This article tells the story of one of the first Israeli anti-occupation groups, Women for Political Prisoners (WOFPP), through an ethnography that follows the process of re-assembling the NGO’s scattered archive. The concept of ethno-archiving is used to describe the process of gathering oral histories and assembling documents from the groups’ emergence phase (1988–1993). Focusing on the organisation’s historical importance and its idiosyncratic documentation of Israel’s gender-based violence (GBV) against Palestinian women, including sexual violence, the article chronicles their emergence and early impact, and explains why they were gradually forgotten – partly due to their own strategy of stealth-ness and self-silencing, and partly due to their marginalisation by mainstream liberal activism and NGO professionalism. The article shows that the human rights archival gap of Women for Political Prisoners’ unique materials, as the first NGO to define Israeli practices as torture and the only one to focus on Palestinian women, is inextricably tied to the overall silencing of GBV in Israel/Palestine.
How can the study of Zaydi jurisprudence help us understand the relationship between Imam Yaḥyā Ḥamīd al-Dīn (r. 1904-1948) and the Jews of Yemen? What sources are available for study? What further questions does the focus on dhimma law raise regarding Zaydi law and political thought?
This article introduces two Jewish accounts on the 1948 turmoil in Sanaa/Yemen to a non-Hebrew reading audience. Following the problematisation of both accounts – one by Salim Mansura (1916–2007), the other by Mordechai al-Zahiri (later Yitshari, 1930–) – as a historical source, it gives a chronological overview of the events they describe, and partly witnessed themselves. It covers their narratives on the assassination of Imam Yahya Hamid al-Din, the al-Wazir coup, the countercoup led by Imam Ahmad as well as the subsequent looting of Sanaa and its Jewish quarter. Based on the two accounts, the article analyses whether the looting had a strategic function in reconquering the city and reflects on the question as to whether the looting of the Jewish Quarter in particular was or was not intended by the authorities.
The paper ponders the object of archaeology, called here ‘the archaeological’. It argues that the existence of such an object is a necessary premise of the field and that ultimately it is on this object that the validity of all claims and arguments must rest. The paper suggests that the archaeological be conceived as a cultural phenomenon that consists in being disengaged from the social, an understanding that positions archaeology as a counterpart to the social sciences and the humanities, rather than a member in the same milieu. The first part of the paper focuses on the position of the archaeological with reference to the concepts of ‘Nature’ and ‘Culture’, which eventually leads us to a confrontation between archaeological statics and the dynamics of the world. Efforts to justify and understand archaeological statics consequently lead to the recognition of a constitutive distinction between buried and non-buried conditions, upon which the differentiation of the archaeological from the social is established.
This article tells the story of one of the first Israeli anti-occupation groups, Women for Political Prisoners (WOFPP), through an ethnography that follows the process of re-assembling the NGO’s scattered archive. The concept of ethno-archiving is used to describe the process of gathering oral histories and assembling documents from the groups’ emergence phase (1988–1993). Focusing on the organisation’s historical importance and its idiosyncratic documentation of Israel’s gender-based violence (GBV) against Palestinian women, including sexual violence, the article chronicles their emergence and early impact, and explains why they were gradually forgotten – partly due to their own strategy of stealth-ness and self-silencing, and partly due to their marginalisation by mainstream liberal activism and NGO professionalism. The article shows that the human rights archival gap of Women for Political Prisoners’ unique materials, as the first NGO to define Israeli practices as torture and the only one to focus on Palestinian women, is inextricably tied to the overall silencing of GBV in Israel/Palestine.
How can the study of Zaydi jurisprudence help us understand the relationship between Imam Yaḥyā Ḥamīd al-Dīn (r. 1904-1948) and the Jews of Yemen? What sources are available for study? What further questions does the focus on dhimma law raise regarding Zaydi law and political thought?
This article introduces two Jewish accounts on the 1948 turmoil in Sanaa/Yemen to a non-Hebrew reading audience. Following the problematisation of both accounts – one by Salim Mansura (1916–2007), the other by Mordechai al-Zahiri (later Yitshari, 1930–) – as a historical source, it gives a chronological overview of the events they describe, and partly witnessed themselves. It covers their narratives on the assassination of Imam Yahya Hamid al-Din, the al-Wazir coup, the countercoup led by Imam Ahmad as well as the subsequent looting of Sanaa and its Jewish quarter. Based on the two accounts, the article analyses whether the looting had a strategic function in reconquering the city and reflects on the question as to whether the looting of the Jewish Quarter in particular was or was not intended by the authorities.
The paper ponders the object of archaeology, called here ‘the archaeological’. It argues that the existence of such an object is a necessary premise of the field and that ultimately it is on this object that the validity of all claims and arguments must rest. The paper suggests that the archaeological be conceived as a cultural phenomenon that consists in being disengaged from the social, an understanding that positions archaeology as a counterpart to the social sciences and the humanities, rather than a member in the same milieu. The first part of the paper focuses on the position of the archaeological with reference to the concepts of ‘Nature’ and ‘Culture’, which eventually leads us to a confrontation between archaeological statics and the dynamics of the world. Efforts to justify and understand archaeological statics consequently lead to the recognition of a constitutive distinction between buried and non-buried conditions, upon which the differentiation of the archaeological from the social is established.
The Hebrew University websites utilize cookies to enhance user experience and analyze site usage. By continuing to browse these sites, you consent to our use of cookies.
