As part of a series entitled ‘Universities in Crisis’ on the website of the International Sociological Association, Neve Gordon, a supporter of the campaign to exclude Israeli scholars from the international academic community, writes a report on the state of academic freedom in Israel.
Gordon, N, (2010) ‘An assault on israeli academic freedom – and liberal values’ Blog of the International Sociological Association (ISA), http://www.isa-sociology.org/universities-in-crisis/?p=559, downloaded 6 october 2010.
He describes a demonstration in which he took part on his campus at Ben-Gurion University in May 2010, which protested against the Israeli assault on the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish ship which was heading towards Gaza. He then describes a counter-protest the next day in which students demonstrated their support for the Israeli forces. ‘There were … shouts demanding my resignation’,
writes Gordon, and ‘one student even proceeded to create a Facebook group whose sole goal is to have me sacked.’ The Facebook page carried personal denunciations and death threats.
A right wing political group published a ‘report’ accusing sociology departments of being unpatriotic and left wing. The President of Tel Aviv University asked to see syllabi being taught at Tel Aviv University. A newspaper article reported that another right wing organisation had tried to persuade donors to Ben-Gurion University to make their giving conditional on an end to ‘anti-Zionist’teaching. The President of Ben-Gurion University publicly opposed this campaign as a threat to academic freedom but the Education Minister, a member of the right wing Likud party, writes Gordon, simply opposed this campaign on the basis that it was aimed at harming donations. ‘The problem is’, he concludes, ‘that instead of struggling over basic human rights, we are now struggling over the right to struggle.’
Neve Gordon’s argument is that the phenomena he describes are manifestations of a much broader ‘protofascist’ asault against Higher Education and liberal values in Israel. He writes that this assault is being mobilized by ‘numerous forces in Israel’ and also by
‘neoconservative forces in the United States’. He writes that this assault is targetted first against the universities because ‘they are home to many vocal critics of Israel’s rights-abusive policies’, voices which are considered ‘traitorous and consequently in need of being stifled’.
He writes that the right wing organisations see universities as ‘merely arms of the government’ and so politically controllable. He characterizes right wing colleagues as ‘a thought police’ and right wing students as ‘spies’. The ordinary but nevertheless worrying mobilisation of a right wing and anti-liberal political current is presented in the language and in the framework of Israeli exceptionalim.
This text exemplifies two tendencies which characterise much discussion of the Palestine-Israel conflict, of the campaign to boycott Israel and of contemporary antisemitism.
Firstly it is once removed from a discussion of the issues themselves. It is ‘struggling for the right to struggle’. In this text there is no discussion of the substantial issues themselves. Rather they are mobilized as weapons in the struggle over the boundaries of legitimate discourse. Issues which are raised but not discussed: Israeli human rights abuses; the assault on the ‘flotilla’; ‘anti-Zionism’, ‘post-Zionism’, ‘Zionism’; Israeli patriotism and unpatriotism; the proposed boycott of Israel and antisemitism; the connections between ‘protofascism’, the Israeli right, the American neocon right and the American Christian right. The issues are raised and mobilized rhetorically but not analysed.
The right wing groups of which Neve Gordon is correctly, in my view, wary, aim to define the left as being outside of the legitimate boundaries of Israeli discourse. Neve Gordon, on the other hand, aims to define those right wingers as being outside of the boundaries of liberal and antiracist discourse. Neither argues why the other is wrong on the substantial issues. Instead, both are ‘struggling’ to have the discourse of the other recognized as illegitimate.
This is not necessarily as bad as it sounds. For example it is normal that racism or homphobia or misogyny is recognized as being outside of the legitimate boundaries of sociolgoical discourse. Sociologists would not try to debate with a colleague who claimed that black people were inferior to white people. Historians would not try to debate with a colleague who said that the Atlantic slave trade never happened. We would argue, rather, that the questions were illegitimate.
We do not want to get into an apparently rational discussion with racists over racist questions. We do not want to treat racists as though they were one side of a legitimate debate. If there were serious people who began to ask these questions, if the questions became legitimate in the public sphere, in spite of our efforts to prevent that, then we might still have to debate, to mobilise the reasoning and the evidence against racism.
The second tendency which Gordon’s text exemplifies is that towards the conflation of, and the slippage between distinct phenomena. For example he mentions that Alan Dershowitz argued that Israeli professors who support the campaign for their Israeli colleagues to be excluded from the global academic community should themselves resign from Israeli academic institutions as part of this ‘boycott’. He also mentions that some students at the protest were calling for his resignation. And he conflates these calls for resignation, made by people with no power to fire anybody, with a call upon universities to carry out a purge of ‘leftist’ faculty. In a discussion of academic freedom this distinction may be thought to be important, yet one phenomenon is piled on top of the other in order to give the whole greater rhetorical weight.
Gordon says that people want to sack him because he is critical of Israeli human rights abuses. Some of his opponents say they want him to resign because he agitates for a boycott of his colleagues in Israel academia. Sacking is not the same as a call for resignation. Criticism is not the same as a call for boycott.
Instead of rebutting Dershowitz’s argument about the academic boycott Neve Gordon characterizes it as being outside of the boundaries of what is legitimate in a university. In return, Dershowitz characterizes Gordon’s pro-boycott stance as being outside of what is legitimate in a university. Either position may be right or wrong, but Gordon doesn’t make an argument here. Instead he relies on the conflation of criticism with boycott and on the conflation of a call for resignation with a sacking. In both cases speech acts are conflated with acts of exclusion by power. It may be his case that the speech acts feed into a discourse whose logic is then concrete exclusion. But then again, the case has to be argued and the mechanisms analysed.
There is another more subtle conflation here. The very name ‘Alan M. Dershowitz’ has become a synecdoche for something bigger than the flesh and blood individual who is its apparent referent. The name ‘Alan M. Dershowitz’ connotes the fearsome power of the ‘Israel lobby’ (was he not the man who single-handedly prevented Norman Finkelstein from winning tenure?), it connotes all that is threatening about the neocon agenda (has he not written a lawyerly defence of torture?), it connotes all the lies of the ‘Zionists’ (has he not written ‘the case for Israel?’). The name ‘Dershowitz’ stands symbolically amongst Gordon’s imagined audience, for the whole of ‘Zionism’, which itself is understood as a racist and totalitarian movement of global influence and notoriety.
Neve Gordon’s political project is to have Israel recognized as an apartheid state, to make it into a pariah, to position Israel itself outside of the boundaries of legitimate countries. The terminology he employs in this piece, ‘protofascist’, ‘thought police’, ‘spies’ is not justified by the evidence he presents.
What he presents is bad enough and it is familiar to academics all over the world. He shows that there are right wing individuals and groups who wish to position sociology outside of the boundaries of legitimate scholarly inquiry. He is aware that right wing parties sometimes win elections and form governments. These are real threats to academic freedom which we should take seriously and which we should oppose. But Gordon is also clear that for the moment at least, the university sector in Israel is bravely and successfully defending itself, and the institutions are not bending to the pressure.
But for Israel-boycotters, Israel comes first, it is the one state whose academics should be excluded, it is the state moving towards fascism. And it may or may not be. But his anecdotes do not make the case. This is less a debate and more a struggle over what is, and what is not to be legitimately debated. There is a tendency for reason and evidence to take second place to rhetoric, conflation and keywords which communicate unspoken and emotional connotation.
Neve Gordon’s position tends to mirror that against which he is struggling. He is against those who would have him silenced but he is for his Israeli colleagues being silenced in the global scholarly community. He is for his own right to free speech and academic freedom but he refers to his right wing colleagues as ‘thought police’ when they use their free speech to criticize him and their academic freedom to oppose his views. He opposes the right wing tendency to see Israeli universities as ‘merely arms of the government’ and he shows how the universities are successfully defending their own independence from government. Yet then how can he argue that Israeli universities should be boycotted because they are complicit with the crimes of the Israeli government?
Neve Gordon says that things are so bad in Israeli universities that he receives death threats and calls for his sacking. He says that things are so bad that he and his colleagues are using g-mail instead of university email addresses for fear that a hostile university administration might open their emails and take action against them. Interestingly anti boycott academics in Britain have received death threats too, have been faced with rhetoric which questions their fitness to be recognized as academics too, and many are afraid to use university email addresses too, since there have been examples of pro-boycott academics in authority gaining access to colleagues’ inboxes. Ironically, it is the global corporation Google which we all appear to trust more than our own university administrations.
There is nothing wrong with arguing that certain kinds of question ought not to be considered to be legitimate questions. But if arguments concerning the positioning of the boundaries of legitimate discourse are not made with careful clarity, avoiding conflation, avoiding rhetorical tricks and demonization, then there is a possibility that the struggle itself will slip off the terrain of rational discourse. If one side is tempted to shout ‘antisemite!’ at all who oppose Israel’s actions and the other is ready to shout ‘Zionist!’ at all who raise the issue of antisemitism then the space for political or academic discussion, debate, analysis and research will be closed off. If argument and evidence are replaced by ad hominem attack, with accusations and counter-accusations of bad faith replacing communicative action, then knowledge becomes, more definitively than ever, power.
Goldsmiths, University of London
See this further discussion by David Hirsh of Neve Gordon’s shifting position on the campaign to boycott Israel
UPDATE : Richard Gold adds: As well as the link to Neve Gordon’s piece provided by David, here’s Neve Gordon’s complete piece :
An Assault on Israeli Academic Freedom—and Liberal Values
On May 31, I joined some 50 students and faculty members who gathered outside Ben-Gurion University of the Negev to demonstrate against the Israeli military assault on the flotilla carrying humanitarian aid toward Gaza. In response, the next day a few hundred students marched toward the social-sciences building, Israeli flags in hand. Amid the nationalist songs and pro-government chants, there were also shouts demanding my resignation from the university faculty.
One student even proceeded to create a Facebook group whose sole goal is to have me sacked. So far over 2,100 people (many of them nonstudents) have joined. In addition to death wishes and declarations that I should be exiled, the site includes a call on students to spy on me during class. “We believe,” ends a message written to the group, “that if we conduct serious and profound work, we can, with the help of each and every one of you, gather enough material to influence … Neve Gordon’s status at the university, and maybe even bring about his dismissal.”
Such personal attacks are part of a much broader assault on Israeli higher education and its professors. Two recent incidents exemplify the protofascist logic that is being deployed to undermine the pillars of academic freedom in Israel, while also revealing that the assault on Israeli academe is being backed by neoconservative forces in the United States.
The first incident involves a report published by the Institute for Zionist Strategies, in Israel, which analyzed course syllabi in Israeli sociology departments and accused professors of a “post-Zionist” bias. The institute defines post-Zionism as “the pretense to undermine the foundations of the Zionist ethos and an affinity with the radical leftist stream.” In addition to the usual Israeli leftist suspects, intellectuals like Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm also figure in as post-Zionists in the report.
The institute sent the report to the Israel Council for Higher Education, which is the statutory body responsible for Israeli universities, and the council, in turn, sent it to all of the university presidents. Joseph Klafter, president of Tel-Aviv University, actually asked several professors to hand over their syllabi for his perusal, though he later asserted that he had no intention of policing faculty members and was appalled by the report.
A few days later, the top headline of the Israeli daily Haaretz revealed that another right-wing organization, Im Tirtzu (If You Will It), had threatened Ben-Gurion University, where I am a professor and a former chair of the government and politics department. Im Tirtzu told the university’s president, Rivka Carmi, that it would persuade donors to place funds in escrow unless the university took steps “to put an end to the anti-Zionist tilt” in its politics and government department. The organization demanded a change “in the makeup of the department’s faculty and the content of its syllabi,” giving the president a month to meet its ultimatum. This time my head was not the only one it wanted.
President Carmi immediately asserted that Im Tirtzu’s demands were a serious threat to academic freedom. However, Minister of Education Gideon Sa’ar, who is also chairman of the Council for Higher Education, restricted his response to a cursory statement that any move aimed at harming donations to universities must be stopped. Mr. Sa’ar’s response was disturbingly predictable. Only a few months earlier, he had spoken at an Im Tirtzu gathering, following its publication of a report about the so-called leftist slant of syllabi in Israeli political-science departments. At the gathering, he asserted that even though he had not read the report, its conclusions would be taken very seriously.
Although the recent scuffle seems to be about academic freedom, the assault on the Israeli academe is actually part of a much wider offensive against liberal values. Numerous forces in Israel are mobilizing in order to press forward an extreme-right political agenda.
They have chosen the universities as their prime target for two main reasons. First, even though Israeli universities as institutions have never condemned any government policy—not least the restrictions on Palestinian universities’ academic freedom—they are home to many vocal critics of Israel’s rights-abusive policies. Those voices are considered traitorous and consequently in need of being stifled. Joining such attacks are Americans like Alan M. Dershowitz, who in a recent visit to Tel-Aviv University called for the resignations of professors who supported the Palestinian call for a boycott of Israeli goods and divestment from Israeli companies until the country abides by international human-rights law. He named Rachel Giora and Anat Matar, both tenured professors at Tel Aviv University, as part of that group.
Second, all Israeli universities depend on public funds for about 90 percent of their budget. This has been identified as an Achilles heel. The idea is to exploit the firm alliance those right-wing organizations have with government members and provide the ammunition necessary to make financial support for universities conditional on the dissemination of nationalist thought and the suppression of “subversive ideas.” Thus, in the eyes of those right-wing Israeli organizations, the universities are merely arms of the government.
And, yet, Im Tirtzu and other such organizations would not have been effective on their own; they depend on financial support from backers in the United States. As it turns out, some of their ideological allies are willing to dig deep into their pockets to support the cause.
The Rev. John C. Hagee, the leader of Christians United for Israel, has been Im Tirtzu’s sugar daddy, and his ministries have provided the organization with at least $100,000. After Im Tirtzu’s most recent attack, however, even Mr. Hagee concluded that it had gone overboard and decided to stop giving funds. The Hudson Institute, a neoconservative think tank that helped shape the Bush administration’s Middle East policies, has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Institute for Zionist Strategies over the past few years, and was practically its only donor. For Christians United and the Hudson Institute, the attack on academic freedom is clearly also a way of advancing much broader objectives.
The Hudson Institute, for example, has neo-imperialist objectives in the Middle East, and a member of its Board of Trustees is in favor of attacking Iran. Christian United’s eschatological position (whereby the Second Coming is dependent on the gathering of all Jews in Israel), includes support for such an attack. The scary partnership between such Israeli and American organizations helps reveal the true aims of this current assault on academic freedom: to influence Israeli policy and eliminate the few liberal forces that are still active in the country. The atmosphere within Israel is conducive to such intervention.
Nonetheless, Im Tirtzu’s latest threat backfired, as did that of the Institute for Zionist Strategies’ report; the assaults have been foiled for now. The presidents of all the universities in Israel condemned the reports and promised never to bow down to this version of McCarthyism.
Despite those declarations, the rightist organizations have actually made considerable headway. Judging from comments on numerous online news sites, the populist claim that the public’s tax money is being used to criticize Israel has convinced many readers that the universities should be more closely monitored by the government and that “dissident” professors must be fired. Moreover, the fact that the structure of Israeli universities has changed significantly over the past five years, and that now most of the power lies in the hands of presidents rather than the faculty, will no doubt be exploited to continue the assault on academic freedom. Top university administrators are already stating that if the Israeli Knesset approves a law against the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement for Palestine, the law will be used to fire faculty members who support the movement.
More importantly, there is now the sense among many faculty members that a thought police has been formed—and that many of its officers are actually members of the academic community. The fact that students are turning themselves into spies and that syllabi are being collected sends a chilling message to faculty members across the country. I, for one, have decided to include in my syllabi a notice restricting the use of recording devices during class without my prior consent. And many of my friends are now using Gmail instead of the university e-mail accounts for fear that their correspondence will in some way upset administrators.
Israeli academe, which was once considered a bastion of free speech, has become the testing ground for the success of the assault on liberal values. And although it is still extremely difficult to hurt those who have managed to enter the academic gates, those who have not yet passed the threshold are clearly being monitored.
I know of one case in which a young academic was not hired due to his membership in Courage to Refuse, an organization of reserve soldiers who refuse to do military duty in the West Bank. In a Google and Facebook age, the thought police can easily disqualify a candidate based on petitions signed and even online “friends” one has. Israeli graduate students are following such developments, and for them the message is clear.
While in politics nothing is predetermined, Israel is heading down a slippery slope. Israeli academe is now an arena where some of the most fundamental struggles of a society are being played out. The problem is that instead of struggling over basic human rights, we are now struggling over the right to struggle.
 From the Chronicle of Higher Education, August 26, 2010
October 7, 2010 at 8:59 pm
[…] is an Israeli academic who favors an international boycott of Israeli academics. David Hirsh goes to town on him here. You really should read it all but I’ll provide a brief […]
October 7, 2010 at 9:17 pm
While I am very far removed from the study of sociology or related fields, (and as a disclaimer, I haven’t read the original article either), what you describe does seem very much to have an implicit delegitimisation of sociology. What you describe from the original article seems less about elucidating aspects of society, but rather shouting loudly to try to score cheap debating points for “my side” over the other side. And if that is accurate, given that empty rhetoric is unfalsifiable, does that explain why the starting point seems to be axioms that “Israel is …” rather than having them as conclusions from well-worked, evidence based arguments?
October 7, 2010 at 10:06 pm
“We do not want to get into an apparently rational discussion with racists over racist questions. We do not want to treat racists as though they were one side of a legitimate debate. If there were serious people who began to ask these questions, if the questions became legitimate in the public sphere, in spite of our efforts to prevent that, then we might still have to debate, to mobilise the reasoning and the evidence against racism.
The question arises “who is a racist?” As you know, Geert Wilders is currently on trial in Holland. Some people argue that he is on the far right, others that he is a staunch defender of liberal democratic values. So the issue is not straightforward. Moreover, it also co-incides with the wider debate about freedom of expression.
October 8, 2010 at 12:10 am
“If one side is tempted to shout ‘antisemite!’ at all who oppose Israel’s actions and the other is ready to shout ‘Zionist!’ at all who raise the issue of antisemitism.”
That was a good piece. My only quibble is that “Zionist” is uncritically presented as the mirror of image of “antisemite” almost as if they were equally bad words.
October 8, 2010 at 1:42 am
[…] Tags: BDS, boycott In the words of David Hirsh: […]
October 8, 2010 at 5:20 am
Furthermore are Zionists “racists”? I know from my experience in South Africa that any support for the State of Israel is deemed to be “racist”.
And from the other perspective, if some anti-zionists are closet anti-semites, then do you ignore them or engage with their ideology? Most of them are not walking around with swastikas, so the issues are extremely complex.
October 8, 2010 at 5:46 am
Posted by peacenowmember on August 31, 2009
Yes, Professor Gordon as an academic has the right to express his views, especially because they arise from his research.
No, his university does not have the “right” to sanction him for expressing these views.
Yes, officials and colleagues at his and at other universities, and people in the world at large, have the right to express their disagreement with his views.
No, these officials and colleagues and other people do not have the right to physically threaten him.
And no, supporters of the current policies of Israel’s government (this group is NOT the same as “supporters of Israel,” many of whom in the UK and US oppose some of the government’s policies) should not boycott Ben-Gurion University because one individual on its faculty supports boycotting Israeli institutions. “I’m against boycotts, and I will boycott you for supporting them,” is not good logic.
Yes, Israel has real academic freedom while Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. do not, and nobody suggests boycotting those countries. (Full disclosure: I was just at an international conference where scholars from both of those countries were welcomed with enthusiasm — as were scholars from Israel. That’s as it should be. They were welcomed as participants in our common enterprise. In private conversations, they were asked about the political situation in their own countries, and they said what they chose to say.)
This is not about whether one supports settlements in the West Bank, a two-state solution, return rights for Palestinian refugees, violent tactics of resistance, or any other single international issue. It’s about academic freedom. Without it, there will never be a search for facts and a search for solutions; there will just be uninformed people yelling at each other with sound bites. Or more violence
October 8, 2010 at 7:29 am
I note that Ayesha Kajee heads The Freedom of Expression Institute in South Africa whilst having previously signed a petition supporting the academic boycott of all Israeli universities. Of course, I find her position anomalous and I think that she should carefully consider whether she truly believe in freedom of expression. It might be that her political views restrict her ability to propagate freedom of expression in South Africa and, if that is the case, she should obviously step down from running the FXI. The issue is particularly relevant at a time when the University of Johannesburg is considering severing all links with Ben Gurion University in Israel.
October 8, 2010 at 3:31 pm
A good piece by David, as always.
Personally, I think Gordon should be sacked. There’s no reason a university should have to put up with an employee campaigning to undermine the university and the work of his colleagues.
Moreover, Gordon poses a danger to academic freedom.
It’s not just rightwing Israelis who think it’s absurd for the government to fund its enemies – and Gordon is clearly an enemy of Israel.
If the universities don’t police themselves, they shouldn’t be surprised if the government steps in and does it for them. Unfortunately, the resulting loss of autonomy won’t just affect professors, like Gordon, who abuse the privileges of their position.
October 8, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I disagree with Brian Henry completely.
I would rather that Neve be consistent with his principles.
Such consistency would mean, of course, his refusal to publish in Israeli journals or academic journals of those countries he believes should boycott Israeli academia as well as a refusal to attend conferences of academic organisations which he believes should boycott Israeli academia and academics.
October 8, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Hot news from Neve Gordon: there are those who believe that Iran should be attacked (presumably before it manages to succeed in building nuclear bombs). And, quite possibly, these people don’t all live in the US. Some of them live elsewhere, _even in Israel_! We have news for him: this has been in the public domain from _before_ Bush junior decided to invade Iraq, i.e., before 2003. Why Gordon nevertheless believes it is somehow part of an attack on him and those of his ilk is a mystery.
But, as DH, notes, much of Gordon’s article is a mirror image of the right’s attacks on him (and, by implication, us, or those like us): he responds with assertion, partial truths and, most tellingly, an avoidance of argument and rebuttal. His comments are phrased in exactly the tone we, generally, would be taking apart, phrase by phrase, and asking for evidence, argument and intellectual rigour, should they appear in a comments thread on Engage (as we have, again and again).
However, at one level, I know exactly where Gordon is coming from – and people like DH and Robert Fine, among many others, are living in an atmosphere created by the 1980s in the UK. Back then, the social sciences, and in particular sociology, were under severe and heavy attack, led by the Thatcher Government. The Social Sciences Research Council, deliverer of government funds for research, was renamed the Economic & Social R.C., becuae it sounded less threatening to the then government. They disliked the social sciences (apart from Economics, the “dismal science”) and sociology in particular because they asked extremely critical questions, even if no answers were seriously expected.
It was ever thus: I co-taught a course which asked serious intellectual questions about equality and inequality, why capitalist industrial societies were and are so unequal and why couldn’t they be more equal. We (the academics) knew well that the answers might (probably were) that that was how things were and, for good cultural and social reasons, were likely to remain so.
The point was _not_, surprisingly, to radicalise students, but to get them to _think_ for themselves. But such “off the wall” thought processes are threatening to many (but by no means all) on the right, and so the Thatcherites sought to de-fang us sociologists.
As Neve Gordon (and David Hirsh and Robert Fine and…) shows, they failed. However, the answer is _not_ to adopt their tactics, and assertion, half statements and no evidence, but to fight them using _our_ weapons: logic, evidence, argument and rationality. Just count the numbers of those who no longer post comments here: they know they will be met with with this, and they have no answer. They have to retreat to their own ‘laagers’, where they can bask in the warmth of mutual back-scratching sessions.
October 10, 2010 at 2:53 pm
[…] offered Neve Gordon a right of reply to this piece which I wrote in response to another article of his. Neve wrote back and denied that, as it said […]
October 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
[…] David Hirsh’s response to Neve Gordon here and his analysis of the two opposite positions taken by Neve Gordon here. See Also his paper on […]
October 15, 2010 at 12:48 pm
[…] Hirsh wrote a critique of a piece by Neve Gordon on academic freedom in Israel. Read it here. David Hirsh wrote a second piece tracing Neve Gordon’s journey from sharp critic of the […]
June 5, 2011 at 11:15 am
Neve Gordon filed an anti-democratic SLAPP suit against an Israeli professor to harass him and silence him