In August 1963, Israel＇s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol initiated the procedure for terminating the martial law in effect since the end of the War of Independence （1948） with regard to Israeli Arabs. Martial law discri...In August 1963, Israel＇s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol initiated the procedure for terminating the martial law in effect since the end of the War of Independence （1948） with regard to Israeli Arabs. Martial law discriminated against Israel＇s Arab minority, as opposed to the majority of Israel＇s society, as part of different issues bound up with this population＇s daily functioning. The aim of the paper is to present the reasons why Eshkol＇s doing away with the martial law stemmed was its ineffectiveness, while the other, and this makes up the core of our concern here, was his changing attitude toward the Arab minority in Israel, by contrast with that of his predecessor, David Ben Gurion The main conclusion of the paper is that even though Eshkol＇s ideas about the Arab minority were not very different from Ben Gurion＇s ideas one insisted on maintaining the military government in Israel, while the other saw this as unnecessary, and so brought it to an end. In August 1963, a few months after assuming office, Israel＇s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol initiated the first steps leading to the annulment of military rulet which had applied to Arabs in the State of Israel ever since the end of the War of Independence （1948）. This process was concluded some three years later. Military rule was lifted in effect on December 1, 1966. In the presentation, the author would like to look into the considerations which prompted Eshkol to take such a step, in light of the fact that his predecessor, Ben Gurion, was a staunch opponent of annulling the military regime, convinced as he was, even after the conclusion of his term in office, that the current state of affairs should remain in effect.展开更多
The prevailing narrative instructs us that humane treatment of captured enemy fighters is down to white knights from the western parts of the European continent with their codes of chivalry, or alternatively, the Swis...The prevailing narrative instructs us that humane treatment of captured enemy fighters is down to white knights from the western parts of the European continent with their codes of chivalry, or alternatively, the Swiss businessman Henri Dunant. This contribution challenges that narrative for overlooking, or being ignorant of, the way that societies around the world have approached the matter of the captured enemy fighter. Traces of some of the critical principles about humane treatment that we see in our present law can actually be found in much older societies from outside of Europe. A more accurate and representative way of understanding humanitarianism in the treatment of captured enemy fighters can and must be crafted, with the prevailing Euro-centric account balanced with practices, cultures and faiths from elsewhere. The quest to achieve more humane treatment in armed conflict is first and foremost a battle of the intellect. Narratives and conceptualisations that are more inclusive, recognising and appreciating of the ways of the rest of the world are likely to be more effective in communicating humanitarian ideals. This work adopts a new method of approaching the richness and diversity of the treatment of captured enemy fighters over time and space. This new framework of analysis uses six cross-cutting themes to facilitate a broader international and comparative perspective, and develop a more sophisticated level of understanding. The first theme is how older and indigenous societies approached the matter of captured enemy fighters. The second focuses on religions of the world, and what they teach or require. The third section examines the matter of martial practices and codes of ethics for combatants in certain societies. The fourth category engages with colonisation and decolonisation, and regulation （or non-regulation） of the treatment of captives of war. Fifth is the issue of modernisation and the impact it has had on armed forces and fighters, including on the treatment of captives. The final issue is the shift towards formalised agreements, beginning with the first bilateral agreements and then the multilateral codification exercise that began in the mid-19th century and continues to this day. This framework for analysis leads into a final chapter, presenting a fresh and holistic view on the evolution of prisoner of war protections in the international order. It provides a different way of looking at International Humanitarian Law, starting with this effort at a global understanding of the treatment of captured enemy fighters.展开更多
文摘In August 1963, Israel＇s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol initiated the procedure for terminating the martial law in effect since the end of the War of Independence （1948） with regard to Israeli Arabs. Martial law discriminated against Israel＇s Arab minority, as opposed to the majority of Israel＇s society, as part of different issues bound up with this population＇s daily functioning. The aim of the paper is to present the reasons why Eshkol＇s doing away with the martial law stemmed was its ineffectiveness, while the other, and this makes up the core of our concern here, was his changing attitude toward the Arab minority in Israel, by contrast with that of his predecessor, David Ben Gurion The main conclusion of the paper is that even though Eshkol＇s ideas about the Arab minority were not very different from Ben Gurion＇s ideas one insisted on maintaining the military government in Israel, while the other saw this as unnecessary, and so brought it to an end. In August 1963, a few months after assuming office, Israel＇s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol initiated the first steps leading to the annulment of military rulet which had applied to Arabs in the State of Israel ever since the end of the War of Independence （1948）. This process was concluded some three years later. Military rule was lifted in effect on December 1, 1966. In the presentation, the author would like to look into the considerations which prompted Eshkol to take such a step, in light of the fact that his predecessor, Ben Gurion, was a staunch opponent of annulling the military regime, convinced as he was, even after the conclusion of his term in office, that the current state of affairs should remain in effect.
文摘The prevailing narrative instructs us that humane treatment of captured enemy fighters is down to white knights from the western parts of the European continent with their codes of chivalry, or alternatively, the Swiss businessman Henri Dunant. This contribution challenges that narrative for overlooking, or being ignorant of, the way that societies around the world have approached the matter of the captured enemy fighter. Traces of some of the critical principles about humane treatment that we see in our present law can actually be found in much older societies from outside of Europe. A more accurate and representative way of understanding humanitarianism in the treatment of captured enemy fighters can and must be crafted, with the prevailing Euro-centric account balanced with practices, cultures and faiths from elsewhere. The quest to achieve more humane treatment in armed conflict is first and foremost a battle of the intellect. Narratives and conceptualisations that are more inclusive, recognising and appreciating of the ways of the rest of the world are likely to be more effective in communicating humanitarian ideals. This work adopts a new method of approaching the richness and diversity of the treatment of captured enemy fighters over time and space. This new framework of analysis uses six cross-cutting themes to facilitate a broader international and comparative perspective, and develop a more sophisticated level of understanding. The first theme is how older and indigenous societies approached the matter of captured enemy fighters. The second focuses on religions of the world, and what they teach or require. The third section examines the matter of martial practices and codes of ethics for combatants in certain societies. The fourth category engages with colonisation and decolonisation, and regulation （or non-regulation） of the treatment of captives of war. Fifth is the issue of modernisation and the impact it has had on armed forces and fighters, including on the treatment of captives. The final issue is the shift towards formalised agreements, beginning with the first bilateral agreements and then the multilateral codification exercise that began in the mid-19th century and continues to this day. This framework for analysis leads into a final chapter, presenting a fresh and holistic view on the evolution of prisoner of war protections in the international order. It provides a different way of looking at International Humanitarian Law, starting with this effort at a global understanding of the treatment of captured enemy fighters.
