By Joel Golovensky, HAARETZ
The Institute for Zionist Strategies, where I proudly serve as founding president, has conducted and sponsored many research papers, one of which (in final draft form ) raised the ire of Haaretz’s editors (“Politruks in academia,” August 17 ). This study on Post-Zionism in academia is a thoroughly researched paper by an academic with a PhD that took many months of diligent research. It demonstrates a severe anti-Zionist bias (euphemistically termed “post-Zionist” ) in almost all sociology departments at Israeli universities.
This scholarly paper, which also examines think tanks, spans 141 pages (not including recommendations ), 105 footnotes and an 11-page bibliography. By all measures, it is an impressive and thoughtful work, whatever the reader’s predisposition or political view. A small part of this extensive work is devoted to an attempt to explain the origins of the bias and tilt.
In the words of Haaretz, “The report claims there is a prestigious, influential academic elite that trains generations of young researchers and personnel for public administration, and that maintains and runs research centers with considerable influence on the state’s decision-makers.” As Haaretz quotes the report, “This elite, which represents Israel in the international academic community, advocates radical leftist positions that would doubtfully pass the broader (Jewish ) public test – in the polls.”
Haaretz disputes this contention simply by calling it “crude” and by maligning the authors’ motives. This, of course, is not exactly a scholarly refutation – certainly not one worthy of combating “McCarthyism.”
The phenomena and dynamics of academic conformism have been well investigated and do not need revelation by the Institute for Zionist Strategies (see, for example, “The Politically Correct University,” edited by Robert Maranto, Richard E. Redding an Frederick Hess, and the writing of Harvard University professor Harvey Mansfield ).
The question Haaretz avoids by resorting to labeling and imputed motives is a discussion on whether the paper’s findings are accurate. Are the conclusions of this well-documented research correct? Contrary to the editorial’s assertion, the study does not view everything but “old Jewish National Fund propaganda” as anti-Zionism. Rather, as defined at the very beginning of the study, the paper defines post-Zionism as “the demand to reconstitute Israel as a state of all its citizens [and not as a Jewish state], to cancel all laws and symbols that project a Jewish state (such as the Law of Return, the flag, the national anthem ).”
This is the anti-Zionism found to govern Israel’s sociology departments. Wouldn’t it be important to know if this is in fact the case? Haaretz’s editors may be the only reputable people in the country who genuinely believe that there is no serious anti-Zionism bias in the sociology departments – a bias now thoroughly researched and documented.
Indeed, it would be extremely important to know if there are any consistent biases of any kind in any Israeli university department. The predominance of such a bias is no longer a gut feeling or hypothesis: It is now a demonstrated empirical fact. And if the study is correct, don’t the universities and their officers have a duty to correct such biases? But Haaretz disapproves of Tel Aviv University officers examining the situation on the ground to verify or refute the existence of such prevalent biases.
The study by the Institute for Zionist Strategies finds that works reflecting a Zionist viewpoint are discouraged, and that students are effectively denied a fair presentation of the Zionist perspective. If these facts are true – even in part – academic freedom and excellence is being thwarted, impeded and seriously undermined. This situation cannot be swept away by epithets and gestures – certainly not by a serious journal of news and opinion.
The institute’s study is not related to any other study, as the editorial inappropriately insinuates without foundation. As a research institute, our main focus is to publish research. We have not demanded anything of anyone, whatever the justification. We have conducted serious and important academic research that raises vital issues based on empirical evidence. When our recommendations are finalized, we will publish them for all to see.
Certainly, our research is subject to refutation and criticism based on serious research, analysis and the marshaling of facts. But in a free and democratic society, in the Jewish people’s national home, our work must not be dismissed by fiat. Haaretz should not avoid its responsibility to engage in an important public discussion by resorting to branding. It should stand up to its responsibilities.
Yes, a revolution is needed but more like the kind that occurred in Quebec in circa 1958. Oh, you never heard about it? That’s how successful it was. Almost overnight, due to a survey conducted for the Vatican, Quebec went from a priest-controlled society to secular which it is today; among the most secular in the world — because to do otherwise, the survey warned, there would be a bloody revolution.
Israel needs to go in the opposite direction. The whole underpinning of the country is based on religion but it is the seculars who are in charge and, unfortunately, Jews tend to not take their religion seriously.
Perhaps it’s because the upper echelon of the religion is as scary and grotesque as the bishops and cardinals of the church but normal Israelis do not care to be associated with them. There is, however, a shift towards more “Yiddishkeit” — the Jewish soul and sensibility that is being adopted by an upcoming generation and it’s from here that the “revolution” can erupt.
Once the left loses the battle of vilification of the “knitted kippah” settlers and identifies them as the representatives of Judaism rather than the fur hatted extremists, the move towards change will occur. Jews have to stop judging each other on the basis of piety and “my rabbi is better than your rabbi.” According to Rabbi David Solomon, a magnificent historian, there is nothing in Tanach that says you are to be religious; righteous and serve God and mankind, yes. “Churcy,” no.
When a leader arises who can provide a sane, reasonable leadership based on Jewish (Torah) values, and all Jews can accept him without demonizing him the way they do with men like Moshe Feiglin (who is close to the ideal), the sooner will that quiet revolution occur when the Jews will once again possess all of Eretz Yisroel.
Golovensky said,
Yes, our prestigious universities are raising up an elite clique, groomed to rule the world. Whoever doesn’t understand that, hasn’t spent much time in a university. The most talented radicals are rushed to the front of the line, and dissenters are tripped up along the way.
It’s interesting that the “Labor Party Island”, where all those prospective leftist liberal kids were gathered for Summer Camp in Norway, was also a grooming place for future (Leftist) leaders. The gunman who killed them may have been acting alone, but he probably expressed the pent-up frustrations of lots of Europeans: who are tired of being sold up the river by Leftists to the Moslems. That shooting has done one positive thing: Until now, people have kowtowed to the Moslems because they are afraid of them. Now they have reason to be afraid of the people as well. But the Leftist Establishment is too entrenched and comfortable to be afraid. Let them go on with their madness, until the mobs escort them to the guillotine.
By the way, as a disclaimer, I do not advocate mass murder.
I should have pointed out to the commenters above that I am not Jewish, I come from Ireland, and I have a very definite position on Israel.
I take it I am talking here to loyal and patriotic Jews
So I refer you again to my post above which contains the following
Can anybody here address this, especially anybody above who have written comments
Years ago I was a physics professor at Ben Gurion University. Fired after 2 years. Later I found out why. I am a right-wing rational Zionist, which they are not. Too much irrational thought at universities. This is unacceptable. See the new book Rational Thinking, Government Policies, Science, and Living. Rational thinking starts with clearly stated principles, continues with logical deductions, and then examines empirical evidence to possibly modify the principles.
A number of years ago I was a physics professor at Ben Gurion University. After 2 years I was fired. Years later I found out the truth. I am a right-wing Zionist, while the others there were socialists. Yes, today almost all the faculty there are left-wing nut jobs.
What is painful is that socialism is irrational, and so has no place in a university. A university is a place where people think rationally searching for truth. See the new book Rational Thinking, Government Policies, Science, and Living. Rational thinking starts with clearly stated principles, continues with logical deductions, and then examines empirical evidence to possibly modify the principles.
The left “elite” can do no wrong just like the communists ended up “massacring” millions. Stalin and Mao 2 famous communist are the proud “killers” of a near 100 millions souls. A new “ism” is waiting to beat this record.
It is a lot easier to be a leftist or rightist than trying to keep as close as possible to the center. It requires more self-control.
Ha’aretz has long lost its progressive (middle of the road, and once the name of an Israeli centrist party when the country was run by Socialist Zionists, real Zionists)) orientation by becoming “Progressive”, doing its best to emulate Progressive (aka Libtard, Leftist anti-western values) media such as the Guardian or New York Times. Its credibility and veracity are by now shot.
Cheers
Alex
You don’t argue with the left. They don’t debate, they vilify. But the left has an Achilles heel; they can’t stand to be ridiculed. Laughter destroys them. The error made by the right is that we take Ha’aretz, et al, seriously. If we treat them like the buffoons they are, they can be made to self destruct. Laugh at them. They have no comeback.
We must face the fact that those elements in Eretz Israel purporting to be “leftists” are merely unJews, renegades, saboteurs and in many cases outright traitors.
The true reason that the ghastly garbage decries the advent of investigative commissions to ferret out details about their financial sources from other countries is that TRULY they are financed from overseas to sabotage the State and people here.
Since that pestilence has infested other countries as well, we would certainly welcome a new edition of TRUE PATRIOTS that will take on the same aggregates as they did years ago.
There’s a new book out on McCarthy and McCarthyism.
Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies
In it the author comes to his defense arguing he was fighting a real infiltration in order to defend America. The Left attacked him mercilessly placing civil rights trumps the interest of the state. It is their version of events that has won the day. This book attemps to set the record straight.
To all you good folk on Israpundit
http://4international.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/netanyahu-arises-why-did-bush-shultz-and-perle-attend-that-obscure-conference/
The Barry Chamish research (see on Netanyahu is even more important now following on the dastardly attack on the TENT of the parents of Shalit, by the secret service I believe under direction of your PM Netanyahu
So I ask the question is the whole direction of Israel and the Jews under the control of an agent, certainly puppet, of the US Nazi leaders (re Nazi see Blowback by Christopher Simpson)
The immediate removal of Netanyahu following this attack on the Shalits (even though I disagree with their proposals re their son’s release) is called for
But not to return to Livni and Barak
To move forward to a revolutionary government in Israel which will lead the Jews to destroy hamas/fatah/Hizbullah and Iran
Bring Netanyahu down now so that he does not betray any further
PS
I found material by Chamish on
http://crashrecovery.org/chamish/netanyahu.html
Nothing is more dangerous than knowledge that questions the “received wisdom” of the left, as reflected not only in the editorial pages but also in the supposedly more objective news coverage. What is not covered, what is swept under the rug, is often of much more import than what is reported. Haaretz has undertaken to defend, by any means possible, leftist received wisdom. Thus the editorial is nothing more than passing to its shock troops the main talking point: “That study? Complete garbage.” Sneering dismissal is enough…few indeed would be the Haaretz readers who’d question the Word, who would give more than a second’s thought to examining for themselves the study with dispassionate interest, out of curiosity if nothing else. The left has trained its acolytes well in the process of non-thought, snap dismissal, elitist arrogance. Thus it ever is with soi disant Progressives. The best weapon, even better than truths which will be ignored, is laughter, long, loud, and hearty. Wound their pride, slice and dice their arrogance, make them out for the fools they are. HaHa, Haaretz!
America and Free World need a new Mac Carthy and the sooner will be the better
I have no patience for these Socialist Marxist Communist idiots who must have been born from brother-sister relationships. How else does anyone conclude that the children possess a stupid intellegent level. What makes this scenario worse is the really smart group is not doing enough to rectify this condition.
No system is free of basic assumptions. HaAretz presumes Leftist dogma that negates the general need for nationalism. Thus, by its standards, it is not biased. It is, rather, its presumptions that need to be questioned, not its behavior or opinions. The very nature of Marxism is that truth is at best irrelevant and, at worst, potentially destructive to the goals of the Revolution. That is a really good place to start the questioning of HaAretz’ contribution to civil society.
I have news for the Institute for Zionist Strategies: This is going on EVERYWHERE.
It’s even hit the practice of law – at least certainly here in North America – and it makes one wonder what effect the pre-law school education (ie the undergraduate studies that are undertaken prior to entry into law school) has on the thinking of lawyers, particularly criminal lawyers. The tendency these days is to go after the victim of crime, especially if he or she fights back against the criminal. This appears to be because the criminal is being defined as the victim of a “bourgois” society and thus it is society that is responsible for the criminality, not the criminal himself.
Straight out of the sociology books no doubt.
Of course once society has become fully socialist, all crime will simply melt away…