Search

The relative standings of four ethnic groups - Muslim Palestinians, Christian Palestinians, Asian-African Jews, European Jews -were compared, using mobility data from 1974 and 1991. The findings show that despite the lack of government support and the prevalence of inexorable discrimination against Israeli Palestinians, they have narrowed the gap with Asian-African Jews in both education and occupational prestige. This finding demonstrates that ideological and political hegemony is not always effective in improving the socio-economic standing of preferred minorities (Asian-African Jews), and that social and economic structures may counterbalance the anti-Palestinian nationalist ideology. The analysis suggests that residential and educational segregation of Palestinians protects them from direct competition with European Jews, whereas Asian-African Jews have to compete with this dominant group in schools, as well as in the labour market.

Recent philosophical work has disclosed a host of problems in our apparently natural ways of classifying things. The contemporary classification of certain groups as "minorities" exemplifies some of these problems. I argue that these classifications are arbitrary and misleading. Through examining several of the most significant ethical moments in the history of modern medicine, including the thought and conduct of Nazi physicians, the Tuskegee study, Beecher's questioning of post-war research practices and Percival's enunciation of a universalist ethic for physicians, I make a case against racial and ethnic classification of patients. Such classifications can play a destructive role in determining the sort of health care which minorities receive. Embracing them, even with the intent of improving the lot of those who do not fare well in the present health care environment, is subversive of the egalitarian stance which has been central to medical ethics since Hippocrates.

The Belgians during the First World War represented the largest refugee movement in British history. Despite the size of this influx - at its peak some 250,000 were present in Britain - there has been an almost total absence of reference to them. This article suggests that this neglect is unfortunate both with regard to our understanding of the First World War and the history of refugees during the twentieth century. In particular, this article stresses the importance of local responses and reactions to the refugees and the significance of place in the process of rebuilding lives and identities in Britain.