Amuta registration number 58-051-885-0  
|
|
Contact lAM
|
Established in 2004
|
Subscribe
|
Visitors: 44074796 on May 12, 2013
|
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. |
|
|
(Extract)
19.05.13
| |
| Im Tirtzu as Rivka Carmi's Savior: The Real Story behind the Department of Politics and Government at BGU |
| |
Professor Rivka Carmi (president of Ben Gurion University) is a very lucky lady; she can blame the problems at her university on Im Tirtzu, described as a corporate reincarnation of Senator Joe McCarthy. Indeed, Im Tirzu has become the favorite bogeyman of radical scholars and their liberal supporters in the academy.
All this smoke and fury obscures the real problems with the Department of Politics and Government at her university, which actually predates her tenure as president. While radical faculty have attracted public attention by comparing Israel to an apartheid state and/or to Nazi Germany and repeated calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), the troubled academic record of the Department has been less known.
In July 1997, it was approved by the CHE as a dual-minors program; in 2001, the Department sought accreditation for its BA program. The CHE appointed Zeev Maoz and Avner de-Shalit, professors at Tel Aviv University and Hebrew University respectively, to evaluate the Department. In January 2, 2002 Maoz submitted a scathing report, writing that there was a “shocking” lack of core political science classes and that faculty members specialized in topics that were marginal to the discipline. As a result, a large number of them taught courses that had little to do with their academic training and research. Among the faculty listed was David Newman, a political geographer who taught a class on electoral system, Rina Poznansky, a historian by training, who offered a class on political parties and Dani Filc (at the time a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at Tel Aviv University and a former MD) who instructed a course in Israeli government. Maoz was especially concerned with the absence of courses in methodology and quantitative methods; he noted that the sole instructor (a doctoral candidate) had no background in the field. Since virtually all senior members did not research in core political science subjects, Maoz asserted that it would be hard for the Department to provide qualified instructors for core courses. In his conclusion, he urged the CHE to reject the request for accreditation.
But de-Shalit felt that the Department should not be denied accreditation. Given the split decision, Ben Gurion University was notified that changes were needed in order to receive formal recognition. The then rector, Professor Noah Finger, wrote to the CHE acknowledging that the absence of the core courses was an impediment and promised to correct the problem. In November 2003, the CHE appointed de Shalit, Gad Barzilai from the Department of Political Science at Tel Aviv University and Ella Belfer, a historian from Bar Ilan University, to consider anew the accreditation request. Though Finger’s promise to institute a core political science curriculum was not followed up, the new committee was highly positive. In a March 2004 report, the committee praised the Department for offering a “unique program” – a reference to a course in applied political training (hitmachut politit). A co-operative program, the hitmachut students were expected to work for NGOs and participate in workshops and field trips organized by faculty; the report recommended to make the course mandatory. The committee had also formed a favorable opinion of the faculty, praising the “special relations” with students and the collegial atmosphere in the Department. Ignoring Maoz’s concerns, the report recommended adding a slot in political philosophy and Israeli government. Acting upon its recommendation, the CHE agreed on a temporary accreditation; by 2009, fully-accredited, the Department was allowed to offer an MA program. “The Report of the Committee in Charge of Evaluating the Accreditation Request of the Department of Politics and Government at BGU University“ - obtained through Freedom Information Act by Dr. Yaacov Bergman.
By giving its blessing to a “unique program” as part of a ”pluralistic approach to political science,” the de-Shalit committee accepted the Department’s right to offer a political science program closely modeled on Antioch College in Ohio, a small liberal arts school known for embracing radical causes. Rather than standard political science education, the College proffered courses geared toward political activism, which students then used in a co-operative program for what was termed “progressive political activism.” Had de-Shalit and his colleagues bothered to review the co-operative program in the Department, they would have learned that the field work – reflecting the activist makeup of the faculty - was heavily skewed toward left wing activism. Further empowered by the recommendation, the Department expanded the range of its workshop to include rights of the Negev Bedouins, “exploited workers,” illegal immigrants and Palestinians. An English - language graduate program for international students featured trips to Hebron where students met with representatives of Breaking the Silence, an NGO monitoring the IDF, Land Day activities in the West Bank and the Separation Barrier, among others. According to complaints from some participants, there was no effort to balance the “Palestinian narrative,” making the program an ideal took for educating anti-Israel activists. But Dahlia Scheindlin, an adjunct faculty and a high profile pro-Palestinian activist, stated that following the Antioch model should be considered a source of pride for the Department.
That the CHE allowed a public university to run a program suitable for a small private college was, as noted, clearly at odds with academic practices of Germany, Great Britain and public universities in the United States. Though the activist faculty attracted public attention, there was no scrutiny of the Department’s offerings until 2008, when the CHE ordered a routine evaluation of political science departments. Thomas Risse, a professor at the Free University of Berlin, was asked to chair the five- member International Committee for Evaluation of Political Science and International Relations Programs. In 2011 the Risse Committee (RC) issued a report that echoed the misgivings of Maoz; it identified serious problems with the weak political science core and a virtual absence of quantitative method training. The RC noted the imbalance of views in classroom curricula which were heavily weighted toward a critical perspective. This was hardly surprisingly since the Department practiced hiring and promoting instructors based on paradigmatic similarity or previous political connection. The RC found that, as result, there was a paucity of mainstream political science approaches, a “rather eclectic set of courses that…lack a coherent focus,” and a tenure-track faculty that had no background in political science.
The RC determined that the excessive “community activism” of the faculty was detrimental to the idea of a classroom as a marketplace of ideas. It recommended that “political science instructors should see to it that their own opinions are expressed as personal views, so that students can take critical perspectives and so that there is broad exposure to alternative perspectives, in order to widen and deepen their own understanding.” In yet another concern, the RC urged to improve the research and publication of faculty, noting that most had not published in mainstream presses and journals. It recommended “spelling out more clearly individual performance for tenure and promotion criteria, in line with MALAG [CHE] criteria.”
In its concluding section, the RC report counseled the Department of the need to practice “common standards of scholarly achievement and excellence are emphasized in the process of hiring and promotion.” In an unprecedented move, it advised that “if these changes are not implemented, the majority of the Committee believes that, as a last resort, Ben Gurion University should consider closing the Department of Political Science and Government.” Common standards of scholarly achievement and excellence are emphasized in the process of hiring and promotion.” In an unprecedented move, it advised that “if these changes are not implemented, the majority of the Committee believes that, as a last resort, Ben Gurion University should consider closing the Department of Political Science and Government.”
Yaacov Bergman was one of the few to welcome the CHE’s decision to undertake a new evaluation of the Department. He was joined by Maoz who revealed in Haaretz his 2002 negative evaluation of the Department. To preempt criticism, Maoz proclaimed himself to be a leftist in good standing and assured readers that his concerns were not political but academic. But such assurances did not quell the protest of radical scholars and their liberal supporters in the academy who accused the CHE of a political witch hunt. Carmi went so far as to appeal to the international community of scholars to intervene in the name of academic freedom.
Using Freedom of Information Act material, Bergman was able to prove that the process of accreditation was tainted by ethical lapses and deception on a number of counts. First, against evidence to the contrary, de-Shalit denied receiving the Maoz report when appointed to head the 2003 committee. Second, Barzilai who served on the 2003 committee that did not see the need for a core curriculum, was picked by BGU to evaluate the changes ordered by the RC. In spite of the fact that the Department hired a prominent political activist and leading practitioners of critical theory- a group that was, according to the RC over presented- Barzilai determined that the changes were in compliance with the report. Third, according to rector Zvi Hacohen, Barzilai was instrumental in recommending his graduate student to one of new slots.
Of course, none of these details appear in Carmi's article below. She prefers to use the Im Tirzu bogeyman of McCarthyism to tout the liberal values of her institution. |
|
|
17.05.13
| Boycott Calls Against Israel |
| |
| Jerusalem Post: BDS’s aims, a response to the whitewashing of the BDS movement by BGU David Newman |
| |
The whitewashing of the BDS movement by David Newman (“Fighting on two fronts,” Borderline Views, May 14) cannot go unchallenged.
Who are the main advocates of this movement? Democratic, left-wing, liberal, pro-peace groups, as suggested? Factually, look at the supporters – a coterie of communists, Marxists, anarchists, simpletons and a sprinkling of do-gooders. Their last interest is democracy. If it were not, they would be up in arms concerning the slaughter in Muslim lands.
BDS advocates have one aim: the destruction of the Jewish state and its replacement with another Arab “democracy.” Thus it is also with Stephen Hawking. His negative influence counts for more than that of the numerous great people who will be attending the President’s Conference.
The so-called Right is the only movement defending Israel against those who by all means and with the most radical associates are trying to replace our embattled democracy with something that has never existed – a democratic Arab government for all. |
|
|
16.05.13
| |
| Times Higher Education on Israel Academia Monitor's round table: Israeli campaigners fear enemy within campus walls |
| |
Debate on academic politics in Israel has been reignited by Stephen Hawking’s decision to boycott a presidential conference after lobbying from Palestinian colleagues.
Meanwhile, a campaigning Israeli organisation has claimed that universities in the country - and the state itself - are being undermined from within by academics with pro-Palestinian viewpoints.
Introducing a round-table event on academic freedom in Tel Aviv on 3 May |
|
|
14.05.13
| |
| TAU Moshe Zuckermann Legitimizes German anti-Semites, Berlin Book premiere 31.05: Against the spirit of times 2 |
| |
The Left Party's branch in the northern German city of Bremen has staged pro-Palestinian events in the splendid Villa Ichon, a site operated by the local Cultural and Friendship Association. The series of seminars are offered by a forum called "Discussion Group Middle East."
The April 9 event where Professor Rudolph Bauer discussed his book, Who Can Save Israel? A State at the Crossroad created a public stir when an Israeli couple where denied entrance. The Bild published an account of the case, which provoked a response from Arn Stromheyer, a pro-Palestinian activist. Stormheyer makes the standard charge favored by the radical left in Germany, namely that Israel and its allies have tried to silence all critics of the Jewish state by defaming them as anti-Semites.
All this would have been rather unremarkable if it was not for the fact that Stromheyer uses Moshe Zuckermann, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University, to legitimize his position. He explains that in his book Antisemit?, Zuckermann has used the same argument. To impress his readers, tromheyer boasts that Zuckermann’s work is not a mere “pamphlet,” but a book published by the respectable Vienna press.
Of course, both Zuckermann and Stromheyer are aware of the European Union Monitoring Center’s “Working Definition of anti-Semitism” which considers anti-Zionism as a new form of anti-Semitism. The document, which was incorporated into the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, makes a careful and reasoned distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism. For instance, “nazification of Israel,” that is comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany is classified as anti-Zionism. Zuckermann in particular, has demagogued the issue to score points with his pro-Palestinian audience in Germany. Indeed, Zuckermann, a frequent flier on the Israel – German route, is due to appear at the “Discussion Group Middle East” scheduled for the end of May. He also plans to attend a lecture in Berlin to discuss the second volume of his essay Against the Spirit of the Times. Not surprisingly, Zuckermann presents himself as a victim of the Israeli authorities that allegedly try to silence his critique.
There is a certain irony in the situation. Had Zuckermann taught in Germany, he would have been much more careful; German faculty are considered government employees and are bound by a rather strict code of intramural and extramural speech. The anti-Semitic excesses of the Holocaust has weighted heavily on both the public and academic discourse. Holocaust denial is illegal; the Constitutional Court has issued a ruling on what should be considered a proper work of scholarship. The German Constitution makes a distinction between freedom of speech and academic freedom; faculty are held to a higher standard than laymen.
But in Israel where academic freedom is extremely expansive, there is virtually no limit on faculty members. They can compare Israel to Nazi Germany or claim that Jews are an invented nation. They can cease researching in the subject fields for which they were hired; they can use their free time to either engage in full time political activism or write polemical work on the Israeli -Palestinian conflict. And, of course, they expect the taxpayer to fund their salaries and, in many cases, their oversees trips where they can delegitimize Israel. |
|
|
12.05.13
| |
| Radical Hypocrisy of the Radical Left: Why British Universities Target Israel but no Others? |
| |
Stephen Hawking's decision to cancel a visit to Israel triggered a virtual deluge of op-eds articles and essays. While most of those who chastised the famous scientist spoke about hypocrisy and anti-Semitism, few understand the financial underpinnings of the British universities relentless attack on Israel.
As the following article explains, Saudi Arabia and Gulf States have engaged in egregious violations of human rights for decades. Yet there are very few voices of protest emanating from the British faculty. The Universities and College Union (UCU) which has passed several resolutions to boycott Israel, has never discussed the human right situation in the Gulf.
The reason is simple. Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have spent billions of dollars to support a variety of programs in British universities such as Middle East studies, Islamic studies, Palestine studies, international relations studies and others. These programs harbor faculty that is hostile to Israel and serve as centers for anti-Israeli agitation. They also provide employment for former Israeli professors who are willing to bash Israel. It is hardly a coincidence that Ilan Pappe is now teaching at the Middle East Center at Exeter University; its founder, Professor Tim Nibloc, was a significant recipient of Arab largess. The same money sponsors the Israel Apartheid Week on campuses and other activities aimed at delegitimization of Israel.
Arab oil money buys not just academic hostility toward Israel but silence on violation of human rights in the Gulf and beyond. Not a bad investment considering the pay-offs of hypocrisy. |
|
|
09.05.13
| Boycott Calls Against Israel |
| |
| Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Chronicle: Stephen Hawking's Decision to Cancel Visit to Israel |
| |
Stephen Hawking's decision to withdraw from the conference "Make Tomorrow Happen" organized by President Shimon Peres, is arguably the most important victory of the academic boycott movement to date. Announced by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP), Hawking's decision was prompted by a barrage of messages and pledges of Palestinian academics and their supporters. The world- famous physicist admitted that it was the unanimous advise of his "Palestinian colleagues" that made him snub Israel in this most public and humiliating way.
The intense pressure applied on Hawking is part of a new round of the academic boycott initiative led by Palestinians. As IAM reported,the new recruits to the cause are the Irish faculty, some Australian academics and the American Asian Studies Association.
It is hardly a coincidence that the push in the academe has been occurred at a time when the Arab spring is just a distant memory, replaced by growing Islamist sensibility, in which Christians, women and homosexuals have became a target. The civil war in Syria - where the regime has massacred its people and, by all accounts, used chemical weapons - is another black mark on the allegedly peaceful Arab culture. Boycotting Israeli academic and cultural events is a perfect diversionary tactic as it distracts attention from the brutal nature of the Middle East.
Those naive enough to believe the current round of boycott aims at forcing Israel to return to the negotiation table, should read Antonio Gramsci's Letters from Prison. The Italian communist imprisoned by Mussolini suggested such tactics to shield the European Left from the embarrassing behavior of the Soviet Union; he advised his disciples to attack the "capitalist West."
Hawking, reportedly in very poor health and susceptible to pressure, probably did not understand the real motives of his "Palestinian friends." But those familiar with Gramsci can recognize the radical hypocracy of the radical left. |
|
|
07.05.13
| Boycott Calls Against Israel |
| |
| Academic Boycott and the "Good Professors" |
| |
Like many well-meaning liberal academics, Raphael Cohen-Almagor, a former professor who now heads the Middle East Study Group, is woefully mistaken about the real goal of boycotting Israel, most recently initiated by the Teachers Union of Ireland (TUI).
He laments that the boycott is unfair,unjust and hurts scholars like himself who have been involved in human rights and the peace movement. He argues that, by undermining liberal Israeli faculty - a group dedicated to conflict resolution - the boycott strengthens the right- wing and further diminishes the chances for peace. The authors of the two posts quoted below are equally misinformed. They claim that the academic boycott would exempt "good Israeli professors," that is those who work for peace. They need to be reminded that Political Geography refused to accept an article by Oren Yiftachel, a leader in the activist camp, because its editor decided to boycott Israeli scholars. After a lengthy exchange, Yiftachel's article was accepted on the condition that he makes specific references to Israel as an apartheid state.
Cohen-Almagor and others fail to understand that the boycott movement has little do with solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; rather it is an effort to delegitimize Israel in the international arena. As the British novelists Iain Banks noted, "Feeling increasingly isolated, Israel is all the more vulnerable to further evidence that it, in turn, like the racist South African regime it once supported and collaborated with, is increasingly regarded as an outlaw state."
Behind the TUI or the British University and College Union (UCU) -a pioneer of the academic boycott movement- are numerous pro-Palestinian and radical leftist groups whose raison d'etre is the delegitimization of Israel. The multitude of NGO's that they represent has commanded impressive financial support from Arab countries, European governments, trade unions and foundations.
It would be naive to expect that the professional activists and the academics will give up their involvement, even if it hurts the peace efforts. For them, "good professors" such as Cohen-Almagor and his colleagues are just "collateral damage." |
|
|
06.05/13
| |
| To Members of the Board of Governors of Ben Gurion University, May 2013 |
| |
Dear Member of the Board of Governors of Ben Gurion University,
We, concerned citizens of Israel, greatly appreciate your contribution to enhancing Israeli institutions of higher learning. Your work and dedication is what makes our country excel.
· If you are concerned about Israel’s image in the academic world.
· If you believe that Israel’s academics in general and the members of your institution specifically should not be working to delegitimize Israel.
· If you believe that calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israeli academic institutions is unacceptable for salaried members of Israeli academia.
Here are some examples gathered since your last convention in May 2012 (click the links):
Uri Gordon (Politics & Govt) supports boycott call to British universities
Lev Luis Grinberg (Sociology) joins Merav Amir (Politics & Govt) in a bashing Israel event. Amir, whose very modest academic output, has supported BDS
BGU deception of the CHE: 1) Michal Givoni as a case study of "more of the same" in radical scholarship; and 2) There was no persecution of the BGU faculty
Oren Yiftachel (Geography) at CUNY: "Grey Spacing…& Urban Apartheid" and at the National University of Singapore he calls Israel a "creeping apartheid"
Dept Politics & Govt is heavily biased toward anti-Israel radical activism: Out of 14 faculty 9 are known radical activists. Among the 4 fellows 2 are known radical activists. Among the 20 visiting professors 7 are known radical activists. There are 2 post-doctoral students 1 is a known radical activist. There are 13 doctoral students 9 are known radical activists. Out of 11 teaching assistants 4 are known radical activists
Neve Gordon's Solidarity with Palestinian Resistance, claims CHE “evaluation process” witch-hunt, urges forsaking Oslo andGordon's contribution to the "Nazification of Israel"
BGU's Radical Propaganda against the Council of Higher Education
Ishai Menuchin's Torture Palestinians Installation at the Jerusalem Film Festival |
|
|
05.05.13
| |
| Ofira Seliktar's Lecture for the IAM Round table, May 3, 2013 |
| |
When Dana Barnett approached me about doing a project on Academic Freedom in Israel in a comparative perspective, I have worked on a larger project on Delegitimization of Israel. Unlike ordinary criticism of Israel, the delegitimization campaign is part of Soft Asymmetrical Conflict (SAC). The Pentagon defines SAC as a campaign to delegitimize the target country and to improve the image of the challenge group and the causes it represents.
The anti -Israel SAC involved an extensive, complex, multilayered, interlocking and well-financed network. Its components include NGOs, UN-based forums, EU-sponsored entities, sovereign governments, religious organizations, academic associations, scholars, committees, conferences, symposia, journals and presses.
Michel Foucault developed the idea of soft asymmetrical conflict by inverting the idea of famous dictum of Clausewitz that “war is a continuation of politics by other means” to read” politics is war by other means.” Foucault and his disciplines considered the “discursive arena” as a battlefield; using critical approaches, intellectuals and scholars can delegitimize “hegemonic” narrative and substitute it with the narrative of the of the powerless and suppressed strata in the society.
The core of the delegimitzation is in the academy, since it is the academic paradigms that structure our view of social reality. There are two paradigms that are currently used in liberal arts (humanities and social sciences)
Positivist: “Truth” is arrived at through a discursive-pedagogical process with fixed rules, including objectivity and neutrality. The liberal arts classroom becomes the “marketplace of ideas.”
Neo-Marxist, Critical: There is no social “truth,” there are “narratives,” critical scholars need to expose the “hegemonic” narrative” of the dominant classes. The scholar is urged to use teaching and research to advance social justice and other progressive issues.
While the neo-Marxist, critical paradigm made its debut in liberal arts in the late 1960s, it was Edward Said who introduced it to Middle East studies in his famous book Orientalism. Not accidently, Said thanks Foucault and the Egyptian neo-Marxist scholar Samir Amin for inspiring him to write the book.
Predictably, Israel looks very different in the two paradigms. |
|
|
30.04.13
| |
| BGU Ishai Menuchin - Secret Prisoners, Missing Prisoners: Professorial Word Games |
| |
Ishai Menuchin (BGU) is a high profile radical activist. He served as a spokesman for Yesh Gvul; subsequently he became the CEO of The Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PACTI).
Menuchin is among of radical faculty who advocate universal justice, that is the notion that any number of countries should be able to try Israelis for "war crimes." According to NGO Monitor, PACTI submitted briefs on this issue in Spain and other European countries.
Menuchin teaches at BGU a class entitled "Direct Democracy - Roots and the Development of the Democratic Idea."
Lately Menuchin has been busy exploring the issue of "secret prisoners." As always, he is a welcome presence on Arab websites as the article bellow indicates. In response to an IAM inquiry, Menuchin stated that his words were distorted, but added that he knows of some Palestinian prisoners who are not fully accounted for. |
|
|
28.04.13
| |
| BGU Lev Grinberg, paradox of the radical activist with mediocre publishing record |
| |
BGU Lev Grinberg projects an image of a political activist in an interview to an Argentinian paper. Grinberg is a Marxist activist who produced some of the most virulent critique of Israeli society. He compares Israel to the dictators in Argentina, his home country, where thousands "disappeared" during the government's campaign against leftist; he accuses the Israeli government of manipulating the trauma of the Holocaust to commit crimes against Palestinians, including the suppression of the Second Intifada. He ignores references to Iran's support of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, and their role in sabotaging the peace process. He accuses Israel of stealing water from the Palestinians, a notion that was disproved by a number of respectable experts.
Some of Grinberg's classic conspiracy themes can be recognized. One of them, which he shares with other radical academics, is the argument that Netanyahu fabricates enemies in order to torpedo the peace process. As Grinberg puts it, first it was with the PLO, now it is with the jihadists and Iran. Grinberg is much upset that the US backs Israel on these imaginary threats, calling it a "real tragedy."
Instead of detailing any scholarly achievements, Grinberg is described as one of the founders of the movement of conscientious objectors soldiers Yesh Gvul. In the interview below in Argentina where he presented his latest book, Politics and Violence in Israel / Palestine. Democracy versus military rule, Grinberg discusses the results Israeli elections and compares the Israeli social protest of summer 2011 to the spirit of protest of 2001 in Argentina. For Grinberg, "the neoliberal policies hurt the middle and lower classes of Israel," and implementing a Marxist system is the natural cure.
Grinberg is emblematic of other radical scholar at BGU who, supported by the Israeli tax payer, use their position to delegitmize Israel abroad by using unsubstantiated comparisons. |
|
|
25.04.13
| |
| TAU Ariella Azoulay & Adi Ophir: The only just solution is a binational state of Jews and Palestinians |
| |
Professor Adi Ophir, a veteran political activist and a self described critical philosopher who heads The Lexicon for Political Theory of The Minerva Humanities Center (MHC) at Tel Aviv University, has turned the Lexicon into an incubator of radical scholarship. Working together with Dr. Ariella Azoulay, head of the Photo-Lexic group of the Lexicon, who has "visualized" Israeli Nazi-like treatment of Palestinians.
Ophir and Azoualy have used their travels to discuss their new book on a binational state. As the following interview indicates, they believe that giving up the territories will not solve the problem of occupation and the alleged injustice that Zionism perpetuated on the Palestinians. In their view, the only just solution is a radical change of the "regime" and the creation of a binational state of Jews and Palestinians. |
|
|
23.04.13
| Boycott Calls Against Israel |
| |
| Association for Asian American Studies Passed Resolution Supporting Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions |
| |
IAM has reported that, following a new campaign of pro-Palestinian groups, there has been an increase in academic boycotts of Israel around the world. The General Membership Association for Asian American Studies (AAAS) is the latest to embrace the Palestinian appeal. According to pro Palestinian websites the resolution has passed. This is a highly significant step as the AAAS was previously not involved in the Middle East conflict.
The practical applications of this move are not yet clear. Israeli scholars may face difficulties in appearing at the AAAS conferences and have their papers rejected by journals sponsored by the AAAS and/or editors of journals who may feel bound by the decision. Israeli scholars who plan to spend a sabbatical leave in Asian studies departments may face similar difficulties.
|
|
|
21.04.13
| |
| [TAU Sociology] Yehouda Shenhav, the Self-Appointed Spokesman for the Mizrahim, Changes his "Narrative" Again |
| |
Yehouda Shenhav (TAU) has been very busy recently. The Israeli Foreign Ministry - in conjunction with Justice for Jews from Arab Counties (JJAC) - has declared its intention to seek justice for Jewish refugees from Arab countries as part of a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The JJAC, who has the support of the World Sephardi Congress and the American Sephardi Federation has been founded in 2006 by S. Daniel Abraham - a leading philanthropist and peace activist who spent a small fortunate pushing for the Oslo peace. The distinguished Canadian jurist Irwin Cotler, made a compelling case for the JJAC in his report "Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: The Case for Rights and Redress."
From the very beginning, Shenhav was adamantly opposed to the Foreign Ministry-JJAC initiative, as indicated bellow. He argued that this is a ploy to detract from the demands of the Palestinian refugees and, more to the point, that there were no forced expulsion of Jews in the Arab world. Shenav is strongly supported by Reuben Abergil, the former head of the Black Panthers who appeared with Shenhav in the short documentary. On several occasion, Shenhav implied that the Sephardi activists in JJAC are dupes of the Zionist and Israeli colonial project.
Shenhav is no stranger to controversy; he has urged creating a binational state and a full right of return for the Palestinian refugees. In fact, as IAM reported, Shehnav wants to rebuild the Palestinian villages in Israel and set up courts that would adjudicate the return of property in cities.
He is best known for his effort to reclassify the Mizrahim as "Arab Jews" in order to promote an alliance between them and the Palestinians as a prelude to his binational state. In his book on the subject Shenahv described Jews from Arab countries as "victims of Zionism" who were alienated from their Arab roots and made "voting fodder" for Likud and other right-wing parties. This is not surprising , as Shenahv is an enthusiastic practitioner of "false consciousness," a construct invented by Marx to explain why workers support bourgeois parties to the detriment of their class interest. In Shenaha'v version of "false consciousness" the Mizrahim have been compelled to vote for Likud because of Zionist brain-washing.
What is more surprising is Shenahv's short memory. In an effort to convey the depth of the "Zionist perfidy," his book uses unsubstantiated charges that the Mossad fomented attacks on Jews to scare them into leaving en mass. But to hear Shenhav tell it now, the Mizrahi refugees are an invention of the Foreign Ministry.
Israeli taxpayers have been left holding the short stick in the affair. Hired to teach and research sociology of organizations, Shenhav has used his tenured position to write about topics that support his political activism. It is even more regrettable that some of the writings are laced with elaborate conspiracy theories that should have no place in the academy. |
|
|
|
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
|
|
| | |
