Ben Gurion University
Ben Gurion University – David
Newman (Dept of Political Science) has long history of claiming
Israeli “McCarthyism”
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/2898.htm
Lock up those
'peaceniks' in the ivory tower
By David Newman
October 26, 2003
Originally
published by The Times Higher Education Supplement.
Israel is this
year commemorating 30 years since the October 1973 Yom Kippur war.
Each of the country's five universities has conferences on the
subject and academics are sure to play a big role in all the
television and radio debates and newspaper articles that appear in
the coming months. Last month marked three years since the beginning
of the latest Intifada and breakdown in the peace process, and in
two months we will commemorate 25 years since the Camp David
agreements between Israel and Egypt. All these anniversaries are
likely to be used by academics to show the general public that
Israel's academic community does not hide away in ivory towers.
But many of these
scholars, particularly those who are critical of government policy
on social and political issues - such as the debate around the peace
process and the treatment of Palestinians - have come under
increasing attack since the breakdown of the Oslo agreements and the
return to mutual terror and violence. Attempts are being made to
silence or delegitimize their views in ways that some view as
Israel's own take on McCarthyism.
Israeli
politicians often complain that academics are overly involved in
public debate about political and social issues, especially when
they sign petitions or publish articles that are critical of
government policy or support Palestinian rights. Indeed, Education
Minister Limor Livnat has been openly critical of such scholars.
But the attack on
left-of-center views is not limited to politicians. In a 2001
edition of the Middle East Quarterly, an anonymous article named
Israel's leftwing academics, labeling them "boisterous radicals" and
questioning their academic credentials.
There is growing
political division between those academics who support the
government's policies and those who are critical. The latter tend to
be labeled "liberal" or "leftwing" and are associated with the
pro-peace, anti-occupation camp. One reason for this is that a large
percentage of members of organizations such as Peace Now are
academics. Indeed, the secret negotiations leading up to the Oslo
process were instigated and managed by two lecturers at Haifa
University, Yair Hirschfeld and Ron Pundak. Members of the academic
faculty continue to be involved in many of the Track II negotiations
and in joint research with Palestinian colleagues, much of it funded
under international programs aimed at promoting Israeli-Palestinian
cooperation, especially in the field of peace studies.
Both left and
right academics are associated with specific research centers.
Independent research institutes have been founded to promote
specific neo-conservative political discourses. The most well known
are the Shalem Institute in Jerusalem, the BeSa (Begin-Sadat) Center
for Strategic Studies at the religious Bar Ilan University, and the
Judea/Samaria College for Higher Education in the West Bank township
of Ariel.
By contrast, there
are two major centers for peace studies, the Truman Institute at the
Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and the Steinmetz Center at Tel Aviv
University, both of which promote and support peace-related
research. The Givat Haviva Institute also promotes Israeli-Arab
dialogue and cooperative research and tends to attract faculty who
are pro-peace.
The "peace
industry" has become a major source of funding and research
activities for many Israeli academics in the post-Oslo period, much
of the funding coming from international research agencies (such as
the Ford and Rockefeller foundations) or from U.S. or European
Union-sponsored programs, such as People to People and Partnership
for Peace.
The only formal
grouping of academic faculty in a directly political organization,
however, is the extreme rightwing Professors for a Strong Israel.
This was founded in 1988 as a "non-partisan organization of
academics united in a common concern for the security and the Jewish
character of the State of Israel", but its activities were expanded
after the 1993 signing of the Oslo agreement. It aims "to counter
the activities of some leftwing members of the academic community in
support of anti-Zionist and post-Zionist political parties." Its
members are involved in opposing the establishment of a Palestinian
state and support settlement and the policies of successive
rightwing governments.
In a case that
received much press coverage last year and raised concerns about
academic freedom, members of the group attempted unsuccessfully to
prevent the appearance of Yossi Beilin, one of the main architects
of the Oslo peace process, a former government minister and a former
history professor at Tel Aviv University, from delivering a public
lecture at Ben Gurion University. In a recent lecture marking ten
years since the Oslo peace process, Aryeh Zaritsky, a leading member
of Professors for a Strong Israel, accused pro-peace academics of
being "auto anti-Semites" and of "selling away the essential assets
and interests of Israel's survival."
A September
posting on the group's website by scientist Yoram Shifftan makes
clear the kind of approach the group takes to academics with whom it
does not agree. He writes: "Not only are there fewer and fewer
Israelis who know the facts so that they can explain them to
foreigners, but the phenomena of self-hatred, refusal to serve, lack
of motivation and the belief that the state was born in sin
multiply. It is in this receptive atmosphere that, for example,
Jewish-Israeli academics in Oxford and elsewhere, including Israel,
publish books about how strong and well-equipped we were in 1948 in
comparison to the Arab foe. They claim it was Israel that refused
the 1947 division recommendation by the UN. This is a complete
Orwellian inversion of the truth and is promulgated by those
(principally Jewish) who are supposed to be the gatekeepers of the
truth.
"The process is
made easier because practitioners in the art of deceit are labeled
'progressive', 'liberal', 'moderate' and 'peace camp'. This
self-destructive process is autocatalytic, whereby deliberate
mischief, innocent ignorance, physical intimidation and buying
opinions feed and mutually amplify each other. It really pays to be
anti-Israel."
Bearing the brunt
of the current wave of attacks are academics such as Barukh
Kimmerling at the Hebrew University and Oren Yiftachel at Ben Gurion
University (ironically the subject of a boycott attempt by a leading
international journal last year because he is Israeli) who posit
Israel as a "state of all its citizens" rather than a nationally
defined Jewish state in which one national/religious group enjoys
preferential status. Their more global approach has been criticized
by traditionalists, left and right. In some cases, rightwing
academics and media polemicists have "named" these so-called
anti-state academics and accuse them of accepting research funding
from anti-Israel organizations, including the European Community.
Such forms of
attack, although on the rise, are not new. Indeed a decade ago,
Arnon Soffer, professor of geography at Haifa University, attacked
Israeli-Jewish and Israeli-Arab geographers for having undertaken
joint academic research, recommending that their academic peers
expel them from their professional organization, the Israel
Geographical Association. In a later lecture, at the annual
conference of the IGA, Soffer labeled the liberal geographers as
being no more than "pen mercenaries" in the service of foreign
interests.
But, despite the
attacks, Israel still enjoys a relatively open public and academic
debate, and the academic promotion system is free of any direct
political intervention, although young faculty have been known to
tone down their political stances before they have achieved tenure.
Nevertheless, recent talk of an international academic boycott has
been used by nationalist and self-appointed guardians of Israeli
patriotism as another weapon to wield against critics of Israeli
government policies and serves only to weaken the cause of liberal
and/or post-peace critiques. Such academic activity deserves to be
supported, not shunned, by the international academic community if
it wants to support those Israeli academics who have an alternative
view on the way forward.
|