The Boundaries of Liberty and Tolerance: The Struggle Against Kahanism in Israel. (Gainesville, FL: The University Press of Florida, 1994). 329 pp.
The Boundaries of Liberty and Tolerance: The Struggle Against Kahanism in Israel (Gainesville, FL: The University Press of Florida, 1994). 329 pp. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Boundaries-Liberty-ToleranceStruggle/dp/0813012589/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5/277-6110113-8624529 ISBN 0-8130-1258-9 Hebrew version, Gvulut Ha’sovlanut Ve’hacherut: Jerusalem: Nevo Publishing House (1994), 353 pp.; ISBN 965-442-006-6 Second printing, Jerusalem: Academon Publishing House (1999), 353 pp. ISBN 965-442-006-6
Geoffrey Marshall Raphael Cohen-Almagor maps the course of the struggle against Meir Kahane in the Israeli courts and legislature. But he places it firmly in the context of the traditional controversy over the limits of toleration, providing us with a rigorous examination of the damage principle as it applies to speech and expression. He forces us to face the question why, if we refuse to tolerate the damage done by thefts, assault, fraud or murder, we should tolerate the potential damage that can be brought about by aggressive or violent speech. His work blends together political philosophy, contemporary history, and constitutional theory. It deserves the close attention of students of all three disciplines. But it should fascinate and provoke also all those who wish to confront what is probably the principal dilemma of the modern democratic practice. From the Author In August 1985 I participated in a demonstration against Rabbi Meir Kahane, a religious, quasi-Fascist propagandist who was elected to the Israeli Knesset (parliament) in the preceding year. Kahane came to advocate his ideas to the citizens of the city of Givatayim, and in the gathering place he was met by thousands of people, led by the Mayor of the city. The small public square was crowded with people who stood against Kahane, screaming, shouting, and whistling in order to prevent him from speaking. I had just returned from a summer school at Georgetown University, and this was not what I expected. I had no idea that the confrontation
would take this form, and thus I stood there with increasing unease. I came to protest, but in a different way. The demonstrators were using the same means against Kahane that the man himself would use - if he would have had the power against any opposition. This person, who raised his voice against democracy, was now demanding in the name of democracy the right to be heard, while advocates of democracy were standing against him, determined to prevent him this same right. The paradox, so brightly illuminated in this incident, of denying in the name of democracy one of its basic tenets - freedom of speech - was the preliminary force which drove me to concentrate my research on this subject and to focus on the tensions that evolve from the very foundations of democracy. Indeed, one of the problems of any political system is that the principles which underlie and characterize it might also, through their application, endanger it and bring about its destruction. Democracy, in its liberal form, is no exception. Moreover, because democracy is a relatively young phenomenon, it lacks experience in dealing with pitfalls involved in the working of the system. This is what I call the "catch" of democracy. The primary aims of this research are (1) to formulate percepts and mechanisms designed to prescribe boundaries to liberty and tolerance conducive to safeguard democracy; and (2) in the light of the theory to analyze a case of a democratic self-defence. Hence, I employ the formulated philosophical principles to the study of the Israeli democracy, evaluating the political and legal measures to which it resorted in its struggle against Kahanism. In the first part of the study I examine two of the main arguments which are commonly
offered as answers to the question: "why tolerate?" The first is the Respect for Others Argument, and the second is the Argument from Truth. I introduce some qualifications to these arguments, asserting that our primary obligation should be given to the first, and that in case of conflict between the two principles, this former principle should take precedence over the latter. Through the review of the Millian theory and some more recent theories I try to boundaries for to liberty. With regard to freedom of expression, I state two arguments: the first under the Harm Principle, and the second under the Offense Principle. Under the Harm Principle I argue that restrictions on liberty may be prescribed when there are sheer threats of immediate violence against some individuals or groups. Under the Offense Principle I explicate that expressions which intend to inflict psychological offence are morally on a par with physical harm and therefore there are grounds for abridging them. In this connection, I review the Illinois Supreme Court decision, which permitted the Nazis to hold a demonstration in Skokie. Moving from theory to practice, in the second part I apply the theory and the conclusions reached to the Israeli democracy, observing its struggle against the Kahanist phenomenon as it has been developed through the last two decades, and increasingly following the election of Meir Kahane to the Knesset in 1984. I examine the mechanisms applied in this anti-'Kach' (Kahane's party) campaign, the justifications given for the limitations that were set, and how justified they were, according to the formulated philosophical and legal guidelines. The author, Raphael Cohen-Almagor , November 15, 1999 An interdisciplinary research in philosophy, politics & law
In August 1985 I participated in a demonstration against Rabbi Meir Kahane, a religious, quasi-Fascist propagandist who was elected to the Israeli Knesset (parliament) in the preceding year. Kahane came to advocate his ideas to the citizens of the city of Givatayim, and in the gathering place he was met by thousands of people, led by the Mayor of the city. The small public square was crowded with people who stood against Kahane, screaming, shouting, and whistling in order to prevent him from... read more
A significant edition to political philosophy Reviewer: Wilfrid Knapp from St. Catherine's College, Oxford, UK November 15, 1999 As long as men and women strive to civilize their society the problem of tolerance will remain, because the urge toward intolerance will not go away. The achievement of Dr. Cohen-Almagor's work is that it adds to our knowledge and awareness of this central problem of politics. His arguments are made in the context of classical liberal thought, of practical politics, and of jurisprudence.
A rare blend of philosophical skill & political sensitivity Reviewer: Professor David Heyd from Department of Philosophy, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel November 15, 1999 A rare blend of philosophical skill & political sensitivity, of detached analytical and critical attitude and deep ethical concern and commitment to liberal democracy.
