Home
Search
עברית
Board & Mission Statement
Why IAM?
About Us
Articles by IAM Associates
On the Brighter Side
Ben-Gurion University
Hebrew University
University of Haifa
Tel Aviv University
Other Institutions
Boycott Calls Against Israel
Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
Anti-Israel Petitions Supported by Israeli Academics
General Articles
Lawfare
Activists Profiles
Readers Forum
Photographs
Anti-Israel Conferences
How can I complain?
Contact Us / Subscribe
Donate
Number of visitors to IAM
Home

Amuta registration number 58-051-885-0

Contact lAM 

 Established in 2004

Subscribe

Visitors: 97097307 on August 22, 2014

Israel Academia Monitor Follows

Anti-Israel Activities of Israeli Academics

Reprints of anti-Israel articles do not represent the position

of IAM, and they are being reproduced as a public service

bbbbb

IAM supports the universal tradition of academic freedom that is an indispensable characteristic of higher education in Israel. At the same time, it is concerned by the activities of a small group of academics--sometimes described as revisionist historians or post-Zionists, among other labels--who go beyond the “free search for truth and its free exposition” (to quote the American Association of University Professors) that is the hallmark of academic freedom. Exploiting the prestige (and security) of their positions, such individuals often propound unsubstantiated and, frequently, demonstrably false arguments that defame Israel and call into question its right to existence.

 

 
 
We are happy to announce the publication of the study Academic Freedom in Israel: A Comparative Perspective; it compares academic freedom in Israel with that enjoyed by faculty in three academic leaders- Germany, Great Britain and the United States. This first of a kind research, is systematic, detailed and meticulously referenced.
The study indicates that, contrary to the view of radical scholars and their liberal supporters, the Israeli academy has enjoyed far greater freedom than its counterparts in the comparative cases. Indeed, in all three countries a combination of case law, ethic codes and strong oversight by boards of directors and politicians who appointed them have prevented radical faculty in public universities from abusing and subverting academic privileges to push an activist political agenda.
Not countervailed by academic duties and a need to account to the public and its elected representatives, the expansive sense of academic freedom has hurt Israel’s academic standing in the world. Liberal arts and social science, in particular, have been trending well below global averages, jeopardizing Israel’s overall competitive quest.
We hope that the study will spur a long-overdue debate on how to restore much- needed balance between academic freedom and the broader interests of the society and the state.
 



A unique opportunity to purchase the IAM book, only 37 copies available




Professor Yakir Plessner has passed away this morning. He has fought cancer.
Yakir was the chairman of IAM as well as of JCPA. His funeral will commence at 15:30 in the cemetery of Rehovot. RIP
פרופסור יקיר פלסנר נפטר הבוקר מסרטן. הלוויה היום, יום א' ה-10.8.14 בשעה שלוש וחצי בבית העלמין ברחובות.
יקיר איש אצילי, עמד בראש מוניטור האקדמיה הישראלית והמרכז הירושלמי לענייני ציבור ומדינה. אדם מדהים יהיה חסר לכולנו
יהי זכרו ברוך
Professor Yakir Plessner was a Senior Lecturer in Economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem lately based at the HUJ faculty of Agriculture in Rehovot. He was formerly Deputy Governor of the Bank of Israel and economic advisor to the Minister of Finance. He is the author of The Political Economy of Israel: From Ideology to Stagnation.
 
Click to view whole articles:

(Extract)

21.08.14

Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
 
Academic Forensics: Ilan Pappe and Exeter University
 
Ilan Pappe, a subject of a number of posts by IAM, has exceeded his past performance in his long quest to portray Israel as Nazi Germany reincarnate. For those familiar with Pappe’s career, the trajectory that brought this former professor at Haifa University is breathtaking.
Styling himself as a New Historian, along with Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim, Pappe made the relatively modest claim that Israel was not as overwhelmed by Arab forces during the 1948 war as traditional historiography would have it. But as his political activism in the Communist Party took off, Pappe revised his own revisionist history of 1948, embellishing it with progressively defamatory incidents of alleged IDF behavior. Things came to a head when, in the early 2000s, Pappe defended his protégé, Teddy Katz in the “Tantura Massacre” case. Katz, a postgraduate student, claimed that the Alexandroni Brigade committed a massacre in the Arab village of Tantura, but retracted when the Brigade veteran sued in court. 
To amplify his position, in April 2005 Pappe appealed to the British Association of University Teachers (AUT) to boycott Haifa University for it alleged violation of academic freedom—a process that lead to a subsequent annual vote of the University and College Union to boycott the Israeli academy. 
In 2007 Pappe left Israel to teach at Exeter University, England, a position he used to create the narrative that Israeli behavior toward the Palestinians is on par with the treatment of Jews by the Nazis. For instance, in his book Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Pappe claimed that the alleged wholesale expulsion of Palestinians was accompanied by massacres, concentrations camps etc. His new statements (below) on the alleged racist policies of sperm donations are a natural progression of creating the equivalence between Israel and Nazi Germany. 
Needless to say, Pappe has become a tireless activist for academic BDS, signing countless petitions, appearing in countless BDS events and supporting the self-appointed virulently anti-Israel Russell Tribunal where he accused Israel of genocide against the Palestinians. 
Along the way reputable historians condemned Pappe for shoddy scholarship and fabricating facts. In Dec 2011 Dexter Van Zile, the Christian Media Analyst for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA) complained to the Exeter University authorities that Pappe invented key quotes to prove that David Ben Gurion authorized a wholesale expulsion of the Palestinians. But the University declined to pursue the case that would have required a disciplinary action against Pappe. 
This stand should not surprise those familiar with the University’s Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies and its founder, Professor Tim Niblock. A recipient of Saudi largess, Niblock spent years writing laudatory books about Saudi Arabia. Donations from the Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi prompted Niblock to state that “Libya has pursued one of the most engaged and outgoing foreign policies of the Arab world.” 
Niblock's deep admiration for the oppressive regimes in the Middle East was matched by deep animosity for Israel. Expressed in articles, editorials and op-eds, the theme was always the same—occupation of the Palestinians and American failure to exert pressure on Israel are at the core of West’s problems in the Middle East. 
The European Center for Palestine Studies (ECPS) in Niblock’s Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at Exeter was tailored-made for Pappe. Niblock, now retired, is listed as one of the fellows, and the advisory board is made up of frequent critics of Israel like Desmond Tutu, Noam Chomsky, John Dugard and Richard Falk, the infamous UN rapporteur for Palestinians. 
Even a perfunctory glance at the ECPS’s website indicates that Pappe’s ambitious goal, is taking shape. “Toward a Common Archive” aims to create a replica of Spielberg’s archive of Holocaust’s survivors’ testimonies. Interestingly, the “Testimonies by Zionist Fighters in 1948” was posted first, in an apparent bid to support Pappe’s version of events of 1948. Also Interesting, that some of the ECPS projects are supported by European foundations. 
For those who expect the academy to reflect the pure and objective standards of research, the Niblock-Pappe partnership may come as a surprise. But those who track the extensive finance network in the field see it differently. 
In 2001, Martin Kramer, an esteemed scholar of the Middle East, lamented that Middle East Studies in the United States were being distorted by Saudi money. Since then, Arab money has been all but surpassed by generous donations from European governments and foundations. 
Illuminating as this anecdotal evidence is, to fully understand the functioning of the old and new funding sources requires a systematic study.


18.08.14

Boycott Calls Against Israel
 
Academic Forensics: Qatar’s Educational Empire and Israel
 
Qatar, best known for its Al Jazeera TV franchise and, most recently, for its support for Hamas, should be of interest to anyone analyzing academic BDS and related initiatives. 
The reason is simple. The uber-wealthy and internationally ambitious Qatari emirate, under the Ibn Khalifa Al Thani dynasty has embarked on an unprecedented academic empire building. The Qatar Foundation has invited scores of universities to set up campuses in Doha and Qatar University has launched an ambitious project to hire top notch scholars in a variety of disciplines. Two Doha based foundation have disbursed scholarships to hundreds of students in the United States, Great Britain and Germany. In a testimony to the growing academic importance of Qatar, the prestigious Times Higher Education has recently announced the first Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Universities Summit. 
While most programs relate to hard science, engineering and medicine, some have a liberal arts orientation. Among them, the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar (SFS-Qatar) stands out in its ambition to influence the academic discourse on Islam, Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its high profile Center of International and Regional Studies (CIRS) under its director Mehran Kamrava, has taken the lead. As Kamrava explained in a book Qatar: Small States, Big Politics, Qatar is “punching above its weight,” by turning Al Jazeera into an international brand and, no less important, by moving to become a world class academic center. 
Unsurprisingly, the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in collaboration with Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, founded by John Esposito served as a template of the SFS–Qatar. Esposito, who created the center with a grant from the Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal "to advance education in the fields of Islamic civilization and Muslim-Christian understanding and strengthen its presence as a world leader in facilitating cross-cultural and inter-religious dialogue,” has been a close collaborator of Kamrava. 
Esposito, accused by some for serving as chief apologist for Islamism and for whitewashing terrorism, is highly influential; his books, as well as Kamrava’s, dominate the field of Islamic and Middle East studies in the United States and beyond. Needless to say, Esposito is listed on the roster of guest professors at the SFS-Qatar. 
Finally, Qatar shines additional light on the Lancet dispute reported here. After Richard Horton, the editor of Lancet allowed a posting of a controversial letter against Operation Protective Edge, some demanded that Elsevier, the publisher of Lancet, fire Horton. Elsevier's reluctance to censure the Lancet editor has probably something to do with its extensive ties to Qatar University and the Qatar Foundation. 
In September 2013, Elsevier, one of the largest publisher of scientific material signed a multimillion dollar agreement with Qatar University. As one top official in the company stated, "Elsevier is honored to work together with Qatar University by providing them access to SciVal Experts.” "We believe that it will enhance the effectiveness of their research performance, stimulating effective and efficient collaboration initiatives not only among researchers at the University, but also globally." 
In spite of its prominence, Qatar’s contribution to groups and individuals who either support BDS directly or indirectly is virtually unknown. Unless those in charge of fighting BDS can map the large and complex network engaged in this endeavor, their response will remain fragmented and uncoordinated.

 

14.08.14

Boycott Calls Against Israel
 
The Legal Eagle: University of California’s UAW Call to BDS
 
Operation Protective Edge has energized anti-Israel activists on campuses across the United States and Europe. 
On July 29, 2014 the UAW 2865 of the University of California which represents teaching assistants, tutors and readers at the nine teaching campuses of the University of California prepared its membership to vote on BDS. 
From the perspective of Israel, the statement is doubly troubling. 
First, the UAW is seeking to a full membership vote on the planned BDS statement in the coming academic year. The joint council indicates that it will seek a full membership vote on the BDS statement in the coming year. 
Second, the UAW 2865 represents teaching assistants and other junior faculty of the sprawling University of California system. The Union members assert that they have an obligation "as educators" to teach "the social issues of our time, including pressing global struggles such as the struggle of the Palestinian people for liberation from settler-colonialism and apartheid." In other words, junior faculty propose to teach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the perspective of the neo-Marxist, critical scholarship that considers Israel to be a colonial state and an apartheid state. While it legitimate to mention the Marxist, critical paradigm, the Humboldtian model of classroom as a “marketplace of ideas” requires instructors to also use the positivist approach which deems Israel to be a legitimate sovereign and a democratic state. 
The Louis Brandies Center and eleven other groups appealed to Janet Napolitano, the President of the University of California system to act against the anti-Israeli measures. Kenneth L. Marcus noted: "The union is effectively announcing that its members will abuse their positions by indoctrinating undergraduate students with blatantly politicized, intellectually dishonest, and extraordinarily biased propaganda. This is not what teaching assistants are paid to do, nor is it a proper func'tion of the union. Instead of engaging in proper collective bargaining activity, the union is urging teaching assistants to misuse the classroom for political indoctrination." 
Marcus and others have also asserted that this type of political indoctrination will create an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation with regard to Jewish students in the classroom. 
They urged President Napolitano "to publicly reaffirm the university's policy on course content, provide public assurances that she will not allow UAW 2865 members to promote anti-Semitic propaganda anti-Israel boycotts as part of their contractual teaching responsibilities, and instruct the university's collective bargaining representatives to reject any UAW Local 2865 proposals which seek to inject their positions on Israel into the University's dealings with the union. The groups also urged Napolitano to reject any effort by UAW Local 2865 that any pension fund provided by the University for its employees adhere to any policies of divestment or boycott of businesses that directly or indirectly have business, cultural or academic relations with Israel.” 
The case of UAW 2865 is potentially precedent setting. To the best of our knowledge, it is not clear how Ms Napolitano, who served both as the government of Arizona and the Secretary of Homeland Security, will respond. 
She can, of course, reaffirm the position of the university on balanced class content and voice objections to BDS activity. Though this would be a welcome step, issues of academic freedom complicate matters as it is difficult to police every class room to make sure that instructors refrain from offering a biased view of the conflict. 
Of course, legal recourse is available and has been tried in Great Britain and Australia. Though the cases were not identical, the courts ruled against equating calls for BDS with anti-Semitism.


11.08.14

Boycott Calls Against Israel
 
Academic Forensics: Beyond the Case of Lancet
 
Operation Protective Edge triggered a wave of academic activism, including new demands for BDS. The Israeli response, both by scholars and government officials, can be best described as a mixture of outrage and bewilderment as to why scholars, trained to be objective and scientific, would engage in what is perceived as a one-sided censure of Israel buttressed by a blatantly biased factual information. 
While the question is legitimate, it betrays a misunderstanding of how the pro-Palestinian network in the academy operates. Academic Forensics is a new IAM series that would periodically address this issue. 
The Case of Lancet 
On July 24, 2014 the prestigious medical journal Lancet published an editorial denouncing in the sharpest possible terms the Operation Protective Edge. The essay, titled An Open Letter for the People of Gaza” was signed by Paola Manduca, Iain Chalmers, Derek Summerfield, Mads Gilbert and Swee Ang, on behalf of 24 signatures. It describes the operation as a “massacre” and states: “We register with dismay that only 5% of our Israeli academic colleagues signed an appeal to their government to stop the military operation against Gaza. We are tempted to conclude that with the exception of this 5%, the rest of the Israeli academics are complicit in the massacre and destruction of Gaza.” In other words, the 95 percent who did not protest are fair game for boycott. 
Richard Horton, the editor of Lancet aggravated the situation when he refused letters of rebuttal from some of Lancet readers. Among the many voices that condemned the essay and Horton, a few pointed out that both Horton and the lead signatories have a long history of pro-Palestinian activism. In the below article titled The Poisoned Lancet , Dennis Praeger, an American columnist, mentioned that Manduca, a professor at the University of Genoa, has “testified” at various anti-Israeli tribunal, at one point accused Israel of using “direct energy“ weapons, which she described a cross between chemical and biological agents, against the Palestinians. Sir Iain Chalmers, a former chief U.N. medical officer in Gaza, accused Israel of apartheid and ethnic cleansing; he cited Ilan Pappe’s book of the same title to prove his point. 
Derek Summerfield, a British psychiatrists and the head of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture (UK) accused Israeli doctors of supporting torture. Summerfield had close relations with Neve Gordon, a professor at BGU and a former executive director of the Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I) that made the same allegations. Gordon and Summerfield organized a number of conferences and forums to publicize the alleged torture allegations. After years of protesting the allegations, in 2009, the Israel Medical Association severed all ties with the PHR-I, because of its “use of the international arena to “besmirch and sling mud at Israeli doctors.” 
This act prompted Summerfield, along with the PHR-I, to launch a worldwide protest against Dr. Yoram Blachar who was elected to serve at the head of the Israel Medical Association. At the time Blachar wrote that “Derek Summerfield has a life-long agenda of criticizing Israel; he is well known to us through his inexorable venomous campaign against Israel, the IMA and Dr. Blachar, in numerous letters and on the pages of leading British medical journals such as the BMJ and the Lancet.” Derek Summerfield also “testified” before the Russell Tribunal for Palestine, a virulently anti-Israeli circle of self-appointed activists mascaraing as legitimate international law tribunal where Gordon serves on the International Support Committee. 
The lynchpin of the group is Horton, whose high profile pro-Palestinian activism has earned him accolades across the network. Horton is one of the organizers of the Lancet-Palestinian Health Alliance (L-PHA). At a recent conference Horton stated: “We publish science at the Lancet, but the evidence has to go beyond that to the humanity of people.” 
“We have to tell the story of Palestinians living a caged existence,” Horton suggested. We need to use different types of evidence to bear, he argued, to take more account of dignity and the quality of care and use our evidence and experience, “for resilience, for sustainability, for accountability, for our freedom and the opportunity to write a new future.” 
The pro-Palestinian network in the medical field has existed for more than two decades, fueled by very generous contributions from the Arab world. For instance, the British–based Medical Help for Palestinians (MAP), one of the sponsors of the L-PHA alliance, has been highly active in publicizing the recent plight of the population in Gaza. 
It is beyond the scope of this post to provide an in-depth analysis of the densely connected pro-Palestinian network. Israelis who are concerned about the delegitimizing impact of Lancet, among others, should look at the academic forensics of this and other cases. Writing letters and articles expressing moral outrage is not enough. 
IAM has the largest database on the pro-Palestinian networks in the academy.


07.08.14

Boycott Calls Against Israel
 
The BDS Movement in the Wake of the Gaza Operation
 
Even before the fighting in Gaza dies down, a powerful backlash against Israel has begun. IAM will provide periodical updates on the new wave of anti-Israel activities on campuses. 
The National Executive Council of Britain’s National Union of Student representing some 7 million students passed a new resolution. It condemns Israel’s “criminal assault on Gaza” and pledges to increase pressure on companies doing business with Israel. The resolution promises to “provide information and resources to support student unions and student organizations campaigning for boycott and divestment of companies identified as supporting Israel materially, economically, militarily, and/or as helping maintain the illegal Israeli settlements.” 
A group of more than one hundred Middle East academics and libertarians called for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. The group, said to represent “senior and tenured scholars and librarians, all of whom have deep knowledge of the Middle East,” have pledged “not to collaborate on projects and events involving Israeli academic institutions, not to teach at or to attend conferences and other events at such institutions, and not to publish in academic journals based in Israel”. Among the signatories are leading Middle East experts from Arab origin and a number of former Israelis.


04.08.14

General Articles
 
Should Criticism of Israel Be Equated with Anti-Semitism?
 
Our post on Academic Freedom and Operation Protective Edge in Gaza has received a number of comments from readers. One, from John Kelly, a professor of chemical engineering at the Faculty of Engineering of University College Dublin (UCD), a veteran pro-Palestinian advocate and a vehement critic of Israel, raises two important issues thus meriting a response. 
First, Professor Kelly states that our post suggests that all criticism of Israel should be equated with anti-Semitism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the years, IAM has constantly stated that even harsh criticism of Israel is a legitimate part of the discourse and should not be labelled anti-Semitic. The only exception to this rule is provided by the European Union's “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism,” that is currently used by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). According to the working definition, comparing Israeli behavior toward Palestinians to that of Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews, is considered a new form anti-Semitism. We are including the link to the document for Professor Kelly to peruse. 
Second, Professor Kelly accuses the IDF of committing horrible war crimes during the current Gaza operation and states that “Israel will pay a horrible price”. There is no disputing the fact that Palestinians civilians suffered grievously during the still ongoing conflict; pictures of innocent women and children killed and maimed touch the hearts of decent people everywhere. 
The pertinent question, however, is who is responsible for this suffering. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are jihadist terror groups that follow the strategic doctrine the Koranic Concept of War of Brigadier General S. K. Malik of the Pakistani High Command. Malik states that in fighting the enemy, there should be no distinction between uniformed combatants and civilians. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards adopted Malik’s strategy developed tactics of suicide bombings, first used in Lebanon in the 1980s, and then by Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Israel, starting in the early 1990s. After Israel build the separation barriers, rocket and missiles attacks on Israeli civilians have become the weapon of choice. 
More interesting, Brigadier General Malik asserts that Muslim civilians should see themselves as willing combatants whose sacrificies will be qualify them to become shahids, martyrs. Hamas has used this assertion to position itself in densely populated area, mosques, schools and hospitals, effectively turning civilians into human shields. For instance, the central command of Hamas is known to be located under the Shifa Hospital in Gaza. The miles and miles of tunnels were dug under residential areas. 
Fighting a terror group that adopted the Koranic Concept of War is inherently difficult. The IDF is called upon to abide by the Geneva Conventions that call for maximum protection of civilian population. Indeed, to minimize casualties, the military dropped leaflets, made phone calls and texted residents. While most left, some were blocked by operatives and some decided to stay on their own accord. Hamas, who spent millions of dollars on constructing a most elaborate system of tunnels, did not built one shelter for civilians, The UN schools that housed thousands are a poor substitute for proper concrete and steel reinforced shelters; some were hit during the operation, mostly because terrorists - in a bid for protection - located their positions nearby or by an errant Israeli munition. In spite of tremendous strides in precision weaponry, no war is free of mistakes, including several instances of death by friendly fire in the IDF. 
As a terror group, Hamas is primarily dedicated for its ideological goal of destroying Israel - a goal clearly spelled in its founding charter. Responsibility for the welfare of the population under its control is a distance second. While pleading poverty, the group found untold millions to build the sophisticated tunnel infrastructure and purchased missiles from North Korea, among others. Stiff levies - of up to twenty five percent - are imposed on all commercial activities in Gaza and an array of taxes flows into the coffers of Hamas, providing a plush life style for the leaders. Criticism of the authorities is punished very severely and no public protest is allowed. Indeed, during a rare demonstration against Hamas’ conduct of the Gaza conflict, thirty protesters were shot. 
As a scientist, Professor Kelly should appreciate the above fact. As a fair-minded person, he should concede that Israel is not the only one to blame for the tragic events unfolding in Gaza. Such an admission is necessary if he wants to part company with the group of hard-core pro-Palestinian advocates, the ones for whom “Israel can never do any right and the Palestinians can never do any wrong.”



31.07.14

General Articles
 
Academic Freedom and Operation Protective Edge in Gaza
 
As expected, the Gaza operation has created a passionate debate about the limits of academic freedom – triggered when Professor Rivka Carmi, president of BGU announced that the authorities will monitor Facebook posting to ensure compliance with the University's ethics code. TAU leadership appealed too, stating "Tel Aviv University condemns and denounces all attacks and offensive remarks propagated on social networks these days which do not belong in a public discourse. The University will act in accordance with applicable disciplinary policies on students and staff in any case of infringement."
Faculty organizations reacted strongly against what they perceived as censorship. For instance, the association of Philosophy protested against the limitation of free speech. Meanwhile, radical scholars launched a number of petitions to protest what they described a horrific assault of IDF against the civilian population of Gaza. Right-wing scholars responded by accusing their left-wing colleagues of “blood libel” and “treason.” 
It is beyond the limits of this post to analyze this voluminous and still growing exchange on the subject. Some observations, however, are in order, especially in view of the comparative material in Academic Freedom in Israel: A Comparative Perspective. 
Scholars, like other citizens of Israel, have the right to express their opinion, however unpalatable and biased it may sound to others. During the Vietnam War, academics expressed extremely strong anti-American sentiments. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, both American and British scholars posted highly damning opinions on the issue, including personal attacks on President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. 
Academic freedom has certain limits. First, faculty cannot violate extant laws; in the case of Israel calls to refuse military service and support of BDS are clear infractions. It is noted that in the United States, Great Britain and Germany, a combination of case law and contractual obligations rules out support for BDS, especially by employees of public universities. Indeed, during the depth of the Vietnam War, even the most strident critics such as Professor Noam Chomsky did not call to boycott the United States. 
Second, faculty are expected to keep their political opinion out of the classroom and formal exchanges with students. Bar-Ilan University is right to investigate a professor who expressed his heartfelt opinion on Gaza in an email to his student dealing with extension of exam periods for the course. 
Third, faculty are urged to follow the European Union’s “Working Definition of anti-Semitism,” that describes comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany as a new form of anti-Semitism. In the past, radical Israeli scholars have “found” that the IDF has treated the Palestinians in ways comparable to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis.


28.07.14

General Articles
 
Operation Protective Edge - Palestinian Suffering Used to Demonize Israel
 
As long as Palestinians continue to serve as lightning rod against Jews, their supposed victimization reaffirming the latter’s millenarian demonization, Israel will never be allowed to defend itself. 
No sooner had Israel launched Operation Protective Edge to stop 
the sustained rocket and missile attacks on its civilian population by the Gaza-based Hamas terror organization than it came under a barrage of international criticism, with tens of thousands of violent demonstrators flocking into the streets of London, Paris, Berlin, Oslo, Sydney, Buenos Aires and New York, among other places, to demand an end to the “Gaza slaughter.” 
How can this be? Why do citizens of democratic societies enthusiastically embrace one of the world’s most murderous Islamist terror organizations, overtly committed not only to the destruction of a sovereign democracy but also to the subordination of Western values and ways of life to a worldwide Islamic caliphate (or umma)? Not out of a genuine concern for Palestinian wellbeing. For although the “Palestine question” has received extraordinary media coverage for decades to the exclusion of far worse humanitarian and political problems, the truth is that no one really cares about the fate of the Palestinians: not their leaders, who have immersed their hapless constituents in disastrous conflicts rather than seize the numerous opportunities for statehood since the Peel Commission report of 1937; not the Arab states, which have brazenly manipulated the Palestinian cause to their self-serving ends; and not Western politicians, the media, NGOs, human rights activists, and church leaders enticed into self-righteous indignation by any Israeli act of self-defense.


24.07.14

Hebrew University
 
HUJ Nurit Peled Elhanan and Israeli Social Sciences: A Commentary on a Highly Politicized Discipline
 
For years now, IAM has reported on the Nurit Peled Elhanan (HUJ) political exploits that break every rule of academic conduct. In her newest venture, Peled Elhanan, the laureate of the politically dubious Human Rights Award of the European Union Parliament, urges to boycott Israel and indeed, expel it from the international community. [See below] 
That Peled Elhanan, a tireless anti-Israeli activist, would call for boycott is old hat. She has done in countless times in the past and will do it again. It is also quite clear that neither the university authorities nor the state have any appetite to apply the 2011 anti-boycott law, though Peled Elhanan seems to be its most blatant violator. 
What is more surprising is that the social science community has never raised objection to her dubious publication record - a string of political polemics dressed up as academic research. As expected, Peled Elhanan “found empirical evidence” to compare the Israel to the worst of Nazi Germany and South African apartheid. Published by radical European outlets, this material is presented as academic research by a “Hebrew University professor.” 
For those who may wander as to why scholars - adept at using various discursive forums – have refrained from offering a critique of Peled Elhanan, the answer is simple. Social sciences in Israel are deeply politicized and virtually dominated by leftist academics anxious to protect their radical colleagues. By criticizing Peled Elhanan, they may give succor to right-wing critics of the academy. 
No such qualms exist when it comes to perceived “right-wing” scholarship. For instance, when the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya published an survey of Iranian public attitudes toward nuclear weapons in Iran – that, incidentally found a decline in public support for the project - Professor Micha Leshem and Yuval Yonay (Haifa U) offered a scathing attack on Professor Alex Mintz and the HIC accusing them of being a front for the Mossad, published on the social science server. [See below] It is not entirely clear why Leshem – who once attached a classic anti-Semitic cartoon opposing Israeli occupation - and Yonay were so outraged. A short perusal of the relevant opinion polls by Gallop and Zogby polls, easily available on the Internet, would have confirmed that, indeed, the sanctions that devastated the Iranian economy brought down the level of approval for the nuclear weapons. Here are some relevant numbers for Leshem and Yonay to consider: after five years of increasingly harsh sanctions, only 35 percent of Iranian stated that they were better off than five years ago; almost fifty percent said they were worse off. As the high cost for keeping the nuclear development afloat became evident, the virtual 100 percent approval dropped to some 60 and less. 
The recent case of Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Bar Ilan University) reflects the same pattern. On the 21st of July a number of scholars accused Kedar of alleging that rape of women in family of Hamas was the only way to deter Hamas. The claim was posted on the social science server, prompting Haaretz to publish an article. Kedar shortly after publish his version on the issue. Bar Ilan University followed up with a clarification, stating that Dr. Kedar explained in response that he does not recommend such despicable acts, and that his intention was to illustrate how difficult it is to deter a suicide bomber. 
There is little doubt that Hamas motivation and behavior – a subcategory of Jihadist behavior - is important and should be discussed by social scientists, not just as a bone fide academic topic but also as a service to the military, policy makers and the public. But here again, because of politicization, a dispassionate debate supported by empirical evidence was lost. 
Reading the book The Koranic Concept of War, by Brigadier General S.K. Malik would be a good start. Malik, a self-described Islamist, served at the time on the Pakistani general staff. He asserted that the Koran does not make a distinction between combatants in uniforms and civilians on both sides of a war. Killing enemy civilians is, of course, permitted, but Muslim non-combatants should be ready to sacrifice their lives and become martyrs for the cause. Following the Iranian revolution in 1979, the book was adopted as an official doctrine by the Revolution Guards and then taught to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tehran, and Hamas. 
Any respectable debate on deterrence of Jihadists should, at the very least, include Malik’s work and its tactical applications. More than a decade ago, Lt. Col. Joseph C. Myers published a highly regarded study on Malik in theleading journal Parameter. The article became the basis of academically sound and sophisticated understanding of the issue. 
Social scientists have a duty to produce and disseminate relevant knowledge, not least because they are supported by the tax payer. But this notion has probably never occurred to some Israeli faculty that view their tenured position as an extension of their political agenda.


21.07.14

Boycott Calls Against Israel
 
Part IV: The Committee of University Heads Moves on BDS - The Role of Horizon 2020 in Shaping BDS
 
This is the fourth of a four-part summary of some points to consider when dealing with academic BDS. 
The Role of Horizon 2020 in Shaping BDS 
In the past Israel was eligible to participate in the Framework Program for Research (FPR) as part of the benefits ascribed to Israel through the EU-Israel Assertion Agreement. But the new Horizon 2020 – a multiyear, multilevel project to stimulate scientific activity among EU countries and beyond adopted a controversial condition stipulating that Israel’s control over the territories and East Jerusalem contravenes international law. 
The stipulation was the result of a tireless campaign by British Universities for Palestine (BRICUP) and the European Coordination of Committees and Association for Palestine (ECCAP) and pushed by a coalition of Socialist and Green parties in the European Parliament.
In spite of serious misgiving about the language of the document, Israel decide to sign it, thus making Israeli academic institutions and other entities eligible for grants from the 77 billion euros Horizon 2020 budget. 
The EU Guidelines on Israeli Settlements attached to Horizon 2020 declares that no entity operating in the occupied territories is eligible for grants. Further clarifications states that a grantee must be registered in the pre-1967 territory of Israel. An entity can apply for a grant when its activity takes place within Israel; the only exception is accorded to entities whose activities in the territories protect persons or promote Middle East peace in accordance with EU mission. 
The Horizon 2020 Guidelines create a problems for academic institutions and individual faculty. Application requires an honor-based statement that the entity is not registered in the territories and that no part of the activity covered by the grant takes place in the territories. 
Clearly, the honor-based system makes it easier for the Horizon 2020 bureaucracy to make decision about the grants. But the pro-Palestinian groups who advocated for the Guidelines promised to “expose” grant applicants who “mislead” the EU authorities. 
The same groups are behind a campaign to disqualify the Hebrew University and the Technion from receiving grants; the former is accused of building on land expropriated from Palestinians and the latter for having helped to develop military and other systems responsible for subjugating the Palestinians. 
At the time of this writing it is impossible to assess the possible complications introduced by Horizon 2020. One wild card is the activity of the pro-Palestinian “monitors.” Past history indicates that BDS activist are extremely persistent, giving some credence to their threats. 
The recent changes in the EU Parliament and Executive Offices are another wild card. Following the May 2014 elections, a large contingent of right wing and neo-fascist parties claimed seats; though some like the British UKIP are not unfriendly to Israel, others are mostly hostile. 
The incoming EU President, Jean-Claude Juncker, is a veteran socialist politician from Luxemburg, an ardent supporter of a more federated Europe and an advocate of a large international role for EU, including in the Middle East.


17.07.14

Boycott Calls Against Israel
 
Part III: The Committee of University Heads Moves on BDS - Responding to BDS: Actors, Options and Pitfalls
 
This is the third of a four-part summary of some points to consider when dealing with academic BDS. 
Responding to BDS: Actors, Options and Pitfalls 
Like the BDS movement, the response to BDS is made up of dozens of agents, mostly Jewish organizations and individuals. StandwithUs, Engage, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and MLA Members for Scholars Rights, the Legal Project are just a few that operate in the field. Multiple actors seldom work in tandem, creating redundancies and overlaps in some areas whereas other areas are not covered. 
The anti-BDS effort has opened deep fissures in the Jewish communities in the West. Some Jewish groups such as Jewish Voices for Peace support BDS thus legitimizing the BDS drive. Other groups view the BDS debate as a free speech issue, creating high-profile confrontations with Jewish establishment. For instance, the Free Hillel movement on a number of American campuses is a response to the Hillel directive to ban BDS speakers from Hillel-financed events. 
There is a broad-range of options to fight BDS. Among the more efficacious is to create a counter group within a particular association such as MLA Members for Scholar Rights. Contrary to popular perception, generalized anti-BDS appeals have the least amount of impact because the discourse of the academic community is not susceptible to broad public relations endeavors. 
Political and legislative initiatives to limit BDS on campus have not met with much success so far. The Roskam-Lipinski bill in Congress "Protect Academic Freedom Act" that seeks to ban federal funds from institutions that support BDS has been either opposed or met with reservations by some Jewish experts and major organizations such as Anti-Defamation League. Opponents imply that, if passed, the bill may deepen the perception that Jews are stifling academic discourse and manipulating American foreign policy - an argument that found favor among some leading American scholars. 
Fighting academic BDS in court has so far failed in Great Britain and Australia. Indeed, the claim that BDS is anti-Semitics - the basis in the two suits backfired, empowering the defendants – the University and College Union (Great Britain) and Jack Lynch (Australia) and causing a rift in the local Jewish communities. 
To sum up, there is no sliver bullet, each remedy has its pitfalls.





 

 

 

 

All articles are Israel Academia Monitor COPYRIGHTS unless stated otherwise

Israel Academia Monitor, P.O. Box 997 Even Yehuda 40500, Israel

Tel: +972-54-4283749 e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com

 

 
 

Please fill all the fields

your Name
Phone
E-mail
content
Visual Confirmation
Visual CAPTCHA
Developed by Sitebank & Powered by Blueweb Internet Services
Visitors: 97263090Send to FriendAdd To FavoritesMake It HomepagePrint version
blueweb