Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundWe aimed to analyse the efficacy and added value of a targeted Israeli expanded carrier screening panel (IL-ECSP), beyond the first-tier test covered by the Israeli Ministry of Health (IMOH) and the second-tier covered by the Health Maintenance Organisations (HMOs).MethodsA curated variant-based IL-ECSP, tailored to the uniquely diverse Israeli population, was offered at two tertiary hospitals and a major genetics laboratory. The panel includes 1487 variants in 357 autosomal recessive and X-linked genes.ResultsWe analysed 10 115 Israeli samples during an 18-month period. Of these, 6036 (59.7%) were tested as couples and 4079 (40.3%) were singles. Carriers were most frequently identified with mutations in the following genes: GJB2/GJB6 (1:22 allele frequency), CFTR (1:28), GBA (1:34), TYR (1:39), PAH (1:50), SMN1 (1:52) and HEXA (1:56). Of 3018 couples tested, 753 (25%) had no findings, in 1464 (48.5%) only one partner was a carrier, and in 733 (24.3%) both were carriers of different diseases. We identified 79 (2.6%) at-risk couples, where both partners are carriers of the same autosomal recessive condition, or the female carries an X-linked disease. Importantly, 48.1% of these would not have been detected by ethnically-based screening tests currently provided by the IMOH and HMOs, for example, variants in GBA, TYR, PAH and GJB2/GJB6.ConclusionThis is the largest cohort of targeted ECSP testing, tailored to the diverse Israeli population. The IL-ECSP expands the identification of couples at risk and empowers their reproductive choices. We recommend endorsing an expanded targeted panel to the National Genetic Carrier Screening programme.

This volume opens the canon of modern Jewish thought to the all too often overlooked writings of Jews from the Arab East, from the close of the nineteenth century to the middle of the twentieth. Whether they identified as Sephardim, Mizrahim, anticolonialists, or Zionists, these thinkers engaged the challenges and transformations of Middle Eastern Jewry in this decisive period. Moshe Behar and Zvi Ben-Dor Benite present Jewish culture and politics situated within overlapping Arabic, Islamic, and colonial contexts. The editors invite the reader to reconsider contemporary evocations of Levantine, Mizrahi, and Arab Jewish identities against the backdrop of writings by earlier Middle Eastern Jewish intellectuals who critically assessed or contested the implications of Western presence and Western Jewish presence in the Middle East; religion and secularization; and the rise of nationalism, communism, and Zionism, as well as the State of Israel.

In the case of the Mizrahi collectivity, contexts, texts, activism, and scholarship have always been heavily intertwined, leading to a correlation between activism and the production of critical texts. But although many consider scholarship and activism complementary, where producers of scholarly texts and community activists blend together (as has often been the case in the Mizrahi democratic struggle), this overlap is subject to the tension inherent in the contrasting logics that underlie efforts to progressively change sociopolitical contexts on the one hand and to produce texts on the other.

While the vast scholarly fields of modern Jewish thought and modern Jewish intellectual history effectively include no texts by Jews who are of non-European origin, the domain of modern Middle Eastern intellectual history includes no writings by native Middle Eastern Jews. Aiming to help remedy this dual void, this article presents the core premises and argumentation of several pre-1936 Middle Eastern Jewish intellectuals. In filling in some of the contours and details of this rich-but significantly underexplored-history, it posits that a distinct Jewish intellectual school that unambiguously understood itself to be quintessentially Middle Eastern has been present since the beginning of European Zionism in the late nineteenth century. What contemporary scholars commonly recognise as post-1970s Mizrahi (Eastern) thought is thus better understood as an outgrowth of a Middle Eastern Jewish intellectual formation predating 1948.

The question behind this article evolved from two separate observations. While the expansion of comparative and cross-regional research has been actively promoted by leading scholars of the Middle East (and was later encouraged by such bodies as the Middle East Studies Association and this journal), so has the incorporation of scholarly insights from area studies been urged by leading political scientists as a prerequisite for revitalizing all of the discipline's subfields and institutionally endorsed by the American Political Science Association. Viewed as interrelated, these observations prompted the question framing this text: if the aims of many Middle East scholars and institutions are compatible with the aims of many political scientists and their association, why have they remained largely parallel, as suggested by scholars within both fields?