George Orwell's insight into the mentality of England's left-wing intelligentsia very much applies to their Israeli counterparts, as Caroline Glick recently learned.
Writing during the Battle of Britain, Orwell saw that these intellectuals tended to be "pacifists" and "defeatists" in "marked contrast to the common people, who either had not woken up to the fact that England was in danger, or were determined to resist to the last ditch."
Referring to these left-wing intellectuals, Orwell remarks that, "In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality."
This describes almost perfectly Israel's left-wing intellectuals who wish to delete the words "Jewish state" from the Declaration of Independence and abrogate the Law of Return, because both smack of "national chauvinism".
The author of 1984 saw in England's intelligentsia palpable evidence of moral relativism. He writes: "When I first read D. H. Lawrence's novels, at the age of about twenty, I was puzzled by the fact that there did not seem to be any classification of the characters into 'good' and 'bad.' Lawrence seemed to sympathize with all of them equally, and this was so unusual as to give me the feeling of having lost my bearings. Today, no one would think of looking for heroes and villains in a serious novel, but in lowbrow fiction one still expects to find a sharp distinction between right and wrong ... The common people, on the whole, are still living in the world of absolute good and evil from which intellectuals have long since escaped."
Turn, now, to Caroline Glick, a gifted writer of The Jerusalem Post. Ms. Glick recently ran into a hot bed of moral relativism at Israeli universities. Especially revealing was her experience at Tel Aviv University, where she addressed some 150 political science students and spoke of her experience as an embedded reporter with the U.S. Army's Third Infantry Division during the Iraq war. Any person not corrupted by moral relativism would favor, as she did, the U.S. over the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Yet the general attitude of her audience was expressed by a student who asked, "Who are you to make moral judgments?"
Now ponder this exchange between Ms. Glick and a student who spoke with a heavy Russian accent:
Student: "How can you say that democracy is better than dictatorial rule?"
Glick: "Because it is better to be free than to be a slave."
Student: "How can you support America when the U.S. is a totalitarian state?"
Glick: "Did you learn that in Russia?"
Student: "No, here."
Glick: "Here at Tel Aviv University?"
Student: "Yes, that is what my professors say."
Ms. Glick spoke at five liberal Israeli universities. She learned that all are dominated by moral relativists, who indoctrinate their students and ban "politically incorrect" publications. The deadly consequences are clear: "A survey carried out by the left-wing Israel Democracy Institute on Israeli attitudes toward the state [indicates that]? a mere 58% of Israelis are proud of being Israeli, while 97% of Americans and Poles are proud of their national identity." Ms. Glick concludes, rhetorically, "Is it possible that our academic tyrants have something to do with the inability of 42% of Israelis to take pride in who they are?"
To the extent that moral relativism is rampant in Israel's liberal universities ? and I am speaking of a doctrine that undermines Jewish national pride or patriotism ? one may conclude that these universities are undermining the Jewish state. Not that anything will or can be done about this pernicious state of affairs. Academic freedom is a basic principle of liberal democracy, and of democracy that takes precedence over Israel's survival as a Jewish state.
Returning to Orwell; his country won the Battle of Britain despite its left-wing intelligentsia ? thanks very much to a prime minister who rejected appeasement, a prime minister who was not a defeatist, a prime minister who understood that in war there is no substitute for victory. Unfortunately, Ms. Glick's prime minister is no Churchill. To the contrary, Ms. Glick's prime minister has adopted the policy of Churchill's predecessor.
Writing during the Battle of Britain, Orwell saw that these intellectuals tended to be "pacifists" and "defeatists" in "marked contrast to the common people, who either had not woken up to the fact that England was in danger, or were determined to resist to the last ditch."
Referring to these left-wing intellectuals, Orwell remarks that, "In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality."
This describes almost perfectly Israel's left-wing intellectuals who wish to delete the words "Jewish state" from the Declaration of Independence and abrogate the Law of Return, because both smack of "national chauvinism".
The author of 1984 saw in England's intelligentsia palpable evidence of moral relativism. He writes: "When I first read D. H. Lawrence's novels, at the age of about twenty, I was puzzled by the fact that there did not seem to be any classification of the characters into 'good' and 'bad.' Lawrence seemed to sympathize with all of them equally, and this was so unusual as to give me the feeling of having lost my bearings. Today, no one would think of looking for heroes and villains in a serious novel, but in lowbrow fiction one still expects to find a sharp distinction between right and wrong ... The common people, on the whole, are still living in the world of absolute good and evil from which intellectuals have long since escaped."
Turn, now, to Caroline Glick, a gifted writer of The Jerusalem Post. Ms. Glick recently ran into a hot bed of moral relativism at Israeli universities. Especially revealing was her experience at Tel Aviv University, where she addressed some 150 political science students and spoke of her experience as an embedded reporter with the U.S. Army's Third Infantry Division during the Iraq war. Any person not corrupted by moral relativism would favor, as she did, the U.S. over the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Yet the general attitude of her audience was expressed by a student who asked, "Who are you to make moral judgments?"
Now ponder this exchange between Ms. Glick and a student who spoke with a heavy Russian accent:
Student: "How can you say that democracy is better than dictatorial rule?"
Glick: "Because it is better to be free than to be a slave."
Student: "How can you support America when the U.S. is a totalitarian state?"
Glick: "Did you learn that in Russia?"
Student: "No, here."
Glick: "Here at Tel Aviv University?"
Student: "Yes, that is what my professors say."
Ms. Glick spoke at five liberal Israeli universities. She learned that all are dominated by moral relativists, who indoctrinate their students and ban "politically incorrect" publications. The deadly consequences are clear: "A survey carried out by the left-wing Israel Democracy Institute on Israeli attitudes toward the state [indicates that]? a mere 58% of Israelis are proud of being Israeli, while 97% of Americans and Poles are proud of their national identity." Ms. Glick concludes, rhetorically, "Is it possible that our academic tyrants have something to do with the inability of 42% of Israelis to take pride in who they are?"
To the extent that moral relativism is rampant in Israel's liberal universities ? and I am speaking of a doctrine that undermines Jewish national pride or patriotism ? one may conclude that these universities are undermining the Jewish state. Not that anything will or can be done about this pernicious state of affairs. Academic freedom is a basic principle of liberal democracy, and of democracy that takes precedence over Israel's survival as a Jewish state.
Returning to Orwell; his country won the Battle of Britain despite its left-wing intelligentsia ? thanks very much to a prime minister who rejected appeasement, a prime minister who was not a defeatist, a prime minister who understood that in war there is no substitute for victory. Unfortunately, Ms. Glick's prime minister is no Churchill. To the contrary, Ms. Glick's prime minister has adopted the policy of Churchill's predecessor.