part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

No abstract

In 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) established the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ (RtbF). Since its establishment, more than 500,000 people filed requests with Google to be ‘de-listed’ from its search. At the same time, the Court’s decision has stirred debates focused on the tension the decision raised between a person’s right to privacy and freedom of expression. This study offers, yet, a different reading of the decision and its meaning. It first outlines the theoretical foundations of the concept of memory and its relation to rights. Then, it focuses on media, memory, and the RtbF. Afterward, the study discusses the legal origins of the RtbF and claims that the right is actually a right to construct one’s narrative. Therefore, in order to analyze the RtbF, this study places it within memory studies and analyzes it through its tools. From this perspective, this study criticizes the emphasis placed on forgetting in the definition of the right and problematizes its focus on individuals. Eventually, this study uses the legitimization the RtbF gives to a new discourse about memory in relation to rights in order to suggest an extended ‘right to memory’ that will answer the memory needs of our time.

KeywordsIsrael collective memory Israeli law memorialization nation-building heritage Noam Tirosh aNd amiT schejTer Ben-Gurion University of the Negev 'i will perpetuate your memory through all generations' 1 : institutionalization of collective memory by law in israel absTracT If in the past, memory has been understood to be a biological phenomenon relating to the individual and his cognition, today it is clear that memory is a social construction effected by political and cultural processes. This study describes the laws used by the state of Israel in order to form its official memory. It describes how collective memory building is interwoven within the legislation that directs the undertakings of the country's cultural institutions: the educational system, the national symbols, national holidays and memorial days, memory of the Holocaust, preservation of heritage through the erection of museums and physical monuments, commemoration of leaders, and the prevention of certain symbols from entering the public sphere. It demonstrates how the legal apparatus in Israel was mobilized to establish a nationalized collective memory by bridging the 'essential' and 'epochal' elements of nationbuilding and how law can be both a mnemonic practice and an enabler of mnemonic practices. The study of this process provides us with a general lesson on the role of law in collective memory building, with a particular understanding of elements in Israeli nation-building processes.

This study questions the role of media in the formation of society’s memory regarding the asylum seeker struggle in Israel. Through analyzing 180 news articles published during the daily coverage of the refugees’ protest in Israel between December 2013 and January 2014, this study offers an opportunity to explore the mediated environment that also shapes the refugees’ situation in Israel and the role of the printed press in a memory contestation. The study demonstrates that while traditional media are a site in which different versions of the past, even including the refugees’ own version, are being contested and evaluated, they are not enough to guarantee that refugees will gain recognition as such, because traditional media maintain the power to shape and construct the debate in ways that do not always support the refugees’ claims.