The Women of the Wall: A Metaphor for National and Religious Identity

The Women of the Wall wish to participate in communal prayer in the women’s section of the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Their practice is to pray as a group, wrap themselves in a tallit, and read from the Torah scroll. They represent Jewish pluralism in that their group includes Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and secular women. They represent openness to change in that they base their claims on Halakhic interpretation, thereby embracing the capacity of Jewish law to evolve. This article reviews the resistance of the religious and political establishment in Israel to their claim and their struggle, unsuccessful so far, to get recognition

American Influence on Israeli Law: Freedom of Expression

This chapter provides a historical overview of the American influence on Israel’s jurisprudence of freedom of expression from the 1950s to the first decade of the twenty first century. The chapter uses the format of decades, presenting representative cases for each decade, to record the process by which Israeli judges incorporated and sometimes rejected themes from the U.S. jurisprudence of freedom of expression. In the course of discussing the jurisprudential themes the chapter also highlights the historical context in which the cases were decided, from the war in Korea and McCarthyism in the 1950s, to the process of globalization which dominated the first decade of the twenty first century. The chapter asserts that over the decades the Israeli understanding of freedom of expression has matured so that today the appearance of U.S. law is invoked primarily for rhetorical purposes. In contrast to the 1950s, contemporary Israeli courts have enough authentic jurisprudence to guide them in their decisional law

Theater in the Courtroom, the Chicago Conspiracy Trial

The Chicago Conspiracy Trial (otherwise known as the Chicago Seven Trial) is a Rorschach test of American society in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Following the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968, leaders of the antiwar movement, the counterculture and the Black Panthers were put on trial for a conspiracy to cross state lines with intent to incite a riot. The trial has been too easily dismissed as a circus, not worthy of legal attention, when in fact it does contain important legal insights. This paper suggests that the theory of the theater provides the key to unlocking the trial\u27s significance. The paper applies Peter Brook\u27s theories of the theater and argues that in Brook\u27s terms, this trial is rough rather than deadly theater. By staging events that are generally unthinkable in the courtroom, such as the binding and gagging of Bobby Seale or the appearance of Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin in court dressed in judicial robes, some terrifying truths about law were captured and made visible. These truths are terrifying not only because they deviate from expected norms of civility and depict the degree of violence generally hidden from the public view. They capture archetypal motifs from the collective conscious and unconscious, thereby invoking the universal struggle about the appropriate relationships between the person and the government. In conclusion, the paper looks to the reaction of subsequent courts sitting on appeal and as courts of retrial, and discusses the extent to which they were willing to face the messages contained in these scenes

Memorial Tributes for Professor Elizabeth B. Clark In Memoriam

I leave to others to talk about Betsy\u27s scholarship. Let me only say that she had a remarkable ability to interest others in her projects. When she gave papers or workshops, she spoke softly but with such enthusiasm and engagement that she drew others into her topics and interests effortlessly. Her listeners would lean forward and intently follow her sometimes complex and nuanced train of thought. I have often wondered at this gift-I think it has something to do with her approach to her audience, her ability to be respectful and inclusive rather than distanced and formal. Despite doing painstaking historical work-work which was often tedious and lonely, enduring long spells in archives and generating mountains of notes-she found a way to make that work germane and accessible to a wide range of audiences. Without grandstanding or overstating her claims, she would weave a web of words and images, of evidence and categories, peppered with insights and interesting asides, and then step back and place it all in a historical perspective, or indeed several perspectives, thereby addressing major theoretical questions from a situated, concrete basis. It is one small part of the tragedy of her death that she was unable to complete her book and get the recognition that she deserved

The Suez Crisis of 1956 and Its Aftermath: A Comparative Study of Constitutions, Use of Force, Diplomacy and International Relations

This article compares and juxtaposes constitutional war powers (deployed by the belligerents) and diplomacy (deployed by the US) as means of pursuing foreign policy during the 1956 Suez crisis. In the fall of 1956 the United Kingdom, France and Israel launched a war against Egypt. It soon became clear that this was a coordinated effort. The war started a few days before the US presidential elections but the parties did not share their plans with President Eisenhower. The Hungarian rebellion and the Soviet invasion of Hungary occurred at the same time. Within weeks, the United States, in cooperation with the United Nations forced the belligerents to withdraw. France and Great Britain lost their dominant status in the Middle East. Israel gained navigation access to the Straits of Tiran as well as a demilitarized Sinai Peninsula, including the Gaza strip. None of the belligerents achieved their war aims. This article situates the constitutional dimension of war powers in a dense description of the decision to go to war. It shows that while each country had a different constitutional process regulating the decision to go to war, a small circle in the executive branch was responsible for the fateful decision in each of the countries. The constitutional process was honored formally but substantively only minimal parliamentary or even cabinet deliberations took place. The article also offers summaries of the constitutional changes taking place in each of these countries in the aftermath of the war. The final part of the article reviews US constitutional presidential powers deployed to coerce the three belligerents to end the war and withdraw from Egyptian territory. In an effort to restore the status quo ante, the President of the United States used diplomatic means. His actions ended the age of colonialism in the Middle East and introduced the United States (and the Soviet Union) into Middle Eastern politics

A Small Nation Goes to War: Israel\u27s Cabinet Authorization of the 1956 War

The Suez War had long term ramifications for Israel\u27s status in the Middle East and for its relations with the U.S., Europe, and the USSR. This article is a first segment in the examination of the interplay between military and diplomatic means deployed by Israel in its quest to consolidate the gains of the 1948 war and secure its sovereignty. It provides a detailed analysis of the Israeli cabinet deliberations as it reached the decision to authorize war. The article examines the cabinet\u27s opinions on the language of the motion to go to war, the list of casus belli offered, the secret agreement with France and Britain which precipitated the war, considerations of possible complications, the theory of war and peace, the likelihood of regime change in Egypt, and the preparedness of the home front. It raises the question of the relevance of the comparative size and strength of a nation as it ponders the option of launching a war

Sixty Years since the Kol Ha\u27am Decision: What More Is There to Say

Is there anything more to say about Kol Ha\u27am? This is essentially a philosophical question. Is it possible to exhaust the variety of possible interpretations of a historical event, of a judicial opinion? Most researchers would agree that history, the history of the law included, cannot be exhausted. This is not merely a question of the availabiltiy of new materials, but of the writer\u27s point of view. My point of departure is that there has to be something more to say, if only because we have before us a text that was created in a historical context. In discussing Kol Ha\u27am, I shall try to focus on the boarder picture of the 1950s, and to raise a related - very important but neglected - question in Israeli constitutional law, that regarding the procedure for embarking on war

In Memoriam: Memorial Tributes for Professor Elizabeth B. Clark

Today we come together to remember Professor Elizabeth Battelle Clark, Betsy to all who knew her. We were shocked to hear of her illness, inspired by the intensity of her fight against it, and deeply saddened by her death. We have come together before to mourn her loss. Now we gather once more to celebrate our good fortune to have known Betsy and to share our remembrances of her