Home
Search
עברית
Board & Mission Statement
Why IAM?
About Us
Articles by IAM Associates
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
Anti-Israel Conferences
Lawfare
Anti-Israel Academic Resolutions
Lectures Interrupted
Activists Profiles
Readers Forum
On the Brighter Side
How can I complain?
Contact Us / Subscribe
Donate
General Articles
The Left is pathological

Jerusalem Post

The Left is pathological

By Daniel Doron

Dec. 18, 2003

Political pathology is to be found at both extremes of the political
spectrum. It was a right-wing fanatic who assassinated a prime minister
and his likes are committing outrages against innocent Arabs in Judea and
Samaria, thus discrediting a Jewish community acting with extreme
restraint in face of Arab terrorism.
However, since the Left has become the dominant force in Israeli politics,
it is the chief carrier of political pathology.
The Left gained its dominance since the early 1920s when the Zionist
organization's immigration policies, funded by Jewish capitalists, favored
young pioneers who were settled in collectivist  namely communist 
settlements. Ben-Gurion and his comrades were true Bolshevik believers
then. They fashioned Zionism as a spearhead for a Middle East communist
revolution, practicing a violent class struggle against the middle
classes, destroying their economic bases and institutions and becoming the
dominant force in the life of the mandatory Yishuv.
Ben-Gurion and his party became gradually disenchanted with Soviet
communism, but up until the mid-1950s, about 30% of the Israeli electorate
voted for Stalinist parties. This caused Ben-Gurion great anxiety. He
worried about the spread of pro-Stalinist sympathies (which he claimed
destroyed the true Leninism that he upheld) among the highest echelons of
the IDF as well as among intellectuals, academicians, media persons and
artists, who were molding the consciousness of the young.
So he took two politically dangerous steps:
He disbanded the Palmah, the elite unit of the Hagana, because it was
totally dominated by pro-Moscow generals.
And he sacrificed and disbanded one of his own proud creations  the
Labor-affiliated school system.
The scions of the Stalinists whom Ben-Gurion fought still dominate life 
now in the guise of a post-Zionist New Left  in academia, the media and
among intellectuals and artists.
Ben-Gurion considered the pro-Moscow, Stalin-worshiping radical Left
pathological apostates, betrayers of Zionism and Judaism who sought to
convert Jews to the secular faith of Stalinism (several kibbutzim held
Seder ceremonies in which a Haggada was recited that was dedicated to "the
rising sun of humanity, Comrade Joseph Stalin").
THIS IS not the occasion to delve into the etiology of the violent and
destructive nature of the political pathology inflicting utopian movements 
from the French Revolution onward. Freud's most original successor,
Wilhelm Reich, analyzed it in his seminal The Mass Psychology of Fascism.
Later works, Theodore Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality and Erich
Fromm's The Fear of Freedom, further elaborated the relationship between
personality disorders and political extremism.
Radical movements seem to attract personalities that seethe with explosive
rage. Their rage is attached to a cause  as Dostoevsky so memorably limned
in The Devils  giving its destructiveness an appearance of virtue and
legitimacy.
This may explain why, despite their protestations that they defend
freedom, so many leftists actually support the most murderous tyrants 
from Stalin to Arafat, and why some liberals give aid and comfort to
aggressive, oppressive and corrupt dictatorships such as the Palestinian
Authority.
Neve Gordon is a prime example of this paradox. Gordon, one of the rabidly
post-Zionist revisionist historians who teaches political science at
Ben-Gurion University. Most of the articles Gordon has published are
devoted to denouncing Israel as a fascist terrorist state.
Gordon would probably claim that he is fighting for the rights of
oppressed Palestinians, but tellingly he devotes most of his energy to
recycling calumnies that subvert Israel's legitimacy. Gordon does not seem
to care for the Palestinians except as instruments of his rage.
He goes beyond the radical-chic support for the PLO given by most Israeli
academic leftists. On a visit to Ramallah he embraced Arafat and
implicitly protected with his body the terrorists hiding in the compound.
Gordon has expressed understanding for terrorism because it is caused by
"injustice." He does not seem to care that the Palestinians are subjected
to the most brutal and oppressive dictatorship so long as they are
nominally "independent."
He was among the signers of the petition before the recent Iraq war
declaring that Israel was planning to perpetrate atrocities and massive
crimes against humanity once the war broke out. He also endorsed boycotts
against Israel.
Had Israel enjoyed an open, pluralistic public debate  especially in the
media and the universities  one could let the pathological defamers do
their thing. But the public arena in Israel is dominated by politically
correct leftists who silence any opposition.
Like the Islamic fundamentalist parties in countries such as Iran or
Algeria  where democratic elections have been exploited to abolish
democracy  so does the pathological Left exploit democratic freedoms,
including academic freedom and freedom of speech, in order to defy the
majority will and subvert it from within.
The post-Zionists and neo-Marxists on the Ben-Gurion University faculty,
that Gordon exemplifies, are true believers. They are capable of calling
for a boycott of Israeli universities for alleged crimes against humanity;
they are not promoters of free speech or pluralism.
This is, alas, also true of many other social-science and humanities
departments in Israel where, in the words of the (Meretz!) former minister
of education Amnon Rubinstein "a unison choir" of political correctness
suppresses free debate.
In fact, several attempts have been made by BGU leftists to use the law to
intimidate adversaries and suppress criticism. The most recent, a
frivolous libel suit filed by Neve Gordon against Prof. Steven Plaut of
Haifa University, a stalwart defender of free speech.
Those who support freedom for terrorists cannot stomach any opposition.
They file suits simply to harass critics and intimidate potential
adversaries by causing them great expense and loss of time.
Serious consideration must therefore be given to the protection of
academic freedom and free speech from a pathological Left that is so adept
at abusing them.
The writer is president of The Israel Center for Social and Economic
Progress, an independent pro-market policy think tank.

Back to "General Articles"Send Response
Top Page
    Developed by Sitebank & Powered by Blueweb Internet Services
    Visitors: 242828015Send to FriendAdd To FavoritesMake It HomepagePrint version
    blueweb