festival was founded
in 1983 and was the first of its kind in Israel. Over the years, the Festival became the
biggest and most important film celebration in Israel. Each year, the Haifa
International Film Festival brings together an audience of 60,000 moviegoers along
with hundreds of Israeli and foreign professionals from the film and television
industries.
During its eight days of celebration, the otherwise sleepy Haifa woke up for the
occasion, its streets booming with people, with live music attracting people outside
the main auditorium. The atmosphere reminded me of the Toronto Film Festival,
which was held last month. The Festival premiered some 150 new films from the best
and most recent international productions and held 220 screenings in seven theaters
and under the sky: feature films, documentaries, animation, short films, retrospectives
and tributes. Cheers for many more events of this kind.
http://almagor.blogspot.com
I was asked about my blog. Its address supra. Essentially it comprises the newsletters
sent to you, with the additional benefit of relevant photos. You are welcome to visit
and explore.
With my very best wishes,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com
Earlier posts at my home page: http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/
Center for Democratic Studies http://cds.haifa.ac.il/