Cross-Cultural Communication
Protecting the Jewish Identity Through Digital Privacy Within the Context of Created World (ARZ-I MEVUD)
Abstract
The State of Israel has been adopted as a form of government that has a population of about six million and remains in an area of about twenty one thousand square kilometers, not included in the nation-state structure. The area where the state is located is where the Kingdom of Yehuda is. Culturally, it has hosted many religions, especially Judaism, Christianity, Druze and Bahaili. There is a long depth of political history and awareness of political culture that makes it behind the establishment of the state.
The identity foundations of Judaism are Jewish society chosen as determined by the Torah. In terms of politics, it is seen that Israeli Political Systematics was created within the framework of Zionism and diversified from different political ideologies formed among Zionist party groups.
The subject of Arz-ı Mevud, the Promised Lands, is an issue that is based on religious foundations and interacts on politics. According to the Judaic belief, it is a region that is shown by Jehovah as an area belonging to the Israelites and is included in a large area between the Euphrates and the Nile. However, its exact boundaries are not clear. When evaluated in the context of Judaism belief, Hz. Mose’s all the lands traveled until he entered the Palestinian territory form the border of the Promised Land region.
The purpose of this study; The aim of this course is to evaluate the sensitivities of transforming the issue of “Arz-ı Mevud” (Promised Land) into a policy tool today. The promised land issue is still an ideologically valid issue. It is possible to say that the Israeli State focuses on this issue, which is based on the ideology of religion, and that it has ideological dreams and sanctions in the region mentioned in the Promised Land. In this context, the Promised Lands issue is important for the State of Israel and it aims to reconstruct its ideological sustainability by reconstructing the state identity in the region with digital diplomacy in the framework of the changing bureaucracy order. In this sense,the existing literature has been examined and the findings have been evaluated and presented as a whole.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abdi Atik (Tanab). Tekvin, XIX, 118-21.
Abdi Atik. Çıkış, XLII, 6.
Abdülhamid’in Hatıra Defteri. (Ed. İsmet Bozdağ). İstanbul, 71.
Ancien Testament (Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible). (Year). Paris, 326.
BEN-RAFAEL, Eliezer. (2001). Jewish Identities: Fifty Intellectuals Answer Ben Gurion. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 59.
BEN-RAFAEL, Eliezer. (2002). “Samoidentifikatsiya Razliçnıh Sotsialnıh Grupp V Sovremennom _zrailskom Ob_estve”. In A. Epstein, A. Federchenko (Eds.), Ob_estvo i Politika Sovremennnogo _srailya. Moskva-Erusalim: Evreiskiy Universitet v Erusalime, “Mostı kulturı” – Otkrıtıi Universitet _zrailya, 16-18.
Bustanay Oded. (Year). Canaan, Land of. In EJd., V, 99-100.
Chadwick, A. (2001). The electronic face of government in the internet age: borrowing from Murray Edelman. Information, Communication & Society, 4(3), 435-457. doi: 10.1080/13691180110069482
Cheney, G. (1983a). On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 50, 343-363.
Cheney, G. (1983b). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69(2), 143-159.
Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. (2001). Organizational identities: Lingaes between internal and external communication. In F. Jablin, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research and Method (pp. 231-269). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cheney, G., & McMillian, J. (1990). Organizational rhetoric the practice of criticism. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18(2), 93-115.
David, Ben Gourion. La Palestine, 19-20.
Dillard, W. (2001). Digital diplomacy: U.S. foreign policy in the information age. West Port: Praeger.
Donnelly, J. (2000). Realism and International Relations. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
Entman, R. (2008). Theorizing mediate public diplomacy: The U.S. case. Pres/Politics, 13, 87-102. doi: 10.1177/1940161208314657
Gerber, M. (2008). On the consideration of ‘public diplomacy’ as a rhetorical genre. Contemporary Argumentation & Debate, 29, 118-133.
Gilboa, E. (2002). Real-time diplomacy: Myth and reality. In E. Potter (Ed.), Cyber-Diplomacy (pp. 83-109). Quebec: McGill-Queens University Press.
Goodnight, G. (1998). Public argument and the study of foreign policy. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from American Diplomacy: http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_8/goodnight.html.
Herzl’in Faaliyetleri Hk. Bkz. Prof. Dr. Hikmet Tanyu. (2011). Tarih Boyunca Yahudiler ve Türkler, İstanbul, 976,11/364-410.
Holliday, S. (2010). Khatami’s Islamist-Iranian discourse of national identity: A discourse of resistance. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 37(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1080/13530191003661088
Krebs, R., & Jackson, P. (2007). Twisting tongues and twisting arms: The power of political rhetoric. European Journal of International Relations, 13(1), 35-66. doi: 10.1177/1354066107074284
Kunczik, M. (2009). Transnational public relations by foreign governments. In K. Sriramesh, & D. Vercic (Eds.), The Global Public Relations Handbook (pp. 769-794). New York: Rutledge.
Kur’an, A’rif. VII, 136-141; XVI; XI, 128-141; V/ 21-26; XX 11l6; XXVIII/5-6.
Kurtubi. Tefsir, VI, 12:i.
Louis lsaac Rabinowiz. «İsrael», IX, 106.
Louis lsaac Rabinowiz. “İsrael, Land of”, IX, 108-123.
Marmura, S. (2008). Hegemony in the digital age. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Meisenbach, R., & McMillian, J. (2006). Blurring the boundaries: Historical developments and future directions in organizational rhetoric. Communication Yearbook, 99-141.
Mitchell, G. (2009). Rhetoric and international relations: More than cheap talk. In A. Lunsford, K. Wilson, & R. Eberly (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies (pp. 247-263). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Motion, J., & Leitch, S. (2009). The transformational potential of public diplomacy discourse. Organizational Studies, 30(10), 1045-1061. doi: 10.1177/0170840609337640.
MUMINOV, N. (2014). İSRAİL’DE DEMOKRASİ VE KİMLİK KRİZİ. Journal of International Social Research, 7(34).
Nasr, Mohammed. (Year). The Role of Industrial Sector in Palestinian Economic Development. Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute. http://www.mas.ps/2012/sites/default/files/Industry.pdf (Accessed: 08.03.2020).
Nye, J. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.
Ordeix-Rigo, E., & Duarte, J. (2009). From public diplomacy to corporate diplomacy: Increasing corporation’s legitimacy and influence. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 549-564.
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS). (2012). The Press Report of the Economic Forecasting 2012. Ramallah, Palestine.
Potter, E. (Ed.). (2002). Cyber-diplomacy: Managing foreign policy in the twenty-first century. Quebec: McGill-Queens University Press.
Sabri, Nidal Rashid. (2020). Financing the Palestinian Agricultural Economy. Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute. http://www.mas.ps/2012/sites/default/files/summary%20english.pdf (Accessed: 08.03.2020).
SAND, _lomo. (2011). Yahudi Halkı Nasıl _cad Edildi?. Çeviren: I_ık Ergüden, stanbul: Do_an Kitap, 344-345.
Shaefer, T., & Shenhav, S. (2009). Mediated public diplomacy in a new era of warfare. Communication Review, 12(3), 272-283. doi: 10.1080/10714420903124192.
Sheafer, T., & Gabay, I. (2009). Mediated public diplomacy: A strategic contest over international agenda building and frame building. Political Communication, 26(4), 447-467. doi: 10.1080/10584600903297240
Taberi. Tefsir, XVII, 80-81.
Tanah. Yeremya. XXXI/31.
Taylor, B. (2010). A hedge against the future: The post-cold war rhetoric of nuclear weapons modernization. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 96(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1080/00335630903512721
Taylor, M. (2008). Toward a relational theory of public diplomacy. Conference Papers- National Communication Association. Retrieved from Communication and Mass Media Complete database.
VOLKAN, Vamik D. (1999). Kanba_ı: Etnik Gururdan Etnik Teröre. Çeviren: Süreyya Evren, _stanbul: Ba_lam Yayınları, 37-38.
VOLKAN, Vamik D. (2002). Large-Group Identity: Border Psychology and Related Societal Processes. German Psychoanalytic Association Annual Meeting, Leipzig, Almanya, 2-12.
VOLKAN, Vamik D. (2005). Körü Körüne nanç: Kriz Ve Terör Dönemlerinde Geni Gruplar Ve Liderleri. Çeviren: Özgür Karaçam, _stanbul: Okuyan Us Yayınları, 43-45.
Wiley, S. (2004). Rethinking nationality in the context of globalization. Communication Theory, 14(1), 78-96. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.
Yaşar Kutluay. (1973). Siyonizm ve Türkiye, Ankara., 108-109.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/13182
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Cross-Cultural Communication
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Share us to: 
Remind
We are currently accepting submissions via email only.
The registration and online submission functions have been disabled.
Please send your manuscripts to ccc@cscanada.net，or ccc@cscanada.org for consideration. We look forward to receiving your work.
Articles published in Cross-Cultural Communication are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).
CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION Editorial Office
Address: 1055 Rue Lucien-L'Allier, Unit #772, Montreal, QC H3G 3C4, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org
E-mail:caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net
Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture 
