Israeli Academic
Extremism
Many Israeli Academics are “disconnected” and “unsure of their
place” in Israeli society
It is apparent that the central problem
with too many of Israel's academics is that they are unsure of their
place in society, they misunderstand their relevance and they are
embittered and hysterical in their pronouncements to the point of
having a childlike "crying wolf" mentality when discussing the
conflict in the Middle East. … There was a time in history when
academics understood that their role in society, shaping its
culture, encouraging it along a proper course, developing the
national narrative. The academy knew that its life was intricately
linked to that of the society it lived in. It was the highest level
of that society and had a responsibility to it. Israeli academics
who call on European powers to invade the country to "save it from
itself," those who call the country "Nazi," those who call for
boycotts of their own country, those who go into "exile" abroad or
those who encourage the murder of citizens in the country simply do
not view themselves as responsible for the country at large. They
are so disconnected from the society that they no longer feel any
responsibility to be decent and mature in their rhetoric toward it.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258027296284&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Terra Incognita:
The (ir)responsibility of the academy
Seth Frantzman , THE JERUSALEM POST
Nov. 15, 2009
Recent debates surrounding politics at
university have usually juxtaposed two different political
viewpoints against one another. The Right argues that the academy is
overflowing with extreme-leftist professors who work to undermine
the existence of the state at home and abroad. The Left argues that
its freedom of expression is being threatened by the Right and that
its campaigns for "justice" or "human rights" are part of making the
state more humane.
The Left believes that if a few of its
extremist voices call for boycotts of their own universities then
that might be "misplaced," but it is part and parcel of a democratic
society. Perhaps both sides are right. The academy is at the
forefront of anti-Israel intellectual extremism. It is also a
bastion of freedom of expression in a free society.
But what both sides are missing is a
third view of the academy, namely one that sees it as enshrining
certain values, three of which should be responsibility, decency and
maturity. The extreme-leftist antics of some faculty members should
not be curtailed by laws or by dismissal from the academy. Instead
there should be an inculcation of self-control.
Instead of crying "Nazi" every time the
IDF does something an academic disagrees with, one could hold his
tongue. Instead of requesting the boycott of one's own university,
one could have some restraint. Instead of signing petitions
encouraging soldiers to desert their units or calling on European
powers to immediately intervene to "save" the Palestinians from a
"genocide," one could show some self-control.
It is apparent that the central problem
with too many of Israel's academics is that they are unsure of their
place in society, they misunderstand their relevance and they are
embittered and hysterical in their pronouncements to the point of
having a childlike "crying wolf" mentality when discussing the
conflict in the Middle East.
Consider a few examples. Prof. Ada Yonath,
fresh after receiving a Nobel Prize, instead of saying a few words
of praise for a society that gave her the opportunities to succeed
and excel, immediately launched into a barrage of opinions about
Gilad Schalit. She declared that Israel should release all its
Palestinian prisoners and that holding them was the real source of
all Palestinian attacks on Israel.
Prof. Ze'ev Sternhell, in the midst of
the second intifada, when his own students were being massacred on
buses, declared that Palestinians should "concentrate their struggle
against the settlements." Students live in those very settlements
that make up the outskirts of greater Jerusalem. Yet the professor
felt confident that his role as a scholar of fascism meant he was
endowed with the ability to decide who should die and who should
live.
Dr. Anat Matar of Tel Aviv University,
Dr. Neve Gordon of Ben-Gurion University and Dr. Ilan Pappe who was
once of the University of Haifa have all supported boycotts of their
own universities.
THERE WAS a time in history when
academics understood that their role in society, shaping its
culture, encouraging it along a proper course, developing the
national narrative. The academy knew that its life was intricately
linked to that of the society it lived in. It was the highest level
of that society and had a responsibility to it. Israeli academics
who call on European powers to invade the country to "save it from
itself," those who call the country "Nazi," those who call for
boycotts of their own country, those who go into "exile" abroad or
those who encourage the murder of citizens in the country simply do
not view themselves as responsible for the country at large. They
are so disconnected from the society that they no longer feel any
responsibility to be decent and mature in their rhetoric toward it.
This behavior represents a fundamental
breakdown between the academy and the state. Prof. Gad Yair of
Hebrew University's Sociology Department has summed up this
relationship as follows: "The state without social sciences is
ruthless, social sciences without the state are useless." Too many
of Israel's academics view themselves as living in a bubble and in
that bubble they see no reason not to challenge the very existence
of the state.
Whether it is Shlomo Sand denying the
existence of the Jewish people or Prof. Yoav Peled calling for a
"one-state solution," they place themselves outside the state. Some
of them even create a perception of the state that exists only in
their mind. Prof. Oren Yiftachel called the state a "white... pure
settlement colonial society."
Pure white? Yiftachel changed the
ethnicity of 90 percent of Israelis to create a myth of whiteness so
that he could irresponsibly act out his fantasy of opposing a new
colonialistic apartheid.
A proper relationship between the academy
and the state is one in which the academy is part of the state and,
as part of it, serves its interests. It is understandable that many
academics feel alienated from the state and its activities. They
feel the occupation is morally repugnant, that the state isn't
living up to their ideals.
But when children don't behave correctly,
it is the parents' responsibility to correct this, not scream
hysterically that the children are "little Nazis" and leave the
house.
Irresponsible parents encourage lawless
behavior, their hysterical reactions and bipolar passive aggressive
behavior undermine the morality of the children, instead of raising
them by setting an example and behaving quietly, decently and with
self-control. The Israeli academy is like a parent to the citizenry
of the state, but the behavior of some of its members has come to
resemble that of spoiled children.
The writer is a researcher at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
|