Presenting cases of criminologically unidentifiable circumstances, authors point to concealment susceptibility of some femicide cases, overlooked by both the criminal system and by scholars, rendering them ‘concealed femicides’. The paper presents descriptive and criminological analyses of Israeli cases whereby the woman’s murder was followed by scene staging. It extrapolates the common characteristics of femicide victims and perpetrators, offers a typology of homicide scene staging behaviour that facilitates domesticity-related femicide concealment and, eventually, introduces tools to enhance exposure of femicide.

This article expands on the usability of the concepts of “place making” and “place attachment” as recently developed in urban studies research in the context of housing insecurity of marginalized communities in today’s neo-liberal city. Particularly, against the growing threat of urban evictions, the article utilizes a transdisciplinary approach, showing the relevance of both concepts for (a) a better understanding of bottom-up processes of spatial production and attempts to create a sense of place on the part of such communities, and (b) offering an innovative legal strategy for doing justice to these communities in terms of their compensation rights, especially where a title to land has not been registered on a private basis. These issues are critically examined on the site-related case of the Givat-Amal quarter in Tel Aviv, Israel. This district is now under actual final threat of forced evictions following seven conflicted decades with the state, municipal authorities and private entrepreneurs. Our transdisciplinary study is based on qualitative methodologies in human geography such as fieldwork, visual evidence, and interviews, with a glimpse into philosophy. It is equally based on revisiting “traditional” legal property rights through the lens of post-liberal human rights analysis. The argument can apply to many situations of forced evictions across Africa, Latin America, and the West itself.

The decision in Noar Kahalacha, an anti-segregation in education case that was recently delivered by the Israeli High Court of Justice, has been 'naturally' celebrated as the 'Israeli Brown'. But is it? This article points to the differences between the monumental US Supreme Court decision of Brown and the Israeli Brown-equivalent -Noar Kahalacha. It contends that the two cases bear differences that stem from the divergent patterns of discrimination they represent, and that they reflect these differences squarely. The discrimination patterns reflected by the cases differ by virtue of traits that are traditionally overlooked in antidiscrimination theoretical analysis. Comparing the two cases, therefore, allows us an opportunity to revisit the notion of discrimination and its antidote, antidiscrimination. Drawing on the dichotomous concepts of de jure/de facto discrimination and difference/sameness discrimination, the article shows how these dual theoretical notions are determinative in shaping the distinctiveness of each of these cases. While the African American victims in Brown were easily recognised as a distinctive group suffering from de jure discrimination, the Mizrahi victims in Noar Kahalacha -who suffer from de facto discrimination within a Jewish hegemonic society -lacked such clear recognition. Accordingly, the discrimination narrative that Noar Kahalacha provides is very incomplete and carries only limited potential for effective application in future struggles to eliminate discriminatory practices against Mizrahis in Israel. Brown, on the other hand, carries a converse trait. Though criticised, Brown, nevertheless, strongly signifies the recognition by White America of its overarching discriminatory practices, and implies a genuine dedication to break from it. This understanding further illuminates the limitations embedded in the possibility of 'importing' highly contextual antidiscrimination jurisprudence from abroad into our system's highly contextual reality of discrimination.

This article points to a general weakness in liberal rights discourse, and specifically in the antidiscrimination stratagem. It argues that this stratagem is of limited effectiveness due to its perception of "difference" as constituting the heart of the notion of discrimination. Reliance on "difference" in formatting discrimination fails to acknowledge discrimination held against a group within settings characterized by "sameness," thereby rendering the antidiscrimination principle too narrow to protect some discriminated-against groups. This point is exemplified by analyzing the case of the de facto discrimination against Mizrahi Jews in Israel, or Jews of Arab/ Muslim descent, who are conceptualized under a notion of "sameness" rather than "difference" within Israeli hegemony vis-à-vis the Palestinians, who figure as the ultimate "others." Employing an interdisciplinary methodology, the argument relies on the theory of Orientalism, developed in the fields of postmodern cultural studies, and on its implementation to address Israel's social stratifications. Fortified with this richer, contextual concept of Orientalism, the article turns to the legal sphere to attain better understanding of the constituents of discrimination as a whole and of that practiced against Mizrahim, in particular. Specifically, the analysis targets the antidiscrimination stratagem and stresses its limited effectiveness when applied from within its traditionally ahistorical, de-politicized framework. In a radical move, the article argues that to cross into the antidiscrimination discourse in an effective way, Mizrahi Jews should also embrace the "Arab" component of their own identity. This move entails two reconstructive undertakings: one in which Mizrahis' legal identity may be re-identified as "Arab," and a second in which discrimination against Palestinians may be reconsidered as rooted in anti-ethnic rather than in anti-national sentiments. Consequently, a new discursive "third space" will be opened for both Palestinians and Mizrahis, in which they may collaborate in articulating and contesting both shared and uniquely encountered forms of discrimination. This two-pronged critical approach to challenging discrimination in Israeli sys-177 178 JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES [Vol. 12:177 tems can benefit both groups and enrich the antidiscrimination discourse in a manner crucial to achieving a better, more just society inside Israel.