Search

This article examines Hussein Yassin's novel (b. 1943-), Alī: Qissat Rajul Mustaqīm (2017), (ʿAlī: The Story of an Honorable Man), the first historical fiction which treats the real story of ʿAlī ʿAbdul Khāliq (b. 1901–d. 1938), a Palestinian member of the Palestinian Communist Party (PCP) who fought in the Spanish Civil War against Francisco Franco's fascist nationalists. While Jewish participation in the International Brigades has been well-researched, Palestinian Arabs' role has not received as much attention. This paper contextualizes the novel in its contemporary history and examines its emphasis on ʿAbdul Khāliq's participation in the International Brigades as an extension of his fight for Palestine. This analysis adds to scholarship that has debunked discourses on Arabs' collaboration with Europe's fascist regimes. Reading across history, politics, and literature, analysis shows how ʿAlī can be read as a representation of continued anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist struggle and the fight for labor and land. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on commentary on the pervasiveness and intensity of anti-Jewish prejudice and animosity in the Christian and Muslim worlds. Topics include examines it argues that Israel's existence has been used as a pretext for vilifying and attacking Jewish communities around the world and considered anti-Semites have never distinguished among Zionists, Israelis, and Jews and have often used these terms interchangeably.

Scholars usually analyze the Ben-Gurion–Blaustein "Exchange" in the context of the Jewish world. Both David Ben-Gurion and Jacob Blaustein presented views that would enable non-Zionist Jewish Americans to support the Jewish state. In particular, they dealt with the fear of being accused of dual loyalty. Following my analysis of the later correspondence between Blaustein and Israeli leaders, and a re-reading of the Ben-Gurion–Blaustein "Exchange" itself, I shall argue that this event is related to and influenced by US citizenship laws. During the 1950s, the United States forbade dual citizenship or the performing of acts that might signify divided or multiple national identities. Revoking American citizenship was a common policy intended to prevent such duality. "Dual loyalty" had both a symbolic and a legal dimension. Therefore, the Ben-Gurion–Blaustein "Exchange" should also be understood as an attempt to prevent Americans from breaking their own laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses Ben-Gurion's stance towards American Jewry following the establishment of the State of Israel (1949–1951) with a focus on the Ben-Gurion–Blaustein Exchange of 1950, and specifically on Ben-Gurion's alignment with the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee (AJC). Our main contention here is that Ben-Gurion's motivation in aligning with the non-Zionists cannot have been merely political or pragmatic but reflects rather a deliberate ideological position. Contrary to the dominant scholarly view, Ben-Gurion did not make ideological 'concessions' to the AJC in the "Exchange". The "Exchange" was in full accord with Israel's self-definition both as a nation-state and a Jewish state. The article draws on letters, cables and telegrams exchanged between Ben-Gurion, Blaustein and Proskauer before and after the Ben-Gurion–Blaustein Exchange and relates the correspondence to Ben-Gurion's momentous speech before a gathering of the American Zionist Committee during his first visit to the US as Prime Minister in 1951. These developments taken together shed light on Ben-Gurion's ideology as it applies to the Jewish State in relation to the American Jewish Diaspora. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Conflict & Communication is the property of Verlag Irena Regener and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article analyses the British role in establishing and maintaining a Jewish–Arab demarcation line by means of a policy of Jewish unity and by enabling Ashkenazi Zionist control of the Yishuv. In the first part, it analyses British policy towards the local Sephardi as well as the local Ashkenazi anti-Zionist Orthodox communities, both of which for different reasons did not neatly fit into the Jewish/Zionist–Arab binary. I argue that the British followed a policy of Jewish unity at the inception of the Mandate which they upheld repeatedly against Ashkenazi anti-Zionist Orthodox efforts and which by 1936 had created a truism enforcing a binary understanding of the conflict. In the second part, this article analyses the ways in which these communities presented themselves vis-à-vis the British. I argue that despite different strategies of maximizing their influence, both communities foundered on the existing power configurations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Johann von Leers, aka Omar Amin (1902-1965), was one of the foremost antisemitic propagandists of the Third Reich. He hated Jews and Judaism, as well as Christianity, which he regarded as a Jewish sect. As a young man, he had reached out to Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In 1928, he joined the NSDAP, and in 1935, thzAllgemeine (general) SS where he received the honorary rank of SS-Sturmbannfiihrer (Major). Like many war criminals of his generation, he was a well-bred and cultured intellectual. In February 1956, the Government of Egypt engaged Leers to write antisemitic and anti-Zionist propaganda. He thus embodies the postwar continuation of absolute, ideologically pure Nazi doctrine as well as the German traditions of global geopolitics. In Egypt, von Leers achieved access to power and considerable influence. Our sources are incomplete. Nonetheless, one may achieve a reasonable understanding of Leers' ideas and plans and their intended consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers the author's insights on the connection of Utopia with the political Liberal Left and Israel. The author explores the dangers and impact of Utopian thinking in the context of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He discusses the inherent contradictions in the Leftist policy and on the reasons why Jewish anti-Zionist contributes in the campaign for Israel delegitimisation and antisemitism.