One day, when historians scratch their heads and wonder just how Israel could have adopted the policies it did in the the Oslo era of the 1990s, they will likely devote considerable attention to the role of the country’s academics. In amazement, they will look back on how a number of radicals actively legitimated the agenda of the country’s enemies, thereby doing much to demoralize their fellow nationals.

In the effort to lighten the burden of those future historians’ work, we helpfully provide an early take on the scholarly excesses of the present era.

Setting the Stage

As usual when criticizing academics, one has first to cover several ritual bases. First, we are not advocating censorship of political opinion on Israeli campuses (or any place else); we do not believe in restrictions on freedom of expression other than the standard legal restraints on libelous speech or incitement to criminality. The propagation of extremist leftist ideologies is not something to fight through censorship but through political argument. On the other hand, we disagree with the current dogma that open-handed financing of leftist extremism is an automatic entitlement due its practitioners.

Second, we distinguish between the extremists on Israeli campuses and the larger number of legitimate scholars and thinkers to be found there. Israeli academics include many first-rate talents who do fine scholarship. That said, these serious and intelligent people have less of an impact nationally than do the more boisterous radicals.¹

Third, Israeli higher education is centered around what are sometimes called the Big Seven—the research universities that receive the lion’s share of the Israeli government budgets allotted to higher education. Other than these, there are teaching colleges (not research institutions), also state-owned, roughly comparable to community colleges in the United States, with lower budgets and lower entrance requirements for students.

Of the seven research universities, two are largely devoid of politics and political involvement because they are scientific and engineering institutions: the Technion in Haifa and the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot. They have only a few politicized professors but these tend to maintain a low public profile and are as likely to come from the Right as from the Left. Bar-Ilan University outside Tel Aviv, Israel’s only religious university, is relatively apolitical, in spite of its public image as a hotbed of extremism (due to the fact that Yigal Amir, Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin, was a law student there). Its mild religiosity is roughly analogous to that of Fordham, Georgetown, or similar Catholic institutions in the United States. That leaves four remaining institutions: the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv University, Haifa University, and Ben Gurion University in Beer Sheba. Traditionally, the first two have been regarded as the Ivy League of Israeli higher education, while the latter two are leading regional centers of higher education. The latter two are arguably also home to the most radically anti-Israel of Israeli academics. In any case, these four have become the main centers of campus extremism and academic anti-Israel radicalism.

Little Output, Poor Quality

As is the case most everywhere, the evaluation of faculty members’ academic performance in Israel is supposed to be made according to two main criteria: publishing (especially in internationally refereed journals) and teaching evaluations. In Israel, the latter in reality play no significant role at all when it comes time for hiring and promotion decisions. Scholarly papers in international academic journals that evaluate prospective articles and papers using a rigorous system of independent outside referees are the primary form of academic publication. Journals, not books, are the main and most important standard; while varying from discipline to discipline, book publishing is often regarded as less prestigious because books frequently do not undergo a similar form of evaluation by outside referees. For the same reason, journal publication is more important than contributing chapters to books. “In house” journals and publishing houses generally “do not count.”

In most fields, publication in English is the only thing that counts, although occasionally French does as well. Hebrew publications generally do not rate, except in such topics as Talmud and law. (An Israeli quip has it that God was denied tenure because he published only in Hebrew and with no footnotes.)

Many of Israel’s extremists have dubious academic records, thin in serious academic publications, or even devoid of these altogether.² Trouble is, a large number of professors who espouse extremist views have flourished despite a record of minimal academic publishing and performance. In some cases, they publish mainly or exclusively in politicized journals, such as those published by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its affiliates, or in Marxist journals. Some anti-Zionist faculty members write primarily for the Journal of Palestine Studies, which is a PLO propaganda organ disguised as an academic journal; for example, it routinely refers to the creation of Israel as an-Nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic).³

In this connection, it is interesting to note the academic records of Ron Pundik and Yair Hirshfeld, the two main Israeli academics who did the ground work in Scandinavia with the PLO that led to the first Oslo agreement, then later negotiated the Beilin—Abu-Mazin document for a final settlement agreement. Pundik, who is the director for the Shimon Peres Peace Center, has authored a single book, The Struggle for Sovereignty,⁴ but—as shown by a rigorous search of academic publications—has not a single academic journal publication to his name. Hirshfeld, a tenured member of the Department of Middle East History at the University of Haifa, has published nothing other than his Ph.D. thesis,⁵ completed in 1976, except a popular (i.e., non-scholarly) book of memoirs recounting his role in the Oslo negotiations.⁶ The employment of such people makes sheds doubt on the claim by Israeli universities that they are maintaining serious academic and scholarly standards for their entire faculties.

The distortion of standards results in part from widespread on-campus politicization. In some cases, hiring and promotions cannot be explained other than as a result of the solidarity of leftists and facilitation of politically correct campus radicalism. The executive officers of Israeli universities have been in some cases themselves faculty members from the left, who have been known to use political opinion as a litmus test to decide the fate of academic careers. As a result, Israeli universities are increasingly politicized and extremists are gaining ground.

This said, a few extremists are serious scholars with impressive records of academic publications. For example, Hebrew University professor Baruch Kimmerling, a radical anti-Zionist professor active in the Hadash Party,⁷ has a highly respectable publication record in sociology. University of Haifa professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi is an internationally recognized authority on the psychology of religious cults. Hebrew University professor Shlomo Avineri, who has sympathies for Marxism and strong leanings towards Shimon Peres’s ideas, has a world-class publication record in political science. But these are exceptions to the rule.

Time to get down to specifics and name names, conveniently provided in alphabetical order. Before beginning, it must be noted that Israeli university campuses are home to such a large and growing number of extremists that those described here are but a very partial sampling.

Israel’s Sinfulness

Dan Bar-On, a member of the department of human behavior (psychology) at Ben Gurion University, published an op-ed after the Palestinian violence began in late 2000 calling on the Israeli Left to organize mass refusals by Jews to serve in the Israeli military and advocating that international tribunals be established to conduct war crimes trials of Israeli military personnel.⁸

Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, a professor of psychology at the University of Haifa, has written a series of books and articles painting Israel as an evil imperialist militarist society. In one, The Israeli Connection: Who Israel Arms and Why,⁹ he develops a conspiracy theory in which Israel was allegedly selling arms to rightist states in Central America and South Africa, as well as to the shah’s Iran. Beit-Hallahmi believes that because Israel is an oppressive colonialist enterprise, it needs to fight decolonization everywhere in the world as a way to protect its own turf. (It never seems to have crossed his mind that Israel was selling arms to boost the finances of its own military production facilities, needed so that it could defend itself against Arab aggressors.) In Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel, Beit-Hallahmi goes beyond the New Historians’ claims and denies that Jews can legitimately claim to be a nation. He denies Zionism from the root up, labeling it a Herrenvolk (master race) ideology (an allusion to the Nazis).¹⁰

Uri Ben-Eliezer, a sociologist at the University of Haifa, has spent much of his career trying to prove that Israel is a militarist society in which a military coup is perpetually imminent. A search of the sociology literature turns up a grand total of three academic journal articles (one of them an analysis of whether a military coup in Israel is imminent)¹¹ plus an academic book, The Making of Israeli Militarism.¹²

Haim Gordon, a faculty member at Ben-Gurion University’s School of Education, was in the news because of a petition signed by thirty-five of his colleagues demanding that he be disciplined for violating articles of university academic rule. It seems that Gordon routinely uses language in class offensive to women, ethnic, and racial groups, especially about Oriental Jews and Russian Jews. He routinely insults his colleagues and involves politics in his classes. Gordon regularly invites parliamentary members from the Hadash Party to address his classes, with no one presenting another point of view. Students complain of being penalized by Gordon for disagreeing with his views. The story of Gordon’s reign of terror in the classroom hit the press when Gordon’s students made tapes of some of his more outrageous lectures. Gordon had given a television interview in which he said he would go out and celebrate if Ariel Sharon had a heart attack and that he considered Benjamin Netanyahu scum. He refers to settlers as children of whores.¹³

Neve Gordon, in political science and government at Ben Gurion University, has a publication record that consists largely of articles in Marxist journals, in the Journal of Palestine Studies, and in the pop far-leftist Z Magazine. He claims to be an expert on torture.¹⁴ His political orientation can be seen from a letter to the editor in Ha’aretz (co-signed by Yigal Brunner of Tel Aviv University political science) in which he says that Israel and Barak only understand violence and so the Arabs should engage in more of it.¹⁵ Though not a physician himself, Gordon has run “Israeli-Palestinian Physicians for Human Rights,”¹⁶ He has written a long piece singing the praises of Norman Finkelstein, the world’s leading Jewish Holocaust denier.¹⁷

Baruch Kimmerling is an anti-Zionist professor of sociology at the Hebrew University active in the Hadash party. Writing in Ha’aretz, he called on the Palestinians to use more violence in gaining concessions from Israel;¹⁸ within hours after the publication, a bomb went off next to a Jerusalem bus. Later, he explained how all Palestinian violence is Ehud Barak’s fault for not being forthcoming enough with the PLO.¹⁹

Yossi Mart is a marine geologist at the University of Haifa with some interesting ideas. Mart argues that the entire Bible is disproved by geological evidence. (Perhaps one can tell from shale samplings that King David did not play the harp.) Mart then goes on to argue that the Land of Israel is not holy at all for Jews, and any attempts by rabbis to misrepresent it as such are downright criminal. He concludes: “It is now clear to what extent these rabbinic pronouncements regarding the holiness of the Land of Israel contributed to the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, even indirectly.”²⁰

Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University in Beer Sheba, quarterback of the Negev’s team of anti-Zionist academics, is best known for his insistence that in Israel’s 1948-49 War of Independence, it was the strong, over-armed Goliath fighting against the desperate and weak Arab David. He has been shown systematically to distort and resort to misrepresentation to make his case.²¹ In Morris’s view, the Arabs are always peace-seeking and moderate, whereas the Jews are cruel, aggressive colonialists, doing everything to prevent peaceful relations from developing with the Arabs. In his many writings, Israel’s history is a nonstop tale of unprovoked aggression.²²

Illan Pappé of the University of Haifa is perhaps the most tendentious of the New Historians. Unlike Morris, who purports to search archives and present facts, Pappé has been the most contemptuous of any necessity to base the charges against Israel on facts and insists that creating some sort of Palestinian narrative suffices.²³ Almost all of Pappé’s publication record consists of Israel-bashing pieces in the Journal of Palestine Studies. An active member in the Hadash Party, he has run on its slate for parliament. Actually, he regards the official Hadash position (that Israel return to its 1949 borders and divide Jerusalem) as too moderate; he issued a call to Hadash to abandon its position of “two states for two peoples” and instead strive for the annihilation of Israel altogether and its replacement by a unitary Palestinian state.²⁴ The Haifa weekly Kolbo featured a piece on Pappé screaming in unison with Arab student demonstrators that Ehud Barak was a murderer of children.²⁵

Yoav Peled of the political science department at Tel Aviv University made news in 1997 after his niece was murdered in a suicide bombing by Palestinians; he flamboyantly invited a PLO spokesperson to the girl’s funeral and at the funeral he explained how her death was all the fault of then-prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Peled pronounced this view to the world in an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times where he argued that Netanyahu was the cause of Palestinian terrorism.²⁶

Gabriel Piterberg, a lecturer in history at Ben Gurion University, denounced a criticism of the New Historians’ scholarship as Stalinist and accused the writer of having “emotional problems.”²⁷ His name has appeared on petitions by Arabs trying to rally support for ‘Azmi Bashara after he went to Syria for the first anniversary of Hafiz al-Asad’s death and there, in the presence of the Syrian president and Hizbullah leader, called for more “resistance” to Israel.

Uri Ram, a New Historian in the sociology department at Ben Gurion University, is perhaps best known for his assertion that the Jews have no more right to live in Palestine than do the British in India.²⁸

Israel Shahak, recently deceased, was professor emeritus of chemistry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and was probably the most openly anti-Jewish of all Israel’s academic extremists. He spent most of his career promoting naked antisemitism and his writings appear on neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial websites around the world.²⁹ (Jewish antisemite may sound like an oxymoron but Shahak proved it is not.) He went beyond the simple endorsement of Arab positions, something common among other Israeli academic leftists, and also well beyond mere chic anti-Zionism. He openly hated Judaism and Jews. His writings center around the theme that Judaism is the fountain of all evil and that most of the world’s problems can ultimately be traced back to Judaism.³⁰ He propounded the thesis that Judaism is a racist form of irrational anti-Gentile hatred. Maimonides, for example, was a great hater of Gentiles, according to Shahak.³¹ Jews worship Satan daily.³² Shahak‘s Jewish History, Jewish Religion carries a foreword by Gore Vidal, who takes the opportunity there to bash American Jews for “hijacking” the American economy to serve Israel and to denounce “totalitarian Judaism.”³³ Shahak considered Israel a “terrorist state.”³⁴ Not surprisingly, the writings of Shahak are promoted on the websites of neo-Nazi organizations, crank Holocaust-deniers,³⁵ and hate-spewing Islamist groups.³⁶ Neo-Nazi websites featuring his writings, for example, include “Jew Watch,” “The Historical Review Press,” “The Campaign for Radical Truth in History.”

Oren Yiftachel, a geographer at Ben Gurion University, co-authored with Asad Ghanem, a political scientist from the University of Haifa, an op-ed piece in Ha’aretz proposing that Jews join Palestinians in celebrating “Land Day,” a day at the end of March when Israeli Arabs march against Israel and denounce Zionism.³⁷ Yiftachel has also suggested that proposals to get Israeli Jews to move to the Galilee are “pure racism.”³⁸ He thinks Israel should be viewed as a dictatorship as long as Palestinians outside Israel’s borders are prevented from voting in Israeli elections.³⁹ He also argues that any government that depends on the votes of Israelis living in the West Bank and Gaza is undemocratic and must be toppled (an action he does not further define).⁴⁰

Moshe Zimmerman, a professor of German history at the Hebrew University, has become famous in Israel for his comments about Jews living beyond Israel’s Green Line, whom he calls Nazis (and their children he labeled “Hitlerjugend”).⁴¹ Anti-Oslo dissidents he compares to Nazis.⁴² But when he termed some Knesset members “Nazi imitations,” they sued him, and a Rehovot court in September 2000 convicted him of slander.⁴³

“Massacre” at Tantura

Spurred by the so-called New Historians, a group of politicized scholars rewriting Middle East history along the lines of Arab anti-Zionism, many Israeli academics blame their own country for the Arab-Israeli conflict. Their message is simple: Israel represents the epitome of all that is evil and is the colonialist aggressor that started all the wars with the Arabs who wanted nothing more than to be left in peace. Benny Morris, Illan Pappé, and Avi Shlaim (the last of whom lives in the United Kingdom) are the best known of the New Historians. Efraim Karsh and others have shown how they engage in tendentious and intentional distortion of facts to confirm their political agenda.⁴⁴

Perhaps the most talked about case of rogue scholarship in recent times was a work of “New History” that went beyond presenting the Arab version to concoct a massacre of Arab civilians by Jews. This was the work of a 1998 master’s student at the University of Haifa, Theodore (“Teddy”) Katz,⁴⁵ a middle-aged kibbutznik active in Meretz and other movements on the Israeli Left. Katz wrote his thesis under the supervision of Kais M. Firro, an extremist Druze professor in the Department of Middle East History. Pappé was also a thesis supervisor.

Under Firro and Pappé ‘s supervision, Katz collected evidence of a massacre of Arabs on May 23, 1948, just days after Israel declared its independence, at Tantura, a small Arab town south of Haifa. Tantura blocked a key road and the Haganah (Israeli military forces) sent the elite Alexandroni brigade to take the village and open the road. Fifty regular Syrian army soldiers fought on the side of the Arabs. Some Arab civilians were killed in the house-to-house battle, as were fourteen Jewish fighters.⁴⁶

This much was long known. In his thesis, however, Katz claimed to discover an intentional massacre of Arab civilians by the Israelis after their surrender, in which some 200-250 civilians lost their lives at the hands of Israeli firing squads. Firro and his department awarded Katz the unheard-of grade of 97 for this thesis, and its conclusions became widely known when they were broadcast in the national Israeli press.⁴⁷ No one at all, not even Arab propagandists, had ever raised accusations of a massacre during the battle for Tantura, so this news caused a minor sensation.

But how could legions of anti-Israel researchers have overlooked a massacre in Tantura for two generations? Had such a massacre occurred, it could not have remained secret. Arab spin doctors, especially in the PLO, would long ago have raised any reports of a massacre and nailed it high on the same flagpole from which it has always waved the banners of supposed massacres at Deir Yassin and the Kfar Qasim. The events at Deir Yassin—in sharp contrast—were not only covered by the press at the time and used to great propaganda effect by Arab leaders, but have been a permanent feature of the Arab-Israeli debate ever since. Indeed, in late 1999, after the Israeli press had written about the Katz thesis, the PLO Ministry of Information and other agencies issued statements and posted news items about the new study on their web pages.⁴⁸

Why the fifty-year reticence about a massacre at Tantura?

Because there was absolutely no hard evidence at all produced by Katz and Firro or anyone else to show that a massacre had ever taken place at Tantura. No graves or other physical evidence have ever been seen or found. Contemporary Arab newspapers covered in exacting detail the evacuation of Arabs from the town after the battle but not one reported on a massacre at Tantura. Nor is there any mention of a massacre in any other Arab document or archive from the time. The Israeli press covered the battle in detail but knew of no massacre. Ha’aretz reported that forty Arabs were killed in the battle.⁴⁹ Davar spoke of 200 Tantura men captured, with no mention of a massacre.⁵⁰ The Israeli army openly and candidly documented those few cases where Arab civilians were in fact targeted, such as a reprisal raid east of Haifa after local Arabs butchered Jewish refinery workers in 1948; it categorically denies any such massacre ever took place at Tantura. The New Historians who sought out massacres to prove that Israel ruthlessly expelled the Palestinians in 1948-49 never mention any massacre at Tantura. Veterans of the Alexandroni Brigade are alive and agree that civilians were killed in the battle, which went house-to-house and involved firing into homes from which fire was directed at them, but they indignantly deny that Arabs were lined up in front of firing squads and massacred, as Katz claims.

Lacking evidence, Katz and Firro concocted a study based on oral histories, a method notoriously open to the power of suggestion and the potential for egregious distortion. Interviews with Arabs, many of whom were children in 1948, suddenly turned up restored memories of a forgotten massacre. The interviewees thus produced what Katz was seeking: lurid descriptions of mass killings.

Surviving members of the Alexandroni Brigade filed a libel suit against Theodore Katz and the University of Haifa for a quarter of a million dollars. Several of Israel’s extreme leftists began to collect funds to help Katz with his defense.⁵¹ At the 2000 trial, Katz’s interview tapes were played and the Arabs interviewed turned out to be saying something quite different from what Katz had had them saying. Several of the Arab sources insisted there had been no massacre at all. Some Arabs cited by Katz confirmed that Katz had misquoted them. Katz ultimately signed a court “compromise” with his lawyer present in which he agreed to publish ads in the Israeli press at his own expense confirming that the entire massacre story had been a total fabrication and apologizing to the Palmach vets. (Later he tried to withdraw from this court ruling, claiming he had signed it while under emotional distress, but the court refused to accept his request to back out).⁵²

The University of Haifa set up an internal committee of inquiry into the affair that found Katz had systematically misquoted the Arab witnesses he had interviewed for the thesis; and that he had otherwise falsified evidence.⁵³ Nevertheless, the university took no disciplinary action against the professors involved, nor did it rescind Katz’s degree. Nor has everyone in Israeli academia renounced the Katz research; Illan Pappé continues to insist that not only were Katz’s now-withdrawn allegations correct,⁵⁴ but he has indicated that he himself intends to reiterate the allegations in his own writings.⁵⁵ Baruch Kimmerling denounced the university for not standing fully behind the research.⁵⁶

More surprising yet, the University of Haifa administration at first proffered its full backing to Katz and Firro when the suit was filed. The rector of the university⁵⁷ at the time was Gad G. Gilbar,⁵⁸ a professor of Middle East history who has taught Katz and who considered helping Katz cover his legal bills. When Gilbar was replaced as university rector in 2000, his successor distanced himself from Katz and Firro and refused to endorse their behavior or the thesis methods. He also ordered an internal campus inquiry into the whole matter.

Katz may have renounced his earlier allegations, but the fabricated massacre quickly acquired a momentum all its own, with real-world consequences. Many Arabs who lived in Tantura in 1948 and their descendents now live in the Arab town of Faradis not far away; following the “discovery” of the massacre, Faradis schools began to organize trips to visit the site of the supposed massacre. Faradis, which sits astride one of the two roads to Haifa from the south, had been spared by and large from the rioting and violence that characterized other Arab towns throughout the years of the first intifada. But in September 2000, the town residents rioted violently, blocking highways and battling police, and live ammunition was used. Could the University of Haifa have created a first in academic history—a violent riot produced by fabrications in a master’s thesis?

Fashionable Flakiness

As in other countries, campus extremism is often accompanied by the propagation of fashionably bizarre ideas and downright silliness. The humanities departments in Israel are filled with those espousing the newspeak of post-modernism and deconstructionist gibberish. Indeed, such ideas have overflowed from the campus and infiltrated the popular press in Israel, where it is common these days to find a discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict insisting that the whole mess is a mere conflict of narratives. Marxism is popular in some humanities departments and in some of the softer social sciences, especially in sociology.

Yoav Ben-Dov teaches the philosophy of science at the Tel Aviv University and is the Israeli Timothy Leary, combining leftist politics with urging people to find contentment through ingesting illegal drugs. He is the head of a movement in Israel demanding legalization of drugs, currently calling itself Free Israel. He has organized on-campus “trance” parties and frequently lectures students on the benefits of using illegal drugs.⁵⁹

Ilan Gur-Zeev, at the School of Education at the University of Haifa and one of Israel’s more bizarre figures, is a “philosopher of education.” He goes well beyond the usual academic anti-Zionism and argues that Israel’s original sin lies in its trying to teach its children that the Holocaust somehow implies that Israel has the right to exist. He believes that the Holocaust was no greater a horror than that perpetrated by Zionists against the Palestinians. He looks upon school violence as something progressive and positive. Gur-Zeev says Israel was out of line when it objected to Jörg Haider’s inclusion in the Austrian government: “After all,” he has been quoted as saying, “Haider is no more extreme than the Likud. Haider’s program is far better than that endorsed by many of those politicians on the Israeli Right. Haider’s statements on foreigners are more moderate than those of the Likud.”⁶⁰ Gur-Zeev is at his most erudite and scholarly when he writes in the Marxist Israeli journal Theory and Criticism that his own university’s 30-storey tower a top a hill is the phallus that expresses the oppression of Arabs.⁶¹

Michal Oren, a lecturer in history of the land of Israel at the University of Haifa, may win the crown for academic wackiness. She heads a political movement called New Israel, the subject of much media attention in Israel. The group advocates the establishment of colonies by Israelis around the world so that they can escape from the oppression of Israel’s religious parties, which attempt to keep the buses from running on the Sabbath and perpetrate similar atrocities.⁶²

Conclusions

Academic extremists maintain a very high profile in the Israeli, Arab, and world media and have had an impact far beyond their actual numbers. Examples of their influence are plentiful, from the negotiations cooked up by two academics that produced the Oslo accords to the rewriting of the textbooks used in Israeli schools to reflect the Arab point of view. Israeli journalists tend to follow their lead and take their clues from the tenured extremists (note, for example, how the media and then the PLO turned Katz’s otherwise obscure M.A. thesis into a cause celebre). Even more important, the extremists have an impact on events and emotions in the Middle East by encouraging those seeking to destroy Israel as well as demoralizing the Israeli public, thus weakening its ability to defend the country.

The most surprising thing about all this is that Israel’s academic extremists do all this damage while being funded by the Israeli taxpayer and by Jewish contributors from around the world, most notably in the United States. (University students pay only about 15 percent of the costs of their education, with the remainder coming from these taxpayers or donors.) Donors making philanthropic gifts to Israeli universities do so to assist with the Zionist enterprise; obviously, such persons will want think twice before permitting their funds to further promote anti-Israel extremism.

¹ Nor is their international stature that great either. A large portion of Nobel prizes go to Jewish recipients but Israeli universities have yet to produce their first laureate.
² The comments below on academic performance are based on searches of the major computerized bibliographic sources such as Historic Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Social Science Abstracts, etc.
³ Orbis, Fall 1988, p. 637, describes the Institute of Palestine Studies, publisher of the Journal of Palestine Studies, as “an arm of the Palestine Liberation Organization.”
⁴ London: Blackwell, 1994.
⁵ Yair P. Hirshfeld, Deutschland und Iran im Spielfeld der Mächte : Internationale Beziehungen unter Reza Schah, 1921-1941]
⁶ Yair P. Hirschfeld, Oslo, Nushah le-Shalom : Ha-Masa u-Matan al Heskeme Oslo—Ha-Astrategyah u-Mimushah (Tel Aviv : Am oved : Merkaz Yitshak Rabin le-heker Yisrael, 2000).
⁷ A predominantly Arab party that has never quite gotten around to renouncing Stalinism, that backed the Khmer Rouge and Saddam Husayn, and whose parliamentary members regularly call openly for Arab violence against Jews. See http://www.hadash.org.il/english.
⁸ Ha’aretz, Nov. 16, 2000.
⁹ New York: Pantheon, 1987.
¹⁰ London: Pluto Press 1992. See Washington Report on Middle East Affairs at http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0194/9401067.htm.
¹¹ Uri Ben-Eliezer, “Is a Military Coup Possible in Israel? Israel and French-Algeria in Comparative Historical-Sociological Perspective,” Theory and Society, 27 -3 (1998): 311-343.
¹² Co-authored with Asad Ghanem, a political scientist from the University of Haifa (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998).
¹³ Ha’aretz, Aug. 6, 2000.
¹⁴ Neve Gordon and Ruchama Marton, eds., Torture: Human Rights, Medical Ethics, and the Case of Israel (London: Zed Books, 1995).
¹⁵ Oct. 27, 2000.
¹⁶ Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Jan./Feb. 1998, p.2-3.
¹⁷ Ha’aretz. Feb. 23, 01; see also Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering ( London: Verso, 2000).
¹⁸ “The Right to Fight against Occupation,” Mar. 27, 2001.
¹⁹ Ha’aretz, Oct. 4, 2000.
²⁰ “The Bible Did Not Happen and the Land of Israel is Not Holy,” Ha’aretz, Nov. 4, 1999. A thesis along similar lines has been promoted by Hebrew University’s Professor Moshe Maoz, who insists Jews fabricated their supposed holy places. (The Jerusalem Post, May 29, 2001.)
²¹ Karsh, “Benny Morris and the Reign of Error,” pp. 15-28.
²² Ma’ariv, Oct 22, 2000.
²³ Daniel Doron, “Beware the Re-Educators,” The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 4, 1999.
²⁴ Kolbo (Haifa), Nov. 3, 2000.
²⁵ Dec. 1, 2000.
²⁶ Sept. 12, 1997.
²⁷ Cited in Efraim Karsh, Fabricating History: The New Historians (London: Frank Cass, 1997), p. 2.
²⁸ Uri Ram, “The Colonization Perspective in Israeli Sociology,” Journal of Historic Sociology, Sept. 1993, pp. 327-350.
²⁹ See http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis.htm.
³⁰ Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (London: Pluto Press, 1994); http://abbc.com/shahak.
³¹ See http://www.wernercohn.com/Shahak.html.
³² Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 34.
³³ Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, foreword.
³⁴ See The Campaign for Radical Truth in History, at http://www.hoffman-info.com/essay8.html.
³⁵ See for example http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis.htm. and http://www.wernercohn.com/Shahak.html.
³⁶ See the Radio Islam website at http://islam.org/radio.
³⁷ Ha’aretz, Apr. 4, 2000.
³⁸ Ha’aretz, Nov. 15, 2000.
³⁹ Ha’aretz, May 20, 2001.
⁴⁰ Ha’aretz, Jan. 7, 2001.
⁴¹ The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 31, 1999; July 7, 2000.
⁴² Ha’aretz, June 10, 2001.
⁴³ Ha’aretz, Oct 4, 2000; The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 20, 2000.
⁴⁴ Yoram Hazoni, The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel’s Soul (New York: Basic Books, 2000); idem, “The Zionist Idea and Its Enemies,” Commentary, May 1996; Meyrav Wurmser, “Can Israel Survive Post-Zionism?” Middle East Quarterly, Mar. 1999, pp. 3-14; Efraim Karsh, Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians, 2nd edition (London: Frank Cass, 2000), pp. 35-36, 62-63, 195-196; idem, “Rewriting Israel’s History,” Middle East Quarterly, June 1996, pp. 19-31; idem, “Benny Morris and the Reign of Error,” Middle East Quarterly, Mar. 1999, pp. 15-28.
⁴⁵ Theodore Katz, “Yetsi’at Ha’arvim Michfarim Lemargelot Hacarmel Hadromi Be-1948,” (MA thesis, University of Haifa, 1998).
⁴⁶ Yehuda Slutzky, Keetsur Toldot Hahaga (Tel Aviv: Israel Ministry of Defense, 1978); Zadok Eshel, Toldot Hahaga B’Haifa (Tel Aviv; Haifa Haganah Veterans Organization, 1978).
⁴⁷ Ma’ariv, Dec. 14, 2000; Kolbo, Dec. 29, 2000; Ha’aretz, Dec. 1 and 20, 2000.
⁴⁸ Agence France-Presse, Feb. 6, 2000; also see http://www.pna.org/mininfo/reports/er_1502.htm.
⁴⁹ May 24, 1948.
⁵⁰ Davar (Tel Aviv), May 24, 1948; Ma’ariv, May 24, 1948.
⁵¹ Ba’ir (Haifa), Nov 24, 2000.
⁵² Ma’ariv, Dec. 22 and 28, 2000; Yediot Ahronot and Ha’aretz, Dec. 22, 2000; The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 25, 2000; Ba’ir, Dec. 1, 2000.
⁵³ Ha’aretz, June 27, 2001.
⁵⁴ See “The Tantura Case in Israel: The Katz Research and Trial,” The Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 2001, at http://www.ipsjps.org/jps/119/pappe.html.
⁵⁵ Haifa Kolbo, Dec. 29, 2000; Ma’ariv, Dec. 29, 2000; Ba’ir Dec. 29, 2000. As noted above, the bulk of Pappe’s own publications are in the Journal of Palestine Studies.
⁵⁶ Ha’aretz, Dec. 26, 2000.
⁵⁷ Its chief executive officer, equivalent to a U.S. university president.
⁵⁸ Gilbar also has a modest publication record, consisting of several books, three published by the in-house University of Haifa Press, and a handful of journal articles, some also in an in-house University of Haifa journal.[sup] [/sup]While representing himself as an economist, Gilbar has yet to publish an economics article in a refereed economics journal. As an administrator, Gilbar oversaw the radicalization of the University of Haifa campus, which was racked with anti-Israel demonstrations by Arab and Jewish left-wing extremists, while the police were kept away.
⁵⁹ See http://www.chaishop.com/text4/0/il/0.htm; http://www.freeisrael.com; http://www.yoavbendov.com.
⁶⁰ Ha’aretz, Feb. 20, 2000.
⁶¹ Theory and Criticism, Spring 2000, pp. 239-244.
⁶² Ha’aretz, Aug. 14, 2000 and Nov 11, 2000.