Chaim Gans – författare

Chaim Gans's A Political Theory for the Jewish People examines the two dominant interpretations of Zionism, contrasts them with post-Zionist alternatives, and develops a third model. Along with exploring the historiographic, philosophical and moral foundations of each of these approaches, Gans considers their implications for the relationship between Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine as well as the relationship between Israeli and diasporic Jews. Proprietary Zionism, Gans argues, is the version that is most popular among the Israeli Jewish public. It conceives of the land of Israel/historic Palestine as the property of the Jewish people. It also conceives of the entire Jewish people as belonging to Israel. Hierarchical Zionism is common among Israel's educated elites and interprets the Jewish right to self-determination as a right to hegemony within the Israeli state. It remains silent on the issue of the relationship between Israeli and non-Israeli Jews. Post-Zionist approaches, conversely, thoroughly reject these Zionist narratives regarding Jewish history and critique the rationale for the continued existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state.Gans disagrees with all of these approaches, and in their stead advocates egalitarian Zionism, which is based on an egalitarian interpretation of the right to national self-determination and derives from the justifications for Zionism in its early years. As such, it interprets the historical link between the Jews and the land of Israel in terms of identity rather than property. It also views the link between Israel and world Jewry as a matter of choice for individual Jews--not as a matter of necessity, inextricably bound to their essence as Jews. He sees it as preferable to both the dominant strands of Zionism but also to the major contemporary anti-Zionist approaches: first, that of the Israeli post-Zionists offering a civic or post-colonial vision of a non-Jewish state, and, secondly, that of the mostly American post-Zionists who have a neo-diasporic vision for both Israeli and non-Israeli Jews in which the connection to the land of Israel is loose at best. Ultimately, the book argues that egalitarian Zionism is superior to its rivals both in the authenticity of its relationship to Jewish history and in its implications for denizens of Israeland Jews around the world.

Chaim Gans''s A Political Theory for the Jewish People examines the two dominant interpretations of Zionism, contrasts them with post-Zionist alternatives, and develops a third model. Along with exploring the historiographic, philosophical and moral foundations of each of these approaches, Gans considers their implications for the relationship between Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine as well as the relationship between Israeli and diasporic Jews.Proprietary Zionism, Gans argues, is the version that is most popular among the Israeli Jewish public. It conceives of the land of Israel/historic Palestine as the property of the Jewish people. It also conceives of the entire Jewish people as belonging to Israel. Hierarchical Zionism is common among Israel''s educated elites and interprets the Jewish right to self-determination as a right to hegemony within the Israeli state. It remains silent on the issue of the relationship between Israeli and non-Israeli Jews. Post-Zionist approaches, conversely, thoroughly reject these Zionist narratives regarding Jewish history and critique the rationale for the continued existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state.Gans disagrees with all of these approaches, and in their stead advocates egalitarian Zionism, which is based on an egalitarian interpretation of the right to national self-determination and derives from the justifications for Zionism in its early years. As such, it interprets the historical link between the Jews and the land of Israel in terms of identity rather than property. It also views the link between Israel and world Jewry as a matter of choice for individual Jews--not as a matter of necessity, inextricably bound to their essence as Jews. He sees it as preferable to both the dominant strands of Zionism but also to the major contemporary anti-Zionist approaches: first, that of the Israeli post-Zionists offering a civic or post-colonial vision of a non-Jewish state, and, secondly, that of the mostly American post-Zionists who have a neo-diasporic vision for both Israeli and non-Israeli Jews in which the connection to the land of Israel is loose at best. Ultimately, the book argues that egalitarian Zionism is superior to its rivals both in the authenticity of its relationship to Jewish history and in its implications for denizens of Israeland Jews around the world.

Chaim Gans''s A Political Theory for the Jewish People examines the two dominant interpretations of Zionism, contrasts them with post-Zionist alternatives, and develops a third model. Along with exploring the historiographic, philosophical and moral foundations of each of these approaches, Gans considers their implications for the relationship between Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine as well as the relationship between Israeli and diasporic Jews.Proprietary Zionism, Gans argues, is the version that is most popular among the Israeli Jewish public. It conceives of the land of Israel/historic Palestine as the property of the Jewish people. It also conceives of the entire Jewish people as belonging to Israel. Hierarchical Zionism is common among Israel''s educated elites and interprets the Jewish right to self-determination as a right to hegemony within the Israeli state. It remains silent on the issue of the relationship between Israeli and non-Israeli Jews. Post-Zionist approaches, conversely, thoroughly reject these Zionist narratives regarding Jewish history and critique the rationale for the continued existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state.Gans disagrees with all of these approaches, and in their stead advocates egalitarian Zionism, which is based on an egalitarian interpretation of the right to national self-determination and derives from the justifications for Zionism in its early years. As such, it interprets the historical link between the Jews and the land of Israel in terms of identity rather than property. It also views the link between Israel and world Jewry as a matter of choice for individual Jews--not as a matter of necessity, inextricably bound to their essence as Jews. He sees it as preferable to both the dominant strands of Zionism but also to the major contemporary anti-Zionist approaches: first, that of the Israeli post-Zionists offering a civic or post-colonial vision of a non-Jewish state, and, secondly, that of the mostly American post-Zionists who have a neo-diasporic vision for both Israeli and non-Israeli Jews in which the connection to the land of Israel is loose at best. Ultimately, the book argues that egalitarian Zionism is superior to its rivals both in the authenticity of its relationship to Jewish history and in its implications for denizens of Israeland Jews around the world.

For over half a century, the legitimacy of Israel's existence has been questioned, and Zionism has been the subject of an immense array of objections and criticism. Here, Chaim Gans considers the objections and presents an in-depth philosophical analysis of the justice of Zionsim as realized by the state of Israel. Today, alongside a violent Middle Eastern anti-Semitism that refuses to accept Israel's existence, there are two academically respectable arguments for the injustice of Zionism that dominate: it is an exclusivist ethnocultural nationalism out of step with current visions of multicultural nationhood, and the Jewish right of return unfairly stigmatizes non-Jews on ethnocultural grounds. While many therefore claim that Zionism is on balance an unjust political philosophy, Chaim Gans seeks out a more nuanced ground to explain why Zionism, despite its manifest flaws, is just. Its flaws stem from the current situation, where exigencies have distorted its application, and from historical forces that have ended up favoring the notion of Jewish hegemony. For Gans, the justice of Zionism is not a black and white proposition. Rather, it's a project in need of repair, which it can do by reconceptualizing Jews' relationship with the Palestinian population and by adhering to a significantly more limited version of Jewish hegemony. Ultimately, A Just Zionism offers a concrete, historically and geographically rooted investigation of the limits of contemporary nationalism in one of the world's most fraught cases.

The legitimacy of the Zionist project--establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine--has been questioned since its inception. In recent years, the voices challenging the legitimacy of the State of Israel have become even louder. Chaim Gans examines these doubts and presents an in-depth, evenhanded philosophical analysis of the justice of Zionism.Today, alongside a violent Middle East where many refuse to accept Israel''s existence, there are two academically respectable arguments for the injustice of Zionism. One claim is that the very return of the Jews to Palestine was unjust. The second argument is that Zionism is an exclusivist ethnocultural nationalism out of step with current visions of multicultural nationhood. While many therefore claim that Zionism is in principle an unjust political philosophy, Gans seeks out a more nuanced ground to explain why Zionism, despite its manifest flaws, could in principle be just. Its flaws stem from the current situation, where exigencies have distorted its implementation, and from historical forces that have ended up favoring an extreme form of Jewish hegemony. For Gans, the justice of Zionism and of Israel are not black-and-white propositions. Rather, they are projects in need of repair, which can be achieved by reconceptualizing the Jews'' relationship with the Palestinian population and by adhering to a significantly more limited version of Jewish hegemony.Ultimately, A Just Zionism offers a concrete, historically and geographically rooted investigation of the limits of contemporary nationalism in one of the world''s most fraught cases.

The legitimacy of the Zionist project--establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine--has been questioned since its inception. In recent years, the voices challenging the legitimacy of the State of Israel have become even louder. Chaim Gans examines these doubts and presents an in-depth, evenhanded philosophical analysis of the justice of Zionism.Today, alongside a violent Middle East where many refuse to accept Israel's existence, there are two academically respectable arguments for the injustice of Zionism. One claim is that the very return of the Jews to Palestine was unjust. The second argument is that Zionism is an exclusivist ethnocultural nationalism out of step with current visions of multicultural nationhood. While many therefore claim that Zionism is in principle an unjust political philosophy, Gans seeks out a more nuanced ground to explain why Zionism, despite its manifest flaws, could in principle be just. Its flaws stem from the current situation, where exigencies have distorted its implementation, and from historical forces that have ended up favoring an extreme form of Jewish hegemony. For Gans, the justice of Zionism and of Israel are not black-and-white propositions. Rather, they are projects in need of repair, which can be achieved by reconceptualizing the Jews' relationship with the Palestinian population and by adhering to a significantly more limited version of Jewish hegemony.Ultimately, A Just Zionism offers a concrete, historically and geographically rooted investigation of the limits of contemporary nationalism in one of the world's most fraught cases.

The legitimacy of the Zionist project--establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine--has been questioned since its inception. In recent years, the voices challenging the legitimacy of the State of Israel have become even louder. Chaim Gans examines these doubts and presents an in-depth, evenhanded philosophical analysis of the justice of Zionism.Today, alongside a violent Middle East where many refuse to accept Israel''s existence, there are two academically respectable arguments for the injustice of Zionism. One claim is that the very return of the Jews to Palestine was unjust. The second argument is that Zionism is an exclusivist ethnocultural nationalism out of step with current visions of multicultural nationhood. While many therefore claim that Zionism is in principle an unjust political philosophy, Gans seeks out a more nuanced ground to explain why Zionism, despite its manifest flaws, could in principle be just. Its flaws stem from the current situation, where exigencies have distorted its implementation, and from historical forces that have ended up favoring an extreme form of Jewish hegemony. For Gans, the justice of Zionism and of Israel are not black-and-white propositions. Rather, they are projects in need of repair, which can be achieved by reconceptualizing the Jews'' relationship with the Palestinian population and by adhering to a significantly more limited version of Jewish hegemony.Ultimately, A Just Zionism offers a concrete, historically and geographically rooted investigation of the limits of contemporary nationalism in one of the world''s most fraught cases.

This book discusses the justifications and limits of cultural nationalism from a liberal perspective. Chaim Gans presents a normative typology of nationalist ideologies, distinguishing between cultural liberal nationalism and statist liberal nationalism. Statist nationalisms argue that states have an interest in the cultural homogeneity of their citizenries. Cultural nationalisms argue that people have interests in adhering to their cultures (the adherence thesis) and in sustaining these cultures for generations (the historic thesis). Gans argues that freedom- and identity-based justifications for cultural nationalism common in literature can only support the adherence thesis, while the historical thesis could only be justified by the interest people have in the long-term endurance of their personal and group endeavors. The Limits of Nationalism examines demands often made in the name of cultural nationalism, such as claims for national self-determination, historical rights claims to territories and demands entailed by cultural particularism as opposed to cultural cosmopolitanism.

This book examines the central questions concerning the duty to obey the law: the meaning of this duty; whether and where it should be acknowledged; and whether and when it should be disregarded. Many contemporary philosophers deny the very existence of this duty, but take a cautious stance towards political disobedience. This 'toothless anarchism', Professor Gans argues, should be discarded in favour of a converse position confirming the existence of a duty to obey the law which can be outweighed by values and principles of political morality. Informed by the Israeli experience of political disobedience motivated by radically differing moral outlooks, the author sets out the principles which should guide our attitude to law and political authority even amidst clashing ideologies and irreconcilable moralities. This book will be of interest to students and scholars of law, philosophy and politics, and anyone concerned with the individual's responsibilities toward his or her political community.

This book discusses the justifications and limits of cultural nationalism from a liberal perspective. Chaim Gans presents a normative typology of nationalist ideologies, distinguishing between cultural liberal nationalism and statist liberal nationalism. Statist nationalisms argue that states have an interest in the cultural homogeneity of their citizenries. Cultural nationalisms argue that people have interests in adhering to their cultures (the adherence thesis) and in sustaining these cultures for generations (the historic thesis). Gans argues that freedom- and identity-based justifications for cultural nationalism common in literature can only support the adherence thesis, while the historical thesis could only be justified by the interest people have in the long-term endurance of their personal and group endeavors. The Limits of Nationalism examines demands often made in the name of cultural nationalism, such as claims for national self-determination, historical rights claims to territories and demands entailed by cultural particularism as opposed to cultural cosmopolitanism.

This edited book offers diverse perspectives on the Palestinian refugee problem and the possible ways to facilitate its resolution. The book contains contributions of Israeli, Palestinian and other scholars, and its main goal is to initiate an informed dialogue that will bridge the “knowledge gap” between the different camps. The book is the cul- nation of a joint effort to assist people to realize how people on the other side envision the problem and the possible ways to resolve it, and to gain a comparative perspective on refugee problems and their reso- tion efforts in other parts of the world. The contributors come from - verse disciplines and backgrounds and their various contributions p- vide a comprehensive picture of the various aspects of the problem and of the possible means of its resolution. The Palestinian refugees problem is perhaps the most acute challenge to a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a challenge that scholars must address in a calm and detached manner, but at the same time a deeply emotional matter that even the most sophisticated scholars find difficult to engage without compromising their academic integrity. Despite these difficulties, we undertook the task of convening a meeting where the papers were presented and of the publication of this book because we think the contributions in this book provide p- spectives that contribute to the initiation of a constructive dialogue among the relevant communities.

This edited book offers diverse perspectives on the Palestinian refugee problem and the possible ways to facilitate its resolution. The book contains contributions of Israeli, Palestinian and other scholars, and its main goal is to initiate an informed dialogue that will bridge the “knowledge gap” between the different camps. The book is the cul- nation of a joint effort to assist people to realize how people on the other side envision the problem and the possible ways to resolve it, and to gain a comparative perspective on refugee problems and their reso- tion efforts in other parts of the world. The contributors come from - verse disciplines and backgrounds and their various contributions p- vide a comprehensive picture of the various aspects of the problem and of the possible means of its resolution. The Palestinian refugees problem is perhaps the most acute challenge to a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a challenge that scholars must address in a calm and detached manner, but at the same time a deeply emotional matter that even the most sophisticated scholars find difficult to engage without compromising their academic integrity. Despite these difficulties, we undertook the task of convening a meeting where the papers were presented and of the publication of this book because we think the contributions in this book provide p- spectives that contribute to the initiation of a constructive dialogue among the relevant communities.

This edited book offers diverse perspectives on the Palestinian refugee problem and the possible ways to facilitate its resolution. The book contains contributions of Israeli, Palestinian and other scholars, and its main goal is to initiate an informed dialogue that will bridge the “knowledge gap” between the different camps. The book is the cul- nation of a joint effort to assist people to realize how people on the other side envision the problem and the possible ways to resolve it, and to gain a comparative perspective on refugee problems and their reso- tion efforts in other parts of the world. The contributors come from - verse disciplines and backgrounds and their various contributions p- vide a comprehensive picture of the various aspects of the problem and of the possible means of its resolution. The Palestinian refugees problem is perhaps the most acute challenge to a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a challenge that scholars must address in a calm and detached manner, but at the same time a deeply emotional matter that even the most sophisticated scholars find difficult to engage without compromising their academic integrity. Despite these difficulties, we undertook the task of convening a meeting where the papers were presented and of the publication of this book because we think the contributions in this book provide p- spectives that contribute to the initiation of a constructive dialogue among the relevant communities.

The Middle East has always been a central site for trade and conquests. Its location has brought enormous wealth, cultural exchange and intellectual vitality – but also conflicts, instability and enduring political tensions. Understanding the region’s past is crucial to understanding the present day.In the anthology Empires of Faith internationally renowned scholars and writers explore the long history of the Middle East – from Mesopotamia, the Persian Empire and Alexander the Great to the emergence of Christianity and Islam, the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, and the dramatic transformation of the region in the 20th century. How have religion, civilisation and imperial ambitions shaped the Middle East? What is the legacy of the great empires and how did they influence laws, culture, governance and the everyday lives of their subjects? And to what extent are the repercussions of this history still visible in today’s political and religious landscape?

Современный сионистский нарратив играет ключевую роль в формировании еврейской идентичности как в самом Израиле, так и за его пределами. В книге Хаима Ганса дается историко-философский анализ современной версии сионизма и его антитезы — постсионизма. Автор предлагает модель эгалитарного сионизма, в основе которой лежит право на национальное самоопределение. Связь евреев с землей Израиля рассматривается как вопрос их национальной идентичности, а не собственности, а их связь с государством Израиль — как осознанный личный выбор. По убеждению Хаима Ганса, такая модель гораздо лучше соотносится как с историей и современным положением еврейского народа, так и с задачей урегулирования арабо-израильского конфликта.

, . - . , . , , . , , - .