|
Home
About IsraCampus
Search
עברית
Русский
Ben Gurion U
Hebrew U
Tel Aviv U
U of Haifa
Other Schools
A-C
D-G
H-K
L-N
O-R
S-V
W-Z
Israeli Academic Extremism
Israeli Academic Extremists outside
Israel
Anti-Israel Petitions Signed by Israeli
Academics
ALEF Watch
IDI Watch
IsraCampus Essays
How to Complain
Contact Us |
Ben Gurion University
Ben Gurion University -
Dr. Alex Grobman reflects on why Self-hating Israelis, like Neve
Gordon, Denounce Israel
In an August 20, 2009 editorial in the Los
Angeles Times, Neve Gordon, a professor of political science at
Ben-Gurion University, accused Israel of being an apartheid state.
He said a two-state solution was the “more realistic” way to end
this inequity. Since only “massive international pressure,” will
bring about this state and thus save Israel, Gordon recently joined
the Arab sponsored Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement
founded in July 2005.1 Vilification of Israel by Jews is
not a new phenomenon. … Levin sees an element of arrogance in “this
self-delusion” by Israelis who believe they can affect change. Jews
assume a responsibility for something over which they have no
control, to ward off despair. This is similar to an abused child who
feels responsible for his plight and views himself as “bad.” The
child maintains, “the fantasy that if he becomes good enough,” his
father will stop hitting him, his mother will give him attention and
whatever other form of abuse he suffered will end. 15 In
the same way, some Israelis are delusional when they assume they can
control Arab behavior.
http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2009/08/when-israelis-denounce-israel.html
When Israelis Denounce Israel: Legitimate
Criticism of Israel or Arrogant Self-Delusion
Dr. Alex Grobman
24/8/2009
Critics of Israel abound. Some are antisemites
who seek the demise of the Jewish state. Others have legitimate
concerns about particular Israeli policies. Among the most vocal are
a number of Israeli intellectuals who challenge the country’s raison
d’être.
In an August 20, 2009 editorial in the Los
Angeles Times, Neve Gordon, a professor of political science at
Ben-Gurion University, accused Israel of being an apartheid state.
He said a two-state solution was the “more realistic” way to end
this inequity. Since only “massive international pressure,” will
bring about this state and thus save Israel, Gordon recently joined
the Arab sponsored Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement
founded in July 2005.1
Vilification of Israel by Jews is not a new
phenomenon. As early as May 1, 1936 Labor Zionist leader Berl
Katznelson asked: “Is there another people on earth whose sons are
so emotionally twisted that they consider everything their nation
does despicable and hateful, while every murder, rape and robbery
committed by their enemies fills their hearts with admiration and
awe? As long as a Jewish child…can come to the land of Israel, and
here catch the virus of self-hate…let not our conscience be still.”2
For Katznelson this was aberrant behavior, not
the norm. Today, criticism of Israel has become ubiquitous among a
significant portion of Israeli intellectuals.3
In the 1950s, psychologist Gordon Allport
explained that Jewish self-hate is the process in which the victim
identifies with his aggressor and “sees his own group through their
eyes.” The Jew “may hate his historic religion…or he may blame some
one class of Jews…or he may hate the Yiddish language. Since he
cannot escape his own group, he does in a real sense hate himself—or
at least the part of himself that is Jewish.”4
Self-hating Jews play a significant role in
anti-Israel campaigns of the Western media. Historian Robert
Wistrich noted that Jews highly critical of Israel are featured in
the British media.5
Manfred Gerstenfeld, chairman of the Board of
Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, found that the
French elite and media adore Jews and Israelis who are highly
critical of Israel. A number of marginal Jews, who are not known in
Israel, are presented as part of the Israeli mainstream. 6
Israeli’s condemnation of their country is a
result of living under “a state of chronic siege,” posits Kenneth
Levin, a historian and psychiatrist. Israelis have been abused for
so long, that they escape their pain by espousing anti-Israel
sentiments. Appeasing the terrorists, they believe, will end
hostilities. Israel only has to acquiesce to Arab demands, cease
obsessing about defensible borders and other strategic issues, and
peace would ensue and such concerns would become irrelevant.7
Sol Stern, a former editor of the New Left
Ramparts magazine, adds that this assumes both sides act rationally.
According to this scenario, when Israel’s concessions are considered
equitable, amity will compensate for any remaining differences.
Didn’t the enmity between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union end
in détente? Hadn’t President Richard Nixon gone to China? Aren’t
“the Arabs rational” people? 8
Any “peace process” is intrinsically superior
to war. Regardless of all previously failed attempts, isn’t another
peace overture worth trying? To suggest there might be “something
inherently violent and unreasonable in Arab Muslim political
culture” could be interpreted as racist.9 Instead,
Israeli intellectuals began disparaging their own culture and
re-writing their country’s history. When they concluded that the
Arabs had legitimate grievances, they decided “it was time to try
again to split the difference.”10
In the 1980s and 1990s two different Israeli
administrations offered “land for peace’ to Syria, but were
rebuffed. Under terms of the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Israeli
government permitted terrorist organizations to return to the West
Bank and Gaza and gave tens of thousands of weapons to Yasser
Arafat’s security services, before he signed a peace treaty or an
irrefutable security agreement. Arab failure to rescind the
Palestine National Covenant’s demand for Israel’s demise and
replacement by a Palestinian state was either ignored or minimized.11
“No nation in the world has taken so many
mortal risks for a putative peace with its most implacable enemies,”
Stern observes. Even after the Oslo Accords were shattered when the
Arabs began blowing up civilians in pizza shops and on buses, Ehud
Barak offered another proposal at Camp David. Instead of accepting
this offer, Arafat unleashed “yet another savage wave of
extermination against Israel’s civilian population” with weapons
Israel had provided him.
Stern credits neoconservatives with
understanding that Israel’s right to exist as a democratic Jewish
state has always been the main problem for the Arabs, not the
“disputed territories.” Arab attempts to bring their case to the
attention of the world are not arbitrary. Suicide bombings are a
cleverly planned strategy that has produced considerable advantages.
After the first series of attacks against Israeli supermarkets,
cafés, malls and buses, the Arab cause was championed by European
governments and on American campuses.12 Israeli victims
receive little sympathy, historian Tony Judt and a severe critic of
Israel claims, because they are not seen as victims of terror, but
as “collateral damage of their own government’s mistaken policies.”13
Israeli offers to exchange land for peace have
not succeeded. Appeasement has only increased hatred of Israel. Yet
Israel is continually pressured to make concessions. The reason,
Stern believes, is that progressive critics cannot acknowledge a
fundamental truth: “that there can be political movements, like
Islamic terrorism—in which the jihad and the intifada merge—that are
so pathological in their hatreds that we can solve the problems they
purport to care about only after they are defeated.” 14
Levin sees an element of arrogance in “this
self-delusion” by Israelis who believe they can affect change. Jews
assume a responsibility for something over which they have no
control, to ward off despair. This is similar to an abused child who
feels responsible for his plight and views himself as “bad.” The
child maintains, “the fantasy that if he becomes good enough,” his
father will stop hitting him, his mother will give him attention and
whatever other form of abuse he suffered will end. 15 In
the same way, some Israelis are delusional when they assume they can
control Arab behavior.
Dr. Alex Grobman is a Hebrew University
trained historian. His is the author of a number of books, including
Nations United: How The U.N. Undermines Israel and The West, Denying
History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say
It? and a forthcoming book on Israel's moral and legal right to
exist as a Jewish State.
--------
1. Neve Gordon, “Boycott Israel: An Israeli
comes to the painful conclusion that it’s the only way to save his
country,” latimes.com (August 20, 2009).
2. Edward Alexander, “Israelis Against Themselves.” In The Jewish
Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders. Edward Alexander and
Paul Bogdanor, Eds. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction
Publishers, 2006), 35.
3. Ibid., 35-36.
4. Manfred Gerstenfeld, “Jews Against Israel,” Post-Holocaust and
Anti-Semitism Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs No.30 (March 1,
2005).
5. Ibid.
6. Manfred Gerstenfeld, “European-Israeli Relations: Between
Confusion and Change? An American Watching Anti-Israeli Bias in
France, Interview with Nidra Poller.” Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs (September 2006).
7. Kenneth Levin, The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under
Siege (Hanover, New Hampshire: Smith and Kraus Global, 2005),
vii-viii, xv, xix-xx.
8. Sol Stern, “Israel Without Apology.” City Journal. (Summer 2003),
Online.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Tony Judt, “The country that wouldn’t grow up.” Haaretz. (May 5,
2006), Online.
14. Stern, op.cit.
15. Levin, op.cit. xvi-xx.
|