The fact that there is an ongoing PR war for Israel on campuses is no secret. A multitude of speakers, social events, editorials, student groups on both sides – all devoted to protecting or harming Israel’s reputation on campus in the West.
Much less known is how tarnished the image of Israel is in Israel itself. During Operation Cast Lead large demonstrations were held in places like the University of Haifa and Hebrew University, waving enemy flags and accusing Israel of committing massacres in Gaza.
If it were simple that then it would not be so alarming. Freedom of speech is an important value, and protesters, comprised of a minority group of enemy sympathizers, will only anger the Zionist majority, thereby undermining their own cause. However, these sentiments are not checked at the door to the lecture hall.
A recent study by Im Tirtzu* illustrates a worrisome picture of higher education in Israel. The study is not short, and is important for the understanding some of the reasons behind the abandonment of Zionism in favor of pseudo-universalism. However, the most important findings concern materials assigned in classes that deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Six well known, and relatively well-represented, scholars were chosen and syllabi from classes at Israeli universities were examined to see which of these scholars’ work was assigned, and how many times. These scholars are, on one side, Baruch Kimmerling (read Benny Morris review, destorying Kimmerling’s book), Uri Ram (proudly “post-Zionist”), and Edward Said (need I say more?). On the other side, are Amnon Rubinstein (legal scholar, former Meretz MK, who has written widely on Zionism), Ruth Gavison (law professor who has also written on the dilemma of Jewish-Democratic state), and Shlomo Avineri (written widely on political philosophy, as well as Zionism).
Of these scholars, Kimmerling’s work was assigned 23 times, Uri Ram’s 10 times and Edward Said – four times. Ruth Gavison, Amnon Rubinstein and Shlomo Avineri’s work, combined, was only assigned seven times.
The study also looked at academic publications by the political science departments of universities, and found that, overall, nearly 80% of studies published are either anti-Zionist or anti-nationalist in general.
Academic freedom is important. Very important. Repressing that freedom is bad. However, if Zionism stands on solid grounds, and is based on historical facts (and it does), then Israel’s students are being taught by professors who harbor more than just a bias against Israel. They are misleading, at best, and at worst – lying.
In any case, the question must be raised – how is it, that in Israel, of all places, this is happening practically unnoticed?
*The link does not work now, because Im Tirtzu’s website is temporarily (I hope) down.
Anti-Zionism cannot be a lie, since it’s an opinion.
I’ll admit to having been directed to this blog and not a regular reader, so I don’t know the extent of your stay in Israel when you were here (I assume you were since you define yourself as an Israeli), but what this entry seems to be missing is the fact that Israeli professors don’t exist in in a vacuum.
See, yes, the utter majority of professors are leftists. And large parts of hose are not what you’d call Zionists. But this is simply a mirror image of the moral state of the Israeli higher classes.
Because, let’s face it, those are the people who get to have higher education- the rich and those who get scholarships.
So is there a leaning toward the Anti-Zionist thought?
Yes. Of course there is. But if the universities were teaching something so outrageous, so different then what students were taught at home, especially ideology-wise, there would be a public rage regarding the subject. People would refuse to study there.
And they don’t. We don’t.
Isn’t that self-explanatory?
First, welcome!
It’s not the opinion itself that is untrue, rather that usually anti-Zionism is based on untrue ‘facts.’
Regarding most professors being leftists – it’s not that they are simply leftists – that would simply be a problem of lack of representation, at most. Leftism is not outside of Zionism – it’s still very much part of the discussion (שיח ציבורי נשמע יותר טוב). It’s beyond leftism – כורתים את הענף עליו הם (ובני עמם) יושבים.
“this is simply a mirror image of the moral state of the Israeli higher classes” – that is precisely the problem as I see it. If Israel is a Zionist state then the leading classes should be engaged in discussion about Zionism and its nature – not wholesale condemnation.
if the universities were teaching something so outrageous…People would refuse to study there. I’m not so sure. What other options do people have? Higher education in Israel is a pretty small, closed-off club – where else would people go study?
If you were in a class at Hebrew U with a professor that was ‘lying’ about Zionism or related topics, what would you do? You’d challenge him/her based on facts, knowledge, and a solid ideology that you possess. Israeli students aren’t doing that, probably mostly for the simple reason that they lack this knowledge and unwavering ideology. It’s cliche at this point to mention, but it’s true- young Israelis are overwhelmingly moving away from their parents’ Zionist ideals and moving towards apathy, the ‘moderate identity’ (‘seeing both sides’ and essentially standing for nothing), or just generally allowing themselves to be influenced by bogus international media more than anything else. To fight the so-called intellectual battle against Israel and Zionism, you have to be willing to fight a seemingly endless battle and you can’t do that if you don’t feel strongly AND have the knowledge to back it up. The university kids that simply ‘like Israel’ don’t have what it takes, and probably aren’t too bothered by the academic climate that is, as you pointed out, a semi-disaster for Zionism and for Israel in general.
Also, since the media and global opinion is so overwhelmingly anti-Israel, they’ve set a new standard for what anti-Israel and anti-Zionist actually mean. Students are accustomed to hearing all of this, it’s the global lingo– and so it doesn’t surprise me that there isn’t much of a backlash. Sadly, young Israelis are beginning to accept it like the rest of the world is accepting it.
The bigger question is– why *are* they this way– or really, how can we change that with the generation of our kids? You tell me
During Operation Cast Lead large demonstrations were held in places like the University of Haifa and Hebrew University, waving enemy flags and accusing Israel of committing massacres in Gaza.
You mean “peace partner” flags, right?
On the other side, are Amnon Rubinstein (legal scholar, former Meretz MK, who has written widely on Zionism), Ruth Gavison (law professor who has also written on the dilemma of Jewish-Democratic state), and Shlomo Avineri (written widely on political philosophy, as well as Zionism).
The fact that Rubinstein, Gavison and Avineri are all considered to be “the other side” is most worrying. Not only Rubinstein but also Gavison and Avineri are very firmly in the Meretz camp (in Gavison’s defense she is the rare leftist with some scruples); if they moved any further to the left they’d be engaged in open treason rather than cynical subversion.
Let’s also not forget that these children have been victimized by 12 years of hideous brainwashing in Israeli public schools, bused to “peace” demonstrations and subjected to a constant barrage of propaganda such that they now believe anything Jewish is against their god democracy.
Then they’re broken down even further during military service, compelled to operate according to the perverted principle that a good, moral army is one that allows its own citizens to be slaughtered while the soldiers protect the enemy, I mean the peace partners, and left as nattering shadows of humans.
The ones that make it back from Thailand and South America to enroll in a university have already overcome so much, but they’re just no match for academia.
how can we change that with the generation of our kids?
Home schooling, with a heavy dose of the classics and the deepest possible rejection of democracy and progressivism.
Moreover, I think you should reconsider your attachment to “academic freedom,” which is a euphemism for allowing tenured professors to say anything they want, no matter what the consequences.
I favor freedom of thought and don’t doubt that a proper government would do the same, since it would have nothing to fear from its citizens. But there is nothing “free” about granting tenure to professors since it just establishes them as a class that isn’t subject to the same standards of decency or civics that bind us all.
“Academic freedom,” if it means tenure for professors, must be annihilated and professors must be subject to being fired on the same terms by which they’re hired.
Nobody:
Homeschooling is something that I’ve thought about, but there are negative aspects that I’m not sure I’m willing to endure. As for a rejection of democracy– I’m not sure what you mean. What system of government do you support?
Totally agree with you based on academic freedom; in theory, great. In practice, professors can tell lies and keep their positions– not okay.
Cori – Education has to start at home. From parents. Kids should not just be tossed at sub-par educational system (in which some of the “best” schools are, too, post-structuralist). That system too, needs an overhaul – today it practically celebrates mediocrity and teaches only regurgitation. Where are the days when Tanakh was an important subject? When it was taught well, and as the basis of the people? So parents have to grab the bull by its horns – so yes, homeschooling, or establish new schools.
Nobody – I’d argue Rubinstein would also fit your characterization of leftist with some scruples (for one, he actually supported Daniel Friedman).
Academic freedom is not, or should not be, a ticket to “say[ing] anything… no matter what the consequences. While a system of tenure with accountability is not a good idea, even the current system does allow for plagiarism, for example, and should not allow for any other sort of lying either. The problem is that there is no effective framework in place to treat such issues.
Homeschooling is something that I’ve thought about, but there are negative aspects that I’m not sure I’m willing to endure.
The only negative aspect I can imagine is a claim that home-schooled children aren’t socialized as well as public-schooled children. To the extent that children in public schools are socialized to gang violence, drug abuse, cheating, tolerance for their teachers’ petty and inane political agendas, every form of immorality, etc, I wouldn’t want my children socialized that way. Aside from that, I think it’s just a spurious claim that’s meant to rope in parents who know that there’s nothing good about public school educationally.
As for a rejection of democracy– I’m not sure what you mean. What system of government do you support?
Right now I think that absolute monarchy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.
Totally agree with you based on academic freedom; in theory, great. In practice, professors can tell lies and keep their positions– not okay.
One of my favorite professors in college proclaimed that she could commit mass murder and still keep her position. That’s what life is like when you have a medieval guild protecting you. Over the years we’ve done away with almost every other guild, yet we still manage to build cities, print libraries and plant forests; I have no doubt that we will still find a way to educate ourselves once tenure is abolished and academics are forced to return to planet earth.