DOCSLIB.ORG

Nato's Transformation, the Mediterranean Dialogue

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nato's Transformation, the Mediterranean Dialogue NATO’S TRANSFORMATION, THE MEDITERRANEAN DIALOGUE, AND NATO-ISRAEL RELATIONS Conference co-organized by: NATO Public Diplomacy Division Atlantic Forum of Israel Institute for Policy and Strategy, IDC Herzliya Daniel Hotel, Herzliya, October 23-24, 2006 REGISTERED PARTICIPANTS (as of October 17) 1. Adv. Aaron Abramovich, Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2. Mr. Walid Abu-Haya, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 3. Mr. Roni Adam, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 4. Brig. Gen. (res.) Asaf Agmon, Head of The Fisher Institute 5. Mr. Yossi Alpher, Co-editor, Bitterlemons 6. Mr. Michael Altar, Director of External Relation, The Institute for Policy and Strategy 7. Prof. Uzi Arad, Director, Institute for Policy and Strategy, Chair of the Atlantic Forum of Israel 8. Mr. Dan Arbeli, Director of North America Disivion 1, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 9. Dr. Ephraim Asculai, Senior Research Associate, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies 10. Prof. Yisrael Aumann, Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University 11. Prof. Shlomo Avineri, Dep. of Political Science, Hebrew University 12. Mk. Collette Avital, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, Knesset 13. Dr. Shirley Avrami, Director, Research and Information Center, Knesset 14. Mr. Reuven Azar, First Secretary, Middle East Economic Dep., Ministry of Foreign Affairs 15. Mr. Arik Bachar, Foreign Editor, Maariv 16. Mr. Shmuel Bachar, Research Fellow, The Institute for Policy and Strategy 17. Brig. Gen. (res.) Yosi Bainhorn, Inspector General, Ministry of Defense 18. Dr. Shmuel Bar, Director of Studies, The Institute for Policy and Strategy 19. Mrs. Osnat Bar Yosef, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 20. Dr. Eitan Barak, The Dep. of International Relations, Hebrew University 21. Prof. Uri Bar-Joseph, Head of the Dep. of International Relations, Haifa University 22. Prof. Moshe Barniv, Provost and Vice President for Development, The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya 23. Dr. Rami Baror 24. H.E Pedro Nuno Bartolo, Ambassador of Portugal, Embassy of Portugal in Israel 25. Mr. Itzhak Barzilay, Senior Assistant, Ministry of Defense 26. Mr. Shai Bazak, C.E.O, CMPI Israel 27. Dr. Avi Beker, School of Government and Policy, Tel Aviv University 28. Mr. Yosef Ben-Aharon 29. Mr. Avraham Bendor 30. Maj. Gen. David Ben-Bashat, Commander in Chief, Israeli Navy, IDF 31. Prof. Isaac Ben-Israel, Head of the Security Studies Program, Tel Aviv University 32. Lt. Col. David Benjamin, IDF 33. Prof. Yoav Benjamini, Chair, Dep. of Statistics, Tel-Aviv University 34. Mr. Yoni Ben-Menachem, Radio Director, IBA 35. Maj. Gen. (res.) Abraham Ben-Shoshan, Director General, Tel-Aviv Foundation 36. Mr. Eviathar Ben-Zedeff, Research Associate, The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya 37. Prof. Gideon Biger, Dep. of Geography, Tel Aviv University 38. Mrs. Aliza Bin Noun, Head of International Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 39. Mr. Danny Biran, President, Koor Industries LTD 40. Amb. Yoav Biran 41. Ms. Nitzan Blitzblau 42. Mr. Oren Blitzblau 43. Mrs. Naomi Blumenthal 44. Mr. Evgeny Briskin, Head of the Bashan Program 45. Brig. Gen. (res.) Shlomo Brom, Senior Research Associate, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies 46. Dr. Oded Brosh, Senior Research Fellow, The Institute for Policy and Strategy 47. Mr. Hermann Bünz, Director, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung 48. Mr. Dan Catarivas, Director, Division of foreign trade and international relations, Israel Manufacturing Association 49. Mr. Lior Chorev, Deputy Director, Arad Communication 50. Mr. Shaul Chorev, Ministry of Defense 51. MK Ran Cohen, Knesset 52. Adv. Moty Cristal, C.E.O, NEST Consulting 53. Mr. Ran Curiel, Deputy Director General of Western Europe Dep., Ministry of Foreign Affairs 54. Dr. Ronald D. Asmus, Executive Director, Transatlantic Center, German Marshall Fund of the United States 55. Mr. Omri Dagan, Analyst, The Re'ut Institute 56. Major Osnat Davidson, Head of the Foreign relations section, International law department, Military Advocate General corps, IDF 57. Col. (res.) Yoav Dayagi, IDF 58. Mr. Nicola de Santis, Head, Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative Countries Section, NATO Public Diplomacy Division 59. Dr. Josheph Draznin 60. H.E Karlis Eihenbaums, Ambassador of Latvia, Embassy of the Republic of Latvia in Israel 61. Brig. Gen. (res.) Uzi Eilam, Senior Research Associate, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies 62. Prof. Rafi Eldor, Senior lecturer, The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya 63. Mrs. Noa Eliasaf, Vice President, The Re'ut Institute 64. Mr. Raanan Eliaz, Senior Foreign Affairs Coordinator, National Security Council 65. Dr. Giora Eliraz, Truman Research Institute, Hebrew University 66. Dr. Efrat Elron, School of Business Administration, Hebrew University 67. H.E. Dr. Oded Eran, Head of Israel Mission to the European Union 68. Brig. Gen. (res.) Oded Erez, Director, Zercon Enterprises 69. Mr. Ram Erez, Senior Assistant, IAEC 70. Brig. Gen. Amir Eshel, Chief of Air Staff, Air Force Headquarters, IDF 71. Mr. Yoram Ettinger, Consultant , ACPR 72. Mr. Eran Etzion, Deputy for Foreign Policy, National Security Council 73. Mr. Asaf Even-Ezra, Vice President, Magal Security Systems Ltd. 74. Mr. Peter Fischer, Charge d'Affairs of the Embassy of Germany 75. Mr. Shlomi Fogel, Chairman, AMPA LTD. 76. Mr. Gideon Frank, Director General, IAEC 77. Mr. Yair Furman, ISERD- The Israeli European R&D Directorate 78. Mr. Yossi Gal, Senior Deputy Director General for Political Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 79. Dr. Gideon Gera, Senior Researcher, Dayan Center, Tel Aviv University 80. Mr. Ytzhak Gerberg, National Defense College 81. Prof. Eytan Gilboa, Dep. of Political Science, Bar-Ilan University 82. Brig. Gen. Amos Gilboa, Consultant for Intelligence Affairs, Ministry of Defense 83. Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, Director of the Political-Military Division, Ministry of Defense 84. Col. Sima Vaknin Gill, Head Censor, IDF 85. Ms. Rona Goclaw, Research Fellow, The Institute for Policy and Strategy 86. Mr. Nimrod Goren, Executive Director, Young Israeli Forum 87. Mr. Shmuel Goren, Director, Dankner Group 88. Mr. Gidi Grinstein, Founder & President, The Re'ut Institute 89. Mr. Danny Grossman, Israel Director, A.J.C. 90. Brig. Gen. (res.) Adi Gur-Lavie, N.G.A 91. Lt. Col. Yigal Haccoun, IDF 92. Amb. Yacov Hadas 93. Ms. Maya Halavy 94. Mr. Ami Halavy 95. Mr. Dan Halperin, Managing Director, IFTIC Ltd. 96. Mk., Dr. Tzahi Hanegbi, Chairman , Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee , Knesset 97. Dr. Patrick Hardouin, Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Regional Economic and Security Affairs, NATO Political Affairs and Security Policy Division 98. Maj. Gen. (res.) Raphael Harlev, Chairman & C.E.O, Harlev Investments 99. Brig. Gen. Deborah Hassid, Advisor, IDF 100. Brig. Gen. Shimon Hefetz, Aide-de-Camp to the President, President's Office 101. Dr. Mark Heller, Research Director, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies 102. Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Horev , C.E.O, Israel Technion Society 103. Col. (res.) Gideon Hoshen, C.E.O, Hoshen Eliav 104. Mr. Rami Igra, Chairman, Clal-Ins 105. Prof. Efraim Inbar, Director, BESA Center 106. Mr. Pinhas Inbari, KYODO NEWS 107. Prof. Raphael Israeli, Truman Institiute, Hebrew University 108. Mrs. Frédérique Jacquemin, Officer, Regional Affairs and Mediterranean Dialogue, Political Affairs and Security Policy Division 109. H.E Iztok Jarc, Ambassador of Slovenia, Embassy of Slovenia in Israel 110. H.E. Richard Jones, Ambassador, Embassy of the United States of America in Israel 111. Dr. Ephraim Kam, Deputy Head, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies 112. Brig. Gen. (res.) Zvi Kan-Tor, Deputy Head, Nativ 113. Dr. Helena Kane Finn, Counselor for Public Affairs, Embassy of the United States of America in Israel 114. Dr. Ely Karmon, Senior Research Scholar, The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya 115. Mr. Michael Keays, Political/Military Officer, Embassy of the United States of America in Israel 116. Mr. Danishai Kornbluth, Assistant to the Director of the Political-Military Division, Ministry of Defense 117. Mr. Davide La Cecilia, First Counsellor, Political Affairs, Embassy of Italy 118. Mr. Eli Landau, Board of Directors, The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya 119. Col. (res.) Shmuel Letko, Advisor to the Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee, Knesset 120. Mrs. Tova Levi, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 121. Maj. Gen. (res.) Amiram Levin, C.E.O, Israel National Roads Company 122. Dr. Ariel Levite, Principal Deputy Director, IAEC 123. Brig. Gen. (res.) Uzi Levtzur, Projects Manager, Taavura Holdings Ltd 124. H.E Jakken Biorn Lian, Ambassador of Norway, Embassy of Norway in Israel 125. Dr. Amir Licht, Dean, Law School, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya 126. Col. (res.) Shmuel Limone, Senior Consultant, Ministry of Defense 127. Mrs. Lene Natasha Lind, DCOM Minister Counsellor, Royal Norwegian Embassy 128. Dr. Eran Lerman, Director, Israel/Middle East Office, The American Jewish Committee 129. Mr. David Lipkin, Chief Editor, Maariv 130. Adv. Ester Eti Livni 131. Minister Tzipi Livni, Vice Prime Minister & Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 132. Col. (res.), Adv. Lior Lotan, Executive Director, Institute for Counter- Terrorism 133. Mr. Uri Lubrani, Adviser to Minister, Ministry of Defense 134. Ms. Rachel Machtiger, Senior Research Fellow, The Institute for Policy and Strategy 135. Mr. Amiram Magid, Director of Western European Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 136. Mr. Amir Makov, Chairman, Israeli Institute 137. Mr. Miron Manor, Director of Conferences, The Institute for Policy and Strategy 138. Dr. Adv. Shavit Matias, Deputy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Self-Described 'Franglo' Running for Likud List
    Jpost | Print Article Page 1 of 2 August 25, 2012 Saturday 7 Elul 5772 23:25 IST Self-described ‘Franglo’ running for Likud list By GIL HOFFMAN 24/08/2012 Emmanuel Navon aims to represent French and English speaking immigrants in the Knesset. Photo by: Navon.com The only “Anglo” candidate for the Likud’s next Knesset slate may end up being a “Franglo.” In the 2009 election, no less than seven American-born candidates sought Knesset seats with Likud but either dropped out or failed to win realistic slots. This time around, the only announced candidate so far with connections to an English- speaking country is Emmanuel Navon, who was born and raised in Paris, but married a New Yorker, lives among American immigrants in Efrat, and hopes to represent both English and French speakers in the Knesset. “Just living in Efrat you get honorary American citizenship,” Navon joked in an interview at a popular Jerusalem waffle bar. “I attended a bilingual school, went to England every summer, and then lost my English accent in Israel thanks to my wife. I am not saying I can succeed where other [Anglo candidates] failed but there are a lot of votes if you combine the English and French speakers together. It’s time to leverage this political power.” Navon, who earned a doctorate in international relations from the Hebrew University following his aliya in 1993, directs the political science and communications department at Jerusalem Orthodox College and teaches at Tel Aviv University and the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. After 12 years in academia, he decided to make his political expertise less theoretical.
    [Show full text]
  • Arab and Jewish Attitude: Toward a Palestinian State
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (ASC) Annenberg School for Communication 12-1993 Arab and Jewish Attitude: Toward a Palestinian State Majid Al-Haj University of Haifa Elihu Katz University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Samuel Shye Hebrew University of Jerusalem Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers Part of the Communication Commons Recommended Citation Al-Haj, M., Katz, E., & Shye, S. (1993). Arab and Jewish Attitude: Toward a Palestinian State. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37 (4), 619-632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002793037004002 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/243 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Arab and Jewish Attitude: Toward a Palestinian State Abstract This article deals with the attitudes of Arabs and Jews in Israel regarding a Palestinian state. These include their images of such a state, the costs and benefits perceived if a Palestinian state were established, and the fears and desires involved, including the desire to keep contact with the Palestinian population in the various life domains. The article will attempt to analyze the extent to which the attitudes toward the establishment of a Palestinian state and its likely character derive from a rational calculus of expected costs and benefits ot one's own group. Disciplines Communication | Social and Behavioral Sciences This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/243 Arab and Jewish Attitude: Toward a Palestinian State MAJID AL-HAJ University of Haifa ELIHU KATZ Hebrew University of Jerusalem SAMUEL SHYE Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Louis Guttman Israel Institute of Applied Social Research This article deals with the attitudes of Arabs and Jews in Israel regarding a Palestinian state.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's National Religious and the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict
    Leap of Faith: Israel’s National Religious and the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict Middle East Report N°147 | 21 November 2013 International Crisis Group Headquarters Avenue Louise 149 1050 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 2 502 90 38 Fax: +32 2 502 50 38 [email protected] Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... i Recommendations..................................................................................................................... iv I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 II. Religious Zionism: From Ascendance to Fragmentation ................................................ 5 A. 1973: A Turning Point ................................................................................................ 5 B. 1980s and 1990s: Polarisation ................................................................................... 7 C. The Gaza Disengagement and its Aftermath ............................................................. 11 III. Settling the Land .............................................................................................................. 14 A. Bargaining with the State: The Kookists ................................................................... 15 B. Defying the State: The Hilltop Youth ........................................................................ 17 IV. From the Hills to the State ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The 'Third Debate' Revisited
    Review of International Studies (2001), 27, 611–625 Copyright © British International Studies Association The ‘third debate’ revisited EMMANUEL NAVON Abstract. This article challenges the idea that IR theory is in the midst of a ‘third debate’ between ‘positivistic’ and ‘post-positivistic’ approaches, by showing that neither the ‘first’ nor the ‘second’ debates have lost any of their relevance, and by arguing that the ‘third debate’ and the allegedly new paradigms it generated do not constitute a challenging innovation. While the ‘first debate’ is a debate between two visions of human nature, the ‘second debate’ is a debate between two visions of knowledge. A critical stance vis-à-vis rationalism does not imply a rejection of political realism, nor an endorsement of postmodernism or constructivism. What is absurdly called theory today is just a mask for fashion and greed. Camille Paglia1 The idea that IR theory is in the midst of a ‘third debate’ between positivistic and post-positivistic scholars has become a nearly unchallenged commonplace.2 According to the ‘third debate’ thesis, IR theory went through three successive stages: a debate between ‘idealism’ and ‘realism’ in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by a debate between ‘history’ and ‘science’ in the 1950s and 1960s, and finally replaced by a debate between ‘positivism’ and ‘post-positivism’ in the 1980s and 1990s.3 The ‘third debate’ generated an allegedly new paradigm (namely, constructivism) and students of International Relations are supposedly compelled to make their choice between ‘positivism’, ‘postmodernism’, and ‘constructivism’. The present article challenges the very relevance of the ‘third debate’ and ques- tions the novelty and validity of constructivism.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Resilience Network Conceptual Framework for Israel's Local & National Resilience
    Israel Trauma Coalition for Response and Preparedness Civil Resilience Network Conceptual Framework for Israel's Local & National Resilience Version B Elul 5769 August 2009 Civil Resilience Network – Version B - 2 - Elul 5769 August 2009 "It's not the strongest of the species that survives nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change" (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859) … "The entire people is the army, the entire land is the front" (David Ben-Gurion, May 1948) … "Israel has nuclear weapons and the strongest air force in the region, but the truth is that it is weaker than a spider's web" (Hassan Nasrallah, May 26, 2000) ... "The durability of spider webs enable them to absorb the concentrated pressure of a weight ten times that of the most durable artificial fiber" (P. Hillyard, The Book of the Spider, 1994) Civil Resilience Network – Version B - 3 - Elul 5769 August 2009 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................ 3 Funders: UJA Federation of New York ....................................................................... 5 Partners ........................................................................................................................... 5 THE ISRAEL TRAUMA COALITION: RESPONSE AND PREPAREDNESS............................... 5 THE REUT INSTITUTE ..................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • State of the //ART// of the State
    State of the //ART// of the State A Political Economy of Assisted Reproduction in Palestine/Israel Sigrid Vertommen Dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Political and Social Sciences, option Political Sciences. Middle East and North Africa Research Group - Department of Conflict and Development Studies, Ghent University March 2017 Supervisor: Prof. dr. Sami Zemni Cover design by Aïlien Reyns TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................ v Samenvatting ..................................................................................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................................... xi Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 State of the ART ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Masterscriptie Staats- En Bestuursrecht
    Masterscriptie Staats- en Bestuursrecht Het vrije mandaat: feit of fictie? Beperkingen aan fractieafsplitsingen getoetst aan het vrije mandaat van Tweede Kamerleden Auteur A. (Arie) Vonk Noordegraaf LL.B. Studentnummer 3675386 Begeleider prof. mr. R. Nehmelman Datum 22 maart 2017 Sol Iustitiae Illustra Nos - Zon der Gerechtigheid, verlicht ons 2 Voorwoord Maartensdijk, 22 maart 2017 Met het afronden van mijn masterscriptie Staats- en Bestuursrecht komt er einde aan mijn studietijd aan de Universiteit Utrecht. Ik heb de afgelopen jaren enorm veel geleerd en ook genoten van de vele juridische vraagstukken die besproken werden. Na het afronden van de bachelor Rechtsgeleerdheid met een scriptie over de vrijheid van onderwijs was de master Staats- en Bestuursrecht een voor de hand liggende keuze. De master sloot goed aan op mijn (politieke) interesses. Hoewel ik zowel het staatsrecht als het bestuursrecht bestudeerde, ligt mijn hart toch echt bij het staatsrecht. Deze scriptie is daar een bewijs van. Het is mooi om juist in dit voorjaar mijn masterscriptie af te ronden. Het jaar 2017 is in het licht van het onderwerp van deze masterscriptie namelijk een bijzonder jaar. Het is dit jaar precies honderd jaar geleden dat in 1917 het stelsel van evenredige vertegenwoordiging werd ingevoerd. Het jaar 1917 is een keerpunt in de parlementaire geschiedenis van Nederland. Enerzijds is dit het begin van de hedendaagse parlementaire democratie. Anderzijds is de invoering van het stelsel van evenredige vertegenwoordiging ook een bedreiging voor het vrije en persoonlijke mandaat van Tweede Kamerleden. De partijmacht wordt groter terwijl individuele Tweede Kamerleden ook in 2017 worden geacht zonder last te stemmen.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Status of Jerusalem by Emmanuel Navon Hartman
    The International Status of Jerusalem By Emmanuel Navon Hartman Institute Delegation (Jerusalem), 26 June 2017 The legal status of Jerusalem was no different than the status of other towns and cities under Ottoman rule, and later under British rule. Jerusalem had a special meaning, and continues to have a special meaning to Jews, Muslims, and Christians. But its legal status was not an issue under Ottoman and under British rule. Although the status of Jerusalem under British rule was not a legal issue, there were already tensions between Jews and Muslims back then. The Jerusalem Mufti appointed by the British in 1921, Hadj Amin al-Husseini, violently opposed the Jews' attempts to turn the Western Wall into a de facto synagogue, with chairs, with Torah scrolls, and with a separation between men and women. This opposition turned into violence, with a pogrom against the Jewish population of Jerusalem, of Hebron, and of Safed. In 1931, the Mufti convened an international conference on Jerusalem, in which he accused the Jews of wanting to destroy the al-Aqsa mosque in order to rebuild their temple. The partition proposals of the Peel Commission (in 1937) and of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (1947) left Jerusalem outside of both the Jewish state and the Arab state. There were too many sensibilities involved to grant the sovereignty to either population. Demographically, there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the mid-19th century, but Jerusalem is holy to the three monotheistic religions. The UN partition plan of 1947 proposed to make Jerusalem a separate entity, a corpus separatum under UN sovereignty.
    [Show full text]
  • Graduate Summer Program in Global Health
    Graduate Summer Program in Global Health Each student is required to fill out two (2) applications; application thru WKU Study Abroad, application to the University of Haifa. In addition to the application, the University of Haifa requires the following items to be submitted: • Medical Forms • Two (2) letters of recommendation • Official Transcript • Study Abroad Approval • Terms and Condition contract • One (1) passport size picture Come join us this summer at the University of Haifa in Israel to study global health with students and professors from around the world. Students will receive credits from the University of Haifa, which may be applied as transfer credit to Western Kentucky University . Students will also receive a certificate of completion* of the program. University of Haifa | School of Public Health *Students must complete 12 or more credit hours to receive certificate of Mount Carmel, Israel completion. For more information WKU College of Health and Human Services Western Kentucky University 1906 College Heights Blvd. #11038 Bowling Green, KY 42101 Office: 208 Academic Complex Phone: 270.745.8870 Email: [email protected] Fax: 270.745.7073 University of Haifa Sharon Sznitman [email protected] © 2016 Western Kentucky University. Printing paid from state funds, KRS 57.375 state from paid Printing University. Kentucky © 2016 Western A LEADING AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WITH INTERNATIONAL REACH WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY Note from the Dean The Graduate Program in Global Health offered at Students have the opportunity to take up to 12 University of Haifa 2017 Program Costs credit hours of coursework from the following the University of Haifa in Mount Carmel, Israel was list of courses: University of Haifa - Two Courses designed to identify and prepare individuals for future • Public Health Perspectives on Sexual & Tuition $1,800.00 leadership roles in global health.
    [Show full text]
  • Study for Good
    1 “It is the messianic vision that has lived for thousands of years in the heart of the Jewish people, the vision of national and universal "Which is greater, study or action? salvation, and the aspiration to be Rabbi Tarfon spoke up and said: Action the covenant of the people and is greater. Rabbi Akiva spoke up and a light of the nations, that has said: Study is greater. The others then preserved us to this day, and only spoke up and said: Study is greater through loyalty to our Jewish and because it leads to action." universal mission will we safeguard – Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 40b our future in the homeland and our standing among nations of the world.” – Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 Introduction 6 About OLAM and SID-Israel 8 Graduate Programs 25 Undergraduate and Short-Term Programs INTRODUCTION Dear Reader, The following booklet is a compilation of academic programs – undergraduate and graduate degrees, specializations within broader courses of study, and short-term certificate programs – designed to equip participants with both the theoretical foundations and the practical skills to address global challenges: extreme poverty, food insecurity, and disaster recovery, among many others. The programs featured are offered at universities throughout Israel, and all are taught in English. Whether you're an incoming or current BA student, a young professional looking to continue your education, or simply looking for a meaningful way to learn and grow for a summer; whether your interests lie in business, social work, medicine or politics; there are a multitude of ways to deepen your engagement with global issues while living and studying in Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rhetorical History of the British Constitution of Israel, 1917-1948
    A RHETORICAL HISTORY OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION OF ISRAEL, 1917-1948 by BENJAMIN ROSWELL BATES (Under the Direction of Celeste Condit) ABSTRACT The Arab-Israeli conflict has long been presented as eternal and irresolvable. A rhetorical history argues that the standard narrative can be challenged by considering it a series of rhetorical problems. These rhetorical problems can be reconstructed by drawing on primary sources as well as publicly presented texts. A methodology for doing rhetorical history that draws on Michael Calvin McGee's fragmentation thesis is offered. Four theoretical concepts (the archive, institutional intent, peripheral text, and center text) are articulated. British Colonial Office archives, London Times coverage, and British Parliamentary debates are used to interpret four publicly presented rhetorical acts. In 1915-7, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration and the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. Although these documents are treated as promises in the standard narrative, they are ambiguous declarations. As ambiguous documents, these texts offer opportunities for constitutive readings as well as limiting interpretations. In 1922, the Mandate for Palestine was issued to correct this vagueness. Rather than treating the Mandate as a response to the debate between realist foreign policy and self-determination, Winston Churchill used epideictic rhetoric to foreclose a policy discussion in favor of a vote on Britain's honour. As such, the Mandate did not account for Wilsonian drives in the post-War international sphere. After Arab riots and boycotts highlighted this problem, a commission was appointed to investigate new policy approaches. In the White Paper of 1939, a rhetoric of investigation limited Britain's consideration of possible policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Forward.Com" Page 1 of 3
    Relationship With Obama Also on Ballot As Israelis Vote - Forward.com" Page 1 of 3 Forward.com Relationship With Obama Also on Ballot As Israelis Vote By Nathan Jeffay Wed. Feb 04, 2009 Tel Aviv, Israel — In the final days of Israel’s election campaign, pollsters were calling the Likud party leader Benjamin Netanyahu “Teflon Netanyahu,” reflecting the common belief that he was riding an unstoppable wave of support. But Tzipi Livni’s Kadima party, trailing, was working hard to give the impression that it had found Netanyahu’s Achilles’ heel. For months, Israelis have been speculating about how warm or cool George W. Bush’s successor will prove to be toward their country. Kadima’s message to voters was that the answer was in their hands. Israel and America “can head toward full cooperation over common goals such as fighting terror, stopping Iran and Hamas, and Hezbollah,” Livni said while campaigning in late January. On the other hand, she said, “Israel and the United States can also reach a clash. It depends who will be here. If whoever is here stops the peace process and thinks that the world will be with him, he will find himself in a head-on collision with the United States in 20 seconds.” The claim was simple: Obama could work well with Livni, while Netanyahu would clash with him, as he famously clashed with Bill Clinton during his previous stint as prime minister from 1996 to 1999. The response from Likud was straightforward. “People said all the same things when Menachem Begin came into office,” Zalman Shoval, head of Likud’s foreign affairs bureau, told the Forward.
    [Show full text]