Content uploaded by Ines Gabel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ines Gabel on Dec 23, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Media, Culture & Society
35(2) 250 –259
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0163443712467592
mcs.sagepub.com
Historical memory and
collective identity: West Bank
settlers reconstruct the past
Ines Gabel
The Open University, Israel
Abstract
Collective memory is a product of ideological construction that can be used as a key
element in the elaboration of collective identity. This research will use the case study
of Nekuda, the principal bulletin of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank, to explore the
role played by a community paper in the construction of the community’s historical
memory. This study is concerned with two main questions: first, which historical periods
are reconstructed in the newspaper? The discourse deals with the continuity of Jewish
presence in Israel since biblical times and reinforces the image of the Jewish victim in
the Diaspora. The second question is how settlers’ historiography characterizes their
collective identity. Settlers’ historical memory portrays a wide-ranging movement that
includes unique features as well as a willingness to lead the whole nation together in
search of an ordinary middle-class ambience. Collective memory situates the movement
at the heart of the Zionist consensus, as a conservative rather than a revolutionary
movement.
Keywords
alternative press, collective identity, collective memory, counter-memory, Jewish
settlers, West Bank
The aim of this article is to examine the ways in which a movement’s collective
memory is constructed and articulated in a sectarian publication and to explore the
discursive elements of its construction. Media in general and alternative press in par-
ticular play a critical role in what Zerubavel calls ‘mnemonic socialization’ (Zerubavel,
Corresponding author:
Ines Gabel, The Open University, 108 Ravutsky St, PO Box 98695, Raanana, 43100, Israel.
Email: inesga@openu.ac.il
467592MCS35210.1177/0163443712467592Media, Culture & SocietyGabel
2013
Commentary
at The Open University Library on December 23, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Gabel 251
1996). This research will use Nekuda – the principal bulletin of Gush Emunim (Block
of the Faithful) movement, the leadership for the Jewish religious ideological settlers
in the West Bank – as a case study. Two major issues are in the center of this work:
the first is which historical periods are reconstructed in the newspaper? And the sec-
ond: how does an alternative newspaper shape historical memory in accordance with
present circumstances?
Media, memory and collective identity
Maurice Halbwachs (1980) was one of the first researchers to view collective memory as
a product of social construction. Collective memory is the result of an interactive process
of selecting, processing and organizing past events or periods within a framework that
grants them political and social significance (Gongaware, 2003, 2010).
Every group sees to its own mnemonic socialization, that is, to the perpetuation of its
own memories (Zerubavel, 1996). Several works have studied the role of collective
memory in the construction of nationalism (Bhabha, 1990; Papadakis, 2003; Pearson,
1999; Tamm, 2008; Zerubavel, 1994). Assmann (1995) argues that memory provides a
social group with a sense of unity and distinctiveness. Groups’ leaders transform memo-
ries held by small sections of their membership into a shared legacy and ensure their
maintenance in the future (Gongaware, 2003, 2010).
Memory and group identity become linked insofar as awareness of a collective past
helps define community boundaries: whoever accepts the burden of history belongs to
the community; everyone else is an outsider (Irwin-Zarecka, 1994). In this context
Zionist historiography has been vastly explored (Katriel and Shenhar, 1990; Peri, 1999,
2000; Vinitzky-Seroussi, 2002; Zerubavel, 1995).
Media are major agents of mnemonic knowledge since they may communicate with
huge audiences simultaneously (Edy, 1999). During the last twenty years, research has
focused on media and memory, and the role of journalists as mnemonic agents (Edy,
1999; Kitch, 2005, 2008; Meyers, 2002, 2007; Schudson, 1992). Journalism scholars
have pointed out that journalists act as memory agents (Harcup and O’Neill, 2001;
Meyers, 2007). As mnemonic agents, journalists select events that they consider note-
worthy and construct cultural frames to interpret them (Zandberg, 2010). Consequently
journalists place these events in an historical context that endows them with cultural and
political significance (Meyers, 2007) and use analogies between present and historical
events that suggest that the future may resemble the course of past experiences (Edy,
1999).
Nekuda is an alternative publication that challenges mainstream Israeli media.
Alternative media are produced outside mainstream media institutions and usually focus
on marginalized groups (Atton, 2002). These means of communication differ from main-
stream media in various aspects, such as their content, modes of production and distribu-
tion (Downing, 2001). Alternative media are essentially critical and counter-hegemonic
(Fuchs, 2010). Collective memory is a central concept in the understanding of political
and ideological controversy. Consequently, alternative media may construct particular
mnemonic frames and narratives that challenge mainstream historiography and function
as discursive tools in social conflict.
at The Open University Library on December 23, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
252 Media, Culture & Society 35(2)
Research strategy and results
Nekuda is a monthly magazine. Data was collected from a sample that included two
randomly selected editions in each year, dating from its inception in December 1979
to the end of 2009. Overall, 58 editions were examined. In each edition a purposive
sample of articles that dealt with the past was examined, which involved careful
perusal of reports, articles, editorials and letters to the editor that refer to history.
References to the past were thoroughly scrutinized and categorized into three main
periods. The first is the biblical period, when Jews lived in the land of Israel. The
second period starts after the expulsion from Israel in the first century AD and ends at
the beginning of the twentieth century. During this period Jews lived mainly in the
Diaspora. The third period starts with the Zionist movement, at the beginning of the
twentieth century. These periods convey three different components of settlers’ col-
lective memory: (1) the assumption of the historical continuity of Jewish settlement
in the land of Israel as a basis for establishing sovereignty in the country; (2) the
celebration of periods in which the Jews rebelled against foreign governments, prov-
ing their bravery and readiness for sacrifice and (3) an emphasis on the suffering and
persecution that were the lot of Jews living under foreign rule. These memory com-
ponents will be discussed in the following sections.
Continuity of Jewish presence in the Land of Israel
Many of the articles and reports in Nekuda convey a message about the continuity of the
Jewish presence in Israel during the Diaspora years. Gush Emunim has attempted to
trace remnants of the Jewish presence throughout history in different parts of the country.
Thus one report is devoted to a Jewish community that survived in Nablus for over 600
years (Erlich, 1980) and another portrays a site that had been described in the book of
Judges as the ‘center of the country’ and suggests that it is located next to a Jewish set-
tlement in Samaria (Ilan, 1982).
The pursuit of evidence of Jewish presence in Israel is visible in later texts too. Uri
Elizur wrote that Jews have known Jerusalem for 3000 years, thus implying that they
have lived in the city since David’s Kingdom (Elizur, 2001). In 2004, as part of the dis-
cussion about a possible withdrawal from the Gaza strip, an article was published focus-
ing on the Jewish presence in Gaza since the Hasmonean period, during the second
century BC (Huberman, 2004). The writer’s purpose was to argue that Jews’ right to
settle in Gaza has historical roots.
The quest for evidence of a continuous Jewish presence in the country is manifest also
in the resurrection of biblical place names. The attempt to recover biblical names instead of
using Arabic words can be seen as one facet of a broader struggle over a historical right to
the country. Use of ancient Hebrew names strengthens the claim that the Jewish presence
in the land of Israel precedes that of other nations. Moreover, their use expresses not only
political control of the land but also cultural hegemony that grants a more legitimate claim
to the territory. This is certainly suggested in a report about an investigation into the biblical
name of the settlement Levona, in which the author recommends adopting its previous
name ‘White House’ (Bayit Lavan in Hebrew) (Erlich, 1980). In a similar vein, the early
at The Open University Library on December 23, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Gabel 253
Zionist movement has been criticized for failing to preserve biblical names and instead
celebrating leaders of the movement in their selection of place names (Afa, 1980).
The struggle for freedom: Jews rebel against foreign
sovereigns
The second component of Gush Emunim’s memory includes periods in which Jews
proved their bravery through acts of heroism and rebellion for the sake of political and
cultural freedom. Gush Emunim leaders make a point of drawing parallels between their
own movement and the acts of Jews against foreign rule in different periods in history.
They see themselves as comparable to Bar Kochba, the leader of the Jewish rebellion
against Roman rule in 132–135 AD and the Hasmoneans, who rebelled against Hellenistic
rule in 160 BCE. Thus a special correlation is construed between the new settlements and
earlier struggles for freedom (Segal, 1982).
The pioneers and founders of the early Zionist movement, who lived in Israel at the
beginning of the 20th century, have a vital role in Gush Emunim’s historical narrative.
Settlers are portrayed as their inheritors since they are depicted as fulfilling the same
tasks – setting frontiers and protecting the state society (Elizur, 2001; Ben-Yaakov, 2002).
Even though the state of Israel was founded dozens of years earlier, the settlers’ narrative
presents the state existence as fragile. Thus the settlements in Gaza in the late 1990s are pre-
sented as similar to those built before 1948 (Huberman, 1998). Accordingly, Nekuda com-
pares the hunger strike of the Gush Emunim leadership during the early 1980s to a similar
undertaking during the British Mandate (Until the goal is realized, 1980). In the same vein,
murder of Jews in Hebron in the early 1980s is portrayed as similar to the pogrom that
occurred in the same city in 1929 (Hebron, Yesod Hamaaleh and Elon Moreh, 1980).
The similarity to early 20th-century Zionism is construed too by portraying settlers as
motivated by the same ideals as those attributed to their predecessors, such as the ‘objective
of establishing a better, more just society inspired by the sense of mission that has always
been at the heart of settlement’ (Harel, 1981: 3). One of the principles of the Zionist revolu-
tion was that the country should run on Hebrew labor, and Jews had to learn to be farmers
and industry workers, an objective that was also shared by the settlers, according to the text
(Rosenfeld, 1980). In an interview published in 1990 one of the settlers summarized this
self-image: ‘Coming here is saying: I am a pioneer’ (Lerman, 1990: 19).
Settlers and early pioneers are portrayed as minorities that were misunderstood by the
vast majority. They were viewed as fanatics and unrealistic. Yet, according to settlers’
historical reading, these minorities’ dreams proved to be rational (Ben-Yaakov, 2002).
The analogy to pioneers is interesting since early Zionism was characterized by a
secular, anti-religious ideology while the Block of the Faithful is a religious, sometimes
even defined as a fundamentalist movement.
Jews as eternal victims
The third component of Gush Emunim’s collective memory is its attention to periods
in which the Jewish people have been persecuted. Interestingly, the sole mention
of Jewish life under foreign sovereignty relates to persecutions and oppression.
at The Open University Library on December 23, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
254 Media, Culture & Society 35(2)
Other aspects of Jewish life, such as the rich religious literature that flourished in
Europe, have been erased from the newspaper’s discourse. The disregard for Jewish
social and cultural life and the emphasis on suffering under foreign rule imply that
Jews must establish their own political framework. Moreover, settlers’ interpretation
of the past suggests that Israel’s future depends on Jewish decisions and acts, rather
than international circumstances.
The interpretation of the past has taught the Gush Emunim leadership that the deci-
sion to fight is always well taken. The historical and meta-historical dimensions of the
Gush Emunim narrative intersect and the newspaper portrays the conflict with the Arab
neighbors as the contemporary struggle against Amalek –an ancient nation that became
a symbol of the eternal enemy of the Jewish. Thus Arabs’ antagonism towards Israel is
described as ‘Amalekism of our generation’ (Eliash, 1980: 13).
Israel’s confrontations with its neighbors thus acquire transcendental meaning beyond
the bounds of historical or circumstantial considerations. According to Jewish tradition,
at every stage of history the Jewish people has had to confront a different enemy, an end-
less chain of conflicts which will cease at the end of history, that is, with the coming of
the Messiah. Thus the assumption is that it is a divine decree, inscribed in the Bible that
propels Gush Emunim to combat its opponents.
Moreover, the conflict between Israel and its neighbors is portrayed in settlers’ his-
toriography as a new form of anti-Semitism. Following this line, their opponents’ ideol-
ogy is referred to as similar to the anti-Semitic book The Protocols of Zion (Saadon,
1996). Another article argued that anti-Semitism in the Arab world has profound roots
in Islamic culture from the 19th century, thus implying that Zionism was not the cause
of the antagonism towards Israel (Frantzman, 2009). Hence its political and territorial
aspects are ignored.
In order to emphasize the dangers to the Jewish people in the absence of independ-
ence, Nekuda also refers to the Holocaust (Etzion, 2009; Who fans the fires of the vio-
lence?, 1981). Any decision which opposes the Gush Emunim position or the concept of
a Complete Land of Israel is virtually perceived as a holocaust, or as a step that could
bring another tragedy upon the Jewish people.
Discussion
Analysis of the findings leads to several insights. The first is that, according to Gush
Emunim, the history of the Jewish people in the land of Israel can be divided into two:
periods in which there was Jewish sovereignty over the country and periods in which
other nations were sovereign. In this respect, the Gush Emunim leadership reveals an
a-historical perspective, one in which there is no consideration of the unique circum-
stances and characteristics of each period. The historiography of Gush Emunim takes no
stand on geopolitical or demographic context, nor are particular conditions or attributes
in any given era taken into account. Writers move from period to period, analyzing real-
ity and drawing conclusions with respect to certain periods on the basis of the lessons
learned from others.
For Jews, through the eyes of Gush Emunim, losing sovereignty over their country
means suffering from persecution and harassment. Even though Palestine was under
at The Open University Library on December 23, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Gabel 255
different rulers during history, foreign sovereignty has no moral or historical legitimacy
in Gush Emunim’s historiography. Other peoples that lived in the land of Israel have
been symbolically erased from the movement’s memory (Newman, 2005). If there have
been any changes in the make-up of the population, then ostensibly the Jewish presence
has been constant. This historical perspective gives the Zionist enterprise moral authority
insofar as Jewish sovereignty is the only assurance of the continuity of the Jewish peo-
ple. Thus the Jews are not a colonial nation who attempted to gain control of a land that
was not theirs, rather they are portrayed as the only nation with historical rights to the
land. Discovery of the past strengthens the status of the Jewish nation as bearers of sole
authority to claim the land.
The second insight is the emphasis on the theme of victimization as another thread
linking historical interludes in the collective memory of the settlers. The theme of vic-
timization is ingrained in Jewish culture and historiography (Assis et al., 2000; Hazan,
2001). The Jewish nation is perceived as weak and unable to defend itself against peoples
with military might. Thus it has fallen prey to persecution and maltreatment since the
dawn of history and up until the present day. The establishment of the state and its mili-
tary successes – such as the victory during the Six Day War – have not laid this motif to
rest. Insofar as the theme of victimization remains intact regardless of changing histori-
cal circumstances, it too is a manifestation of the a-historical perspective.
It is interesting that the Gush Emunim leadership draws parallels between the fate of
the Jews in the Diaspora before the establishment of Israel as a state and the problems of
the settlers. There is an attempt here to draw connections between the present and the
past while deliberately ignoring differences between the two periods. This comparison
implies that the settlements do not enjoy the protection of the sovereign nation. They live
under conditions similar to those of the Jews living under foreign rule. Thus for the set-
tlement leadership the state has not yet been fully established because, even though there
is a sovereign Jewish presence, it does not guarantee the services they believe a state
ought to provide.
The historiography of Gush Emunim also reveals the assumption of a critical connec-
tion between restoration of the past and interpretation and understanding of the present.
The present-day struggle over the land of Israel determines the choice of past events for
reinforcement of the moral basis of the Jewish nation’s claim to sovereignty and control
over the land. Memory of the past serves as an instrument for inculcating belief in the
necessity of struggle, even at the price of sacrifice or heroism. Moreover, the lessons of
the past give credence to demands and activities in the present. Thus, for example, Gush
Emunim’s collective memory teaches the members of its community that under certain
conditions, it is permissible and even necessary to take controversial steps, and even
engaging in illegal acts is accepted.
As discussed before, one of the principal functions of memory is to structure the iden-
tity of a community. What can be deduced about the identity of the Gush Emunim move-
ment from the arrangement of the past and the structure of collective memory as presented
on the pages of Nekuda? The chief conclusion would seem to be that Gush Emunim sees
itself as an integral part of Israeli society since the movement portrays itself as a pioneer
movement, the natural descendant of the secular Zionist movement, that combined set-
tlement with defense (Feige, 2009; Katriel and Shenhar, 1990). In other words, the
at The Open University Library on December 23, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
256 Media, Culture & Society 35(2)
settlement endeavor is seen as having the same dual significance as the settlements that
were established during the early Zionist period. On one hand this has a political signifi-
cance. Settlements are the very epitome of the Zionist ideology of establishing a demo-
graphic and economic infrastructure for the state and marking its frontier, and as such
their establishment is seen as an act with meaning in and of itself.
On the other hand, the settlements also have military significance. In the eyes of the
Gush Emunim leadership, as in the eyes of the first pioneers, a settlement is not just a
place to live but also a military presence. It protects the borders of the state and of the
Jewish population in other areas. In other words, in Gush Emunim’s historical interpreta-
tion, every settlement, even if it holds but a few families, adds to the security of the
Jewish population as a whole. The analogy between the project of settlement and the wall
and tower campaign, and the foundation of the first communities at the beginning of the
20th century, situates the movement at the heart of the Zionist consensus.
Nonetheless, the collective identity of the settlers is not unified or homogeneous.
They portray the community as a microcosm of Israeli society. The newspaper portrays
settlers as coming from all the sectors in the nation, the religious, the secular, new immi-
grants, veteran citizens, those who came for ideological reasons and those who came
looking for quality of life and lead ordinary lives. The diversity in identity has helped
Gush Emunim to participate in public Israeli discourse and to present its community dif-
ferently at different times, in accordance with prevailing conditions.
The duality in the definition of the Gush Emunim identity and the issue of how the
past is framed or how shared history is reconstructed are related. The difficulty with
defining the nature of the movement affects how the past is configured. An emphasis on
acts of bravery and on deviation from the law for the sake of national objectives is likely
to reinforce an elitist and differentiated image. A heterogeneous and ‘ordinary’ portrait of
the community may be more attractive to ordinary people who are interested in improv-
ing their lifestyle.
Collective memory may have another function: bestowing legitimacy on the political
demands of the movement. By virtue of Gush Emunim’s historical memory, its aspira-
tion to control all of Israel and the territories conquered in the Six-Day War is viewed as
natural and legitimate. The historical basis for the connection between the Jewish people
and the land of Israel situates the demands of the movement within a context of redress-
ing former wrongs: Jews have been present in the country throughout history. Other
nations that ruled for a time were perceived as foreign, and their rule was made possible
by military might. The Jewish right to settle the land, on the contrary, derives from his-
tory and not from power. Arguments in favour of controlling the territory revolve around
the historical right established by Jewish sovereignty in the past and by the Jewish pres-
ence in Israel throughout 2000 years of exile, and settlers seek to distance themselves
from their aggressive and colonialist image.
Moreover the Gush Emunim movement wishes to clarify that Jews lived in Israel
throughout history and did not abandon their country. The Gush Emunim leadership is
interested primarily in emphasizing the Jewish presence in the territories, as the battle
over public opinion is primarily over the right to establish Jewish settlements in areas
captured during the Six Day War. Restructuring of the past is intended, therefore, to cast
Gush Emunim’s political struggle in a historical light.
at The Open University Library on December 23, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Gabel 257
This point displays the connection between memory and the present circumstances.
Gush Emunim’s political aspirations and the need to cope with criticism are key fac-
tors in the molding of memory that can serve as an instrument in Gush Emunim’s
confrontations with its opponents. The movement has been required to deal with criti-
cism on several fronts. On the international front, the aspirations of the movement to
settle territories occupied since the Six Day War are viewed as a transgression of inter-
national law and as an immoral imperative that causes injustice to the Palestinians.
Leaders of the movement are not particularly disturbed by this, although the contro-
versy reaches into wide sectors of the state. A second front is challenges posed by
opponents within the Israeli public to the conceptual stance adopted by Gush Emunim.
Most of the criticism has been directed against its colonialist aspirations. A third front
has appeared among supporters of the ideology of the movement who object to its
methods and activities. At the same time there are also internal debates within the com-
munity, between the religious and the secular, the ideologists and the pragmatists, and
between the hard core of Gush Emunim and new settlers who came to the territories
seeking a better quality of life.
It can be concluded that the claims of Gush Emunim to settle the captured territories
and to establish sovereignty over them rest on what the movement sees as a a historical
and moral platform. The leaders of Gush Emunim see their movement as a link in an
ongoing and continuous historical chain, and not as a revolutionary enterprise.
Are settlers revolutionary?
Taub (2007) suggests that the settlers have moved away from the political Zionist ideol-
ogy and have elaborated a particular form of religious messianic doctrine. Yet, the set-
tlers’ memory portrays them as similar to the early pioneers.
Moreover, the bond to secular Zionism is established also by adopting its language
and images of early Zionism, among them the image of the pioneer, the Hasmoneans,
and the Masada story (Katriel and Shenhar, 1990). The motif of the victim was also per-
vasive in the early phase of Zionism (Peri, 2000).
At the same time, settlers’ historiography wiped out the experience of the Jews in the
Diaspora. Disregard for this period of Jewish history is puzzling, as one might have
expected a religious community such Gush Emunim to emphasize the rich cultural and
religious legacy that developed in the Diaspora. The leadership of Gush Emunim has
opted, however, to adopt the Zionist line of historiography, which stresses the Jewish
presence in the land of Israel and distances itself from periods of history in which the
Jews lived outside of the country (Weitz, 1997).
Therefore the settlers’ historiography does not portray Gush Emunim as a revolution-
ary movement seeking fundamental change in values or government. On the contrary,
Gush Emunim sees itself as a movement looking to return to ideological roots, to the
mythical ethos of an idealistic society which actualizes its beliefs. The alternative pro-
posed by the settlers to a society that has become materialistic and which seeks only to
mimic the western world, is to return to its roots and to the ideals on which Israeli society
was founded. In this regard Gush Emunim can be viewed as a conservative movement
which espouses historical values rather than a revolutionary alternative.
at The Open University Library on December 23, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
258 Media, Culture & Society 35(2)
The reluctance among settlers’ leaders to establish a counter-memory can also be
understood in the context of deliberation about the identity of the movement. Does Gush
Emunim see itself as mainstream or does it see itself as opposed to operating outside of
the normative framework and representing a small group? This dilemma is extremely
important as it reflects on the image of the group both in its own eyes and in the eyes of
the public.
This article’s purpose was to examine the role of collective memory construed in an
alternative newspaper in the formation of collective identity. The results show that alter-
native media are important mnemonic agents that shape a social movement’s collective
memory according to its present circumstances and constraints.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial of
not-for-profit sectors.
References
Afa Y (1980) These are the names. Nekuda 10: 12–13 (in Hebrew).
Assis Y et al. (2000) Pogroms of 1096 in History and Historiography. Jerusalem: Shazar Center
(in Hebrew).
Assmann J (1995) Collective memory and cultural identity. New German Critique 65: 125–133.
Atton C (2002) Alternative Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ben-Yaakov Y (2002) Those in the French area. Nekuda 255: 74 (in Hebrew).
Bhabha HK (1990) DissemiNation: time, narrative, and the margins of modern nation. In:
Bhabha HK (ed.) Nation and Narration. London: Routledge, pp. 291–322.
Downing JDH (2001) Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements. London: Sage.
Edy JA (1999) Journalistic uses of collective memory. Journal of Communication 49(2):71–87.
Eliash A (1980) The right to hate. Nekuda 15: 12–13.
Elizur U (2001) Jerusalem of iron. Nekuda 242: 3 (in Hebrew).
Erlich Y (1980) White House and not Levona. Nekuda 3: 16 (in Hebrew).
Etzion Y (2009) The interpretation of the mirror’s horror. Nekuda 317: 34–37 (in Hebrew).
Feige M (2009) Settling in the Hearts: Jewish Fundamentalism in the Occupied Territories.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Frantzman S (2009) The rise of Islamic anti-Semitism. Nekuda 317: 34–37 (in Hebrew).
Fuchs C (2010) Alternative media as critical media. European Journal of Social Theory 13(2): 173–192.
Gongaware TB (2003) Collective memories and collective identities: maintaining unity in Native
American educational social movements. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 32(50): 483–520.
Gongaware TB (2010) Collective memory anchors: collective identity and continuity in social
movements. Sociological Focus 43(3): 214–239.
Halbwachs M (1980) The Collective Memory. New York: Harper and Row.
Harcup T and O’Neill D (2001) What is news? Galtung and Ruge revised? Journalism Studies
2(2): 261–280.
Harel I (1981) The lights, shadows and self-examination. Nekuda 34: 3 (in Hebrew).
Hazan R (2001) The First Crusade and the Jews. Jerusalem: Shazar Center (in Hebrew).
Hebron, Yesod Hamale and Elon More (1980) Nekuda 4(9) (in Hebrew).
Huberman C (1998) Abu Ala was very excited. Nekuda 219: 34–37 (in Hebrew).
Huberman C (2004) A journey to our roots in Gaza. Nekuda 269: 26–32 (in Hebrew).
Ilan Z (1982) Where is the center? Nekuda 50: 12–13. (in Hebrew).
at The Open University Library on December 23, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Gabel 259
Irwin-Zarecka I (1994) Frames of Remembrance: The Dynamics of Collective Memory. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Katriel T and Shenhar D (1990) Tower and stockade: dialogic narration in Israeli settlement ethos.
Quarterly Journal of Speech 76(4): 359–380.
Kitch C (2005) Pages from the Past: History and Memory in American Magazines. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Kitch C (2008) Placing journalism inside memory – and memory studies. Memory Studies 1(3): 311–320.
Lerman S (1990) Netzarim: five minutes from Menozarat. Nekuda 139: 18–21 (in Hebrew).
Meyers O (2002) Still photographs, dynamic memories: an analysis of the visual presentation of
Israel’s history in commemorative newspaper supplements. Communication Review 5: 179–205.
Meyers O (2007) Memory in journalism and the memory of journalism: Israeli journalists and the
constructed legacy of Haolam Hazeh. Journal of Communication 57: 719–738.
Newman D (2005) From Hitnachalut to Hitnatkut: the impact of Gush Emumim and the settlement
movement in Israeli politics and society. Israeli Studies 10(3): 192–224.
Papadakis Y (2003) Nation, narrative and commemoration: political ritual in divided Cyprus.
History and Anthropology 14(3): 253–270.
Pearson R (1999) History and historians in the service of nation-building. In: Branch M (ed.)
National History and Identity: Approaches to the Writing of National History in the North-
East Baltic Region, Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society,
pp. 63–77.
Peri Y (1999) The media and the collective memory of Yitzhak Rabin’s remembrance. Journal of
Communication 49(3): 106–124.
Peri Y (2000) Rabin: between commemoration and denial. In: Peri Y (ed.) The Assassination of
Yitzhak Rabin. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 348–378.
Rosenfeld A (1980) Tekoa: the fortress, the desert and the village. Nekuda 4: 10 (in Hebrew).
Saadon A (1996) The religious are planning a military revolt – considering the protocols of.
Nekuda 200: 74–75 (in Hebrew).
Schudson M (1992) Watergate in American Memory: How we Remember, Forget and Reconstruct
the Past. New York: Basic Books.
Segal C (1982) The accusing finger. Nekuda 51: 14–15 (in Hebrew).
Taub G (2007) The Settlers: The Struggle over the Significance of Zionism. Tel Aviv: Miskal (in
Hebrew).
Tamm M (2008) History as cultural memory: mnemohistory and the construction of the Estonian
nation. Journal of Baltic Studies 39(4): 499–516.
Until the goal is realized (1980) Nekuda 4(9) (in Hebrew).
Vinitzky-Seroussi V (2002) Commemorating a difficult past: Yitzhak Rabin’s memorials.
American Sociological Review 67(1): 30–51.
Weitz Y (1997) Between the Vision and Revision: A Hundred Years of Zionist Historiography.
Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Centre (in Hebrew).
Who fans the fires of the violence? (1981) Nekuda 30: 18 (in Hebrew).
Zandberg E (2010) The right to tell the (right) story: journalism, authority and memory. Media,
Culture & Society 32(1): 5–24.
Zerubavel E (1996) Social memories: steps to a sociology of the past. Qualitative Sociology 9:
283–299.
Zerubavel Y (1994) The historic, the legendary and the incredible: invented tradition and collec-
tive memory. In: Gillis JR (ed.) Commemoration: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton
NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 105–123.
Zerubavel Y (1995) Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National
Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
at The Open University Library on December 23, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
