Tuesday, September 11, 2012
New Israeli Poll and new Tenured Fascism
1. New Poll:
The poll was conducted by the leftist Israel Democracy Institute,
but even the IDI cannot hide the truth. Right-leaning and centrist
Israelis outnumber left-leaning Israelis (doves?) by around five to
one. "More than 50% of Israelis defined themselves as rightwing, 30%
as centrist and just 17% as left-wing." (Note: Poll includes Arabs!
What does all this say about the size of the JEWISH LEFT??)
Full news piece: http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=284014
Israelis optimistic despite Iran threat, IDI finds
By GIL HOFFMAN
06/09/2012
Israel Democracy Institute: 85% of Jews say Israel can defend itself
militarily, 22% believe peace deal will be signed soon.
More than three-quarters of Israelis are optimistic about their
country's future, despite security, socioeconomic and other serious
challenges that lie ahead, the Israel Democracy Institute found in its
annual Democracy Index published on Thursday.
The index is an extensive annual public opinion poll project, which
has been conducted by the IDI's Guttman Center for Surveys since 2003.
The 57-question survey of a representative national sample of 1,025
Israeli adults (834 Jews and 191 Arabs) was taken by Tel Aviv
University's Cohen Institute for Public Opinion between April 16 and
May 17. It had a margin of error of only 3.1 percentage points.
According to the index, the overall ratio of optimists to pessimists
is 75.6% to 21.8%.
Among Jews, 78.8% are optimistic about Israel's future and only 18.1%
pessimistic.
Among Arab respondents, 60.2% are optimistic and 39.3% pessimistic.
"It is important to note that most Israelis view the country's future
optimistically," said IDI Prof. Tamar Hermann, who oversees the
project.
"Our national resilience rests heavily on the fact that even though
people are negative on Friday evenings at their family dinner table
and the zeitgeist is discouragement, when you scratch a little deeper,
people are not really depressed here."
The overall figure is almost exactly the inverse of the United States,
where a sample of 1,441 American registered voters surveyed by the
Ipsos marketing research firm recently found that 76% believe their
country is on the wrong track.
Israel is eighth out of 36 countries surveyed in life satisfaction
rate according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development's recent Better Life Index. The US is 12th.
When asked why they are optimistic, 21.5% of Jewish respondents gave a
general answer; 18.2% said security and the IDF; 13.7% the solidarity
of Israeli society; 12.2% patriotism and Zionism; 8.4% their family;
8.2% the economy and technology; 7.1% their religious faith; 6.4% said
politics; and just 2% said future peace.
Among Arabs, the main reasons cited were general optimism, politics
and Israel's economy, technology and higher education.
When asked about the near future, 85.4% of Jewish respondents said
Israel would be capable of defending itself militarily and 84.9% said
the country would maintain its status as a leading hi-tech nation.
Only 17.1% think Israel will lose its Jewish character and only 32.7%
believe Israel will be more isolated internationally than it is today.
Just 22.5% of Jewish respondents believe a peace agreement will be
signed with the Palestinians.
The proportion of Israeli Arabs who believe a peace deal will be
reached is much higher, 38.7%, and the percentage who consider Israel
capable of defending itself is lower, 62.8%.
When asked if they want to live in Israel long-term, the numbers for
Jews and Arabs both hovered around 90%.
When asked what tension in Israeli society they see as the most
glaring, Israelis said the Jewish-Arab divide, followed by the
religious-secular split and the rift between rich and poor, and only
then the dispute between the Right and Left on diplomatic and security
issues. The percentage who answered ethnic tension between Ashkenazim
and Sephardim was so small it was within the margin of error.
The index asked varying Jewish groups whether Israel being a Jewish or
democratic state was more important to them. Among haredim, 80.4% said
Jewish and 19.2% said both. Zero percent said democratic and not
Jewish. Among Israelis defining themselves as secular, 35% said
democratic, 20% said Jewish and 43.3% said both.
More than 50% of Israelis defined themselves as rightwing, 30% as
centrist and just 17% as left-wing. When asked how the government was
handling the state's problems, 14.1% of leftists said well and 83.6%
said not well. Among centrists, 32.3% said well and 64.4% not well.
The Right was divided, with moderates in a statistical tie between
those saying the government was handling the state's problems well and
those saying the opposite, and those who define themselves as
far-right saying not well by a wide margin, 56% to 41%.
Asked which institutions they trust, Arabs put the Supreme Court
first, followed by the police and then the media. The institutions
they trust the least are political parties and the prime minister.
Left-wing Israelis also said they trusted the Supreme Court the most
and the parties the least.
Right-wing and centrist Israelis trust the IDF and the president the
most, and political parties and the media the least. The poll was
taken well before controversial statements President Shimon Peres made
about the government's handling of the Iran issue.
The majority of respondents feel that the protests of summer 2011
succeeded in raising media interest and public awareness regarding
social and economic issues but were less successful in changing
government priorities and failed to weaken the status of the
wealthiest tier.
Jews were three times more likely than Arabs to say that the Arab
political leadership was more extreme than Arab citizens of Israel.
A majority of Jewish respondents (58.3%) believe that Israel's Arab
citizens are not discriminated against, while a majority of the Arab
respondents (74.9%) hold that they are.
Hermann said the divides on many issues revealed by the survey proved
the strength of democracy in the Jewish state.
"I believe that Israeli democracy is alive and kicking," she said.
"It's a vivid and lively democracy, even more so than the democracies
in the West. The average citizen is interested, knowledgeable and
opinionated on politics while in other states they are seen as the
purview of the upper echelon. It's a good sign for a democracy when
people are engaged."
2. Need a reason for optimisim? Try this:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/left-leaning-israeli-university-department-again-threatened-with-closure.premium-1.464137#
3. Israeli tenured leftwing fascists planning a boycott (an illegal
one) against Arien University:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/159856
Academics' Plan to Boycott Ariel U Revealed
In email exchange, academics plot to boycott Ariel University and its
staff, deny them advancement.
AAFont SizeBy Gil Ronen
First Publish: 9/11/2012, 10:08 AM
Prof. Ruth Gavison
Israel news photo: Flash 90Some of Israel's leading academic figures
who identify themselves as protectors of democracy have revealed their
intolerant side in an email exchange regarding Ariel University
Center, which is poised to be recognized as Israel's eighth
university.
In a new webzine called Mida, Akiva Bigman quotes from an e-mail
message board that serves Israeli lecturers on social sciences.
Prof. Emanuel Sivan of Hebrew University wrote thus to his colleagues:
"We can use our international connections to prevent publications by
researchers from Ariel. We simply need to avoid discussing their
proposals for research and publication, especially in the periodicals
where we serve as members… In addition we should not present papers,
not take part in conferences and not give lectures together with
lecturers from that supposed university."
Sivan added that it is possible to avoid "accepting their researchers
to post-doctorates programs, research scholarships and visits as guest
lecturers in universities in Israel and abroad."
Apparently aware of the illegality of his call, Sivan adds that "all
of the above is, of course, is up to the personal decision of each and
every one of us."
The widely admired Prof. Ruth Gavison writes that the struggle against
Ariel's recognition should be taken to the High Court – as it
subsequently was – and explains: "What we are witnessing now is the
culmination of a long five-year process, that there was no organized
protest against. Maybe we hoped, then, that history is moving in a
direction opposed to the Occupation. Now it appears that history is
going in the opposite direction."
Prof. Chaim Ganz suggests drastic measures: "Stopping our work at the
universities for at least one day in the course of the first or second
week of studies while holding protests and informational gatherings,
seems to me to be a minimum. We can also think about stopping studies
for one day a week in each of the first six weeks. As a minimum."
Prof. David Levy-Faur of Hebrew University encourages his colleagues
to take heart: "Do not despair. We gave back Sinai, we left Gaza, we
will solve the problem of the other territories as well… but
unfortunately it will cost another war or two. We are in the midst of
a change in the tactics of the struggle. From a civil protest that
characterized our actions since 1967, to civil resistance. The goal
should be to bring all of the settlers home by the fiftieth year of
the occupation, 2017."
Prof. Menachem Hofnung suggests that everyone resort to calling the
institution at Ariel a "college" even if "the government" decides to
approve it as a university.
Prof. Alon Harel of Hebrew U. suggests that Ariel's academicians and
degrees be treated as those of "a foreign country."
Dr. Julia Chaitin of Sapir College suggested that Ariel U. be made to
accept lecturers and students from the Palestinian Authority (PA). She
may have been unaware, writes Bigman, that it was the PA that jailed
several lecturers who participated in a conference at Ariel several
months ago.
Chaitin has another creative idea: Lecturers who leave Ariel will be
rewarded with two articles in his name for his CV, and anyone who
persuades another lecturer to leave will receive three such articles
for his CV.
"If this is the behavior of the men of science who are in charge of
promoting tolerance and education in the general public," sums up
Bigman, "Ariel is the least of our problems. The big problem lies
within the other five universities."
The poll was conducted by the leftist Israel Democracy Institute,
but even the IDI cannot hide the truth. Right-leaning and centrist
Israelis outnumber left-leaning Israelis (doves?) by around five to
one. "More than 50% of Israelis defined themselves as rightwing, 30%
as centrist and just 17% as left-wing." (Note: Poll includes Arabs!
What does all this say about the size of the JEWISH LEFT??)
Full news piece: http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=284014
Israelis optimistic despite Iran threat, IDI finds
By GIL HOFFMAN
06/09/2012
Israel Democracy Institute: 85% of Jews say Israel can defend itself
militarily, 22% believe peace deal will be signed soon.
More than three-quarters of Israelis are optimistic about their
country's future, despite security, socioeconomic and other serious
challenges that lie ahead, the Israel Democracy Institute found in its
annual Democracy Index published on Thursday.
The index is an extensive annual public opinion poll project, which
has been conducted by the IDI's Guttman Center for Surveys since 2003.
The 57-question survey of a representative national sample of 1,025
Israeli adults (834 Jews and 191 Arabs) was taken by Tel Aviv
University's Cohen Institute for Public Opinion between April 16 and
May 17. It had a margin of error of only 3.1 percentage points.
According to the index, the overall ratio of optimists to pessimists
is 75.6% to 21.8%.
Among Jews, 78.8% are optimistic about Israel's future and only 18.1%
pessimistic.
Among Arab respondents, 60.2% are optimistic and 39.3% pessimistic.
"It is important to note that most Israelis view the country's future
optimistically," said IDI Prof. Tamar Hermann, who oversees the
project.
"Our national resilience rests heavily on the fact that even though
people are negative on Friday evenings at their family dinner table
and the zeitgeist is discouragement, when you scratch a little deeper,
people are not really depressed here."
The overall figure is almost exactly the inverse of the United States,
where a sample of 1,441 American registered voters surveyed by the
Ipsos marketing research firm recently found that 76% believe their
country is on the wrong track.
Israel is eighth out of 36 countries surveyed in life satisfaction
rate according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development's recent Better Life Index. The US is 12th.
When asked why they are optimistic, 21.5% of Jewish respondents gave a
general answer; 18.2% said security and the IDF; 13.7% the solidarity
of Israeli society; 12.2% patriotism and Zionism; 8.4% their family;
8.2% the economy and technology; 7.1% their religious faith; 6.4% said
politics; and just 2% said future peace.
Among Arabs, the main reasons cited were general optimism, politics
and Israel's economy, technology and higher education.
When asked about the near future, 85.4% of Jewish respondents said
Israel would be capable of defending itself militarily and 84.9% said
the country would maintain its status as a leading hi-tech nation.
Only 17.1% think Israel will lose its Jewish character and only 32.7%
believe Israel will be more isolated internationally than it is today.
Just 22.5% of Jewish respondents believe a peace agreement will be
signed with the Palestinians.
The proportion of Israeli Arabs who believe a peace deal will be
reached is much higher, 38.7%, and the percentage who consider Israel
capable of defending itself is lower, 62.8%.
When asked if they want to live in Israel long-term, the numbers for
Jews and Arabs both hovered around 90%.
When asked what tension in Israeli society they see as the most
glaring, Israelis said the Jewish-Arab divide, followed by the
religious-secular split and the rift between rich and poor, and only
then the dispute between the Right and Left on diplomatic and security
issues. The percentage who answered ethnic tension between Ashkenazim
and Sephardim was so small it was within the margin of error.
The index asked varying Jewish groups whether Israel being a Jewish or
democratic state was more important to them. Among haredim, 80.4% said
Jewish and 19.2% said both. Zero percent said democratic and not
Jewish. Among Israelis defining themselves as secular, 35% said
democratic, 20% said Jewish and 43.3% said both.
More than 50% of Israelis defined themselves as rightwing, 30% as
centrist and just 17% as left-wing. When asked how the government was
handling the state's problems, 14.1% of leftists said well and 83.6%
said not well. Among centrists, 32.3% said well and 64.4% not well.
The Right was divided, with moderates in a statistical tie between
those saying the government was handling the state's problems well and
those saying the opposite, and those who define themselves as
far-right saying not well by a wide margin, 56% to 41%.
Asked which institutions they trust, Arabs put the Supreme Court
first, followed by the police and then the media. The institutions
they trust the least are political parties and the prime minister.
Left-wing Israelis also said they trusted the Supreme Court the most
and the parties the least.
Right-wing and centrist Israelis trust the IDF and the president the
most, and political parties and the media the least. The poll was
taken well before controversial statements President Shimon Peres made
about the government's handling of the Iran issue.
The majority of respondents feel that the protests of summer 2011
succeeded in raising media interest and public awareness regarding
social and economic issues but were less successful in changing
government priorities and failed to weaken the status of the
wealthiest tier.
Jews were three times more likely than Arabs to say that the Arab
political leadership was more extreme than Arab citizens of Israel.
A majority of Jewish respondents (58.3%) believe that Israel's Arab
citizens are not discriminated against, while a majority of the Arab
respondents (74.9%) hold that they are.
Hermann said the divides on many issues revealed by the survey proved
the strength of democracy in the Jewish state.
"I believe that Israeli democracy is alive and kicking," she said.
"It's a vivid and lively democracy, even more so than the democracies
in the West. The average citizen is interested, knowledgeable and
opinionated on politics while in other states they are seen as the
purview of the upper echelon. It's a good sign for a democracy when
people are engaged."
2. Need a reason for optimisim? Try this:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/left-leaning-israeli-university-department-again-threatened-with-closure.premium-1.464137#
3. Israeli tenured leftwing fascists planning a boycott (an illegal
one) against Arien University:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/159856
Academics' Plan to Boycott Ariel U Revealed
In email exchange, academics plot to boycott Ariel University and its
staff, deny them advancement.
AAFont SizeBy Gil Ronen
First Publish: 9/11/2012, 10:08 AM
Prof. Ruth Gavison
Israel news photo: Flash 90Some of Israel's leading academic figures
who identify themselves as protectors of democracy have revealed their
intolerant side in an email exchange regarding Ariel University
Center, which is poised to be recognized as Israel's eighth
university.
In a new webzine called Mida, Akiva Bigman quotes from an e-mail
message board that serves Israeli lecturers on social sciences.
Prof. Emanuel Sivan of Hebrew University wrote thus to his colleagues:
"We can use our international connections to prevent publications by
researchers from Ariel. We simply need to avoid discussing their
proposals for research and publication, especially in the periodicals
where we serve as members… In addition we should not present papers,
not take part in conferences and not give lectures together with
lecturers from that supposed university."
Sivan added that it is possible to avoid "accepting their researchers
to post-doctorates programs, research scholarships and visits as guest
lecturers in universities in Israel and abroad."
Apparently aware of the illegality of his call, Sivan adds that "all
of the above is, of course, is up to the personal decision of each and
every one of us."
The widely admired Prof. Ruth Gavison writes that the struggle against
Ariel's recognition should be taken to the High Court – as it
subsequently was – and explains: "What we are witnessing now is the
culmination of a long five-year process, that there was no organized
protest against. Maybe we hoped, then, that history is moving in a
direction opposed to the Occupation. Now it appears that history is
going in the opposite direction."
Prof. Chaim Ganz suggests drastic measures: "Stopping our work at the
universities for at least one day in the course of the first or second
week of studies while holding protests and informational gatherings,
seems to me to be a minimum. We can also think about stopping studies
for one day a week in each of the first six weeks. As a minimum."
Prof. David Levy-Faur of Hebrew University encourages his colleagues
to take heart: "Do not despair. We gave back Sinai, we left Gaza, we
will solve the problem of the other territories as well… but
unfortunately it will cost another war or two. We are in the midst of
a change in the tactics of the struggle. From a civil protest that
characterized our actions since 1967, to civil resistance. The goal
should be to bring all of the settlers home by the fiftieth year of
the occupation, 2017."
Prof. Menachem Hofnung suggests that everyone resort to calling the
institution at Ariel a "college" even if "the government" decides to
approve it as a university.
Prof. Alon Harel of Hebrew U. suggests that Ariel's academicians and
degrees be treated as those of "a foreign country."
Dr. Julia Chaitin of Sapir College suggested that Ariel U. be made to
accept lecturers and students from the Palestinian Authority (PA). She
may have been unaware, writes Bigman, that it was the PA that jailed
several lecturers who participated in a conference at Ariel several
months ago.
Chaitin has another creative idea: Lecturers who leave Ariel will be
rewarded with two articles in his name for his CV, and anyone who
persuades another lecturer to leave will receive three such articles
for his CV.
"If this is the behavior of the men of science who are in charge of
promoting tolerance and education in the general public," sums up
Bigman, "Ariel is the least of our problems. The big problem lies
within the other five universities."
# posted by Steven Plaut : 12:51 AM
