The Politics of Normalization: Israel Studies in the Academy Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements F
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Politics of Normalization: Israel Studies in the Academy Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Miriam Shenkar, M.A. Graduate Program in Education: Educational Policy and Leadership The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: Robert F. Lawson, Advisor Matt Goldish Douglas Macbeth Copyright by Miriam Shenkar 2010 Abstract This study will examine the emergence of Israel studies at the university level. Historical precedents for departments of Hebrew language instruction, Jewish studies centers and area studies will be examined to determine where Israel studies chair holders are emerging. After defining Israel studies, a qualitative methodological approach will be used to evaluate the disciplinary focus of this emerging area. Curriculum available from and degree granting capabilities of various programs will be examined. In addition surveys taken of Israel studies scholars will provide their assessments of the development of the subject. Four case studies will highlight Israel studies as it is emerging in two public (land grant institutions) versus two private universities. An emphasis will be placed on why Israel studies might be located outside Middle Eastern studies. Questions regarding the placing of Israel studies within Jewish studies or Near Eastern Languages and Culture departments will be addressed. The placing of Israel studies chairs and centers involves questions of national and global identity. How these identities are conceptualized by scholars in the field, as well as how they are reflected in the space found for Israel studies scholars are the motivating factors for the case studies. Ritterband & Wechsler (1994) have examined the emergence of Jewish studies in American universities, with a focus on the “normalization” process in terms of academic ii mainstreaming. How and if it is possible to extend the process of “normalization” to Israel studies will be addressed. In addition, the dilemma of what Gerald Graff (1993) has described as “teaching the conflicts” within the context of Israel studies will be examined. In the four case studies, two public versus two private institutions, with varying institutional histories in terms of the “uses of knowledge” will highlight this dilemma. iii Dedication This is dedicated to my family- Zahava and Meier Stessel, Keshet and Steven, Joshua and Rakefet. Especially Oded -Who didn’t let me give in. iv Acknowledgments This dissertation would not be written without the guidance of my advisor, Robert F. Lawson and the support of Matt Goldish, the Director of the Melton Center for Jewish Studies, and Douglas Macbeth. I am grateful to the Melton Center for Jewish Studies for the fellowship which assisted this research. I would also like to thank the professors at the Near Eastern Languages and Culture Department of The Ohio State University for the introduction of Hebrew 241. v Vita 1980…………………………B.A. Economics, Barnard College 1984…………………………Graduate Certificate in Journalism, Tel-Aviv University 1996…………………………M.A. Asian Studies, University of Hawaii at Manoa 2000 to 2009……………… Lecturer, Department of Near Eastern Languages, The Ohio State University Publications Shenkar, M. (2009, Winter). Review of the book The Israeli Memory Struggle: History and Identity in the Age of Globalization. Israel Studies Forum, 24:2, 118-9. Shenkar, M. (2000, Spring/Autumn). Review of the book The Hebrew Folktale: History, Genre, Meaning. The Middle East and South Asia Folklore Bulletin, 16:2, 2. Field of Study Major Field: Education: Educational Policy and Leadership, Comparative Education. vi Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………………...iv Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..v Vita………………………………………………………………………………………..vi List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………viii Chapter 1: What is Israel Studies?.......................................................................................1 Chapter 2: Precedents for Israel Studies in the Academy………………………………..31 Chapter 3: Describing an Emerging Field……………………………………………….60 Chapter 4: The First Two Case Studies………………………………………………….82 Chapter 5: Normalizing Israel Studies at Columbia and NYU…....................................125 Chapter 6: Conclusion & Implications-Structural Analysis of an Intellectual History...162 References………………………………………………………………………………172 Appendix A: IRB Approved Survey of Israel Studies Chairs………………………….186 vii List of Tables Table 1. Case Studies of Israel Studies Chair Holders…………………………………188 viii Chapter 1: What is Israel Studies? One definition of Israel studies is the study of modern Israel and the Zionist movement and the pre-state Jewish community in Palestine. This definition by the Association for Israel studies (AIS) points to the complexity of a lack of set borders and clear physical boundaries.1 This definition is similar to the 1917 Balfour Declaration. That declaration was widely seen as the culmination of early political Zionist goals. These included the achievement of a statement by the British government of support for a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. However, this statement lacked the designation of the borders of that homeland. Similarly, physical boundaries are also left out of the AIS definition. As will be examined, how and where Jewish settlement progressed in terms of acceptance by their neighbors remains an important theme in Israel studies.2 The AIS definition combines the Zionist movement and the pre-state Jewish community in Palestine with the study of modern Israel. This combination highlights the intersection between Israel studies and Jewish studies. Particularly in terms of a focus on Jewish communal dynamics, the AIS definition incorporates the Zionist movement which had a strong Diaspora based contingent as well as a Biblical thematic element. The AIS definition does not leave Israel studies in the Middle East, with a focus on the 1 This definition appears on the website of AIS, Spring 2008. The Association for Israel studies was founded in 1985. Membership is composed of scholars from all disciplines in the social sciences as well as many in the humanities, according to the website. 2 Widely cited, the 1917 British Balfour Declaration is also mentioned in Halpern, B. & Reinharz, J. (2000). Zionism and the creation of a new society. Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press. p.201-202. 1 geographic and natural resources, neighboring relationships and economic ties. By focusing on the Jewish community and Zionist ideology in the AIS definition an emphasis is placed on Jewish historical, social and cultural forces. This definition mirrors a reality in which physical borders have been contested. The lack of acceptance of Israel by its neighbors has made it difficult to research it as just another part of the Middle East. However, analyzing the relationships between Israel and their neighbors, in terms of decisions made to keep or relinquish land is a major disciplinary focus of the field. This disciplinary focus will be highlighted in the four case studies. Israel studies – does the normalization process reflect an ideological bias? One aspect of Israel studies reflected in where space is found for it is the politicization of the academy. David Sidorsky (1995) has examined politicization in the university as particularly problematic in departments of modern Middle Eastern history regarding the history of Zionism and the Jewish state3. One example of this politicization is the new association for the study of the Middle East (ASMEA) formed in 2008 as an alternative to the veteran Middle East Studies Association (MESA). In MESA taking an anti-Israeli stand had become a litmus test of political correctness. Where one stood regarding Israel and the Palestinians had become more important that the actual content of one’s academic work.4 The politicization of Middle East studies has included a failure to incorporate Israel-related content in the 3 Sidorsky, D. (1995). Remembering the answers: Jewish studies in the contemporary university. In M. Davis, (Ed.), Teaching Jewish civilization a global approach to higher education (pp.28-39). New York: New York University Press, p.36. 4 The veteran Islamic studies scholar, Bernard Lewis, formed both associations. The Association for the study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA) held its first annual conference in spring 2008, during which the rationale for the creation of a new association was discussed by the attendees. Allen, C. (2008, May 2). Balance of power: a new group counters leftist agitprop in Middle East studies. The Wall Street Journal, W11. 2 field without a strong anti-Zionist bias. As Derek Penslar (1998) has pointed out, although differences of opinion are found everywhere in the university, in the Israeli context such differences are particularly striking as they created existential ramifications.5 These existential arguments attacked the very legitimacy of the state.6 This kind of existential criticism which totally condemns one partner of a debate is not common to other university based area studies programs. Such questions regarding legitimacy and consensus are important to the placing of Israel studies. Where Israel studies courses and chair holders are placed echo this sense of legitimacy. Whether they are placed within Middle East studies or within Jewish studies is another indication. In addition, the choice of chair holders, as well